Food & Beverage Market Research & Business Solutions

Craving pizza? Just Tweet a pizza emoji. Want that area rug? Just click the Buyable Pin for it to adorn your own home. Wish the watch in your Instagram feed were on your wrist? Just click on the brand’s profile link to buy it.

Since 2012, social media platforms have integrated click-to-buy features that allow retailers and manufacturers to sell directly to consumers within social platforms. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr, and Snapchat have all gotten in on the trend.

But even though online sales are growing and consumers are spending more time on social media, the jury’s still out: do these social buy buttons actually encourage people to buy, or have we seen the last of them?

Get our latest Insights – The Future of Social Commerce: How “Buy Buttons” Are Disrupting the Retail World

The behaviors of the Millennial generation have been highly analyzed and studied, so it shouldn’t be surprising to hear this group prefers fresh foods and beverages and favors healthy snack food choices. The unanswered question until now has been whether these behaviors are attributable to life stage or if they are generational shifts that will carry through the rest of their lives.

Americans have been told for the last 30 years they should consume more vegetables, with little movement from consumers on that initiative. Marketers have attempted to make vegetables more enticing with dips and other additions, but increasing vegetable consumption has been an elusive goal. What’s shifting is where people source vegetables in the grocery store. Our National Eating Trends® data shows nearly half of the vegetables eaten in the 1980s came from the fresh aisle of the store; that has grown to about 60 percent more recently. It’s apparently a zero-sum shift as consumers move away from frozen and canned forms of vegetables in favor of fresh – while keeping their total vegetable consumption levels steady.

We’ve observed that Millennials are a big reason why fresh consumption has been increasing overall, but can we attribute that increase to where they are in their lives? Our new report, A Generational Study: The Evolution of Eating, says Millennials’ shifts reflect a fundamental change in the way they prioritize fresh foods, emphasizing fresh over other forms. When looking at fresh consumption among individuals under the age of 40, it’s happening in greater numbers than it did among their predecessors 10 years ago. We see the opposite dynamic for those older than 40.

Millennials’ consumption of more fresh foods isn’t the whole explanation for their increased usage. Another key dynamic for fresh foods is that people tend to consume more of them as they age. We should expect this to continue for Millennials as well, who are already consuming more fresh foods than those at the equivalent life stage 10 years ago, but Boomers have hit a life stage when people typically consume the most fresh items in their lives. Despite the fact that Boomers aren’t consuming fresh foods in the same quantities as previous generations did at their age, the sheer size of their group is large enough to continue driving fresh consumption higher.

Source: The NPD Group/National Eating Trends® (NET®), Years Ending February

*Fresh food defined as fresh fruit, vegetables, refrigerated meats, poultry, fish, and eggs
End dish and additive/ingredient uses

Changing snack food consumption is another hot topic, but the drivers of change differ from what’s driving growth in fresh foods and beverages. Looking at snack foods consumed during snack occasions, Millennials do not appear to be outliers. The changes we’re observing there are mostly attributable to overall increases with each generation as well as the natural tendency to snack more often with age. 

To learn more about generational versus life stage shifts in consumption contact darren.seifer@npd.com.

Every journalist and student in America knows the so-called five Ws: who, what, when, where, and why. It turns out the same five Ws are also the most basic forms of consumer segmentation.

But relationships among the five Ws of shopping are a bit more complex than they are among the five Ws of writing. And the tales they tell are illuminating.

We shared online and brick-and-mortar, receipt-based data from our Checkout Tracking^SM service with researchers from the Wharton School of The University of Pennsylvania. The study revealed the what and the why of consumer purchases are linked to the when of consumers’ lifestyles. In other words, when people have babies, they buy baby things. But the how and where of purchases are tied to who a consumer is by generation.

Even when the other four Ws are the same, it’s who we are – Boomer, Gen X, or Millennial – that makes all the difference.

I don’t mean to harp on meal delivery kits in my posts but I keep finding new areas of discussion as I continue to use them!

In my last post, I updated you on my experiences with a few of these services and how I think I will continue using them. I made a small comment that my monthly groceries spend, which includes the meal kits, seems to have dipped. And for those of you who don’t know me, I’m talking about real numbers since I track everything I spend in a financial software on my computer ( yes I’m one of those people).

Shortly after that post went live a colleague forwarded an article that said, “Subscribers to meal kit services are spending 6 percent less at supermarkets than they did before using the service, according to a new study by Atlanta-based credit and debit card spending analysis firm Cardlytics.”

I too am spending less at grocery stores simply because I’m not in them as often, but how am I overall spending less on groceries when the average meal cost per person from a kit is about $10 while getting the groceries yourself is less than half that much? A few things seem to be in play and it hit me when I set foot in a grocery store for the first time in a while. I needed some basil for a recipe I was making but of course I couldn’t simply purchase a few leaves. I could only buy an entire bunch most of which will likely go bad before I will have a chance to use it. Essentially half of that spend will be wasted. Also while I was in the store, I figured I might as well get a few other items like eggs, yogurt, bananas, hummus and other spreads. Remember, I only went to the store for one item but I walked out with about seven so just by being in the store I’m very likely to spend more than what I actually need. Since I subscribe to a meal kit I’m making those impulse purchases far less frequently.

A few retailers have taken note of these services as threats and for good reason. Two thirds of adults in a recent NPD study said had they not made a meal from one of these kits they would have made something else in their home. In other words, meal kits are replacing meals where the ingredients would have been sourced from a grocery store.

It’s still not time to hit the panic button if you’re a retailer since only 3 percent of adults have tried a meal kit in the past year, but they are gearing up to be a formidable disruptor in the food industry. As more consumers are seeking fresh solutions that save time in the kitchen or grocery store, these services are becoming attractive to a greater base of consumers.

I’ve often wondered if I could convince Grubhub Seamless to give me equity in the company given the number of times I use their service. I probably order food for delivery from the internet too often so I decided to take a different path. I’m still using the internet but this time I’m using a meal delivery kit.

A friend already uses Plated so she sent me a link to get my first complimentary box. Just like at meetings in the office, free food is a great motivator! The selection process was fairly easy and I was even able to make slight recipe adjustments that fit my tastes. Everything arrived as planned and I was even impressed with how little packaging was required. All the ingredients were separated by the appropriate recipe and everything still looked fresh despite having been on a delivery truck.

Now the real test – how easy was it to prepare and how did it taste? Well, I still had to do a fair amount of chopping, slicing, and preparation, but the key convenience of the service is that I didn’t have to make a trip to the grocery store. In some areas of the country, going to the grocery store is merely a chore, but in New York City it’s a nightmare with long checkout lines (and sometimes lines to enter the store), crowded aisles, frequent out-of-stock items, all on top of having to take the Subway to get your items home. A little chopping and preparation is a small price to pay here for avoiding the shopping experience. The recipe was easy to follow with pictures to show me exactly how it should look when I’m done with each step. In about an hour, my zucchini lasagna was finished and, I have to say, quite tasty.

The plan I used for Plated costs $72 per week, and each box has three meals that feed two people. If you do the math that comes out to $12 per person per meal and for me that’s a bargain! It costs much less than going out to dinner, ordering for delivery and is probably only slightly more than going to the grocery store to get the ingredients. I fully understand, however, that prices where I live are higher than the rest of the country (and don’t get me started on Hamilton tickets). 

At NPD we recently conducted a study on consumers using these services and one of the most interesting findings was that the majority of users said had they not prepared a meal from the kit they would have made another meal from their homes. In other words, meal kits are mostly replacing meals from the home but at higher prices. I’m often asked about the long-term viability of these services and my answer is always that meal delivery kit companies need to convince consumers they are worth the extra spend for the convenience and time savings they provide. Consumers also tell us a key challenge at dinner time is finding new and different recipes to make, which meal kits inherently provide and can be a key marketing message as well.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on May 20, 2016, changes to the 20-year-old Nutrition Facts label, which include font size change as well as new pieces of information required by food manufacturers in 2018. Among the changes are making "Calories" a much larger font than the rest of the label as well as now requiring an "Added Sugars" line to call out sugars that were placed in the product through the manufacturing process. The FDA probably had the best of intentions with these changes but the question is whether or not consumers will even take note of these changes.

For each of the last 10 years, more adults told us through our Dieting Monitor that they don't even look at the Nutrition Facts label; about a quarter of adults now claim they never to look at the panel. This increase could in part be attributed to the lack of news on the panel for the last two decades. It's almost like living in a big city for a long time with noise at all hours - you know it's there but you just don't pay attention to it anymore! So perhaps the label is more than ripe for change, but is making calories larger going to do it?

Over the last decade it was the top item adults looked at on the label, and since we've been told "calories in, calories out" during that time, why shouldn't consumers have done that? However, I've always had the sense that consumers aren't sure of the total calorie count they should consume on a daily basis. When restaurants began placing calorie counts on their menus, we saw little to no changes in behaviors. I believe it's because consumers don't have a relative yard stick against which they can apply the calorie number to know if it's too high. Think of it like this, the rest of the world uses the metric system, so if someone from a foreign country were to land in the U.S. and were told by the captain it's 30 degrees Fahrenheit, their first question might be, "is that hot or cold?" In case you're wondering, 30F = -1C and that's cold in my book!

Where we might see interest among consumers is with the Added Sugars line. Already we've seen consumers say that sugars are now the number one item they want to cut out of their diets replacing fats. This intention has also been followed by behaviors - over the last decade consumers are eating fewer sugary drinks and ice cream, and more bottled water, savory snacks, and "better-for-you" snacks like fruit and yogurt. But the other reason I think this number might be eye-opening for consumers is that they don't need to understand if the total number is high or low but they can see it in relation to the naturally occurring sugars. For example, if the Total Sugars line is 15g and the added sugars line as 12g, they can see the product naturally has very few grams of sugar and that nearly all the sugar in the product was added by the manufacturer.

As with most things, time will tell if the new label will have a result on our behaviors. As I always say in my talks, our consumption patterns move but very slowly so when these changes take effect in 2018 we should monitor behaviors for several years before we can say for sure if consumers are changing their ways.

Twice this year I’ve had the fortune of a business trip near where my parents live, thus saving me the personal expense of the visit! Since I study food trends, however, I guess I’m never really away from work since eating is something we all do at least a few times a day. I always find it interesting to compare my eating habits with my parents to see if we’re like most other Americans, particularly when it comes to generational differences.

On both these trips I stayed at their house and made my breakfast each morning so as not to burden them – anything to win the title of favorite child. One day I made eggs with spinach and feta cheese, on another day I had Greek yogurt, and when I was pressed for time I had a bar. To me it’s nice to change things up a little to ensure I don’t get bored and fall hopelessly into a rut.

My father joined in on the eggs one day, but on the others he stuck to his fruit while my mother had some toast with cottage cheese. I always thought variety was the spice of life but it seems that message didn’t get to my folks until I probed a little further to understand the motivations behind their morning meal decisions.

Dad’s been doing a great job of getting into shape to the point where he’s putting me to shame. His breakfasts are motivated by sticking to what he knows will help him maintain his healthy lifestyle. Mom’s motivations are a little different in that she’s looking for foods that won’t upset her stomach or give her heartburn. Overall my parents stick to their routines in the morning because they know the foods they choose are helping them achieve their health goals while avoiding unwanted consequences.

NPD’s continual tracking of eating patterns reveals a similar dynamic between Baby Boomers and Millennials. For the record, I’m a Gen Xer, but I appear to emulate their want for variety in the morning as I’m not as concerned the foods I eat will negatively impact me. Like Boomers, I like to start my day right, but I’m willing to reach for different items in my kitchen as I start my day. When we look at Boomers’, however, they stress motivations that center around favorites and routine because they have more reasons to narrow the available options.

Universally consumers’ breakfasts are motivated by a certain degree of healthfulness, but it’s important for marketers to dig deeper into the subtle nuances to most effectively communicate how your products satisfy all the motivations in play.

Now if only business trips near my family occurred regularly I could easily settle into that routine!

I just returned from the National Confectioners Association’s State of the Industry conference where the phrase, “There’s a war on sugar – not candy,”  seemed to be a recurring theme. In today’s age of sugar avoidance, it might seem like a Hail Mary pass from an industry trying to navigate through tough headwinds, but when you look at consumers’  actual wants and needs it makes sense.

For full disclosure, I am one of the many people who want to avoid sugar in their diets and I actively try to avoid sweets whenever possible. I make eggs in the morning to avoid the simple carbs in many cold cereals, at lunch I opt for whole wheat bread for my sandwiches, and at dinner I try to use vegetables as side dishes and avoid rice and bread.

Every once in a while, however, I’ll get a craving for some nice chocolate and when I sink my teeth into it, I feel a rush of satisfaction and forget all the thoughts about avoiding sugar because my mouth AND mind are experiencing such a degree of bliss.

NPD’s ongoing snacking research reflects similar sentiments among consumers when it comes to their sweets. They try to avoid them, but they love them nonetheless. When you look at what we snack on over the course of the day, better-for-you items like fruit, yogurt, and savory snacks are the snacks of choice earlier in the day. It’s not until around 8 pm that we allow ourselves sweet indulgences. Maybe we want to reward ourselves for being good up to that point or are so tired our discipline is depleted.

This is why I’ve said during my snacking presentations that it’s not a matter of altering candy products to appeal to those who are watching their sugar intake, it’s a matter of  appealing to the wants and emotions of consumers at the time of day when they are most likely to indulge in sweets. Point being that there is no war on candy…at least not in the evening.

If you’re old enough (and you probably aren’t), you remember when chicken sandwiches were once new, innovative items on fast food menus. And then, when fried chicken took on a less-than-healthful patina, grilled chicken sandwiches were brought in to address issues of healthy preparation.  One wonders where the grill lines came from in restaurants that had no char broilers?

In the late ’80′s we were pretty limited in how we asked consumers what they ate.  Due to the space constraints in the CREST foodservice market research paper diary we used in those days, we could only present consumers with a (pretty short) list of possible items.  One drawback to this was that consumers might tell us they had a food item at a chain that we knew the chain didn’t sell.

This brings me back to chicken sandwiches.  We found that consumers were reporting a fair number of broiled chicken sandwiches at a chain that we knew did not offer broiled chicken sandwiches.  When we looked into this more carefully we found that lower income men were reporting fried chicken sandwiches, just as they should have.  Higher income women, exactly the people you’d think would be eating broiled chicken, were reporting broiled chicken sandwiches. That is, the people who wanted fried, reported fried. The people who aspired to broiled reported broiled.

That was then.

Nowadays in the US we ask a whole bunch more stuff about what people are eating in our CREST consumer foodservice research.  We ask toppings.  We ask bread type.  We ask salad dressing.  We even ask if the consumer used flavored cream in their coffee. For the largest chains we insert the chain’s menu into the questionnaire. We also present the respondents with a bunch of attributes (organic, low fat, gluten free, locally sourced and bunches more) and ask if any of these attributes apply to the foods they ate in the meal they are telling us about.

So, here’s the cool thing:  we can look at different demographic groups and see what kinds of attributes the foods they’re eating have.  And, because we’re analysts, we can compare them and jump to conclusions. Because of the chicken sandwich experience, I was sure that the Millennials would be all over the “organic” and whatever while Boomers would skew to “low sodium” and stuff like that.  Y’d think, wouldn’t ya?

But, and this is always a disappointment to an analyst, there isn’t much of a difference between young’ns and old’ns.  Yes, the young are more likely than the old to identify some sort of attribute. And, yes older consumers are more likely to say “healthy” and young ones “high protein,” but there isn’t much difference for things like “organic” or “vegetarian” or even “low sodium.” These attributes amount to and offer that which appeals to everyone. And people are taking restaurants (even chains) up on that offer more and more.

BUT…not all organic food has an equal chance of being Snapchatted.

Everyone is on the qui vive for the next wildly inventive food fad. Who knows, maybe for the next fad even people living here around the global food blog’s mountain redoubt will get a chance to eat/see the exciting new thing. We can all hope.

Remember when there was no Cajun food outside of Louisiana?  Probably not.  You have to be kind of old to remember when Paul Prudhomme published his first cookbook and the country went crazy for all things Cajun.  There was a surfeit of new Cajun restaurants in Chicago and non-Cajun restaurants all had “blackened something” on their menus.

No sooner had the excitement settled into a dull roar than the food press began talking about the “next Cajun.”  Would it be Jamaican?  Maybe Indian (still waiting).  Could it be Middle Eastern? These days we’re thinking that maybe Peruvian could be it. The truth is that nothing has hit the food world quite like Cajun did in 1983 and 84.  And don’t tell me Mexican;  that just means you’re from the Northeast.  And don’t tell me Thai; that predates Cajun in my food timeline.

Then the Cronut came along and, in its own way, became the next Cajun.  Sorta.  I’m pretty sure the words written about the Cronut out number the count of the people who ate the real thing by a factor of about 10.  It spawned the phrase “the next Cronut.”

Speaking of the next Cronut, we’re getting ready to launch CREST Korea, our ongoing foodservice market research. We’ve already done a pilot to prepare for the launch and found that:

1.  Koreans (like everyone) like their own food and their own brands.  The fast food landscape is dominated by Korean chains.

2.  Coffee and Cafes play a larger role in the Korean foodservice market than you might expect.

3.  Bakeries?  Who knew?…including Paris Baguette, which was recently identified by a US trade mag as being “French.” One look at the place, with the self service, the trays, and the tongs tells you this is Asian, not European.

4. Bulgogi is delightful.  OK, that’s not the data talking.  That’s me.  But it is, 100%, a fact.

So now we and our CREST Korea clients are ready. Data collection will kick off on 1 January and will continue (as I tell everyone) until the end of time; just as is the case in any of the 12 countries where we have a CREST service. This spell of time before launch, no matter how far in advance we start, is always kind of frantic as we review build-after-build of the questionnaire until it’s just right…then we will translate it to Korean and start all over again.

Part of that process is to actually take the questionnaire over and over again to see if it breaks during any sequence of answers.  It’s good to have an actual visit to a restaurant in mind when taking the questionnaire or a person can get lost. For the big chains, we present respondents with the chain’s actual menu to tell us what they had to eat or drink.

And, there on Burger King Korea’s menu, as I was testing the questionnaire, were the words “chicken doughnut.”  Those two words, chicken and doughnut, together for the first time. You don’t need a good reason to go to Seoul. It’s lovely.  And the Koreans do things with chicken that will make you smack your lips.

But if you want a shot at the next big thing? Chicken Doughnuts.  ’Nuff said.