ashliegh dumont & alex coreas

Ashliegh Dumont & Alex Coreas

APPLE JUICE

TOTAL APPLE JUICE (JC,DRK-CAN,BTL) OZ. Total Dollars BehaviorScape Framework      LifeStyle

BehaviorStage Cosmopolitan Centers

Affluent Suburban Spreads Comfortable Country Struggling Urban 

CoresModest Working 

Towns Plain Rural Living Total

Start-Up FamiliesHHs with Young Children Only < 6 218 187 232 292 216 236 227Small Scale FamiliesSmall HHs with Older Children 6+ 117 124 129 140 97 87 113Younger Bustling FamiliesLarge HHs with Children (6+), HOH <40 263 246 212 178 194 206 213Older Bustling FamiliesLarge HHs with Children (6+), HOH 40+ 182 193 161 176 152 124 166Young TransitionalsAny size HHs, No Children, < 35 78 85 48 83 60 96 75Independent Singles1 person HHs, No Children, 35-64 49 34 37 50 37 31 39Senior Singles1 person HHs, No Children, 65+ 55 33 31 42 32 29 35Established Couples2+ person HHs, No Children, 35-54 70 67 73 78 64 63 68Empty Nest Couples2+ person HHs, No Children, 55-64 73 67 52 74 70 49 61Senior Couples2+ person HHs, No Children, 65+ 72 63 52 80 69 54 62Total 103 112 99 116 90 88 100

TOTAL CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHICS

Struggling Urban Cores

Start-Up Families

Large households with Children 6+, Head of household under 40

Importance of Demographic AttributesAttributes       ImportanceNumber of Persons       88.4 Household Composition     84.4 Age and Presence of Children     75.9 Age of Oldest Child       73.7

Age of Head of Household     33.3

Marital Status of Head of Household   25.4

Number of Vehicles in Household     14.2

Household Income       9.2

Occupation of Head of Household     9.1

Race of Head of Household     7.1

Education of Head of Household     1.8

Housing Tenure       0.0

DEMOGRAPHICS

Variables and MeasuresDemographic Variables   %

Total $ IndexRace of Head of Household     White 62.7% 88 Black 14.5% 127 Hispanic 16.5% 144 Asian 3.9% 104 Other 2.4% 101Number of Persons     1 Person 10.6% 41 2 Persons 20.5% 63 3 Persons 21.4% 127 4 Persons 24.6% 177 5+ Persons 23.0% 214Household Income     Under $10,000 5.6% 70 $10,000 - $19,999 8.0% 78 $20,000 - $29,999 8.8% 80 $30,000 - $39,999 9.8% 89 $40,000 - $49,999 10.5% 105 $50,000 - $74,999 22.1% 113 $75,000 - $99,999 12.7% 107 $100,000 - $149,999 14.3% 125 $150,000 or More 8.2% 119Age of Head of Household     Age 18 - 24 4.5% 101 Age 25 - 34 23.0% 146 Age 35 - 44 27.3% 147 Age 45 - 54 20.8% 98 Age 55 - 64 12.2% 67 Age 65 - 74 6.8% 58 Age 75 or More 5.5% 54Age and Presence of Children     Age < 6 18.8% 219 Age 6 - 17 26.5% 132 Age < 6 & 6 - 17 19.0% 253 No Children 35.7% 56Housing Tenure     Own 65.8% 99 Rent 34.3% 102

Higher index of Black & Hispanic races

Head of household ages 25-44

DEMOGRAPHICS Number of Persons-Total Dollars Index

050

100150200250

1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5+ Persons

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140Under $10,000

$10,000 - $19,999

$20,000 - $29,999

$30,000 - $39,999

$40,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $74,999

$75,000 - $99,999

$100,000 - $149,999

$150,000 or More

$100,000-$149,999

income

Household Income-Total Dollars Index

Large families with children

8 stores audited Wal-Mart Supercenter 6 th Street Wal-Mart on Campus Garland Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market Crossover Marvins IGA Lafayette Walgreens Township Dollar General College Ave. Harps Garland Ozark Natural Foods

CATEGORY ASSESSMENT

Stores SKUs Brand DominationWal-Mart (6th) 43 Juicy JuiceWal-Mart (Garland) 3 Great ValueWal-Mart(Crossover) 11 Juicy Juice

N/AFamily Gourmet

MartinellisMartinellis

Walgreens (Township)Dollar General (College)Harps (Garland)Ozark Natural Foods (College)

43136

Wal-Mart Supercenter Juicy Juice brand domination but Great Value shelf space

domination Great Values 96 Oz 100% Apple had 45 facings

Nestles Juicy Juice was found in 6 out of 8 stores Ozark Natural Foods & Dollar General did not stock it

Juicy Juice & Wal-marts Relationship Gross margins are significantly lower on 64 Oz jug of 100%

Juice Building supplier relationship = okay to have these low

margins

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Store Gross Margin %Wal-Mart 6th 4%Wal-Mart Crossover 4%Harps Garland 37%Marvins IGA Lafayette 36%Walgreens College 43%

Shared Display Space of Apple Juice 2013

Manufacturers2 Walmart 6th WalMart Mission Harps Garland IGA LayfAssociated Wholesale Grocers % of Total Sum     .2 .5

% of Total N     .2 .5N     3 5

Coca-Cola % of Total Sum .0 .0 .1  % of Total N .1 .1 .1  N 3 1 1  

Martinellis % of Total Sum .1   .2  % of Total N .1   .2  N 3   2  

Nestle % of Total Sum .1 .2 .1 .1% of Total N .2 .4 .2 .1N 10 4 2 1

Old Orchard % of Total Sum .1 .1   .1% of Total N .1 .1   .1N 6 1   1

Others % of Total Sum .3 .3 .4 .4% of Total N .3 .4 .4 .4N 14 4 5 4

Walmart % of Total Sum .4 .4    % of Total N .2 .1    N 7 1    

Total % of Total Sum 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

% of Total N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0N 43 11 13 11

SHELF SPACE

Martinellis Wal-Marts pricing & gross margins are significantly lower Harps is charging almost $3.00 more than Wal-Mart Example of strong supplier relationship for Wal-Mart

Always Save brand is priced as the lowest out of any brands Harps and Marvin’s IGA carry these Catering to a certain demographic

Apple juice is found at every grocery retailer

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

GROSS MARGINS

Gross Margin Percentages

Manufacturers2Walmart

6thWalmart

Neigh Harps IGAAssociated Wholesale Grocers

Mean     .31 .49N     3 5

Coca-Cola Mean .18 .09 .40  N 3 1 1  

Family Dollar Mean        N        

Martinellis Mean .36   .58  N 3   2  

Nestle Mean .22 .18 .42 .36N 10 4 2 1

Old Orchard Mean .74 .35   .57N 6 1   1

Others Mean .39 .22 .45 .31N 14 4 5 4

Walmart Mean .46 .23    N 7 1    

Total Mean .39 .20 .43 .42N 43 11 13 11

Gross Margin $

Manufacturers2Walmart

6thWalmart Neighb Harps IGA

Associated Wholesale Grocers

Mean     .94 1.65% of Total N     .2 .5N     3 5

Coca-Cola Mean .60 .28 1.59  % of Total N .1 .1 .1  N 3 1 1  

Martinellis Mean 1.59   4.25  % of Total N .1   .2  N 3   2  

Nestle Mean .64 .47 1.58 1.43% of Total N .2 .4 .2 .1N 10 4 2 1

Old Orchard Mean 1.06 .70   1.71% of Total N .1 .1   .1N 6 1   1

Others Mean 1.18 .52 1.36 .85% of Total N .3 .4 .4 .4N 14 4 5 4

Walmart Mean 1.11 .56    % of Total N .2 .1    N 7 1    

Total Mean 1.01 .50 1.76 1.34% of Total N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0N 43 11 13 11

The smaller ounces (12 to 64 Oz) tend to do much better than larger counterparts Smaller ounces capture most of the gross margins This was the case for the Retailer’s brand and Manufacturer’s

brand This can be attributed to the Spectra demographic statistics

Most Apple Juice is bought by households of 3-5 or more and mostly bigger families

Prices were relatively constant among Private Label and manufacturer’s apple juices in relation to the ounces all across the board Did show slight increase when the container changed

Example-Apple Juice jars and Jugs cost more than frozen can and boxes even if overall ounces equaled their counterpart

Example-Great Values frozen can produces 80% Gross Margins

GROSS MARGIN VS. SIZE TAKEAWAY

    ITEM $ (000) DOLLAR SHARE ITEM PENETRATION

ITEM $ PER ITEM BUYER

ITEM $ PER ITEM TRIP

% REPEAT BUYERS (% 2+ TIME BUYERS)

% ITEM $ ON DEAL % DOLLARS WITH MANUFACTURER

COUPON

FRUIT JUICE - APPLE - SHELF STBL

TOTAL U.S. 616,309.9 100.0 40.6 13.1 3.1 64.5 22.5 1.7WSC 57,112.5 100.0 37.7 11.7 2.8 63.1 14.9 2.8

APPLE & EVE - FRUIT JUICE - APPLE - SHELF STBL

TOTAL U.S. 15,414.6 2.5 1.9 7.2 3.5 35.3 24.3 2.6WSC                

IN ZONE INC- NBL - FRUIT JUICE - APPLE - SHELF STBL

TOTAL U.S. 2,854.3 0.5 0.6 3.9 2.9 16.5 14.5 0.0WSC                

LANGERS - FRUIT JUICE - APPLE - SHELF STBL

TOTAL U.S. 10,818.7 1.8 2.0 4.6 2.9 25.7 39.6 1.9WSC 787.8 1.4 1.8 3.4 2.5 19.1 39.3 3.2

MARTINELLI'S GOLD MEDAL - FRUIT JUICE - APPLE - SHELF STBL

TOTAL U.S. 13,726.5 2.2 0.7 17.5 8.2 35.9 3.3 0.0WSC                

MINUTE MAID - FRUIT JUICE - APPLE - SHELF STBL

TOTAL U.S. 27,839.5 4.5 3.8 6.4 3.5 28.8 20.6 3.4WSC 2,883.6 5.1 3.9 5.7 3.1 25.9 14.0 4.7

MOTT'S - FRUIT JUICE - APPLE - SHELF STBL

TOTAL U.S. 86,828.3 14.1 9.8 7.6 3.4 39.4 26.4 2.4WSC 5,315.7 9.3 7.7 5.3 2.9 37.0 17.4 2.7

MUSSELMAN'S - FRUIT JUICE - APPLE - SHELF STBL

TOTAL U.S. 2,366.6 0.4 0.4 4.9 3.0 21.6 30.7 0.1WSC                

NESTLE JUICY JUICE - FRUIT JUICE - APPLE - SHELF STBL

TOTAL U.S. 43,445.1 7.1 5.0 7.5 3.4 40.2 16.2 3.8WSC 2,400.3 4.2 3.2 5.7 3.0 41.5 15.2 5.9

OLD ORCHARD - FRUIT JUICE - APPLE - SHELF STBL

TOTAL U.S. 20,272.3 3.3 3.8 4.6 2.4 32.2 29.7 0.9WSC 2,294.3 4.0 3.9 4.5 2.1 35.9 19.0 0.7

R W KNUDSEN FAMILY - FRUIT JUICE - APPLE - SHELF STBL

TOTAL U.S. 3,232.9 0.5 0.2 11.7 5.9 33.1 17.9 0.3WSC                

TREE TOP - FRUIT JUICE - APPLE - SHELF STBL

TOTAL U.S. 62,038.4 10.1 5.4 9.9 3.8 45.8 25.0 5.3WSC 6,266.6 11.0 7.7 6.3 2.5 38.1 30.8 13.4

WELCH'S - FRUIT JUICE - APPLE - SHELF STBL

TOTAL U.S. 2,014.7 0.3 0.4 4.0 3.2 10.4 23.0 0.0WSC                

AD HOC BASE

Wal-Mart had greater presence of Private Label Great Value had 64 facings compared to 30 in 2010

Wal-Mart created an impact in Private Label Takes most of their facings Presents the best Gross Margins

57% @ Wal-Mart MLK for Apple Juice in Jugs

Walgreens’s PL brand “Nice!” presents a 70% Gross Margin presence amongst the manufacturer brands

Harps’ brand “Always Save” and “AWG” present exceptional Gross Margin returns in this category

Private label overall had the leading Gross Margins

Every retailer carried some form of Private Label Apple Juice essentially committing them to their own form of private label product

PRIVATE LABEL POTENTIAL& OPPORTUNITIES

Catering to families / focusing on toddlers

Up and Coming trend of attractive toddler packaging

Wal-Mart is the only retailer evaluated taking advantage of these trends by carrying all 4 highly ranked items

Shows why Wal-Mart has majority Juicy Juice SKUs compared to previous years when Great Value had the most SKUs

Juicy Juice – Index of 163 Tummy Tickler- Index of 173 Tummy Tickler Tots- Index of 179 Motts for Tots – Index of 183

TRENDING & HIGHEST RANKED ITEMS

Wal-Mart on Garland has very few SKUs (4 facings in Great Value, 2 in Ocean Spray

Seems to be a coherent strategy congruent to store size and age.

Mostly dependent on Private Label at this pointWould recommend that they diversify to differentiate

their selection. Opportunity based on location and size.

RECOMMENDATIONS