Consumer Panel Survey 2011

2011
Presented by:
National Grocers Association
Consumer Survey Report
Executive Summary
Consumers are pent up. They want to move on already from the economic pressures of the past two-plus years. They yearn for the spending freedoms they once knew. They want food-and-beverage shopping to be more for better times and home-based entertainment, rather than persist as a rigorous, factfinding, value-seeking exercise every time they venture to the store. If only they could wave their debit cards and make that happen. If only regional retailers could kick start 2011 with well-executed strategies and themes that snap shoppers out of their current price trance. One pivotal step in this process: Retailers take what relates to their markets and operations from this ongoing annual benchmark research, the 2011 National Grocers Association-SupermarketGuru Consumer Panel Report. It is filled with key consumer insights for food chains that thrive when the public appreciates stores for reasons beyond price. Take caring, for instance, an element explored for the first time in this years study. Do consumers nationwide feel that their primary supermarket cares about them? The good news is that 89% say yes. The bad news is that much of that caring seems tepid: 55% feel the caring is moderate, while just 34% say yes, absolutely. This study cites the tangible proof adults look for as expressions of caring, and readers can take it from there to show how they feel about the communities they serve. This isnt about feeling good. Its a linchpin to unshakeable retailerconsumer-shopper relationships. In tough times, people and stores need each other more. Not only now, but in economic recovery, people will reward the stores that stood by them when they were vulnerable. Retailers can build equity by caring today. Such differentiation will be key to success in 2011, because a functional buying mindset at the store will limit shoppers willingness to enlarge their baskets. Also, fewer trips and a higher share of Quick Trips already show that households stock-up less and buy what they need when they need it. Just-intime households are part of Americas landscape. Whats next? Will living paycheck to paycheck digress into day-by-day or meal-by-meal food purchasing? Food retailers need to re-think their offers for this possibility because the trend is clearly for homes to carry less inventory. Also significant: the nations rise in single-person households, which outnumber married couples with kids and often lack storage space for food items.
Households may stock less, but theyre cooking more, and they feel pretty good about doing it. Indeed, 69% of Americas adults are confident in the kitchen, 55% like to experiment, create own recipes, and 47% consider themselves enthusiastic, this survey shows. For the 41% that are novice, tentative, follow simple recipes, the trade urges them on with helpful websites and easy-to-prepare meal solutions. This seems in perfect pitch for consumers and supermarkets in 2011, since pressures are ahead this year. Among the causes: food commodity price rises, spurred by global demand, will push up items storewide; inflation risk if the government keeps spending and expanding the money supply; persistent double-digit unemployment among many population segments; flat-as-apancake housing prices. Will this year challenge retailers to keep in tune with fast-changing consumer priorities? Absolutely. Mainstream grocers are squeezed by the stepped-up food efforts of Target, Walmart, dollar stores and clubs, and by innovative, extreme-value food outlets such as Aldi and Trader Joes. This has Wall Street analysts wagging their fingers at mid-tier supermarket chains that they arent consumer-centric enough and theyve allowed price to dominate todays marketplace. Since price battles hurt all competitors, it will be fresh, distinctive approaches led by insights in this NGA-Supermarket Guru Report that lead to marketplace wins. Retailers with the will to command markets now have new ideas to emerge from economic quicksand and push back forcefully with their abundant appeals against price retailers.
Methodology
On behalf of the National Grocers Association, SupermarketGuru.com conducted a national consumer panel on its website, SupermarketGuru.com between November 2010 and early January 2011. In all, 1,718 chief household shoppers detailed their experiences, behaviors and sentiment on what appeals to them (or not) about supermarkets, as well as their purchase influences, eating habits and nutritional concerns. A total of 74 shopping attributes were addressed in this years survey. The SupermarketGuru.com Consumer Panel is an opt-in, food-involved population of more than 105,000 shoppers that are pre-registered with the site and submitted their confidential demographic information. Respondents were 80% female.
Credits: Survey development and design: Consumer Insight, Inc. & National Grocers Association Survey review, analysis and composition: Consumer Insight, Inc. & National Grocers Association Graphic Design: ConAgra Foods National Grocers Association and Consumer Insight, Inc.
Table of Contents
Primary Food Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance of Supermarket Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 5
Rate Your Primary Stores Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Satisfaction and Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Purchase Costs and Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Purchase Influences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Eating Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Nutritional Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 When Consumers Buy A New Food Product For The First Time . . . 32 Nutritional Information Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1Primary Food Store

Where do you purchase the majority of your FOODS?
For all of the savings strategies shoppers learned in the recession and have stuck with, chasing better prices at alternative stores continues to nip at supermarket share. While supermarkets registered 85% last year, they edged down to 84% in this survey. The familiar, local store stays strong, but a crack is visible. Which channels gained? Warehouse clubs and specialty food stores each rose to 4% from 3% a year ago. Mass merchandiser stores (classic discount formats and supercenters) held steady at 7%, despite their efforts to make food a more central part of their mix, the data showed. Supermarket shoppers come largely from some of the lower income tiers: 16% in the $45,001$65,000 range and 15% in the $25,001-$45,000 tier. Whats significant here is that these respective shares were 18% and 16% a year ago, which means many of these budget-squeezed shoppers went elsewhere to feed their families. Further up the scale, six-figure shoppers earning $85,001-$105,000 accounted for 11% of supermarket shoppers, up from 10% a year ago. Warehouse clubs drew some of the lower-earning households. The $25,001-$45,000 tier accounted for 16% of shoppers that rely on this channel as their primary food resource; theyre in second place behind the $75,001-$85,000 tier, which registered 21% and are presumably better able to purchase bigger baskets. In clubs, 47% say they spend $101 or more per week on groceries. At mass merchandisers, the three lowest income tiers (inclusive of less than $25,000 up to $65,000) account for 43% of shoppers who rely on this channel as their #1 food provider.
Convenience Store . . . . . . . . . . 0% Discount Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% Dollar Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% Drug Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% Gourmet Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Grocery Store/Supermarket . . . . 84% Mass Merchandiser . . . . . . . . . . 5% Specialty Food Store . . . . . . . . . 4% Warehouse Club . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% Online store (e.g., Amazon or supermarket website) . . . . . . 0%
2Importance of Supermarket Features

Please read this list of factors that may or may not be important when a person decides where to shop for groceries. For each factor, please tell me whether it is very important, somewhat important, not too important or not at all important to you when you select a primary grocery store, that is, the grocery store or supermarket where you spend the most money on ALL groceries.
A clean, neat store

Same as in each of the past two years, 83% of consumers say an unclean, untidy store is a deal breaker. This attribute is a must in order for a store to attract traffic. One small difference: while 83% continue to consider this very important year after year, the percentage that says somewhat important upticked to 17% vs. 16% a year earlier.
Very Important . . . . . Somewhat Important . Not Too Important. . . Not At All Important .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 83% . 17% . 0% . 0%
High-quality fruits and vegetables

Consumers say they are keeping health a priorityand 91% regard a stellar produce department as a very important factor in where they buy groceries. This is precisely the same percentage as a year ago, which represented a dramatic fivepoint jump from the 86% level of two years ago. While the recession may have withered wallets, it hasnt hurt consumers resolve on this measure. Another 9% regard this as somewhat important. Women make up more than eight out of ten (81%) of respondents who say very important, more than quadrupling the male response. Also, two of the lowest income tiers ($25,001-$45,000 and $45,001-$65,000) make up nearly a collective one-third (30%) of consumers who regard high-quality produce as very important; perhaps this figure is aspirational, since many lack convenient access to stores with this trait. Women also account for 71% who consider this somewhat important, up from 67% a year earlier.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 91% . 9% . 0% . 0%
Importance of Supermarket Features cont.

Low prices
The public is tired of holding tight, even though most continue to do so. Regarding necessities in a food store, at least, they want the quality and items they used to enjoy routinely. They also want to dispatch their shopping in fewer stops (chasing low prices in more stores takes time), and they expect these stops to be pleasant to visit. These are some of our reactions to the dramatic sevenpoint shift away from low prices as a primary determinant of where to shop for groceries. Current figures show just 44% of consumers think of price as very important; this is down from 51% in each of the past two years. Indeed, todays percentage reverts to the 2008 pre-recession sentiment level. Thats significant because this consumer frame of mind away from low prices is coming in advance of a full recovery. This is good news for retailers that have refined their store appealsbecause now they matter more. Correlating with this shift, nearly five out of ten respondents (49%) who say price is very important come from the three lowest income tiers$25,001-$45,000 (20%), $45,001$65,000 (17%) and $25,000 or less (12%). A year ago, their collective percentage was 56%. The household size that drove the very important response was two people (38%); thats about twice the rate of households with four (18%), one (18%) or three (17%), the data show. Checking back with the 2003 report, food prices were the biggest reason people shopped at a particular store, but just 41% of respondents expressed this (Best everyday prices 30% and Best sale prices 11%). Todays figures at last are pretty similar again.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 44% . 51% . 5% . 0%
Selling products before use-before/sell-by date

Who doesnt want fresh productsespecially with every food dollar having to count and people wanting to minimize waste? Once again, more than eight out of ten consumers called this very important. This time, its 82% vs. last years 84%, but somewhat important edged up a point to 15%, so theres no loss of focus on in-date products that deliver optimal taste, nutrients and shelf life.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 82% . 15% . 2% . 1%
High-quality meats
Year after year, roughly three out of four consumers cite this as a very important trait. This years 74% figure is lower than last years 76%, but then again E.coli incidents have slowed down. Combined with 19% who regard high-quality meats as somewhat important, up from 17% last year, consumers stay consistent on this issue.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 74% . 19% . 3% . 4%

A convenient location
Do identical percentages for the top two answers as a year ago36% very important and 54% somewhat importantreflect last years stable gas prices, or a steady willingness to chase low prices in stores that might be out of the way? Probably both. Yet this year could be different with gas prices heading for $4 per gallon. Well see if shoppers stick closer to home. Meanwhile, a consistent 90% say this is very/ somewhat important in deciding where to shop primarily for food. Just two years ago, that very important figure was 41% vs. the current 36%. What does this mean? Stores have to up their game wherever they can, because households are eyeing more shopping alternatives across a broader geographic range. Convenient location continues to matter most to the three lowest income groups (from less than $25,000 to $65,000), who comprise a collective 41% who give this answer, perhaps because they lack cars to travel in; yet they made up 47% of the very important respondents just one year ago.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 36% . 54% . 10% . 0%
Courteous, friendly employees

A wave, nod or smile goes a long way with 95% of consumers who like the welcome needle turned up high when they arrive in the store and who say this is very/somewhat important in their food store of choice. These numbers have remained steady the past few years.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 47% . 48% . 5% . 0%
Accurate shelf tags

Consumers can practically agree on one thing: Get our prices right! Some 98% of respondents regard accurate shelf tags as very/somewhat important; thats a nearly unanimous call to action for retailers to avoid an unforgivable sin. Of this group, 74% say very, which is the same level as two years ago, but two points lower than last year. Related, the somewhat figure rose by three points to 24%, and the not too important fell by one point to 2%.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 74% . 24% . 2% . 0%

Items on sale or money-saving specials
Consumers are as driven to save as everwitness the 92% respondent accord that this is a very/somewhat important factor in where to buy food. Feel the adrenaline when people save during successful trade eventsand reap rewards from their popularity. Theres a possible sign of weariness, however, that makes us think some people are tiring of the hunt for specials and would-be fair-value prices without having to work so hard to find them. What we see is a five-point downshift in the very important figure, to 55% from 60% a year ago; this is partly offset by a three-point rise to 37% from 34% a year ago in somewhat important. Not surprisingly, the three lowest-income groups (from less than $25,000 up to $65,000) account for 45% of respondents who say sales/specials are very important; while significant, this percentage is down from the 52% share they represented a year ago. Notable too: two income groups that include six-figure households are the next most prolific in calling sales/specials very important. The rush knows no income barriers.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 55% . 37% . 7% . 1%
A store layout that makes it easy to shop

Familiarity breeds shopping efficiencynot contemptin a supermarket. For three straight years, 91% of consumers suggest this trait adds comfort, speed and greater certainty of missions accomplished when they say it is a very/somewhat important factor in the stores they choose to serve as their primary food resource. This time, very is 42%, down from 44% of the past two years, but somewhat rose two points to 49%.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 42% . 49% . 8% . 1%
Personal safety outside the store

Once again, 91% of consumers say shopper security is an absolute priority for supermarkets, citing this trait as a very/somewhat important factor in deciding where they food-shop. Last year, the very figure jumped by four points to 63%; this year it moderated a bit to 61%, but that doesnt diminish its importance. Boomers are behind this. People in the 50-64 age bracket account for 48% of the very respondents. Also, women account for 84% of the adults who call this very important; thats up from 83% last year. And since 52% of very respondents work full time, much of their food shopping likely occurs in the evening hours.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 61% . 30% . 8% . 1%

Fast checkout
Front-end speed is a very/somewhat important issue to the same 93% of consumers as a year ago, just a tick down from the 94% who said the same in 2008 and 2009. Speed/line avoidance is one reason for the growing popularity of self-checkouts, but these arent for everyone. Theyre not enough to ease most shoppers frustration of standing in line to pay. Still, theres less overall intensity on this point in 2011. Just 38% say very, down five points from 43% who said this in 2010, perhaps because theyre willing to trade off slightly if they shop in a storeperhaps an alternative storethat helps them save money or fill other household needs. Notably, households that spend $101 or more each week on groceries (the highest tier in this survey) account for 48% of respondents who say that fast checkout is a very important trait. This is up a full six points from the 42% representation a year ago, so this is another hot issue for supermarkets heaviest shoppers. Last year, upper-income households ($105,001 or above) expressed the most impatience, and accounted for 28% of those who feel fast checkout is very important. This year, they are also the most impatient, and theyre more vocal about it, at 32% of very respondents.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 38% . 55% . 7% . 0%
Paying attention to special requests or needs

People want to feel their primary food store covets their business and will help individualize their shopping experience when asked. A cumulative 83% express that filling personal requests is a compelling and very/somewhat important store trait. This matches the level of a year ago, which was four percentage points higher than the 79% posted in 2009. Such needs increase with the aging of the populace, the desire to buy locally grown foods, eat healthier, and satisfy multiple generations living under one roof. Food buying has become more complex for many, and stores that fill special requests can gain a decisive competitive edge. Within the 83% figure, 39% call this a very important store feature, down just a point from the 40% a year ago, which itself was a fourpercentage-point increase from 2009. Clearly, this desire has stuck since the recession and will stay high on shoppers lists as a store differentiator.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 39% . 44% . 15% . 2%

Fresh-food deli or delicatessen
The five-percentage-point drop in respondents citing deli as very/somewhat important signifies todays fundamental shift in food buying, meal preparation and consumption. The freshness appeal, it seems, is being thwarted by high per-pound prices and frequent long waits for service. Also, people have new skills assembling meal components with healthier choices and executing their dinners at home, so deli foods are nice to have but not a must. While 70% of consumers still regard fresh deli as very/somewhat important to their primary supermarket, this figure is down from 75% a year ago. Also, their degree of conviction seems lessjust 36% say very this time vs. 42% last year, while the somewhat respondents nudged up a point to 34%.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 36% . 34% . 24% . 6%
Nutrition and health information available for shoppers

Store guidance helps shoppers find their way to more healthful choices in the food storeand thats exactly the involvement people expect. The availability of nutritional and health information rocketed up the priority list last year and stays there in 2011. A nation that is coming to grips with its obesity, and is inspired by The First Lady and an upcoming set of new federal nutrition guidelines wants supermarkets to be active, not passive, on this point. Theyve plied us with so much sugar, sodium, fat and caloriesnow its time to help us make smarter decisions, is the consumer call. In 2011, 37% of consumers regard this as very important, the same as last year; another 39% say somewhat, which is down one point from 2010. Households that spend $101 and more per week on groceries account for 50% who say this is very important, which suggests that they are building their baskets with better choices. Even if they buy less junk food, it appears they continue to spend in the store. Also, people with no children living at home comprise 60% of respondents who say this is very important.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 37% . 39% . 20% . 4%
10

High-quality seafood department
Part of the eat-healthier movement, a high-quality service seafood counter is very important to 48% of consumers in 2011; thats up from 46% in 2010 and 42% in 2009. Add in the 29% who say somewhat important (down from 31% in 2010, but up from 28% in 2009), and this is a pivotal area for more than three-quarters of supermarket visitors. Although fresh fish often costs shoppers more ounce for ounce, many think Omega-3s instead of marbled fat when they make their choice and feel it is worth it. A popular change of pace at the dinner table, it also adds a sense of adventure when signs such as wild caught and Alaskan native are visible. More mature consumers focus on fishsome 87% are age 40 and older, with Boomers between age 50-64 accounting for nearly half (48%) of the nations seafood advocates. This makes sense, given their rise in health issues and desire to eat lighter and better.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 48% . 29% . 15% . 9%
A frequent shopper program or savings club

Less influential on store choice than last year, less than one-quarter of consumers (24%) think this is a very important differentiator. Perhaps if supermarkets ran more targeted promotions to their cardholders, these programs would be more in demand. As it is, this four-point dip from 28% last year signals that people want their savings and deals in a clear manner, without having to give up personal information or follow many rules. This is more of a call for retailers to shore up their cardholder benefits. Right now, people are loyal to their shopping missions and savingsa ring tag doesnt cut it without substance behind it. Respondents in the three lowest income groups (from less than $25,000 up to $65,000) account for 45% of very important respondents, down a bit from their 49% representation in each of the prior two years.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 24% . 39% . 26% . 11%
11

Private label or store brands
For all the current talk about private label share encroachment in so many categories, the nations consumers havent budged much on thinking of PL as a critical store differentiator. True, more than two out of three (68%) feel this way, saying it is very/somewhat important, but thats down a point from last year (69%). Examining the multi-year trend in respondents saying it is very important, the figures suggest a limit to the traffic-pulling power of PL, at least among households affluent enough to afford name brands they enjoy. In 2009, 27% showed their PL conviction, calling it very important; that level dropped to 25% in 2010 and to 22% in 2011. PL fatigue? Perhaps, even in the midst of a savings binge. Notably, respondents from the three lowest income tiers (from less than $25,000 up to $65,000) account for 52% who feel PL is very important. While still the majority, this figure is down from 57% in 2010 and 59% in 2009.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 22% . 46% . 25% . 7%
Pharmacy
Until supermarkets create more cross-connections between food, health care and their highly trusted pharmacists (such as education, wellness programs, condition treatments and food regimens to go with them), the presence of an in-store pharmacy will never be among the highest factors in store choice. The 7% very important figure in 2011 is down from 10% in 2010; the 20% somewhat important figure remains the same as a year ago. Sure, drug stores seem to be everywhere, but only supermarkets have everything under one roof for health. If only theyd do more with it. As expected, older respondents (50 and above) account for 67% of all who think pharmacy is very important, because of their susceptibility to more health conditions and their desire to shop in one place. The breakout: people 50-64 (46%) and 65 and up (21%).
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 7% . 20% . 35% . 38%
12

Good selection of ethnic or cultural foods
This moves up on the importance scale as people seek more diverse home meal solutions that avoid dinner table tedium. Named as very/somewhat important by 70% in 2011, up from 67% in 2010, the difference is all in the very. A three-percentage-point jump to 24% suggests how households are testing their palates with new tastes, as they cook more in their own kitchens. Some 85% who say very are Caucasian, and 82% are female.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 24% . 46% . 23% . 7%
Organic products
A five-point swing in its favor has, for the first time, nearly one-third of consumers (31%) stating that the presence of organic products is very important in their choice of a supermarket. Add in 37% who say it is somewhat important (one point higher than a year ago), and more than two-thirds of consumers are eyeing organic assortments when deciding where to food-shop. Who wants this most: Boomers 50-64 (43% by age group), women (86% by gender), Caucasian (91% by ethnicity), households with zero children at home (57%), and households that spend $101 or more per week on groceries (52%).
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 31% . 37% . 23% . 9%
Self-checkout/self-scanning
In line with the very important drop in fast checkout, the percentage of consumers citing self-checklanes as a key factor in where they shop also declined in 2011. Indeed, the combined very/ somewhat important figure of 35% marks a negative turnabout of a three-year trend; the 2010 figure was 38% (11% very and 27% somewhat important).
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 9% . 26% . 38% . 27%
13

Gas pumps/gasoline
Perhaps people dont like to think of gas and food togetherunless theyre getting a nickel or a dime off each gallon after surpassing a purchase threshold in the supermarket. Gas prices have moved up in recent months, but even that caused no rise in the importance of this feature in store choicedespite some gas-grocery successes such as at Kroger and Giant Eagle. While the 3% who call this very important equals last year, the 9% somewhat level is down from 12% in 2010.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 3% . 9% . 30% . 58%
Online buying service

Another non-factor in choice of a supermarket, an overwhelming 87% regard this as not too important/not at all important. About the same as in the past three years, just 4% of consumers feel this is very important. You cant squeeze a grapefruit on the computer screen, right?
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 4% . 10% . 29% . 58%
Being active or involved in the community

People feel shared responsibility for their neighbors welfare, and this has shaped adult behavior and thoughts since the recession. As a result, nearly two-thirds of adults in 2011 expect their primary supermarket to look out for community welfare. The 63% who express this in 2011 (16% very important and 47% somewhat important) continue a three-year stretch in which this figure moved up; a year ago, it was 61% (17% very and 44% somewhat important).
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 16% . 47% . 25% . 13%
High-quality bakery
Are flour, whipped cream and chocolate creations becoming pass in 2011? Are artisan breads too much for everyday meals? Apparently, they are for some who are cutting non-necessities and excess calories from their purchases. While a still-significant 71% of adults regard highquality bakery as very/somewhat important to their choice of a primary supermarket, thats down five percentage points from the 2010 figure of 76%. The entire difference is visible in the very column, which fell from 38% last year to 33% in 2011. By the way, the 2010 very figure marked a two-point rise over 2009; the 2011 figure is below that earlier benchmark as well. A high-quality bakery is most relevant to heavier grocery spenders; households that spend $81 or more per week on groceries account for 70% of very important respondents.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 33% . 38% . 20% . 9%
14

Childcare
Can a store charged with keeping cans straight also care for kids? Apparently not to most parents. Some 84% say this is not at all important to their store choice; by contrast, just one in 50 (2%) deem it very important. Households with the biggest weekly grocery rings$81 and overaccount for three-quarters (72%) of those who feel this is very important. Also, the three lowest income tiers (from less than $25,000 up to $65,000) comprise 73% of very important respondents, perhaps because childcare alternatives would be costly or hard to find.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 2% . 3% . 11% . 84%
Offers locally grown produce and other local packaged foods

Consumers equate local with healthier, safer, more nutritious foods. They also want to support local growers and businesses. As such, local foods are on the rise as a key determinant in where adults decide to grocery-shop. Some 86% of respondents call the presence of local foods very/somewhat important to store choice, up from 83% a year ago and 79% in 2009. More impressive, the very column advances to 45% in 2011, up from 41% in 2010. Who wants this most? Households without children at home (62%), heavier grocery spenders of $81 or more per week (66%), and Boomers age 50-64 (45%).
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 45% . 41% . 10% . 4%
15
3Rate Your Primary Stores Performance

Please rate your primary food STORE on several aspects:
Convenient location
Practically all consumers (95%) feel their primary supermarket is well located to suit their needs. However, theres a crack that signifies peoples willingness to shop elsewhere for different reasons (we think price, in this economy). The current 56% excellent figure is two points lower than the 58% posted in 2010, while the 39% good; figure is three points higher than last years 36%.
Excellent . Good . . . . Fair . . . . . Poor . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 56% . 39% . 5% . 1%
A clean, neat store

This third straight year of excellent gains reflects high levels of consumer satisfaction. The current 56% excellent figure is a point higher than a year ago and five points above two years ago. The 40% good figure is the same as in 2010.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 56% . 40% . 4% . 0%
High-quality fruits and vegetables

Consistent with other buy-healthy indicators, retailers apparently get it. Primary food stores have earned an excellent/good rating of 90% of respondents. This is up from 87% in 2010 and 86% in 2009, but more significantly the excellent column moves up two points to 45% after rising two points the year before. People from all income tiers gave an excellent response, though 31% of them were in the $25,001-$65,000 range.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 45% . 45% . 9% . 1%
Selling products before use-before/ sell-by date

Retailers rebound well on this measure in 2011. The 94% excellent/good rating is three points above 91% in 2010 and one point higher than 93% in 2009. The current 51% excellent component tops both the 46% of last year and 48% of 2009.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 51% . 43% . 5% . 1%
Courteous, friendly employees

Stores make shoppers feel about as welcome as a year earlier, data indicate. An 87% excellent/good rating by shoppers says theyre pretty satisfied. This is higher than 86% in 2010 and 84% in 2009. Excellent keeps driving the gains, up to 44% currently from 43% in 2010 and 40% in 2009.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 44% . 43% . 12% . 1%
16
Rate Your Primary Stores Performance cont.

High-quality meats
This is the core of so many supermarkets that operators have to get it right. These figures suggest theyre improving: the 87% excellent/ good rating is the same as a year ago and one point higher than in 2009, but the excellent column itself ticked up by two points to 42%. Who is giving meats the highest possible score? Adults who spend $81 or more per week on groceries (67%, up from last years 61%), people with no children at home (64%), Caucasians (92%) between the ages of 40-64 (70%).
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 42% . 45% . 12% . 1%
A store layout that makes it easy to shop

Do respondents enjoy the in-store routes they take to missions accomplished? Not so much. Just over one-third (34%) rate their primary food store excellent on layout, the same as a year ago. The good rating, however, edged up one point from 2010 to 54%, which means layout doesnt get in the way of a store becoming a households grocery destination.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 34% . 54% . 11% . 1%
Private label or store brands

Again in this survey comes a tiny indicator of possible PL slippage. The 90% excellent/ good rating, the same as a year ago, shows widespread consumer appreciation of these products. Yet the excellent component edged down to 40% from the 41% posted in 2009 and 2010, both years in which households largely included more PL in their savings strategies.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 40% . 50% . 8% . 1%
Items on sale or money-saving specials

With food price rises already here in 2011, consumers continue to be especially sensitive to sales and specials. They say that primary supermarkets are doing as well now as a year ago in delivering on this measure: the 41% excellent and 47% good ratings are identical to the 2010 survey. This is good news because the 2010 figures posted a four-point gain in the excellent column over 2009, which itself was higher than in 2008. The three lowest income groups (from less than $25,000 up to $65,000) account for 42% of respondents who say excellent; this is down from their 48% representation in 2010.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 41% . 47% . 10% . 1%
17

Accurate shelf tags
More than nine out of ten (93%) of consumers feel confident that shelf pricing is done right at their primary supermarket. The current accuracy rating of 38% excellent is up from 37% in 2010 and 34% in 2009, while the 53% good rating is up one point from 2010.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 38% . 53% . 8% . 1%
Low prices
Has the chasing of low prices made consumers more aware of alternative outlets? Have primary supermarkets been moving prices up? Probably both. The 20% excellent rating is certainly not affirmation of a job well done, especially when thats down three points in a year. The 53% good rating looks better, up one point from the 2010 level, and drawing the majority opinion. Notably, more than one-quarter of people keep shopping in a primary supermarket despite being unhappy with its pricing24% fair and 3% poor.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 20% . 53% . 24% . 3%
Paying attention to special requests or needs

A combined 70% excellent/good rating on this measure leaves room for supermarkets to improve their knack for individualizing a store visit. While the 21% excellent score is the same as last year, good dipped by one point to 49%. With Boomers and health-driven purchasers not shy about making demands, stores that bend to satisfy could better protect trips and build word-of-mouth from a vocal shopper base.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 21% . 49% . 25% . 5%
Personal safety outside the store

Food stores raise their grades big here with a four-point jump in excellent to 41%, up from the 37% posted in 2010 and 2009. This drives an upgrade in the composite excellent/good rating to 88% in 2011, up from 87% in 2010 and 2009.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 41% . 47% . 11% . 1%
Fast checkout
The latest excellent ratings (23%) revert to the 2009 level, following a brief jump to 25% in 2010. Respondents slid more heavily into the good column, at 55% in 2011, up from 53% in 2010. The lack of front-end speed continues to frustrate nearly one-fourth of adults, who vote their primary supermarket as fair (20%) or poor (2%) on this measure.
Fast checkout: Excellent . . . . Good . . . . . . . Fair . . . . . . . . Poor . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 23% . 55% . 20% . 2%
18

Having nutrition and health information available for shoppers
Down from ratings of the prior two years, it seems supermarkets might be taking their eyes off of this one. That would be bad timing, since healthful food shopping is high among household priorities. The 65% excellent/good rating in 2011 is below the 69% level of 2010 and 66% in 2009. The 19% excellent component is down from 20% in 2010. At least the heaviest grocery spenders ($81 or more per week) account for 69% of those thinking their primary store is excellent on this measure.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 19% . 46% . 28% . 7%
Offers locally grown produce and other local packaged foods

Advancing here from 2010, consumers increasingly approve of their primary supermarkets go-local efforts. Excellent is up to 23% from 21% in 2010 and 18% in 2009, while good stays consistent at 38%. Still, a significant 29% rate the food store they shop in most as fair on this point. Small households express this harsh opinion: 61% have no children at home, 16% have one, and 15% have two.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 23% . 38% . 29% . 10%
Offers organic food of all kinds, including produce and packaged foods
A four-point jump in excellent ratings to 28% reflects consumer happiness with supermarkets efforts to disperse organic food choices throughout many categories. However, the composite excellent/good figure of 70% is one point below the 2010 level of 71%. Small households are the most content on this measure (64% of excellent scores come from those with no children living at home) and the highest grocery tabs (50% of excellent raters spend $101 or more each week).
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 28% . 42% . 26% . 4%
Store has a Frequent Shopper Program, which offers rewards and benefits
Consumers pretty equally split their scores on this point. Excellent and good are equal at 29% each, and collectively show a majority (58%) in favor of supermarkets initiatives. Yet fair and poor scores reflect the negative opinion of more than four in ten consumers, who are frustrated by the unmet potential of these programs in their primary food stores. They want savings without too many hassles or rules. In 2010, the excellent/good rating was the same at 58%, but excellent by itself was a more robust 31%.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 29% . 29% . 17% . 26%
19

Which size store would you prefer for most of your food-buying trips?
The sweet spot for consumers is the 30,001-50,000 square foot format, which they feel presents the right balance for their needs; nearly six in ten (57%) choose this size. While the combo store format of 50,001-70,000 square feet was the secondmost popular choice, it was selected by 19% of respondents, exactly one-third as many as cited the conventional size. For all the talk about Tesco-size stores, the fresh-to-go format is apparently thought of as more for convenience than everyday needs.
4,000 sq. ft. or less (c-store) . 4,001 to 17,000 sq. ft. (fresh to go store) . . . . . . . . . 17,001 to 30,000 sq. ft. (small conventional store) . . . 30,001 to 50,000 sq. ft. (average store) . . . . . . . . . . . 50,001 to 70,000 sq. ft. (combo store) . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,001+ sq. ft. (supercenter)
. . 1% . . 4% . . 8% . . 57% . . 19% . . 12%
Do you feel that your current preferred store is sized about right for your needs?
About three-quarters of consumers (74%) say yes. At least with regard to store size, the vast majority of adults are happy with whats in front of them. Any gripes about size, aisle comfort, walking requirements or assortment depth and breadth are minor in comparison.
No, too big, too much walking . . 6% No, too big, too much assortment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% No, too small, too little assortment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11% No, too small, aisles too narrow for comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7% No, too small, not enough service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% Yes, it is perfect for me . . . . . . . 74%
If your preferred store size was convenient to your home, and price/ quality was about the same as where you shop now, would you switch stores?
The majority of consumers (53%) would try it out, and another 22% would definitely switch. Rightsizing is key because 90% of adults confirm that size is a main factor in their store choiceand just fewer than one in six (16%) say they wouldnt entertain a move because they like their current store enough to keep shopping there. Whos open to trying it out: Adults who work full-time (57%), the $101 and over weekly grocery spenders (44%), and two of the three lowest income groups earning $25,001-$65,000 (30%). These same groups similarly led the would definitely switch vote.
Yes, I would definitely switch . . . 22% I would try it out . . . . . . . . . . . . 53% No, size is not a main factor for me in store choice . . . . . . . . 10% No, I like my current store enough to keep shopping there . . . . . . . 16%
20
4Satisfaction and Improvements

Regarding the location where you purchase the majority of your foods:
Satisfaction with primary store meeting my needs

(1 is poor, 10 is excellent) One point below each of the past two years, twothirds of consumers (66%) score their preferred supermarket an 8 or above in satisfying their needs. Also down a point, just 10% give the top score of 10. It makes sense that these figures weight toward the highest scores, since these are the supermarkets of choice for responding adults. Leading 2011s givers of generous 10s are the three lowest income groups (from less than $25,000 up to $65,000), who account for 49% of this group. Also prominent: $101 and over weekly grocery spenders (46%, up from 41% in 2010) and households with no children living at home (77%, up from 68% in 2010).
One (Poor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% Three. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Five . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6% Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7% Seven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18% Eight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33% Nine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23% Ten (Excellent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
Improvements consumers want in their primary food stores

(Does not add up to 100% because of multiple responses) Heres another sign in the survey of consumers shift towards multiple store appeals and away from narrow vision on low price only. After two straight years of price/cost savings topping the list (46% in 2010 and 48% in 2009), this comes in second in 2011 at 42%. The three lowest income groups (from less than $25,000 up to $65,000) account for 42% of respondents citing this as an improvement theyd like to see. More locally grown foods usurp the leadership position at 44%, up from 41% a year ago. The biggest grocery spenders of $81 and over per week drive this response (67%). Theres a significant drop-off after these two. More variety/better assortment/wider choice comes in third at 28%, down from its 30% level a year ago. More organic foods is fourth at 26%, up significantly from its 20% level in 2010. More ethnic offerings is fifth at 23%, also up from its 20% level a year ago. Theres been quite a shuffling of the top five vs. what adults said in the 2010 survey. No longer in the top five are more fresh-made foods and better customer service/employees, which each registered 22% last year.
Better customer service/employees 20% More ethnic offerings . . . . . . . . 23% More fresh made foods . . . . . . . 19% More gourmet foods . . . . . . . . . 19% More imported foods . . . . . . . . . 13% More organized . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% More variety/better assortment/wider choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28% Nutritional and other health information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19% Offer better quality products . . . 15% Price/cost savings . . . . . . . . . . . 42% No improvements are necessary . 9% More locally grown foods . . . . . . 44% More organic foods . . . . . . . . . . 26% Dont know. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
21
4Satisfaction and Improvements cont.

Which of the following would signal to you that a supermarket CARES about you?
The most visible evidence to consumers is that a store is clean and well organized (87%). Number two: Prices are fair (80%). Third: Produce, meats and seafood are always appealing and fresh (77%). Tied for fourth: Carries the items and brands that I like (68%) and Items are never or rarely out of date (68%). Like a supermarket version of the movie Weird Science, these traits would be in a caring food store if consumers could create such an entity in a lab. This is the first year we ask this question in the survey. It comes at a time when people are drained emotionally from financial challenges, yet while they look out for their neighbors welfare. Whos looking out for them? Their primary supermarkets, they hope. Well be benchmarking this in coming years.
Store is clean and well organized . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87% Ample parking and is well lit . . . 67% Carries the items and brands that I like . . . . . . . . . . . 68% Fulfills special requests . . . . . . . 58% Shops and delivers for me, for a moderate fee . . . . . . . . . . 9% Produce, meats and seafood are always appealing and fresh . . 77% Has fresh, local or organic foods available . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63% Items are never or rarely out of date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68% Contacts me in event of a product recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38% Has special events that are fun or educational (pet days, kids cooking contests, guest speakers, cooking classes) . . . . . 21% Experts (butcher, dietitian, pharmacist) are always accessible . . . . . . . . 46% Suggests creative meal and snack ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25% Prices are fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80% Runs many sales on items I use . 57% Always in-stock on sale items . . . 62% Cashiers (& baggers) are fast, friendly and offer help to my car 62% Sends me special deals through email, texts or to my cell phone . 34% Supports local charities . . . . . . . 40%
Do you believe your primary supermarket cares about you?

The good news is that 89% say yes. The bad news is that much of that caring seems tepid. The moderately column rings up at a 55% respondent majority, while yes, absolutely comes in at 34%, just over one-third of respondents. Theres room here for supermarkets to step up and demonstrate more tangible ways they care for the communities in which they operate.
Yes, absolutely . Moderately . . . . Barely . . . . . . . Not at all . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 34% . 55% . 10% . 2%
22
5Purchase Costs and Frequency

How much families spend TOTAL each week on FOODS in all stores
Consumers have taken their appetites home and left restaurants in the dust, judging by these figures. The highest spending level, more than $136, surged by half again over a year ago to be leading clear-cut at 21%. In 2010, this loftiest spending bracket was tied for first place with the $96-$105 bracket at 14%. But in 2011 more than $136 propels to a substantial lead, while $96-$105 holds second place at a repeat 14% level of mention. They each outpace the #3 tier of $106-$115 which, at 10%, is one point lower than last year. After that, no other spending tier attains a double-digit mention by consumers. Just about half of America (48%) spends $106 or more per week on food bought at retail for their households; this is up from 43% in 2010, and the shift reflects more home-based consumption.
Less than $25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% $25-35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% $36-45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% $46-55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% $56-65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7% $66-75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% $76-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6% $86-95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% $96-105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14% $106-115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% $116-125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9% $126-135 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% More than $136 per week . . . . . 21%
FOOD shopping trips per week

The hunt for freshness advances. The twice a week trip frequency rises two points to 31%, following up a three-point gain the year before to 29%. Concurrently in 2011, once a week dips two points to 33%, following a two-point slide a year earlier to 35%. In third place, three times a week stays steady at 15%, the same percentage it held in the prior two years.
Six or more times a week . . . . . . 1% Five times a week . . . . . . . . . . . 3% Four times a week. . . . . . . . . . . 6% Three times a week . . . . . . . . . . 15% Twice a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31% Once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33% Every two weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Once a month . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
23
6Purchase Influences
Influences on food buying

(Does not add up to 100% because of multiple responses.) Shoppers have learned to be opportunistic and take advantage of multiple deals when they can, in order to save money. In this comparison of savings mechanisms, the sequence of the top three items is the same as last year, but each carry less influence on food buying than in 2010. For example, stock up on an item when you find a bargain remains #1 on the list, but at 71%, which is two points below last years figure of 73%; look in newspapers for grocery specials remains #2 on the list, but at 59%, which is seven points below last years figure of 66%; use cents-off coupons received in the mail or from newspapers/ magazines remains #3, but at 58%, which is also seven points below last years figure of 65%. Clearly, trip planning and actual purchase behaviors in-store are purposeful and focused on limiting expenses in 2011. Only one other activity comes in above the 50% level of mention this yearbuy products on special even if you hadnt planned to buy them that day; this came in at 58% in the 2010 survey. Despite limited cash flow, respondents from two of the three lowest income groups ($25,001$65,000) lead consumers who stock up on bargain items, and account for a combined 32% who say they do this. In 2010, the absolute lowest income group ($25,000 or less) also joined them in the lead, but fewer households in this tier appear able to take advantage of such opportunities this year; their representation slips to 8% in 2011.
Look in newspapers for grocery specials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59% Participate in supermarket frequent shopper or savings club programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47% Stock up on an item when you find a bargain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71% Use cents-off coupons received in the mail or from newspapers/ magazines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58% Compare grocery prices at different stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41% Buy store brands or lower priced brands instead of national brands . . . . . . . . . . . . 49% Use cents-off coupons received in the store, such as off the shelf, at checkout or at a kiosk . . . . . . . . 48% Buy products on special even if you hadnt planned to buy them that day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57% Buy only whats on your list . . . . 21% Buy in larger package sizes . . . . 19% Go to stores other than your primary grocery store for advertised specials . . . . . . . . . . 38% Use mail-in rebates for cash refunds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%
24
Purchase Influences cont.

Social networking tools
The only place to go is up from here. Food is a fertile area to be mined for new products, recipes and nutrition information via Facebook and other social media. Already 25% of respondents use Facebook to learn more about foods; thats up from 19% in 2010. In all, more than one-third consumers now identify Facebook, You Tube or Twitter as their social networks of choice for food matters. This isnt an affluent-only practice either; all income groups are shown to be among Facebook users for food information, and two of the lowest income groups ($25,001-$65,000) are most prominent, accounting for 29% who do so.
Facebook . Twitter . . . YouTube. . Other . . . . None . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. 25% . 5% . 4% . 16% . 60%
Food or beverage apps

The apps explosion hasnt been felt fully yet in the food arena. Nine out of ten survey respondents havent yet downloaded any iTunes food or beverage appthough that could change in 2011 as more sophisticated apps come to market and generate new consumer appeals. The 11% who have downloaded appsup from 6% in 2010are 27% male, decidedly upscale ($85,001-$145,000 lead users and account for 33% of downloaders), heavy grocery buyers (52%, $101 and over per week), and employed full-time (77%).
Have you downloaded any food or beverage apps from iTunes? Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11% No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89%
25
7Eating Habits
How often do you:
Eat home-cooked meals at home?

Shop, prepare, serve, eat is Americas routine on the rise. It occurs three or more times a week for 92% of consumers in 2011, up from 89% in 2010 and 2009, and 87% in 2008.
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Less than once a month . . . One to three times a month . One or two times a week . . . Three or more times a week . Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Less than once a month . . . One to three times a month . One or two times a week . . . Three or more times a week .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. 0% . 0% . 1% . 7% . 92% . 2% . 4% . 16% . 56% . 22%
Serve meals using leftovers?

Nearly eight out of ten consumers whip leftovers into new meals once or more per week (56%, one or two times a week; 22%, three or more times a week) The cumulative 78% figure in 2011 is one point higher than 2010s 77% and four points above 2008s 74%.
Dine out in full-service restaurants?

After skidding to a halt at restaurant entrances the past couple of years, consumers are beginning to inch back inside their doors in 2011. For 73% of consumers, dining out in full-service eateries occurs three times a month at most this yearbut this figure was 75% in 2010. Notably, people who eat out one or two times a week also move up from 21% in 2010 to 23% in 2011. Who are they? Full-time employees (64%), Easterners (35%), and households that tend to earn more; of the seven most prominent income tiers to dine out this frequently, five are in the six-figure range (48%).
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Less than once a month . . . One to three times a month . One or two times a week . . . Three or more times a week .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. 4% . 31% . 38% . 23% . 4%
26
Eating Habits cont.

Eat takeout or home-delivered meals?
No significant point shifts from a year ago means the moderate opportunity for prepared foods in supermarkets remains open. Advantage, supermarkets, because food-store pricing shouts value vs. restaurants, and one-stop convenience can cover several days worth of meals at once. However, for 83% of survey respondents, takeout dinner happens just three times or less per month, about the same as a year ago (84%). Could it happen more if supermarkets merchandised it better? Perhaps. Especially if the economy begins to truly recover in 2011, people might spend more on takeout before they transition back to lots more restaurant dining. The one or two times a week frequency of takeout bumps up one point to 15%. This group is led by: Easterners (41%) employed full-time (67%), who spend $81 or more per week on groceries (71%).
. . . . .
. . . . .
. 11% . 37% . 35% . 15% . 3%
Eat at fast-food establishments?

Heres where the healthier-eating trend is taking its toll. The never column jumped by four points in 2010 to 22%, and it has bounded ahead another five points to 27%. Concurrently, the less than once a month column, which was at 39% in 2009 and 2010, edges up to 40% in 2011. Thats a full two-thirds of adults that barely eat fast food today. Price isnt everything when it comes to food, and this is the proof. Meanwhile, fast-food eaters are doing it less. People who went one to three times a month were 29% in 2009 and 27% in 2010; now they are 22%. However, the most avid fast-food eaters, one or more times a week, were unchanged at 11%. People with no children living at home make up 72% of the never respondents. Last year, they were 75%, but as the never following grew, it acquired a broader base.
. . . . .
. . . . .
. 27% . 40% . 22% . 9% . 2%
27
Eating Habits cont.

Eat organic foods?
Americans still appear split on whether to make organic foods a more regular part of their dietary mix. Nearly four in ten (37%) are in the rarely/ never column; add to those on special occasions/once a month respondents, and half the nation hardly consumes organic foods. Still, those committed to it are doing it more, and those less sure are coming around steadily. For example, adults who eat organic foods from once every other week up to multiple times during the day shoot up in 2011 to 54% of survey respondents, up from 47% in 2010. Also, the rarely/never group fell seven points from 44% in 2010 to its current level. The multiple times during the day enthusiasts reach 15% in 2011, up from 11% in 2010 and 8% in 2009. This group is 86% female, 56% employed full-time, 69% age 40-64, the heaviest weekly grocery spenders (75%, $81 or more), and no children living at home (62%).
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6% Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31% On Special Occasions . . . . . . . . 4% Once a month . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% Once every other week. . . . . . . . 12% Three times a week . . . . . . . . . . 11% Twice a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Once a day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Multiple times during the day . . 15%
Eat locally grown foods?

A much higher proportion of people eat locally grown foods than organic foods. When they think local, they think fresh and want to support local growers/packers. The 19% who say rarely/never in 2011 were 24% in 2010. The 38% who eat locally grown foods moderately between two and seven times per weekwere just 33% a year ago and 31% in 2009.
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18% On Special Occasions . . . . . . . . 5% Once a month . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11% Once every other week. . . . . . . . 16% Three times a week . . . . . . . . . . 17% Twice a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13% Once a day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Multiple times during the day . . 12%
28
Eating Habits cont.

What kind of home cook are you?
(Does not add up to 100% because of multiple responses) Heres one positive outcome of the recession that could mean long-term benefits for supermarkets: More than two-thirds of adults regard themselves as confident in the kitchen (69%) and more than half like to experiment, create own recipes (55%). Also, nearly half (47%) describe themselves as enthusiastic. True, 41% say they are novice, tentative, follow simple recipes, but the trade is bringing them along with helpful websites and easyto-prepare meal solutions. All of this points to an America that can get cooking with the right motivation and opportunities.
Novice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% Tentative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% Follow simple recipes . . . . . . . . 31% Follow complex recipes . . . . . . . 35% Like to experiment, create own recipes . . . . . . . . . . 55% Cook a few dishes well . . . . . . . 27% Confident in the kitchen . . . . . . 69% Enthusiastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47% Have the magic touch . . . . . . 23%
Have you been cooking more at home the past two years?
The majority (51%) says yes; another 40% say about the same. The yes answers are driven mostly by the lower- and middleincome tiers; none of the $105,001 and above income groups accounted for a doubledigit share of the yes respondents.
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51% No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% About the same . . . . . . . . . . . . 40%
If yes, has the experience improved your cooking skills?

For nearly two-thirds of adults (63%), the answer is affirmative. For most households, this is a budget-stretching skill that could also lead to more supermarket visits.
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63% No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37%
Is it important to you to become a better home cook?

An overwhelming three-quarters of respondents (75%) are motivated to improve, we believe, to consistently satisfy household members and have control more of the ingredients they actually eat. This is largely true of households with two, three or four people under one roof (75%).
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75% No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25%
29
8Nutritional Concerns
What concerns consumers the MOST about the foods they eat?
For the fourth straight year, the simply expressed desire to be healthy/eat whats good for us heads the list of 18 answer choices. This time, the percentage is 25%, up from 22% in the three prior years. A mid-scale income group ($85,001$105,000) is first among be healthy respondents, accounting for 15% of all adults saying this. The spread between be healthy and the #2 answer chemical additives (13%, up from 12% in 2010 and 11% in 2009) is wide. In third place is salt/sodium content, less salt (10%, same as a year ago and up from 9% in 2009). After these, no other answer is in double digits.
Fat content, low fat . . . . . . . . . . 8% Sugar content/less sugar . . . . . . 7% Salt/sodium content, less salt . . 10% Calories/low calorie . . . . . . . . . . 5% Cholesterol levels . . . . . . . . . . . 2% Food/nutritional value . . . . . . . . 9% Chemical additives . . . . . . . . . . 13% Preservatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% Desire to be healthy/eat whats good for us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25% Vitamin/mineral content . . . . . . 0% Balanced diet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% Carbohydrate content . . . . . . . . 3% Freshness/purity/no spoilage . . . 3% Protein value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Fiber content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% Dont know/ no answer . . . . . . . 1% Could be a lot healthier . . . . . Could be somewhat healthier . Is healthy enough . . . . . . . . . As healthy as it could possibly be. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% . . 49% . . 31% . . 11%
How consumers describe their diet

Adults acknowledge their progress at diet improvement. The harsh self-criticism tones down to 59% could be a lot healthier/could be somewhat healthier, compared with 62% saying this in 2010 and 68% in 2009. About one in ten (11%, up from 10% in 2010) feels righteous enough to say what they eat is as healthy as it could possibly be. The most people who say the way they eat could be a lot healthier are in the three lowest income groups (from less than $25,000 up to $65,000) at 46%; a year ago, they accounted for 54% saying this.
30
Nutritional Concerns cont.

What people eat to ensure their diet is healthy
(Does not add up to 100% because of multiple responses) Consistent with the importance they place on high-quality fruits and vegetables in store choice, adults once again perch more fruits and vegetables in the #1 spot on this list of healthy diet activities. At 88% in 2011, this scores four points higher than 2010s 84% level and five points above 2009s 83%. Banishing bad habits characterize the #2 and #3 vote getters. Less junk food/snack food is second at 67%, up from 64% in 2010 and 2009. Less fried foods is #3 at 65%, up from 63% in 2010 and 62% in 2009. More whole grains and more fresh foods tie for the #4 position at 60%; both were 58% in 2010 and 54% in 2009.
More fruits/vegetables . . . . . . . . 88% More calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22% Less bread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34% More chicken/turkey/ white meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43% Less calories/food low in calories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32% More fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52% Less carbohydrates . . . . . . . . . . 28% More fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45% Less cholesterol/food low in cholesterol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28% More foods high in vitamins/ minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27% Less dairy products . . . . . . . . . . 13% More fresh foods . . . . . . . . . . . . 60% Less fats/oils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32% More juices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11% Less fried foods . . . . . . . . . . . . 65% More low fat or skim milk products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31% Less junk food/snack food . . . . . 67% More meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% Less meats/red meats . . . . . . . . 31% More organically grown/ natural foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35% Less prepared/processed foods . . 55% More protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22% Less salt/sodium/food low in salt/sodium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46% More salads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48% Less soda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% More starches (pasta, beans, rice) . . . . . . . . . . 8% Less sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52% More vitamin/mineral supplements/pills . . . . . . . . . . . 27% More balanced diet/more variety . 47% More water/bottled water . . . . . . 36% More whole grains . . . . . . . . . . . 60% More foods with antioxidants . . . 29%
31
9When Consumers Buy A New Food Product For The First Time
How often do they look for ___ when deciding whether or not to purchase it?
Price
A must for 97% of adults who need to know the tab before buying. This composite figure is the same as in the past two years, though the almost always figure (77%) is down a point from 2010 and two points from 2009. By comparison, almost always was 72% before the recession hit.
Almost Always Sometimes . . . Hardly Ever . . Never . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 77% . 20% . 3% . 0%
Brand name
Though still a compelling 90% for almost always/ sometimes in 2011, the consumer conviction is not as great as in 2010, when 93% said this. Simply, people are buying more private label and alternative brands to save money, and brand name matters a bit less upon first-time trial.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 43% . 47% . 9% . 1%
Look at health claims

Though related to the eat-healthier movement, the almost always/sometimes figure actually edges down a point to 83% from 2010s 84%. Two reasons for this: the 43% almost always figure in 2010 was a seven-point jump from 36% in 2009, so there is some settling in 2011. Also, health claims can confuse or mislead, which blunts their impact at the shelf.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 42% . 41% . 14% . 3%
Type of preservatives or additives

Another sign of consumer sensitivity to ingredients in packaged foods. Precisely 85% of adults read the fine print on labels almost always/sometimes. The six in ten (59%) almost always component is up eight points from 2010s 51% and a considerable 17 points from 2009s 42% level.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 59% . 26% . 11% . 3%
32
When Consumers Buy A New Food Product For The First Time cont.
Organic claims
A parallel jump in consumer interest here, as with other organics survey questions. Seven out of ten adults (70%) look for these claims almost always/sometimes, up from 65% in 2010 and 59% in 2009. Todays 34% almost always component is six points above 2009s 28% and 11 points above 2009s 23% level.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 34% . 36% . 20% . 9%
Where the product was made

Another big rise here, likely due to consumers lack of trust in China and other foreign food sources. Nearly eight out of ten consumers (79%) look for country of origin before trying a product almost always/sometimes. This is up from 76% in 2010 and 69% in 2009. The latest 44% almost always figure tops the 38% level of 2010 and 33% of 2009.
Almost always Sometimes . . . Hardly Ever . . Never . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 44% . 35% . 16% . 5%
33
10Nutritional Information Sources

Where consumers learn about nutrition issues on a regular basis
(Does not add up to 100% because of multiple responses) The Internet gives access to many kinds of websites, blogs, discussion groups and reference authoritiesincluding government agencies and proven food and nutrition experts. No wonder it has a sizeable lead as the #1 resource for nutrition information in America at 74%, down from 75% in 2010, but up from 70% in 2009. Access is step one. Trust and understanding are steps two and three. Consumers online weigh the credibility and clarity of information supplied by sources they reach. Since they feel theyre able to do this, they keep the Internet as their top choice. Meanwhile, magazines are a clear-cut #2 resource at 63%, well above books at 39%, but still some distance behind the Internet. Growth of Web access on smartphones suggests this gap will likely expand; for instance, magazines were 64% in 2010 and 67% in 2009. Todays use of books (39%) represents a fourpoint gain over 35% in 2010 and 32% in 2009. However, newspapers (in fourth place at 33%) slipped from 37% in 2010 and 38% in 2009. Nevertheless, media fared better than individual experts, such as doctors (22%) and nutritionists/dietitians (also 22%).
Magazines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63% Television. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33% Doctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22% Newspaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33% Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39% Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74% Friends and family . . . . . . . . . . 29% Grocery store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29% Nutritionist/dietitian . . . . . . . . . 22% Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Online communities (e.g., iVillage, Second Life, YouTube) . . . . . . . 27% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
Which do they trust the MOST?

Consumers hesitate to trust any of their nutrition information sources, judging by the low ratings given here. Its a similar profile to last year, and this hesitancy might stem from so many conflicting studies issued and reported on by media, or touted by experts who in truth represent special interests. Even nutritionists/dietitians come in at just 16% and doctors at 13%. This could be an opportunity for supermarkets to become vocal vetters and build trust in their stores as credible, straight-talk destination centers for food.
Magazines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9% Television. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% Doctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13% Newspaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29% Friends and family . . . . . . . . . . 6% Grocery store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% Nutritionist/dietician . . . . . . . . . 16% Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Online Communities . . . . . . . . . 3% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
34
Nutritional Information Sources cont.

Importance of nutritional ratings on packages
Despite industry disagreement on which nutritional ratings are most credible and meaningful to consumers, a growing majority of adults (64%) say this is critical/very important in 2011; this is up from 60% in 2010. A five-point boost in todays critical component (23%) shows new intensity on this measure. For whom is this issue most critical: Heavy weekly grocery spenders (70%, $81 or more) and mature adults (85%, ages 40 and higher).
Critical . . . . . . . . . . Very important . . . . . Somewhat important . Important. . . . . . . . . Not important. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. 23% . 41% . 25% . 3% . 7%
35
Anonymous Demographics
Your gender Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80% Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
Hours you work each week
Full Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . Retired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Full Time Work and Student . Part Time Work and Student
. . . 56% . . . 13% . . . 10% . . . 19% . . . 1% . . . 0% . . . 1%
Age bracket
15 25 40 50 65
to 24 . . . to 39 . . . to 49 . . . to 64 . . . and older
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. 1% . 16% . 22% . 46% . 15%
Ethnicity
Caucasian . . . . . African American Hispanic . . . . . . Asian . . . . . . . . . Other . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. 92% . 2% . 2% . 2% . 2%
Region of United States of your primary residence
East . . . Midwest . South . . West . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 34% . 26% . 17% . 23%
36
Anonymous Demographics cont.

Number of people living at primary residence 1 ..... 2 ..... 3 ..... 4 ..... 5 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18% . 41% . 17% . 17% . 8%
Number of children living at home
0 ..... 1 ..... 2 ..... 3 ..... 4 ..... 5 or more .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. 61% . 16% . 16% . 5% . 1% . 1%
Amount spent each week on groceries
$0-$40 . . . . . . $41-$60 . . . . . $61-$80 . . . . . $81-$100 . . . . $101 and over .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. 6% . 13% . 16% . 19% . 46%
Average HOUSEHOLD income
$25,001-$45,000 . . . . . . . . . . 15% $45,001-$65,000 . . . . . . . . . . 16% $65,001-$85,000 . . . . . . . . . . 6% $85,001-$105,000 . . . . . . . . . 3% $65,001-$75,000 . . . . . . . . . . 4% $75,001-$85,000 . . . . . . . . . . 8% $85,001-$105,000 . . . . . . . . . 12% $105,001-$125,000 . . . . . . . . 9% $125,001-1$45,000 . . . . . . . . 6% $145,001-$165,000 . . . . . . . . 5% $165,001-$185,000 . . . . . . . . 3% $185,001-$205,000 . . . . . . . . 2% $205,001 and above . . . . . . . . 5%
37
ConAgra Foods, Inc., (NYSE: CAG) is one of North Americas leading food companies, with brands in 97 percent of Americas households. Consumers find Banquet, Chef Boyardee, Egg Beaters, Healthy Choice, Hebrew National, Hunts, Marie Callenders, Orville Redenbachers, PAM, Peter Pan, Reddiwip, Slim Jim, Snack Pack and many other ConAgra Foods brands in grocery, convenience, mass merchandise and club stores. ConAgra Foods also has a strong business-to-business presence, supplying frozen potato and sweet potato products as well as other vegetable, spice and grain products to a variety of well-known restaurants, foodservice operators and commercial customers. For more information, please visit us at www.conagrafoods.com.
N.G.A. is the national trade association representing the retail and wholesale grocers that comprise the independent sector of the food distribution industry. An independent retailer is a privately owned or controlled food retail company operating a variety of formats. Most independent operators are serviced by wholesale distributors, while others may be partially or fully self-distributing. Some are publicly traded but with controlling shares held by the family and others are employee owned. Independents are the true entrepreneurs of the grocery industry and dedicated to their customers, associates, and communities. N.G.A. members include retail and wholesale grocers, state grocers associations, as well as manufacturers and service suppliers. For more information about N.G.A. and the independent sector of the industry, see the N.G.A. website: www.NationalGrocers.org.
Phil Lempert was one of the pioneers of the new information media, founding SupermarketGuru.com in 1994. The website is now one of the leading food and health resources on the Internet, visited by more than 9 million people each year. SupermarketGuru.com offers thorough food ratings, analyzes trends in food marketing and retail, and features health advice, unique recipes, nutrition analysis, allergy alerts and many other resources to help consumers understand their food, health, lifestyle and shopping options. Lempert is contributing editor of Supermarket News, which exclusively runs his columns both in its magazine and on its website; as well as a content partner with SN which includes custom consumer surveys and other projects. He has been profiled and interviewed by USA Today, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Newsweek and Ad Age, and is interviewed by hundreds of publications each year. As one of Americas leading consumer trend-watchers and analysts, Phil Lempert is recognized on television, radio and in print. He is the food trends editor and correspondent for NBC News Today show, where he reports on consumer trends, food safety and money-saving tips, as well as showcases new products. He makes regular appearances on ABCs The View, and has appeared numerous times on The Oprah Winfrey Show, 20/20, CNN, CNBC, Discovery Health and MSNBC, as well as on local television morning and news programs throughout the country. Phil is the founder and editor of several e-publications targeted to consumers and businesses: Facts, Figures & the Future, Food Nutrition and Science, The Lempert Report and SupermarketGuru. Phil is a spokesperson for ConAgra Foods and works with various ConAgra brands and their retail partners to help communicate strategies on saving money, healthier eating and food trend information to Americas shoppers. Lempert is the author of Being the Shopper and Healthy, Wealthy & Wise. His previous books include: Phil Lemperts Supermarket Shopping & Value Guide, Top Ten Trends for Baby Boomers and Crisis Management: A Workbook for Survival.
38
1005 N. Glebe Road, Suite 250, Arlington, Virginia 22201-5758
(703) 516-0700 fax (703) 812-1821

Consumer Panel Survey 2011

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Consumer Panel Survey 2011

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2011

National Grocers Association

Consumer Survey Report

Primary Food Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance of Supermarket Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1Primary Food Store

2Importance of Supermarket Features

A clean, neat store

High-quality fruits and vegetables

Importance of Supermarket Features cont.

Selling products before use-before/sell-by date

Importance of Supermarket Features cont.

. 36% . 54% . 10% . 0%

Courteous, friendly employees

Accurate shelf tags

Importance of Supermarket Features cont.

A store layout that makes it easy to shop

Personal safety outside the store

Importance of Supermarket Features cont.

Paying attention to special requests or needs

. 39% . 44% . 15% . 2%

Importance of Supermarket Features cont.

. 36% . 34% . 24% . 6%

Nutrition and health information available for shoppers

. 37% . 39% . 20% . 4%

Importance of Supermarket Features cont.

. 48% . 29% . 15% . 9%

A frequent shopper program or savings club

. 24% . 39% . 26% . 11%

Importance of Supermarket Features cont.

. 22% . 46% . 25% . 7%

. 7% . 20% . 35% . 38%

Importance of Supermarket Features cont.

. 24% . 46% . 23% . 7%

. 31% . 37% . 23% . 9%

. 9% . 26% . 38% . 27%

Importance of Supermarket Features cont.

Online buying service

. 4% . 10% . 29% . 58%

Being active or involved in the community

. 16% . 47% . 25% . 13%

. 33% . 38% . 20% . 9%

Importance of Supermarket Features cont.

Offers locally grown produce and other local packaged foods

. 45% . 41% . 10% . 4%

3Rate Your Primary Stores Performance

Excellent . Good . . . . Fair . . . . . Poor . . . .

A clean, neat store

Excellent . Good . . . . Fair . . . . . Poor . . . .

High-quality fruits and vegetables

Excellent . Good . . . . Fair . . . . . Poor . . . .

Selling products before use-before/ sell-by date

Excellent . Good . . . . Fair . . . . . Poor . . . .

Courteous, friendly employees

Excellent . Good . . . . Fair . . . . . Poor . . . .

. 44% . 43% . 12% . 1%

Rate Your Primary Stores Performance cont.

Excellent . Good . . . . Fair . . . . . Poor . . . .

. 42% . 45% . 12% . 1%

A store layout that makes it easy to shop

Excellent . Good . . . . Fair . . . . . Poor . . . .

. 34% . 54% . 11% . 1%

Private label or store brands

Excellent . Good . . . . Fair . . . . . Poor . . . .