Sports and Energy Bars U.S

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Sports and Energy Bars U.S Sports and Energy Bars U.S. Market oday’s time-pressured consumers to 8 percent in 2002 with most of that rapidly on taste and built brand iden- Tare turning to convenience prod- lost share of sales flowing into super- tities that focused on the needs of a ucts that simplify their lifestyles. Sports markets. The change in market share growing consumer base, leading to and energy bars are one of the most is attributed to the low penetration of rapid growth in the number of sub- portable of foods and pack a lot of nutri- health- or natural-food outlets rela- brands managed by each leader. The ents to provide a quick energy boost. tive to supermarkets, such that once top six companies, which control According to the 2002 Balance Bar sports and energy bars began to rise 75 percent of the market, each sup- National Study, 43 percent of the U.S. rapidly in popularity, the shift of sales port at least three subbrands, and most population eats on the go on a regular was inevitable. Through the main- of them maintain five or more. basis (several times a week or more). streaming of the distribution channels in 1997 to 2002, sports and energy Segmentation continues to This is the basic change that has allowed transform the market bars became conveniently accessible sports and energy bar manufacturers to Segments have evolved rapidly hand move from operating in a defined niche for all consumers. Greater distribu- tion encourages trial and/or impulse in hand with sales growth throughout (endurance and full-time athletes) to 1998 to 2003. Bars that started the serving everyone seeking convenient purchases, which will aid in the con- tinued expansion of the market. period with a purely athletic posi- and healthy forms of nutrition. tioning (which was nearly all of them, The Food and Drug Administration Aging products are being by some measures) now maintain that and other health-related organizations displaced core of customers while also targeting have brought to light the unhealthy All of the leading manufacturers have much larger bases of active adults or state of the population. Mainstream experienced significant growth, caus- those simply seeking better nutrition consumers have begun to assess their ing market shares among brands to on the go. Indeed, the largest brand, eating habits and look for nutritionally shift. Over the analysis period of 2000 Slim-Fast, which has always been thor- superior food options. Improved taste, to 2002, more-recent entrants consis- oughly identified with dieting, began increasing choices and a leap to main- tently outperformed older brands. The in 2002 to change the focus of the stream distribution have thrust sports original Balance Bar, PowerBar and Clif brand to healthy lifestyles. and energy bars into view for millions Bar experienced an erosion in their Any segmentation chosen in 2003 of Americans. Accordingly, the cate- market share, down 3.8 percent, is simply a snapshot in time, and the gory has become larger and more dif- 3.4 percent and 2.4 percent respectively. progression of the market will very ferentiated as it evolves to meet more PowerBar’s newer products (Dipped probably require a larger number of consumers’ needs. Harvest and Pria) and Balance’s newer new or different segments in the near products (Balance Gold and Balance future. This report divides the sports Shift to wide distribution Oasis) generated strong sales, though and energy bar market into diet, ath- A dramatic shift in the distribution they did not fully compensate for the letic and lifestyle/wellness bars, rec- patterns of sports and energy bars sales losses of their mentor brands at ognizing that many of the products occurred during 1997 to 2002. While food stores, chain drug stores and mass have attributes of at least one of the natural- and health-food stores led the merchants. Clif Bar’s aggressive and other segments. As such, lifestyle/well- retailing of sports and energy bars as innovative product introductions (Luna ness and diet bars have 42 percent and recently as 1997, supermarkets and Bar and the Ice series), however, led 41 percent of the market respectively, convenience stores are the primary to gains in overall market share. while athletic bars control 17 percent. retail drivers in 2003. The retail share As recently as 1998, there were few Many leading brands, which were of natural- or health-food stores bar options at most of the leading originally athletic bars, such as Clif declined from 38.7 percent in 1998 manufacturers. Companies improved Bar, PowerBar and Balance Bar, have ➤ The Manufacturing Confectioner • October 2003 15.
Recommended publications
  • Q3 14 Choice Plus Approved Products Choice Plus Snack Requirements
    Q3 14 Choice Plus Approved Products Choice Plus Snack Requirements (per package): ≤ 250 calories, ≤ 10 g fat*, ≤ 3 g saturated fat, 0 g trans fat, ≤ 230 mg of sodium, ≤ 20 g of sugar** (*Nuts and seeds are exempt from the total fat criteria due to their fiber, vitamin E and better fat content. These items must still meet the criteria for sodium and calories. **unsweetened dried fruit exempt) PLEASE NOTE: Snack products that meet ALL Choice Plus requirements above are approved for usage. Manufacturer Product (* Items qualify for 2bU program) Distributor(s) Size (oz) Size (g) Cal Cal Fat % Fat Fat (g) Sat. Fat (g) % Sat Fat Chol. (mg) Sod. (mg) Carb (g) Prot. (g) Trans fat Sugars (g) Dietary Fiber (g) 20/20 LifeStyles Protein Bar Cocoa Almond Vistar 1.00 27 110 50 8.00% 5 1 5 0 60 11 8 0 6 2 Cherry/Banana Vistar/Direct 0.64 18 55 3 1.00% 1 0 0% 0 0 12 1 0 6 2 Bare Fruit Mango/ Pineapple Vistar/Direct 0.64 18 34 2 1.00% 1 0 0% 0 7 8 1 0 8 1 Mini Chocolate Chunk Cookies* UNFI 9.50 26 130 50 9.00% 6 1.5 8% 0 70 17 2 0 9 1 SNACKWELL'S MINI Creme Sandwich Cookies Vistar 1.00 48 210 50 8.00% 5 1.5 8% 0 170 38 2 0 17 0 Back To Nature SNACKWELL'S COOKIE CAKES DEVIL'S FOOD FAT FREE Vistar 1.00 28 85 3 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0% 0 49 21 1 0 12 0 Honey Graham Stick Cookies* UNFI 8.00 31 130 25 5.00% 3 0 0% 0 170 25 30 0 9 1 Balance Bar Peanut Butter Vistar 1.00 50 200 60 11.00% 7 3 15 0 170 21 15 0 17 <1 Barbara's Bakery Snackimals Animal Cookies Chocolate Chip Vistar 1.00 30 120 35 6.00% 4 0 0 0 80 19 1 0 8 0 Biscomerica Basil's Low Fat Animal Snackers Vistar
    [Show full text]
  • Nutrition Bars Bars
    Eligibility The NCSF online quizzes are open to any currently certified fitness professional, 18 years or older. Deadlines Course completion deadlines correspond with the NCSF Certified Professionals certification expiration date. Students can obtain their expiration dates by reviewing either their certification diploma or certification ID card. Cancellation/Refund All NCSF continued education course studies are non-refundable. General Quiz Rules • You may not have your quiz back after sending it in. • Individuals can only take a specific quiz once for continued education units. • Impersonation of another candidate will result in disqualification from the program without refund. Disqualification If disqualified for any of the above-mentioned reasons you may appeal the decision in writing within two weeks of the disqualification date. Reporting Policy You will receive your scores within 4 weeks following the quiz. If you do not receive the results after 4 weeks please contact the NCSF Certifying Agency. Re-testing Procedure Students who do not successfully pass an online quiz have the option of re-taking. The fees associated with this procedure total $15 (U.S) per request. There are no limits as to the number of times a student may re-test. Special Needs If special needs are required to take the quiz please contact the NCSF so that appropriate measures can be taken for your consideration. What Do I Mail Back to the NCSF? Students are required to submit the quiz answer form. What do I Need to Score on the Quiz? In order to gain the .5 NCSF continued education units students need to score 80% (8 out of 10) or greater on the CEU quiz.
    [Show full text]
  • Snack, Cereal and Nutrition Bars in the United States
    International Markets Bureau MARKET ANALYSIS REPORT | SEPTEMBER 2013 Snack, Cereal and Nutrition Bars in the United States Source: Mintel GNPD. Source: Mintel GNPD. Snack, Cereal and Nutrition Bars in the United States EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INSIDE THIS ISSUE Total health and wellness food and beverage sales in the Executive Summary 2 United States are on the rebound, growing by 2% from 2011 to 2012 (and 6% from 2010 to 2012), despite the economic Market Snapshot 3 slowdown that the U.S. experienced these past 5 years. It now appears that with a recovering economy, Americans are again Snack Bars Market Sizes 4 receptive to buying health foods. However, future growth may be hampered by the frugality that American consumers have Health and Wellness Snack 5 adopted, meaning that consumers may be more price-sensitive Bars Market in shopping for healthy options. Organic Snack Bars 6 U.S. packaged food as a whole is recovering from the economic downturn; U.S. organic packaged food sales are also Energy and Nutrition Bars 7 recovering. Organic products are sub-category of the health and wellness sector. Organic products carry a higher price Consumer Trends 8 than their conventional counterparts, so it is not surprising that sales were affected by the economic slowdown. Before the Claims Analysis 11 recession of 2008, organic packaged food value sales enjoyed double-digit growth before plunging. Now organic packaged Market Shares by Brand 12 food value sales are recovering again; they increased by 2.1% and Company between 2011 and 2012, to reach US$12.2 billion. Distribution Channels 13 Snack, cereal and nutrition bars continued their growth in 2012, with an ever-expanding array of flavours and healthy varieties.
    [Show full text]
  • Nutrition Bars: Healthy Meal Sub Or Candy Bar in Disguise?
    Nutrition Comparison Nutrition Bars: Healthy Meal Sub or Candy Bar in Disguise? With promises of energy, weight Nutrition Bars Comparison control, cholesterol-lowering and As with all EN comparisons, this is only a sampling of what’s available. Products are listed alphabetically. more, you might think that nutrition = EN’s Picks. Nutrition bar picks contain no more than 200 calories (10% DV), 3 grams saturated fat bars are the food industry’s answer to (14% DV), 13 grams sugar, and at least 8 grams protein (8% DV). real food. Who needs to spend time Nutrition Bars Serv Calories Fat Sat Carb Fiber Sugar Sodium Protein cooking meals when you could just Size (g) Fat (g) (g) (g) (g) (mg) (g) fill your cart with little bars in various CHOCOLATE shapes, flavors and colors? Sure, there Balance Bar Gold Chocolate Mint Cookie Crunch 50 210 6 4 24 <1 14 160 14 are satisfying, healthy bars available Classic Zone Perfect Chocolate Caramel Cluster 50 200 6 4 25 3 16 290 14 that occasionally make a great on-the- Classic Zone Perfect Fudge Graham 50 210 7 3.5 23 3 15 200 14 run snack. And there are bars that can Dark Zone Perfect Dark Chocolate Mocha 45 180 5 3.5 21 1 13 210 12 provide key nutrients before or during Dark Zone Perfect Dark Chocolate Strawberry 45 180 5 4 22 1 14 170 12 an intense workout. But, there are also Genisoy Protein Crunch Chocolate Chip 45 150 6 2.5 18 2 1 280 15 many that contain so much sugar and Kashi Go Lean Crunchy Chocolate Pretzel 45 160 3 2.5 28 5 13 250 8 saturated fat that a candy bar might be Kashi Go Lean Roll Chocolate Peanut 55 190 5 1.5 27 6 14 240 12 a better choice.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Stamp Program Eligible Food Determinations 1
    FOOD STAMP PROGRAM ELIGIBLE FOOD DETERMINATIONS 1 FEBRUARY 18, 2005 Date Product Eligible Ineligible 3/14/02 40-30-30 BALANCE, DRINK MIX, X (ALL FLAVORS) 8/29/94 ACCESS FAT CONVERSION ACTIVITY X BAR 5/17/78 ACIDOPHILUS CULTURE X 1/13/03 ADVANTEDGE CARB CONTROL X NUTRITION BAR 1/13/03 ADVANTEDGE CARB CONTROL X READY-TO-DRINK 1/13/03 ADVANTEDGE EXTREME OUTDOOR X ENERGY BAR 1/13/03 ADVANTEDGE NUTRITION BAR X 1/13/03 ADVANTEDGE QUICK SHAKE X 1/13/03 ADVANTEDGE READY-TO-DRINK X 1/13/03 ADVANTEDGE SOY PROTEIN X 1/13/03 ADVANTEDGE WHEY PROTEIN X 5/17/78 ALFALFA SEED X 12/11/92 ALITRAC X 2/16/84 ALL STAR PROTEIN POWDER X 9/20/84 ALLFOODTABS X 5/16/02 ALMOND BREEZE X 11/3/03 ALMOND BROWNIE BALANCE BARS X 1/14/00 ALOE BLOSSOM HERBAL TEA X 2/18/93 ALOE PLUS X DETERMINATION ON THIS PRODUCT WAS CHANGED FROM INELIGIBLE TO ELIGIBLE ON THE DATE NOTED. PRODUCT IS INELIGIBLE BECAUSE IT IS NOT SOLD THROUGH FIRMS WHICH QUALIFY FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT FOOD STAMP BENEFITS. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM ELIGIBLE FOOD DETERMINATIONS 2 FEBRUARY 18, 2005 Date Product Eligible Ineligible 5/17/78 ALOE VERA GEL X 4/9/86 ALOE VERA JUICE X 4/13/84 ALTERNATIVE VINEYARDS, NON- X ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES 7/18/91 AMAZING MICRO BARS X (ALL FLAVORS) 7/18/91 AMAZING MICRO CHILI X 7/18/91 AMAZING MICRO DRINKS X (ALL FLAVORS) 7/18/91 AMAZING MICRO MUESLI X 7/18/91 AMAZING MICRO PASTA, MARINARA X 7/18/91 AMAZING MICRO PASTA, TETRAZZINI X 7/18/91 AMAZING MICRO SOUPS X (ALL FLAVORS) 11/2/83 AMERICAN GOLD BEVERAGE MIXES X (ALL FLAVORS) 11/2/83 AMERICAN GOLD TOFU MIXES X 4/26/02 AMERICAN WHEY PROTEIN X 3/17/03 AMINO 1000 X 10/23/02 AMP ENERGY DRINK X 11/3/03 APPLE CRISP ZOE FLAX AND SOY X BARS 6/10/02 ARGINAID EXTRA X 9/18/98 ARM AND HAMMER DENTAL CARE X GUM DETERMINATION ON THIS PRODUCT WAS CHANGED FROM INELIGIBLE TO ELIGIBLE ON THE DATE NOTED.
    [Show full text]
  • Stonyfield Farm, and Starbucks
    I N P URSUIT OF THE T RIPLE B OTTOM L INE1 ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT AT CLIF BAR, STONYFIELD FARM, AND STARBUCKS Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy Thesis Submitted by Kristen Rainey January 2007 © 2007 Kristen Rainey http://fletcher.tufts.edu 1Elkington, John. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line in 21st Century Business. Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers, 1998. Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………….3 Chapter Two: CSR in the Food Sector…………………………………5 The Economist on CSR………………………………………………..5 Doing Good? Or Greenwashing?...........................................................5 Moving Beyond Philanthropy…………………………………………7 Measuring CSR………………………………………………………..9 Health as a CSR issue………………………………………………..10 Nestlé: the Baby Formula Scandal…………………………………...11 McDonald’s: Big Macs, Big Butts.......................................................12 CSR at McDonald’s: An Oxymoron?......................................14 Coca-Cola……………………………………………………………16 Human Rights Violations…………………………………….17 Water Problems………………………………………………17 Marketing to Kids: Sodas in Schools………………………...19 Beyond the Bad Guys………………………………………………..23 Chapter Three: Clif Bar …………………………………………………….27 Staying Private……………………………………………………….27 Too Much Social Good?......................................................................28 A Holistic Philosophy………………………………………………..30 The Workplace……………………………………………………….36 The Community……………………………………………………...37 Chapter Four: Stonyfield Farm…………………………………………..40
    [Show full text]
  • Nancy Clark- Engineered Sports Foods: a Primer
    NANCY CLARK- ENGINEERED SPORTS FOODS: A PRIMER Remember water, bananas and defizzed Coke—the original sports fuels? Maybe not. They’ve been buried by a multitude of engineered sports foods and fluids created by the $2+ billion sports fuel industry! Since the 1970’s, when Gatorade was introduced, this business has mushroomed and continues to expand. PowerBar’s debut in the 1980’s and GU’s debut in the 1990’s bolstered the commercial sports food scene. Since then, a multitude of companies have jumped on the bandwagon to create niche fuels that appeal to a variety of athletes. There’s a product for every dietary need—gluten-free, vegan, kosher, lactose-free, fructose-free …the list goes on. If you have ever felt confused by the plethora of commercial sports fuels from which to choose, you are not alone. Runners, cyclists and other athletes inevitably ask me “What’s the best energy bar? gel? sports drink?” I only wish I had the right answer! The best choice for one person may be lackluster for another. You simply need to experiment to determine which products are best for your body. In general, commercial sports foods tend to be more about convenience than necessity. They can make fueling easier, and offer more benefits than you’d get from just plain water. If you are on a budget, take note: A daily quart of sports drink @$1.59 adds up to more than $570 a year. An equal number of calories from diluted, defizzed Coke might cost only 40¢ a day,$150 a year.
    [Show full text]
  • Banned in Organics but Common in “Natural” Food Production
    NATURAL VERSUS ORGANIC SERIES Toxic Chemicals: Banned In Organics But Common in “Natural” Food Production Soy Protein and Chemical Solvents in Nutrition Bars and Meat Alternatives November 2010 Acknowledgments The following staff members helped research, write, edit, and support this report: Charlotte Vallaeys, Farm and Food Policy Analyst, principal author Mark Kastel, Senior Farm and Food Policy Analyst Will Fantle, Research Director Lynn Buske, Research Assistant The following provided professional assistance: Michana Buchman, copyediting Tim Hill, report layout/design, timhilldesign.com Jeremy Vossman, Papertree Design, web design, papertreedesign.com Gretta Wing Miller and Aarick Beher, filmmakers, downtowndailies.com The Cornucopia Institute wishes to thank the Compton Foundation and the Forrest & Frances Lattner Foundation for their support of this project, as well as our other foundation funders, thousands of family farmers, and their “urban al- lies,” who support our work with their generous donations. The Cornucopia Institute’s “Natural Versus Organic series” aims to educate the public about the importance of choos- ing certified organic foods bearing the “USDA Organic” seal. The Cornucopia Institute is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Through research, advocacy, and economic development, our goal is to empower farmers both politically and through marketplace initiatives. The Cornucopia Institute P.O. Box 126 Cornucopia, WI 54827 608-625-2042 voice 866-861-2214 fax [email protected] www.cornucopia.org Cover design by Tim Hill Photos by Istockphoto.com Copyright ©2010, The Cornucopia Institute 2 TOXIC CHEMICALS: BANNED IN ORGANICS BUT COMMon in “NATural” FOOD PRODUCTION Summary CONVENTIONAL FOOD PRODU C TION depends heavily on the use of toxic chemicals and synthetic inputs in farm- ing and food processing that pose potential threats to the environment, public health, and sustainability.
    [Show full text]