Investigation into the possible impact of promotions on food waste

Transcription

1 Final report Investigation into the possible impact of promotions on food waste A review of how different promotional mechanics are used by the UK grocery sector, and a survey to investigate the link between promotions and food waste in the UK. Project code: RHF Research date: Nov 2010 July 2011 Date: December 2011

2 WRAP s vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses and individuals to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, develop sustainable products and use resources in an efficient way. Find out more at Written by: WRAP, data from Kantar Worldpanel Front cover photography: Shop aisle, Fotofolia WRAP and Kantar Worldpanel believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP s Terms & Conditions on its web site:

3 Executive summary One aspect of food retailing that is often thought, and reported in the media as being, responsible for much of the food wasted by consumers, particularly food that is thrown away unused, is the use of promotional mechanics, such as s (buy one get one free). Several pieces of quantitative food waste research contain references to the possible impact of promotions on food waste. For example: The most frequently cited explanations for waste, given by consumers, were food passing its date (34%), food visibly gone bad (30%), being tempted by buy one get one free offers (30%). Lower responses, of relevance to this project, were buy too much when shopping (22%), tempted by multi-packs (22%) and tempted by price reduction on short shelf-life products (19%) 1. Forty-one per cent said that they had sometimes felt that taking advantage of promotions had meant they had bought more food than they actually needed, with 28% saying they often felt this 2. 19% felt promotions encourage me to buy more than I need and I end up throwing some away 3. However, no focused work on the potential impact of promotional mechanics on household food waste had been undertaken. There are many possible reasons why food ends up being wasted, and many possible solutions. WRAP carries out research such as this to help determine where its efforts, and those of its partners, including retailers, should be focused. This report summarises the findings of a project undertaken with Kantar Worldpanel which: 1 Reviewed how different promotional mechanics are used by the UK grocery sector; and 2 Undertook a survey to investigate the link between promotions and food waste in the UK. How promotions are used by the UK grocery sector WRAP obtained data from Kantar Worldpanel, tracking the promotional sales by food and drink category across the total grocery market. Only aggregated data (i.e. for all retailers) relating to the total market is given in this report. The results show: Between , the total level of promotion across the market increased, culminating at a level of 30.8% of total sales in the 12 weeks ending (w/e) August 09 a 5.1% point increase compared to 12 w/e Nov 06. During this period, (Temporary Price Reduction) was the dominant mechanic, growing from 11% to 16% of total sales. The average volume percentages for the other promotional mechanics were: 2%, multi-buy and extra free 3%, and y for x 6%. Types of promotional mechanic Multi-buy e.g. 3 for 2, 5 for 4 - Any multiple number of items that are sold with another free. (Buy one get one free) - A form of multi-buy. Extra free - An increased size of an item whilst maintaining the current cost. This provides the consumer with a certain amount more of that item for free. Y for x - A number of items for a set amount i.e. 2 for 3, 3 for 6. This mechanic was included in the definition of multi-buys for the consumer survey. - Temporary Price Reduction e.g. initial price reduced by 50p. The level of promotion remained high in 2010 (12 w/e 24 Jan w/e 26 Dec 10) and across the market remained fairly flat, at 37% on average. was the dominant mechanic, with an average volume percentage at 18%. The average volume %s for the other promotional mechanics were: and extra free 2%, multi-buy 3%. Y for x doubled to an average volume percentage of 12%. In trying to determine the possible impact of promotions on food waste, it is important to consider two things: 1 The extent to which volume promotions are used. 2 The extent to which volume promotions are used in perishable / short shelf-life food categories. 1 WRAP (2007) Food Behaviour Consumer Research Quantitative Stage 2 WRAP (2010) Understanding Consumer Use of the Freezer 3 IGD (2010) Effective Promotions for Shoppers Final report 1

4 Chilled foods Yoghurt Chilled juice Fresh meat, poultry, fish Bakery Produce Chilled foods Yoghurt Chilled juice Fresh meat, poultry, fish Bakery Produce Volume % (average) 2010 The data above indicates that certain key volume promotions (, extra free and multi-buy) are used to a relatively low extent overall (2%, 2% and 3% of packs respectively). Of all the various promotional mechanics employed, and y for x dominate (18% and 12% respectively). should enable consumers to buy what they want and reduce their total shopping bill, but it could also drive unwanted purchases, should the shopper feel it s too good an offer to miss. Y for x is a volume promotion and could therefore influence consumers to buy more than they need, which may also lead to waste. Promotions make up a third of grocery spend, and the trend towards an increasing number of promotions over the last 4 years (driven by retailers responding to the economic climate and customers expectations) could encourage consumers to buy too much which may drive waste, particularly if consumers feel the extra product was free / almost free and therefore has limited financial value to them. An important counter to this is provided however, by recent IGD research 4, which suggests, for many consumers, the economic climate is heightening their desire to extract value from promotions, for example, by using product bought on promotion at the usual rate to realise the saving (and therefore delaying future purchases). The second key element is to identify the extent to which promotions are used in perishable / short shelf-life categories. Although the exact mechanic employed varies, in some cases markedly, through the year, on average, the overall level of promotions seems to be consistent within a category through the year. Figure E1 shows that yoghurt and chilled juice have the greatest proportion of volume promotions, by a significant margin. Produce has the fewest volume promotions (13% on average), and a further 23% of products on a. However the proportion of volume promotions on salads was significantly higher than the average for total produce. Figure E1 Volume percentage, average, 2010 (12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 26 Dec 10), selected categories (loose and pre-packed) on volume promotional mechanics (, multi-buy, y for x, extra free) or Volume promotion In 2011, WRAP undertook a survey across UK retailers, and a selection of food products, of a range of factors believed to influence household food waste 5. The product s shelf-life was one such factor. It shows that the two products (shown above) with the very high level of volume promotion, also have quite a long shelf-life; around two weeks on average for yoghurt and around three weeks for chilled juice 6. Another aspect of relevance is the proportion of packs that carry on-pack freezing guidance. The retailer survey shows that 82% of sliced bread, 99% of chilled ready meals and 100% of chilled chicken breasts carry freezing guidance. This evidence suggests 4 IGD (2010) Effective Promotions for Shoppers 5 WRAP (2011) Retailer Survey unpublished, due for publication early yoghurt packs were reviewed, both use by and best before dated products, singles and multipacks. 590 chilled orange juice packs were reviewed, just those carrying a use by date are included here (567 products). Final report 2

5 that volume promotions need not lead to waste if the consumer uses the date mark to plan when they re going to eat the product or freezes it before its date mark 7. The link between promotions and food waste in the UK The second part of this project sought to investigate the relationship between promotions and food waste. This was not a straightforward piece of research, requiring the participation of a minimum number of consumers who had purchased specific foods, not on promotion or on a range of promotions, and then determining the amounts of food consumed or thrown away in a way that would not influence the participant s behaviour. Previous experience has shown that the best way to estimate household food waste is to measure what is thrown away in the bin. However, this would not reveal which items had been purchased on promotion, particularly if thrown away without packaging, or disposed of via the sink. It is also known that, when asked, consumers do underestimate how much food they throw away. However, there is a strong correlation between the quantities of food waste generated by a household, as measured via compositional analysis, and self-reported levels of food waste, as determined by questionnaire survey 8. It was, therefore, decided that the only practical approach was to use a consumer survey. The broad design of the consumer survey was to contact Kantar Worldpanel panellists who had recently purchased certain products, and to ask whether the product had been used and whether any of it had been wasted. Products (pre-packed apples, multipack yoghurt, pre-packed fresh tomatoes, pre-packed ham and mainstream sliced white bread) were selected on the basis of being those with relatively high waste levels, sold on a mix of promotional mechanics (and full price) and likely to be either consumed or disposed of within the times set by the research. Section details the percentage of items purchased by product, by promotional mechanic and household size. The results indicate that for bread and yoghurt more items are bought on promotion by larger households than smaller households. In both cases, the trend is towards multi-buys and y for x, rather than. In contrast, single-person households are more likely to buy ham on offer (specifically ) than larger households. There is no clear trend in promotional purchases with household size for apples or tomatoes. The average percentage of food that is reported to be wasted within the survey varies between categories, as recorded by respondents. Reported levels of apples and bread waste are higher than that for ham, tomatoes and yogurt. However, for all product categories, reported levels of waste were markedly lower than found in other studies such as Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK 9. The results do not provide evidence to prove the hypothesis that sales of food on promotion increase the amount of food wasted; however, the degree of apparent under-reporting of food waste means it is not possible to draw firm conclusions on the relationship between promotions and food waste. There is evidence that certain forms of promotions (multi-buy and y for x) are associated with the purchase of larger amounts of food, but this is at least in part due to the nature of the promotion. It is important to understand why the percentage of waste within the current research is much lower than those obtained from direct measurement. There are a number of potential factors that may contribute to this difference: recall of the item in question, and what happened to it, may be difficult; research 10 has shown that food that is thrown away can quickly go out of mind, which may make it problematic to recall waste of a specific item from a few days or weeks ago; interpretation of thrown away may differ from interpretation of waste ; recall may only be of whole items (e.g. whole pots of yoghurt) thrown away, rather than parts of items leftover (e.g. a half-finished pot of yoghurt); items may not have been used / thrown away at the time of the survey; and 7 WRAP has developed a freezing guidance labelling decision tree in conjunction with the Food Standards Agency so that the food industry can start to move away from freeze on day of purchase labelling and instead use e.g. freeze before the date mark, defrost and use within 24 hours. This would help those consumers to freeze food, which is still in date, but for whatever reason had not been consumed as intended. See: WRAP (2009) Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK 10 WRAP (2007) Food Behaviour Consumer Research: Quantitative Phase Final report 3

6 experience has shown that self-reported levels of waste are generally lower than estimates made from direct measurement. Several or all of these reasons may provide an explanation for the differences in reported waste levels. If the level of under-reporting is different for those respondents purchasing items on promotion and those who have not, then under-reporting has the potential to alter the research findings. However, the level of underreporting for individuals or groups of respondents cannot be established through research of this nature. For this reason, the fact that this research provides no evidence to support the hypothesis that sales of food on promotion increase the amount of food wasted should be viewed as tentative. Were the method repeated the following could be considered to improve the results by reducing under-reporting: amend question wording both to prompt memory and to ensure all waste is captured; amend the timing of the survey (e.g. reduce time between purchase and survey issue); and increase sample sizes. Given the results of this research, it seems likely that new research methodologies will need to be developed to obtain more robust evidence, and WRAP would welcome discussion with interested parties on this. Conclusions Promotions are a significant, and increasing, part of the retail landscape. Although, extra free and multibuy are used in <5% sales, y for x has doubled between 2007 and However, remains the most common form of promotion, including in the perishable / short shelf-life categories with an average volume % of 18%. There are examples of products wasted in large amounts (based on WRAP s previous research) where a high level of volume promotions are employed, yoghurt and chilled juice having the greatest proportion of these, by a significant margin. However, both of these do have a relatively long shelf-life (two to three weeks), which should help consumers consume product bought. Salads also have a relatively high level of volume promotions, and have a high percentage of waste. The results from the survey element of this research do not provide evidence to prove that food bought on promotion is more likely to be wasted, at least for those products covered by the research. However, due to the challenges encountered in achieving accurate self-reporting of food waste, this finding must be regarded as tentative. Additional data 11 from WRAP s regular consumer food survey has found that 44% of respondents agree that buying food on offer leads to more food being thrown away 12. Of the same sample, 90% of respondents said they buy extra items when they re on special offer but, when extra items are bought on special offer, just 4% say more is thrown away. This illustrates that there may be a significant disconnect between individuals perception of the potential impact of promotions on food waste in general, and their own behaviour. Retailers, however, should be conscious of both the potential for promotions to lead to food waste, their customers perception that promotions do lead to food waste, and the needs of different types of household, and take this into consideration when planning promotional strategies, especially for perishable short shelf-life products (in terms of which type of promotion, product shelf-life, pack sizes chosen etc.). Recent work by the IGD 13 reported multi-buy promotions are something of a dilemma for many shoppers. On the one hand, shoppers recognise the fantastic value offered by the generous discount of deals particularly, and are attracted by the thought of getting something for nothing. However, the level of opposition to multi-buys on fresh products has grown considerably, from 40% in 2009 to 56% at the end of Around a third (34%) of all grocery spend now comes from products bought on promotion (source: Kantar Worldpanel, October 2010). There is also an opportunity for retailers and manufacturers to encourage / facilitate 11 Online WRAP survey, baseline data (average of the autumn 2010 and spring 2011 survey waves), representative sample of around 1,800 adults in Great Britain 12 Other responses were More of it is eaten (41%), I wait longer before buying the same thing again (51%), I buy less of something else (14%). 13 IGD (2011) What Shoppers Want: Shopper-led Innovation (source: IGD Effective Promotions for Shoppers, December 2010) Final report 4

7 food management behaviours that can help reduce the potential for food bought on promotion being wasted. Several of these were reported by respondents in a recent IGD survey 14 e.g. freezing extra, fresh items; noting the product date (shelf-life) and arranging meals accordingly; and splitting the deal with friends or family. Highlighting what can be frozen on-pack, providing freezing tips at the shelf edge alongside the promotional offer, maximising shelf-life, having clear date labelling, providing flexible meal plans and encouraging batch cooking / freezing (e.g. cook once eat twice) will all help ensure consumers get real value from a promotion rather than food ending up being thrown away. WRAP will be discussing these results with Courtauld Commitment signatories in order to progress these recommendations, and discuss alternative methodologies to determining the potential impact of promotions on food waste, including further up the supply chain. 14 IGD (2010) Effective Promotions for Shoppers Final report 5

8 Contents 1.0 Introduction Summary of insights to date About Kantar Worldpanel Use of promotions in UK retail Promotions used in Exploring promotion use by category in Promotions used in Exploring promotion use by category in Investigating the link between promotions and food waste Methodology Survey design Results Amount purchased Percentage of items purchased by household size Amount of food wasted Discussion of under-reporting Conclusion Recommendations Industry examples Appendix 1 Kantar Worldpanel data Appendix 2 Kantar Worldpanel data Appendix 3 Consumer survey questionnaire Appendix 4 % of items purchased by household size Appendix 5 News stories about promotions Glossary (Buy one get one free) - A form of multi-buy that is split out from other multi-buys for the purpose of this study. Extra free - An increased size of an item whilst maintaining the current cost. This provides the consumer with a certain amount more of that item for free. FMCG - Fast Moving Consumer Goods (Food, Drink, Household and Health and Beauty). Multi-buy e.g. 3 for 2, 5 for 4. Any multiple number of items that are sold with another free. Other promotion Meal deal, points etc. Promotional mechanic - A promotional tool e.g. or. - Temporary Price Reduction e.g. initial price reduced by 50p. Y for x - A number of items for a set amount e.g. 2 for 3, 3 for 6. This mechanic was included in the definition of multi-buys for the consumer survey. 12 w/e 12 weeks ending xx/yy date Acknowledgements WRAP would like to thank IGD for allowing us to use content from IGD MyReports, which WRAP has purchased, in this report. Final report 6

9 1.0 Introduction WRAP estimates that 12 billion worth of edible food is thrown away by UK households each year 15. Of particular relevance to the impact of promotions, around 6.7 billion of this waste is thrown away unused. Table 1 shows the top products wasted because they are unused. Table 1 Avoidable food waste, left / unused, by weight 16 Food type Annual weight of waste in UK (tonnes / year) Standard bread 480, Milk 200, Potato (fresh) 180, Apple 170, Meals home made and preprepared 120, Banana 78, Yoghurt / yoghurt drink 74, Fruit juice & smoothies 66, Pork / ham / bacon 66, Speciality bread 59, Tomato 55, Carbonated soft drink 53, Other condiments 49, Cakes 47, Orange 46, Poultry 42, Carrot 40, Soft / berry fruit 38, Stone fruit 37, Cheese 36, Annual cost of avoidable waste in UK ( million) The generation of food waste in the home is a complex issue, relating to practices in the kitchen and whilst shopping. It is also impacted by the types of food purchased, their packaging and how they are sold. It is important to develop an understanding of these elements in order to inform activity by WRAP and its partners in efforts to reduce household food waste and monitor progress. One aspect of food retailing that is often thought responsible for food being wasted, particularly food that is thrown away unused, is the use of promotional mechanics. Some new articles about promotions are included at Appendix 5. In April 2011, for example, the LGA environment board vice chairman stated that Buy one get one free deals, which give consumers a few days to munch through 16 clementines, are not about providing value for money. They are about transferring waste out of retail operations and into the family home. Retailers should scrap multi-buy deals which encourage people to take more than they need and replace them with discounts on individual products which will help reduce excess consumption and increase customer choice. WRAP and its partners undertake activities to minimise household food waste through consumer engagement and working with retailers and food manufacturers to help consumers to buy the right amount, keep what they buy at 15 WRAP (2010) New estimates for household food and drink waste in the UK 16 Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK, WRAP, November 2009; WRAP announced a reduction in household food waste of 1.1 Mt in Nov 2011 ( Avoidable food waste reduced by 950,000 t. Research to update the estimates for individual food categories has not yet been carried out, and therefore all figures relating to the breakdown of avoidable food waste should be regarded as approximate. These remain however the best estimates currently available. Final report 7

10 its best, and use what they buy. As such, WRAP committed to undertaking a study of promotional mechanics and to investigate their possible impact on food waste. This project report summarises the findings of a project undertaken with Kantar Worldpanel which: 1 Reviewed how different promotional mechanics are used by the UK grocery sector; and 2 Undertook a survey to investigate the link between promotions and food waste in the UK. Several pieces of quantitative food waste research carried out for WRAP contain references to the possible impact of promotions on food waste, and Buy One Get One Free () promotions in particular. However, this is the first project focused on promotional mechanics. Furthermore, whilst there is evidence relating to consumer attitudes to promotions, and their possible impact on food waste, previous research had not been designed to investigate the relationship between promotions and food waste, which was the focus of the second part of this study. 1.1 Summary of insights to date In 2006, as part of a large scale quantitative survey 17, respondents were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements, including A lot of food waste is down to store promotions and special offers. Three in 10 of the respondents agreed to some extent with this statement, but less than 1 in 10 agreed strongly that much of their food waste is due to promotional offers. In particular, respondents aged over 55 years appeared to be least in agreement with this statement; 1 in 6 strongly disagreed that store promotions cause a lot of their food waste. In a second piece of quantitative research 18, respondents were asked a number of questions in order to ascertain the main drivers of food waste. The most frequently cited explanations for waste were food passing its date (34%), food visibly gone bad (30%), being tempted by buy one get one free offers (30%), making too much food (27%) and not eating the foods that need to be eaten up first (25%). Lower responses in this survey, of relevance to this project were buy too much when shopping (22%), tempted by multi-packs (22%) and tempted by price reduction on short shelf-life products (19%). The theme of promotions has been touched upon in other WRAP work, with respondents giving similar views. For example, with respect to bakery waste 19, participants strongly disagreed that promotions were triggers for overpurchase; just 5% agreed while around 50% disagreed with the statement I tend to over-buy bread, particularly when it is on promotion. Rather, promotions were viewed positively, for example, around half the sample thought promotions linked to other products, to help them use their bakery products, would or might help them reduce waste. In WRAP s survey on freezer use 20, respondents were asked why they freeze store-bought fresh or chilled food at home, around a fifth (19%) stated it was to take advantage of price reductions and 25% to take advantage of promotions / multi-buy offers. Forty-one per cent said that they had sometimes felt that taking advantage of promotions had meant they had bought more food than they actually needed, with 28% saying they often felt this. In 2010, the IGD undertook consumer research to explore shoppers changing attitudes and perceptions towards promotions 21. Of interest, the research found that although around a third (34%) of grocery spend originated from promoted products, up from 29% in 2008, two-thirds (64%) of respondents perceived there to be more promotions than two years ago. Shoppers expect promotions to return regularly and therefore reported savvy shopping, such as skipping a purchase until the next time it is on promotion. Twenty-five per cent of respondents said good promotions drove their store choice with 90% being influenced by promotions in some way. What respondents reported wanting from promotion is summarised in Figure WRAP (2007) We Don t Waste Food A Householder Survey 18 WRAP (2007) Food Behaviour Consumer Research Quantitative Stage 19 WRAP (2011) Reducing Household Bakery Waste 20 WRAP (2010) Understanding Consumer Use of the Freezer 21 IGD (2010) Effective Promotions for Shoppers Final report 8

11 Figure 1 Summary IGD research showing what respondents want from promotions Despite the high level of take up, respondents criticised promotions in the following ways: 19% felt promotions encourage me to buy more than I need and I end up throwing some away and 11% felt that products on promotion often have a short shelf-life. The key criticism of promotions, however, was of products on promotions not always being available (26%). In light of these criticisms, respondents made the following suggestions to improve promotions (only those with relevance to reducing food waste are shown below): Reduced price rather than multi-buys (34%; up from 21% in 2009); Include different pack sizes (15%); Provide adequate shelf-life (13%); and Have more linked promotions (e.g. meal deals) (9%). Looking at the different mechanics, the IGD research identified that single person households are less likely to prefer multi-buy deals, with larger households (5+ people) more likely to (Figure 2). Figure 2 shows that there is some correlation between household size and preference for multi-buy promotions on grocery products. However, the relationship is perhaps not as strong as some may imagine. While single person households are less likely to prefer multi-buys, and households with five or more people more likely to prefer them, the level of interest does not differ between two and four person households. In general, larger households also appear more responsive to price reductions, and therefore, promotions more generally. Respondents also claimed several behaviours associated with reducing the likelihood of wasting any product bought on a multi-buy e.g. freezing extra, fresh items, splitting the multi-buy with friends / family, buying product with the longest shelf-life and arranging meals according to the shelf-life of the products. IGD ShopperTrack research 22 has indicated a learned behaviour amongst shoppers as they seek to beat the system by only buying certain items on promotion and stocking up on products where sensible. Essentially, in certain product categories, shoppers have now become accustomed to long-standing promotions and now expect to buy these products only at times when they are on offer. Shoppers are also waiting for promotions on certain product categories, and using these offers to stock up on items for the following weeks. 22 IGD (2011) ShopperTrack report: Shoppers in today s promotional landscape Final report 9

12 Figure 2 Summary IGD research showing promotion mechanic effectiveness by household size The IGD research 23 also identified a changing attitude towards multi-buy offers on fresh products. The proportion not wanting multi-buy offers on fresh products has increased from 40% in 2009 to 56% in 2010, with the biggest change in households with young children; 23% in 2009 to 53% in Rather than not wanting multi-buy promotions to feature at all, the full detail reveals that more shoppers only want multi-buy promotions to be used on ambient products (rising from 26% to 40%), while fewer are happy for them to be used on all types of product (declining from 48% to 32%). 1.2 About Kantar Worldpanel Kantar Worldpanel is a consumer purchasing panel of 25,000 households designed to represent the domestic purchasing of grocery products brought in-home, across Great Britain. Information is collected twice a week via barcode scanning equipment within the household either through the telephone line or on-line via the Internet. All of the information is then allocated an individual code to ensure identical products can be combined into one Kantar code. The codes are then linked to a relevant product database and reports are created on this market / category / sector. There are extensive and detailed quality control checks conducted throughout this process. To accurately identify products sold on specific promotional mechanics Kantar applies the following processes: To identify on-pack promotions e.g. 33% extra free, a unique offer code is assigned at the barcode linking stage to each promotional barcode on a masterfile. Each purchase for that barcode will be automatically assigned that offer code. Within Temporary Price Reductions () there is an automated process that compares a current price for a product/retailer to a non-promoted base or historical price. If the current price is less than the base price then the purchase will be coded as a (subject to passing pre-set limits, number of weeks at the discounted price etc.) For multi-buys there is an in-house offer masterfile maintained, based on information collated from various sources including panel members, websites, retailers and fieldworkers. Kantar ensures that the panel is demographically and regionally representative of the Great Britain population. The proportion of panellists from each region is representative of the proportion of households in each region of Great Britain. Kantar assigns the panellists to ITV regions defined by the Broadcasters Audience Research Board based on the panellists postcodes. By utilising Kantar Worldpanel s main grocery market measure Retail Sales Track (RST) database, Kantar can track the categories, promotional mechanics and retailers on a rolling basis. 23 IGD (2010) Effective Promotions for Shoppers Final report 10

13 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % 2.0 Use of promotions in UK retail WRAP first started looking, in detail, at promotions in early 2010 and obtained data for the period On the basis of the analysis of this dataset, the project with Kantar Worldpanel (section 3) was tendered and data for 2010 obtained to bring the analysis up to date. These two datasets are presented separately below. 2.1 Promotions used in WRAP purchased data from Kantar Worldpanel, tracking the promotional sales by retailer and by category making up total grocery. Only aggregated data relating to the total market is given in this report. Figure 3 shows the volume % of each promotional mechanic, across the total market, between 2007 and 2009 (12 w/e 05 Nov w/e 09 Aug 09). This shows that was the dominant mechanic, and had grown from 11% to 16% during this time. The average volume % for the other promotional mechanics were: 2%, multi-buy and extra free 3%, and y for x 6%. Total promotion across the market increased culminating at a level of 30.8% in the 12 w/e August 09 a 5.1% point increase since 12 w/e Nov 06. Figure 3 Volume %, total market, total grocery (food and drink) by promotional mechanic (12 w/e 05 Nov w/e 09 Aug 09) Total market, total grocery Multi Buy y for x Other Promotion 2.2 Exploring promotion use by category in Using the Kantar data (12 w/e 05 Nov w/e 09 Aug 09), charts for each category are given in Appendix 1. The key data is summarised below: Ambient grocery The main mechanics used here were and y for x. Use of both grew slightly over the period; grew from 10%-16% and y for x grew from 7%-12%. and multi-buys fell slightly; fell from 4% to 3% and multi-buys from 7% to 3%. Extra free remained flat at 2%. Fresh meat, poultry and fish The main mechanics used here were and y for x. Use of both grew very slightly over the period; grew from 15%-18% and y for x grew from 9%-13%., multi-buys and extra free remained flat at around 2%. Total fresh & chilled The main mechanic used here was. Use fluctuated quite a lot over the period with highs of 17% in summer 2007 and summer 2009, lows of 11% winter 2007, but an average level of 14%. Y for x largely followed the line, but at a much lower level (average of 5%., multi-buys and extra free remained flat at <2%. Final report 11

14 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % Chilled juice (Figure 4) In 2007, multi-buy was the main mechanic used in this category with around 30%, on average, of packs on a multi-buy deal. Towards the end of 2008 this had changed, with multi-buys on just 25% of packs. grew steadily from around 8-20% until the end of 2008, when it fell sharply back to around 8% in the middle of 2009, but increased again towards the end of Y for x grew throughout the period from levels of <8% in 2007 to <30% in the middle of Figure 4 Volume %, total market, chilled juice by promotional mechanic Total market, chilled juice Multi Buy y for x Other Promotion Yoghurt (Figure 5) Like chilled juice, yoghurt also presents a mixed picture. and y for x grew steadily during the period from around 10-19% and 13-25% respectively. On the other hand the use of both multi-buy and saw a decline; multi-buy fell from 15% to around 9%, from around 9% to 2%. Figure 5 Volume %, total market, yoghurt by promotional mechanic Total market, yoghurt Multi Buy y for x Frozen dominated this category with around 20% of packs on a offer. Y for x was used on around 6% of packs with all other mechanics used on <2% packs. Total produce (vegetables, salad and fruit) dominated this category with around 23% of packs on a offer. Y for x increased over the period (from around 2-6%) on average it was used on around 3% of packs with all other mechanics used on <2% packs. Final report 12

15 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % Vegetables & salad Vegetables and salad follow the trend in total produce. Fruit dominated this category but had sharp peaks associated with fruit seasons where it was used more extensively (e.g. around summer and Christmas). During these peaks the volume % on can be around 25%. use was very low except during the winter 2008 when it peaked at around 3%. Y for x increased slightly over the period from 2-7%. Bakery (Figure 6) and y for x were both used at similar levels in the bakery category, and increased over the period from 7-13% and 6-12% respectively. Multi-buy and were also closely aligned with a slight decrease in use over the period; 5-3%. On average, they accounted for 4% and 3% of sales respectively. Figure 6 Volume %, total market, bakery by promotional mechanic Total market, bakery Multi Buy y for x Final report 13

16 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % In summary, and y for x were used most (Figure 7 and 8). Looking at the start and end points (12 W/e 05 Nov 06 and 12 W/e 09 Aug 09) increased from 12-19%, on average. Y for x doubled from 6-12%. Across all categories, and for all data points between the Nov 06 and Aug 09, accounted for just 2%, on average, multi-buy 6% and extra free 1%. Figure 7 Volume %, by category use Ambient Fresh and Chilled Frozen Meat, Poultry, Fish Fruit Vegetables Bakery Figure 8 Volume %, y for x by category Y for x use Ambient Fresh and Chilled Frozen Meat, Poultry, Fish Fruit Vegetables Bakery Final report 14

17 21-Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Oct Nov Dec-10 Contribution to growth %pts 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % 2.3 Promotions used in 2010 Around 34% of all grocery spend came from products bought on promotion (Kantar Worldpanel, October 2010) up from around 25% in early 2007 and 30% at the end of 2009 (Figure 3). Figure 9 shows the picture across the total market in 2010 (12 w/e 24 Jan w/e 26 Dec 10). and y for x dominate the picture. Figure 9 Volume %, total market, total grocery (food and drink) by promotional mechanic 2010 (12 w/e 24 Jan w/e 26 Dec 10) Total market, total grocery MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions The majority of growth in the grocery market was driven by sales on promotion, rather than full price (Figure 10). Figure w/e contribution to grocery growth by sales from full price goods versus promotional mechanics (food, drink and household and personal care) 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% -1% -2% Full price Price reduction Multibuy Y for X Market growth Final report 15

18 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % 2.4 Exploring promotion use by category in 2010 The dominance of y for x is reflected in the individual categories. Charts for each category are given in Appendix 2. The key data is summarised below: Ambient grocery Y for x started the year and ended the year at around 13% but declined to 11% in October, before increasing again. On average, it was used on 12% of packs. fell slightly from 17-15%. Extra free grew slightly from around 2-2.5%. Fresh meat, poultry and fish The main mechanics used here were and y for x. Y for x increased very slightly (15-19%). fell slightly from 17-15%. Despite being used to a relatively low extent overall throughout the year, was on <2% packs during the summer, potentially reflecting BBQ season. Total chilled Again, the main mechanics used here were and y for x. Y for x increased (14-16%). and multi-buy were used consistently in this category at around 15% and 5% respectively. Chilled juice (Figure 11) Y for x use doubled during the year, from around 22-41%. fell, halving from 14% in the summer to just 7% at the end of the year. Multi-buy also fell from around 26% to 12%. Figure 11 Volume %, total market, chilled juice by promotional mechanic Total market, chilled juice MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions Final report 16

19 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % Yoghurt (Figure 12) Use of multi-buy increased significantly through the year (15-27%). has increased from around 2-3% with an average across the year of around 3%. Y for x fell from around 26% to 14% in the first six months of the year but then increased again slightly, with an average of 20%. increased during the summer but then declined, with an average of just 13%. Figure 12 Volume %, total market, yoghurt by promotional mechanic Total market, yoghurt MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions Frozen There was little change through the year in this category with dominating at around 27% on average and y for x at about 11%. Total produce (fruit, vegetables and salad) dominated this category. Since the spring, increased from around 18% to 24%. Just 9% of packs were on y for x (the next most common promotion type in this category) through the year. Within total produce, there were some variations in which mechanics were mostly employed, for example on fruit vs. vegetables (Figure 13). Figure 13 Mechanic use within total produce, and its sub-categories fruit, vegetables and salad (average use over 2010) Fresh Produce Total Fruit Total Vegetables Total Salads MultiBuy Y for X Final report 17

20 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % Bakery (Figure 14) and y for x were both used at similar levels in the bakery category, with increasing towards the summer but declining again at the end of the year. On average, and y for x were used at levels of 14% and 15% respectively in bakery. and multi-buy were used fairly consistently through the year at 3% and 2% respectively. Figure 14 Volume %, total market, bakery by promotional mechanic Total market, total bakery MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions Final report 18

21 3.0 Investigating the link between promotions and food waste The second part of this project sought to investigate the relationship between promotions and food waste, using a consumer survey approach. 3.1 Methodology The consumer survey was provided by the LinkQ service, a specialist project team within Kantar Worldpanel. LinkQ is an online questionnaire service which enables Kantar to re-contact Worldpanel panellists with further questions relating to their grocery purchasing and attitudes. Of the 25,000 households currently on the Worldpanel purchase panel, c. 19,000 were available to contact through LinkQ at the time of this study. The overall objective for the LinkQ study was to establish whether buying a product on promotion has an impact on whether it is wasted, and whether the type of promotional mechanic has any impact. The broad design of this study was to contact panellists who had recently purchased certain products, and to ask whether the product had been used and whether any of it had been wasted. The size of the panel available ensured a good coverage of purchases made on and off promotion, and types of promotion (temporary price reduction and volume promotions which includes multi-buys, y for x and extra free promotions). This allowed comparisons between the wastage of households who did and did not buy on promotion. To make this study as cost-effective as possible, five products were chosen by WRAP and Kantar Worldpanel. For each of these categories, the aim was to achieve 1,000 responses. Products were selected on the basis of being those with relatively high waste levels, sold on a mix of promotional mechanics (and full price) and were likely to be either consumed or disposed of within the times set by the research. The final set of products covered in this survey were as follows: Pre-packed apples. Multipack yoghurt. Pre-packed fresh tomatoes. Pre-packed ham. Wrapped white bread (excluding in-store bakery). Table 2 shows the breakdown of the products by promotional mechanic captured through the survey. Table 2 Number of items in study No promotion Multi-buy / y for x Extra free Total Apples ,024 Bread ,041 Ham Tomatoes 1, ,339 Yoghurt ,032 Total 3,425 1, , Survey design A copy of the questionnaire used can be found in Appendix 3, but the broad areas covered were as follows: What prompted the purchase? Where was it stored? How was it used? (unused, eaten, thrown away) What proportion was thrown away? Reasons for disposal? When they expected to use any unused product? How they expected to use any unused product? (unused, frozen, thrown away) Final report 19

22 In order to capture waste of the products, enough time needed to pass for the products to have been eaten or thrown away (considering the lifespan of the products) whilst also balancing this against valid recall by our respondents. Therefore our timings were set out on the following basis: Week one: apple and yoghurt purchases. Week two: tomatoes, ham and bread purchases. Week three: pause. Week four and five: questionnaire in field for two weeks. In order to focus the respondent on the product of interest to the investigation and improve recall, they were prompted with details of the product and the shopping trip on which it was bought (store and date). Each respondent was only asked about one of each of the chosen products. The majority of the analysis focuses on the percentage of purchases that are wasted. This variable is useful as it takes into account that items are purchased in different quantities. As different categories are treated differently in the home and have different levels of waste associated with them, there has been no attempt to perform an analysis for all products in the survey; all comparisons are within a food category. The data on the percentage of purchases wasted have a large number of zero values and consequently do not approximate to a normal distribution. However, all comparisons are based on relatively large samples, so the distribution of means should be approximately normal (as described by the central limit theorem). Hence, within this study, data are not transformed prior to analysis when comparing means. Final report 20

23 3.2 Results Amount purchased The average weights of purchase differed between categories e.g. ham is usually purchased in smaller quantities than bread (Table 3, Figure 15). For apples, bread and tomatoes, more of the product is purchased on multi-buytype offers than where there is no promotion or a promotion. For yoghurt, there are relatively small but significant differences between average weights purchased for different promotional mechanics. For ham, there are only slight differences in amounts purchased between the promotional mechanics. Table 3 Average weight of purchase (kg) No Multi-buy / promotion y for x Extra free Average Apples Bread Ham Tomatoes Yoghurt Figure 15 Average weight (kg) purchased by food category and promotional type. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals around the mean No Promotion Multibuy / Y for X Apples Bread Ham Tomatoes Yoghurt These patterns in purchasing are not particularly surprising: when a multi-buy or y for x purchase has been made, by definition it comprises multiple items. Unless these items are smaller than usual, then the total quantity purchased will be higher for these promotional mechanics. Research of this nature cannot determine whether the multi-buy or y for x promotion influences the amount purchased. For example, this research cannot distinguish between two plausible explanations, namely that: Multi-buy and y for x promotions encourage larger purchases. The shopper intended to buy larger quantities and these promotional mechanics represented the best value for such amounts. It is worth noting that if an offer was across products, this analysis will not have picked up the non-target product volume e.g. any 2 sliced meats for y would only pick up the ham and not beef Promotional information is attached to each specific product, so when we looked for ham on multibuy we picked up purchases where the shopper bought some ham and some other meat on a cross-promotion. However, we also only record the ham purchase volume, so we are measuring the waste impact of a multibuy in this category on a per volume basis. Final report 21

24 3.2.2 Percentage of items purchased by household size Appendix 4 details the percentage of items purchased by product, by promotional mechanic and household size. The results indicate that for bread and yoghurt (Figures 16 and 17) more items are bought on promotion by larger households than smaller households. In both cases, the shift is towards multi-buys and y for x, rather than. These differences are significant at the 95% confidence level. Figure 16 % bread purchased by promotion type and household size These charts show the breakdown of purchases by household size using data from the survey 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Bread Single % No Promotion Multibuy or y for x Figure 17 % yoghurt purchased by promotion type and household size 70% 60% 50% 40% Yoghurt Single % 20% 10% 0% No Promotion Multibuy or y for x Other Final report 22

25 In contrast, single-person households are more likely to buy ham on offer (specifically ) than larger households (significant at the 95% confidence level) (Figure 18). There is no clear trend in promotional purchases with household size for apples or tomatoes. Figure 18 % ham purchased by promotion type and household size 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Ham Single % No Promotion Multibuy or y for x Final report 23

26 3.2.3 Amount of food wasted The average percentage of food that is reported to be wasted within the survey varies between categories, as recorded by respondents (Table 4, Figure 19). Reported levels of apples and bread waste are higher than that for ham, tomatoes and yogurt; this difference is significant at the 95% level. Table 4 Percentage of purchases wasted (survey recall) No Promotion Multi-buy / Y for X Average Apples (1024) 2.0% 2.6% 1.8% 2.2% Bread (1041) 2.8% 1.4% 1.7% 2.4% Ham (964) 1.0% 2.1% 1.0% 1.1% Tomatoes (1339) 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 1.2% Yoghurt (1032) 0.6% 1.2% 1.1% % Figure 19 Percentage of purchases wasted (survey recall) by category Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals around the mean (sample size in brackets) 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% Apples (1024) Bread (1041) Ham (964) Tomatoes (1339) Yoghurt (1032) However, for all product categories, these percentages are markedly lower than found in other studies such as Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK 25 (Table 5). This difference is discussed in section 3.3. Table 5 Comparison of percentage of purchases being wasted for categories in this study (note that proxy data are used for some categories) Percentage of purchases becoming waste This study Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK Apples 2.2% 31% Bread 2.4% 29% Ham 1.1% 11% (value for meat and poultry) Tomatoes 1.2% 20% (value for fresh veg. & salads) Yoghurt 0.8% 8% (value for dairy products) There are few significant differences (at the 95% confidence level) between the percentages of purchases that are wasted when comparing promotional mechanics within a food category (Figure 20). The two exceptions are: bread sold on no promotion is wasted in significantly 26 higher amounts than ; and tomatoes sold on multi-buy are wasted in significantly lower levels than either no promotion or. 25 WRAP (2009) Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK 26 In the significance test, the p-value came out at 0.04, so it is significant at the 95% CI. Final report 24

27 Figure 20 Percentage of purchases wasted (survey recall) by category and promotional type Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals around the mean 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% No Promotion Multibuy / Y for X Apples Bread Ham Tomatoes Yoghurt These two significant results should be interpreted with caution, given the following: There is no systematic shift between promotional mechanics across products. These results could be related to other variables that are correlated with promotional purchases (for example, if purchases of bread not on promotion were mainly made by smaller households who have difficulty in finishing a loaf before it expires). The low levels of waste reported (Table 5 and Section 3.3). 3.3 Discussion of under-reporting There are very low levels of food waste reported in this survey relative to other research such as WRAP s Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK, which used direct measurement of food in waste streams for the majority of arisings. These direct measurements are more robust for quantifying the amount of food waste, and, when compared with food-purchase data, are likely to give relatively good estimates of the percentage of food thrown away. It is therefore important to understand why the percentage of waste within the current research is much lower than those obtained from direct measurement. There are a number of potential factors that may contribute to this difference: Recall of the item in question may be difficult. Given the time between purchase of an item and the survey (Section 3.1.1), it may not be possible for all respondents to remember that particular item, especially if similar items have been purchased and consumed subsequently. Recall of wastage: furthermore, it may be difficult to remember what happened to that item and whether it was wasted. In the absence of a firm memory, there may be a tendency to respond with the most likely answer e.g. if most apples in a household are consumed, then the respondent may answer that the apples in question are more than likely to have been consumed even if they cannot remember what the fate of the specific apples. Awareness of food waste: research into food waste (e.g. WRAP s Food Behaviour Consumer Research 27 ) has shown that food that is thrown away can quickly go out of mind, which may make it problematic to recall waste of a specific item from a few days or weeks ago. In addition, food may have been thrown away by a member of the household other than the respondent and so not be recorded in the questionnaire. Interpretation of thrown away : this may differ from interpretation of waste and the former may not include food that is put in a food-waste collection, placed in a home compost bin, or fed to an animal. Furthermore, recall may only be of whole items (e.g. whole pots of yoghurt) thrown away, rather than parts of items leftover (e.g. a half-finished pot of yoghurt). Several or all of these reasons may provide an explanation for the differences in reported waste levels. 27 WRAP (2007) Food Behaviour Consumer Research: Quantitative Phase Final report 25

28 If the level of under-reporting is different for those respondents purchasing items on promotion and those who have not, then under-reporting has the potential to alter the research findings. However, the level of underreporting for individuals or groups of respondents cannot be established through research of this nature. For this reason, the fact that this research provides no evidence to support the hypothesis that sales of food on promotion increase the amount of food wasted should be viewed as tentative. Were the method repeated the following could be considered to improve the results by reducing under-reporting: amend question wording both to prompt memory and to ensure all waste is captured; amend the timing of the survey (e.g. reduce time between purchase and survey issue); and increase sample sizes. However, given the results of this research it seems likely that new research methodologies will need to be developed to obtain more robust evidence, and WRAP would welcome discussion with interested parties on this. WRAP will discuss these results with the retail sector through the Courtauld Commitment 28 and identify how best to build on these findings. 3.4 Conclusion This analysis provides no evidence to support the hypothesis that sales of food on promotion increase the amount of food wasted. There is evidence that certain forms of promotions (multi-buy and y for x) are associated with purchase of larger amounts, but, as discussed above (Section 3.2.1), this is at least in part due to the nature of the promotion. Additional data 29 from WRAP s regular consumer food survey has found that 44% of respondents agree that buying food on offer leads to more food being thrown away 30. Of the same sample, of 90% of respondents said they buy extra items when they re on special offer but when extra items are bought on special offer, just 4% say more is thrown away. This illustrates that there may be a significant disconnect between individuals perception of the potential impact of promotions on food waste in general, and their own behaviour Online WRAP survey, baseline data (average of the autumn 2010 and spring 2011 survey waves), representative sample of around 1,800 adults in Great Britain 30 Other responses were More of it is eaten (41%), I wait longer before buying the same thing again (51%), I buy less of something else (14%). Final report 26

29 4.0 Recommendations Although this work does not present evidence that promotions are associated with higher levels of food waste, retailers need to be aware of the potential for promotional strategies to lead to waste, and to take this into consideration when planning promotional strategies, especially for perishable short shelf-life products (in terms of which type of promotion, product shelf-life, pack sizes chosen etc.). As is already being delivered in many cases, retailers should aim to employ a range of promotional mechanics to suit the needs of different types of household. A key opportunity for retailers is to encourage food management behaviours that can help reduce the potential for food bought on promotion being wasted. Highlighting what can be frozen on-pack, providing freezing tips at the shelf edge alongside the promotional offer, maximising shelf-life, having clear date labelling, providing flexible meal plans and encouraging batch cooking (e.g. cook once eat twice) will all help ensure consumers get real value from a promotion rather than food ending up being thrown away. More specific messaging for consumers, to make the most of promotions, could also be considered e.g. to encourage them to make the most of the offer. Although the IGD work suggests many shoppers are tuned in to getting real value from their shopping, it could be reiterated at point of sale alongside the promotion. Many retailers already encourage these food management behaviours, and some examples are given below. Through the Courtauld Commitment, WRAP will continue to make specific recommendations to further develop effective consumer communications (on-pack, in-store and online) and packaging functionality that can help reduce consumer food waste. 4.1 Industry examples Sainsbury s garlic ciabbatta y for x promotion encourages freezing one portion for later. Tesco trial of alternative, 2010 Tesco trialled a new offer 'buy one, get one free later' on perishable products including salad, melon and pineapple. This allowed customers to pick up their free product the following week when they needed it, keeping waste down. Final report 27

30 Tesco executive director Lucy Neville-Rolfe said: Customers really like our deals but feedback shows smaller households sometimes can t use the free product before its use by date. Now we re giving customers the flexibility to take advantage of the great value offer by claiming their free product the following week instead. As well as giving our customers a flexible new offer, we re helping them to cut food waste. Sainsbury s trial of alternative, 2010 Sainsbury s trialled a new offer 'buy now, free next time in 470 stores during November Customers were issued with coupons associated with specific products, to be redeemed within a fortnight. Two products were included: carry packs of Pampers nappies and Sainsbury's white baguettes. Customer Director, Gwyn Burr commented: "We know that 50% of shoppers take coupons and vouchers with them when they shop, and it's a really practical way for people to stretch their budgets, especially in the current economic climate. This new coupon promotion, together with the low prices and promotions we already have, means customers will get unbeatable value on the products that are most useful to them." Morrisons Great Taste Less Waste campaign provides comprehensive storage and freezing advice on its website, example shown below. Kingsmill give on-pack guidance to freeze as soon as possible, enabling customers to take advantage of a volume promotion by freezing the extra product even if they don t realise they need to immediately. Final report 28

31 Asda ideal for freezing rolls Sainsbury s fresh for freezing chicken breasts Final report 29

32 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % Appendix 1 Kantar Worldpanel data Kantar Worldpanel data - volume %, by category of each promotional mechanic between (12 w/e 05 Nov w/e 09 Aug 09) Total market, ambient grocery Multi Buy y for x Other Promotion Total market, fresh meat, poultry, fish Multi Buy 0 y for x Other Promotion Final report 30

33 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % Total market, total fresh & chilled Multi Buy y for x Total market, chilled juice Multi Buy y for x Other Promotion Total market, yoghurt Multi Buy y for x Final report 31

34 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % Total market, total frozen Multi Buy y for x Other Promotion Total market, total produce Multi Buy y for x Other Promotion Total market, vegetables & salad Multi Buy y for x Final report 32

35 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % 12 W/e 05 Nov W/e 28 Jan W/e 22 Apr W/e 15 Jul W/e 07 Oct W/e 30 Dec W/e 23 Mar W/e 15 Jun W/e 07 Sep W/e 30 Nov W/e 22 Feb W/e 17 May W/e 09 Aug 09 Volume % Total market, fruit Multi Buy y for x Other Promotion Total market, bakery Multi Buy y for x Final report 33

36 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % Appendix 2 Kantar Worldpanel data 2010 Kantar Worldpanel data volume %, by category of each promotional mechanic in 2010 (12 w/e 24 Jan w/e 26 Dec 10) Total market, ambient grocery MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions Total market, total meat, poultry, fish MultiBuy 0.0 Y for X Other Promotions Final report 34

37 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % Total market, total chilled MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions Total market, chilled juice MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions Total market, yoghurt MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions Final report 35

38 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % Total market, frozen MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions Total market, total produce MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions Total market, vegetables MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions Final report 36

39 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % 12 W/e 24 Jan W/e 21 Feb W/e 21 Mar W/e 18 Apr W/e 16 May W/e 13 Jun W/e 11 Jul W/e 08 Aug W/e 05 Sep W/e 03 Oct W/e 31 Oct W/e 28 Nov W/e 26 Dec 10 Packs % Total market, fruit MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions Total market, salads MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions Total market, bakery MultiBuy Y for X Other Promotions Final report 37

40 Appendix 3 Consumer survey questionnaire INTRODUCTION In the following questions we would like to ask you about certain food products you have bought recently, and in particular how they have been used. Please think about the item listed below: TRIP REPLAY: product incl. size, store and date purchased QUESTIONS 1. What prompted you to buy [product] that day? Please select all that apply. Rotate options. I had run out and needed replacements It was on my shopping list I needed it for a particular recipe/meal I was planning to make It was on special offer I always buy this / it was a routine purchase in my weekly shop I decided in the shop, an impulse purchase I suppose Other reason 2. When you first got the [product] home, where did you store it? Please select all that apply. Rotate options Fridge Food cupboard / larder Bread bin (for bread only) Fruit bowl (for apples only) Freezer Other 3. What s happened to the [product] since? Please select all that apply. It s in the fridge/cupboard/larder/bread bin It s in the fruit bowl It s in the freezer It s been eaten It s been made into a meal, some or all of which has been eaten It s been made into a meal, some or all of which has been put in the fridge It s been made into a meal, some or all of which has been put in the freezer It s been made into a meal, some or all of which has had to be thrown away I didn t use it, it s been thrown away 4. Of the [product], approximately what percentage do you think have thrown away? Please select one. None of it Some of it. Please tell us approximately what percentage you have thrown away (between 1 to 99%) [Open numeric answer] All of it Routing: if select none of it in Q4, skip to Q7 5. What were your reasons for disposing of [product]? Please select all that apply. Rotate options. I bought more than was needed It went off I wasn t able to use it up in time It was past the date on the label I didn t like the look of it/didn t fancy it My plans changed so I didn t use it Other reason Routing: show all options selected in Q5 together and ask Q6 6. Which of these was the main reason for disposing of the [product]? Please select one. I bought more than was needed Final report 38

41 It went off I wasn t able to use it up in time It was past the date on the label I didn t like the look of it/didn t fancy it My plans changed so I didn t use it Other reason 7. If any of the [product] is/are left, when do you expect to use it/them? Please select one. I don t know Within the next week Within the next month In longer than a month I don t think I will use it There s none left 8. When you bought [product] how did you expect you would use it? Please select one. I expected to use all of it before it went off I expected to freeze some of it I expected to freeze all of it I expected to end up throwing some away END QUESTIONNAIRE Final report 39

42 Appendix 4 % of items purchased by household size 70% 60% 50% 40% Apples Single % 20% 10% 0% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% No Promotion Multibuy or y for x Bread Single % 30% 20% 10% 0% No Promotion Multibuy or y for x Final report 40

43 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Ham Single % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% No Promotion Multibuy or y for x Tomatoes Single % 30% 20% 10% 0% 70% 60% 50% 40% No Promotion Multibuy or y for x Yoghurt Single % 20% 10% 0% No Promotion Multibuy or y for x Other Final report 41

44 Appendix 5 News stories about promotions Buy one get one free food offers face axe over wastage The Telegraph, Chris Irvine and Rosa Prince, 11 August 2009 Buy-one-get-one-free offers should be scrapped by supermarkets to save immense food wastage, say ministers Daily Mail, Sean Poulter, 11 August 2009 Buy one get two free deals soar to new heights as supermarkets 'buy growth' The Grocer, Elinor Zuke, 05 November 2010 Supermarkets introduce new multi-buy offers Sunday Mirror, Date: 07/11/2010, Page: 24 Call on retailers to ban deals to reduce food waste Packaging News, Liz Gyekye, 12 April 2011 The mults to blame for 14bn waste mountain? Bogof! Copyright 2011 William Reed Business Media Ltd.All Rights Reserved The Grocer The Grocer, April 30, 2011 Final report 42

45