10.07.2015 Views

3 The market for impulse ice cream [per] - Competition Commission

3 The market for impulse ice cream [per] - Competition Commission

3 The market for impulse ice cream [per] - Competition Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

3.35. Table 3.1, based on Nielsen data, shows how, following the entry by Mars, the <strong>market</strong> share of BEW inthe wrapped <strong>impulse</strong> <strong>market</strong> measured by value fell between 1989 and 1990. In 1991 BEW's <strong>market</strong> share fellagain be<strong>for</strong>e a strong recovery in 1992 which is partly explained by the difficulties encountered by Lyons Maidduring its brief ownership by Clarke Foods. Table 3.1 also shows how Lyons Maid saw its <strong>market</strong> share shrinkfrom nearly one-quarter to one-tenth within the four years after 1988.TABLE 3.1 Market shares in the wrapped <strong>impulse</strong> <strong>market</strong><strong>per</strong> cent by value1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993*BEW 67 68 62 59 67 67Lyons Maid 23 23 21 18 10 11Mars 0 † 11 12 11 14Others 10 8 6 11 12 8Total 100 100 100 100 100 100Source: BEW based on Nielsen Audit data.*Estimate.†Less than 1 <strong>per</strong> cent.3.36. Mars told us that in 1991 and 1992 the NMRA audit indicated a higher <strong>market</strong> share than the numbersshown in Table 3.1. It claims a <strong>market</strong> share of 15 <strong>per</strong> cent in 1991 and 16 <strong>per</strong> cent in 1992. It told us that itsshare of the chocolate bar <strong>market</strong> was 20 <strong>per</strong> cent (see paragraph 3.54).3.37. Market share data on scoop <strong>ice</strong> <strong>cream</strong> are not available because sales of this type of product generallyare not branded. BEW estimates its <strong>market</strong> share of scoop and soft mix <strong>ice</strong> <strong>cream</strong> as a combined <strong>market</strong> to havebeen about 12 <strong>per</strong> cent in 1992.3.38. For multi-packs, retailers' own brands accounted <strong>for</strong> over 40 <strong>per</strong> cent of sales measured by value in1992, while BEW accounted <strong>for</strong> one-quarter. Table 3.2 shows how the rapid growth of Mars in the two years1989 and 1990 has subsequently been sharply reversed as other manufacturers and retail multiple chains havedeveloped alternatives to Mars' new brands.TABLE 3.2 Market shares in multi-packs<strong>per</strong> cent by value1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993*BEW 25 29 28 26 25 25Lyons Maid 2 5 3 3 2 4Mars Nil 13 21 16 13 11Other brands 28 14 10 16 16 15Retail own brands 45 39 38 39 44 45Total 100 100 100 100 100 100Source: BEW based on Nielsen Audit data.*Estimate.21

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!