1. SUGARS

2. StoresLocationFacing WalmartMLK73 Walmartneighborhood market43 HarpsWeddington27 HarpsFiesta Square65 IGAFarmington114 Targetfayetteville13 AldiMLK1 Total336 Stores Audited The only unique SKU that was found was the C&H brand it was found in all the stores accept Aldi, Target had one as well it was Domino which is a national brand but was only found there.

3. TOTAL SUGAR-GRANULATED (SUGAR, SWEETENERS) LBS. Total Dollars BehaviorScape Framework LifeStyle BehaviorStage Cosmopolitan Centers Affluent Suburban Spreads Comfortable Country Struggling Urban Cores Modest Working Towns Plain Rural Living Total Start-Up Families HHs with Young Children Only < 6 7077110 8912197 Small Scale Families Small HHs with Older Children 6+ 10099107147110157121 Younger Bustling Families Large HHs with Children (6+), HOH <40 133102147186136204156 Older Bustling Families Large HHs with Children (6+), HOH 40+ 144102147187163211153 Young Transitionals Any size HHs, No Children, < 35 44486865609062 Independent Singles 1 person HHs, No Children, 35-64 35415971497154 Senior Singles 1 person HHs, No Children, 65+ 39355762558760 Established Couples 2+ person HHs, No Children, 35-54 8574109119118151110 Empty Nest Couples 2+ person HHs, No Children, 55-64 8875106109100147105 Senior Couples 2+ person HHs, No Children, 65+ 727110811487135100 Total 747610411291135100 Product Snapshot

4. Private Label (Sugar, Sweeteners : Sugar-Granulated) Lbs. Total Dollars BehaviorScape Framework LifeStyle BehaviorStage Cosmopolitan Centers Affluent Suburban Spreads Comfortable Country Struggling Urban Cores Modest Working Towns Plain Rural Living Total Start-Up Families HHs with Young Children Only < 6 6257114988413392 Small Scale Families Small HHs with Older Children 6+ 93102108147128183130 Younger Bustling Families Large HHs with Children (6+), HOH <40 119100163179150257170 Older Bustling Families Large HHs with Children (6+), HOH 40+ 11084161185172255155 Young Transitionals Any size HHs, No Children, < 35 314881615610962 Independent Singles 1 person HHs, No Children, 35-64 31396168507755 Senior Singles 1 person HHs, No Children, 65+ 30 5644558957 Established Couples 2+ person HHs, No Children, 35-54 7465114107130168112 Empty Nest Couples 2+ person HHs, No Children, 55-64 7060103959415599 Senior Couples 2+ person HHs, No Children, 65+ 5553103987613691 Total 616610810493151100 Product Snapshot Cont.

5. Private label is important in this category because in this region in the store audits, There is only one strong national brand that was in every store and that was C&H. The other stores had their own private store brand of sugar. Private label importance

6. OVERALL SUGAR DEMOGRAPHICS

7. Importance of Demographic Attributes Attributes Importance Number of Persons 49.7 Household Composition 44.6 Education of Head of Household 24.8 Age of Oldest Child 21.1 Age and Presence of Children 19.9 Marital Status of Head of Household 16.8 Occupation of Head of Household 13.1 Household Income 9.6 Race of Head of Household 7.5 Number of Vehicles in Household 5.7 Age of Head of Household 4.8 Housing Tenure 2.8 Overall sugar

8. Variables and Measures Demographic Variables % Total $Index Race of Head of Household White71.6%101 Black13.7%119 Hispanic10.5%91 Asian1.6%42 Other2.7%114 Number of Persons 1 Person13.2%51 2 Persons29.0%89 3 Persons20.1%119 4 Persons18.0%129 5+ Persons19.7%183 Household Income Under $10,0009.0%112 $10,000 - $19,99912.5%123 $20,000 - $29,99914.0%127 $30,000 - $39,99913.2%121 $40,000 - $49,99911.9%118 $50,000 - $74,99919.2%98 $75,000 - $99,9999.1%76 $100,000 - $149,9997.4%65 $150,000 or More3.7%54 Age of Head of Household Age 18 - 244.0%88 Age 25 - 3414.5%92 Age 35 - 4421.2%114 Age 45 - 5425.0%118 Age 55 - 6417.1%95 Age 65 - 749.9%84 Age 75 or More8.3%81 Age and Presence of Children Age < 68.4%98 Age 6 - 1729.8%148 Age < 6 & 6 - 1710.5%140 No Children51.3%80 Housing Tenure Own59.9%90 Rent40.1%119 Variables and Measures Demographic Variables % Total $Index Education of Head of Household Not a High School Graduate21.7%156 High School Graduate34.2%125 Some College26.3%93 College Graduate11.4%64 Post College Degree6.4%51 Spectra LifeStyle Urban High Society1.4%45 Suburban Aristocrats1.7%47 Prosperous Suburbs2.6%59 Elite Country Manors3.1%82 Affluent Suburbs3.4%77 Affluent Minipolitan Sprawl3.9%74 Affluent Country Living3.4%104 Cosmopolitan Urban Mix3.4%68 Cosmopolitan Suburbs3.4%64 Midscale Suburban Mix3.5%92 Midscale Minipolitan2.7%82 Midscale Fringe Towns4.3%102 Midscale Working Towns8.0%130 Striving Urban Melting Pot5.1%94 Striving Suburban Mix3.5%97 Striving Small City Living3.0%93 Moderate Blue-Collar Towns8.8%159 Moderate Country Living5.6%134 Struggling Urban Mix4.1%106 Struggling Small City Mix3.6%118 Struggling Minipolitan4.7%100 Struggling Country Living5.8%143 Struggling Rural Mix4.6%162 Struggling Backroad Living6.7%161 Age of Oldest Child Age Under 68.4%98 Age 6 - 1113.2%124 Age 12 - 1727.5%162 No Children50.9%80

9. PRIVATE LABEL DEMOGRAPHICS

10. Importance of Demographic Attributes Attributes Importance Number of Persons 38.7 Household Composition 34.9 Education of Head of Household 28.2 Age of Oldest Child 19.2 Age and Presence of Children 18.4 Household Income 17.2 Occupation of Head of Household 12.9 Marital Status of Head of Household 11.3 Race of Head of Household 7.6 Age of Head of Household 4.1 Housing Tenure 3.8 Number of Vehicles in Household 3.8 Private Label

11. Variables and Measures Demographic Variables % Total $Index Education of Head of Household Not a High School Graduate20.0%144 High School Graduate32.5%119 Some College27.2%96 College Graduate12.7%71 Post College Degree7.6%60 Spectra LifeStyle Urban High Society2.0%64 Suburban Aristocrats2.3%66 Prosperous Suburbs3.1%70 Elite Country Manors3.4%91 Affluent Suburbs3.7%83 Affluent Minipolitan Sprawl4.3%81 Affluent Country Living3.3%102 Cosmopolitan Urban Mix4.2%83 Cosmopolitan Suburbs3.8%72 Midscale Suburban Mix3.6%95 Midscale Minipolitan2.6%80 Midscale Fringe Towns4.1%98 Midscale Working Towns7.2%118 Striving Urban Melting Pot5.3%98 Striving Suburban Mix3.4%93 Striving Small City Living2.9%92 Moderate Blue-Collar Towns7.8%140 Moderate Country Living5.1%123 Struggling Urban Mix4.8%125 Struggling Small City Mix3.6%119 Struggling Minipolitan4.4%94 Struggling Country Living5.1%126 Struggling Rural Mix4.0%140 Struggling Backroad Living5.9%143 Age of Oldest Child Age Under 68.6%100 Age 6 - 1112.4%117 Age 12 - 1726.0%153 No Children53.0%83 Variables and Measures Demographic Variables % Total $Index Race of Head of Household White68.6%97 Black15.3%133 Hispanic11.2%98 Asian2.2%58 Other2.8%117 Number of Persons 1 Person13.8%53 2 Persons30.5%94 3 Persons19.8%117 4 Persons17.3%124 5+ Persons18.7%174 Household Income Under $10,0008.4%105 $10,000 - $19,99911.6%113 $20,000 - $29,99912.9%117 $30,000 - $39,99912.5%114 $40,000 - $49,99911.6%115 $50,000 - $74,99919.5%100 $75,000 - $99,99910.1%85 $100,000 - $149,9998.8%77 $150,000 or More4.7%69 Age of Head of Household Age 18 - 243.5%78 Age 25 - 3413.9%88 Age 35 - 4420.8%112 Age 45 - 5424.6%116 Age 55 - 6417.6%97 Age 65 - 7410.7%91 Age 75 or More9.0%89 Age and Presence of Children Age < 68.7%101 Age 6 - 1728.1%140 Age < 6 & 6 - 179.9%132 No Children53.4%84 Housing Tenure Own61.6%93 Rent38.4%114

12. FACINGS GM% &GM$

13. Share of Facings Sugars 2012 manufacturerWMSC 6th FHarpsFTargetFAldi FIGA F C&H% of Total Sum.6.5 % of Total N.6.5 N 7 9 Domino Sugar % of Total Sum.2 % of Total N.2 N 1 Private label% of Total Sum 1.0.4.81.0.5 % of Total N.8.4.61.0.4 N44337 Private Label% of Total Sum.0 % of Total N.1 N 1 Sugar in the Raw % of Total Sum.0.1 % of Total N.2 N1 1 Total% of Total Sum 1.0 % of Total N1.0 N5115317

14. GM$ Sugars 2012 manufacturerWM6GM$Harps GM$TargetGM$AldiGM$IGAGM$ C&HMean.6500.9433 N 7 9 Std. Deviation.05508 1.07811 Domino Sugar Mean.1400 N 1 Std. Deviation. Private labelMean.2475.3400.3767.1867.5900 N44337 Std. Deviation.17366.27580.24826.00577.38730 Private LabelMean 1.2900 N 1 Std. Deviation. Sugar in the Raw Mean1.7800 1.7900 N1 1 Std. Deviation.. TotalMean.5540.5373.6120.1867.8182 N5115317 Std. Deviation.70166.22159.68918.00577.82639

15. GM% Sugars 2012 manufacturerWM6GM%HarpsGM%TargetGM%AldiGM%IGAGM% C&HMean.3334.3083 N 7 9 Std. Deviation.13936.20772 Domino Sugar Mean.0385 N 1 Std. Deviation.% Private labelMean.1154.1663.2016.1187.2622 N44337 Std. Deviation.16352.17788.14564.03125.13715 Private LabelMean.3496 N 1 Std. Deviation.% Sugar in the Raw Mean.5973.5987 N1 1 Std. Deviation.% TotalMean.2118.2726.2484.1187.2918 N5115317 Std. Deviation.25787.16810.23224.03125.17139

16. Core traffic because the margins were good and everyone needs sugar for baking and there is no perceived quality gap in sugar.

17. Private label is successful in this category because in this region there is only one strong national brand and that is C&H. With its dominance in the category it opens the way for other stores to have their own private label sugar. And the quality seems to be the same whether with the national brands or private label there is no perceived quality gap. Private Label success

18. Recommendations I really have no recommendations. Just that I feel like that all the stores accept Aldi who has only private label, the other stores should allow more space for the national brand C&H.