June 11, 2017
Millennial Munching
A big brand playbook as the small rise
up & generations transition Equity Research
The Conde Nast-GS Love List: Consumer insights across the food industry
The small rise up and the big fall down
Legacy packaged food companies are experiencing
sales headwinds on both weaker category growth
and share losses. While private label is in focus of
late, evidence suggests that small brands are the
main drivers of share losses as barriers to
distribution and brand building fall at the same time
big brands curtail investment.
Opportunity on the horizon for those
ready to seize it
Category growth should improve in the years ahead
as Millennials form households and ramp food at
home consumption. To better understand which
brands and companies are best positioned to
capture that growth, we executed an attitude and
usage study across 35 attributes for 172 brands in
conjunction with Conde Nast. Some of the findings
are surprising. Many big brands are far from
irrelevant – Millennials demonstrate above average
affinity for them. Big brand communication and
company portfolio strategies, however, appear
largely unaligned with the attributes that can fuel
growth vs. scale.
The growth vs. scale dilemma and call for
broader portfolio approach
Our combined analysis suggests very few brands
that attempt to achieve scale and growth will
succeed, which may run counter to the CPG
structure and culture of big brand concentration. We
look for companies with established Millennial
preference, a track record of brand investment and a
flexible portfolio approach embracing a small brand
mindset to separate the likely leaders from laggards.
MDLZ & Nestle lead; CPB & KHC lag
Leaders: MDLZ benefits from both broader snack
affinity and strength in Oreo, overlaid with consistent
investment and a big and small brand (e.g., Vea)
mindset. Nestle stands out with top brands in coffee
(#1 coffee brand), water (San Pellegrino #1 overall
Millennial favorite) and leading brands in frozen.
Laggards: Numerous CPB brands appear relatively
disadvantaged and continuous advertising cuts
disconcerting. At KHC, low brand support raises
questions and a culture of cost efficiency appears
counter to the portfolio complexity likely needed to
thrive.
Jason English
(212) 902-3293 [email protected] Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
Mitch Collett, CFA
+44(20)7774-1060 [email protected] Goldman Sachs International
Dylann B. Katz
(212) 902-7929 [email protected] Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
Vivek Srivastava
(212) 934-8372 [email protected] Goldman Sachs India SPL
Goldman Sachs does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision.For Reg AC certification and other important disclosures, see the Disclosure Appendix, or go to www.gs.com/research/hedge.html. Analysts employed by non-US affiliates are not registered/qualified as research analysts with FINRA in the U.S.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Global Investment Research
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 2
The problem: Rise of the small but mighty
Organic sales growth for leading packaged food companies has disappointed in recent years with the aggregate of our US packaged
food coverage setting a new all-time low organic sales decline in 1Q17 (-1.6%). The source of weakness has been twofold. First,
overall category growth has slowed which has been most pronounced for center-store categories as consumer shopping behavior
migrates to the perimeter of the store. Equally problematic has been broad based market share erosion. The old adage of number
one or number two brands are most defensible in categories has broadly broken down as top brands are broadly (though not
universally) losing share.
In some instances, the share loss for leading brands has been to private label which has garnered increasing investor focus of late
given announced or suggested initiatives by retailers (e.g., Amazon’s private label assortment expansion, Walmart’s focus on
private label and the US expansion of private label oriented Lidl and Aldi). While we are not dismissive of private label threats, we
see greater cause for concern in the rise of the small brands.
Smaller brands, many of which are being led by entrepreneurs (e.g., Kind, Clif or Quest in bars, Amy’s Kitchen in frozen, Siggi’s in
yogurt), continue to make inroads and are outpacing both industry and private label growth across the food industry. The pattern is
even more evident when we focus on the top 50 packaged food categories which drive 80% of industry sales. Among the top 50
categories, we see established brands and private label losing share in general to smaller brands on both a three and one year
basis; in 2016, small brands gained share in 62% of the top 50 categories vs. only 40% for private label and 32% for the leading
brand.
We believe the rise of the small brands and fall of the big brands is driven by multiple factors:
Barriers to distribution are falling. Traditional retailers continue to broaden their assortment and are increasingly
welcoming of small and differentiated brands as they attempt to differentiate their offerings from peers and cater to
expanding consumer preferences. In Nielsen measured channels, the average number of SKUs per store has expanded at a
2.5% CAGR since 2013 with major food companies seeing a 0.7% increase, private label rising 2.7% and all-other branded
manufacturers leading the growth at 3.8%. On-line, while still in its infancy in Food, will likely perpetuate this given broader
assortment in the channel and easier access/lower cost for smaller companies.
Barriers to building brand awareness and interest have fallen. Enhanced social connectivity through digital platforms
has facilitated both rapid spread of word-of-mouth awareness building and peer endorsement for brands. Both small and
large brands alike can benefit from this, but the point is that it has leveled the playing field. Compounding this has been the
digitization of media; multi-million dollar mass media campaigns are no longer requisite to build awareness – another
leveling effect.
Intense focus on margins has likely increased the vulnerability of big brands. The industry at large has prioritized
margin expansion in recent years, often at the expense of brand investment. Traditional advertising spend by large brands
has materially declined in recent years. This followed an over decade long process of engineering cost out of the food by
major companies. The combination has resulted in food products that are often seen as over-engineered by consumers and
now less supported by brand investment.
An evolving consumer psyche may also play a role. Some see a connection between broader anti-establishment
movements among the Millennial generation and a distrust of big brands. While we intuitively understand the argument,
Further Reading
This report is part of our
ongoing series on the
business implications of
a maturing Millennial
generation. For more,
see:
The fashion Love List
A report on global
snacking & the
munching mismatch
Our Consumer Currents
webpage
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 3
we note that anti-establishment movements have been commonplace in history and believe the other three explanations
are the main drivers for big brand weakness.
Exhibit 1: Sales have eroded for major food companies as both industry
growth has slowed and market share was ceded to private label and smaller
companies YoY $ sales growth, 52 wk periods ending March
Exhibit 2: Share losses have come as proliferation of assortment at food
retailers persists with smaller branded companies the primary gainers YoY Average items per store, 52 wk periods ending March
Source: The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research. Note: Food majors include CAG, CPB, GIS, HSY, SJM, K, KHC, MDLZ, Mars, Nestle, PF
Source: The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research. Note: Food majors include CAG, CPB, GIS, HSY, SJM, K, KHC, MDLZ, Mars, Nestle, PF
Exhibit 3: Among the top 50 packaged food categories over the past three
years, big brands have lost share at the expense of “all other’ smaller brands,
not private label 2013-2016 market share change
Exhibit 4: While not ubiquitous, small brands have gained share in 53% of the
categories analyzed vs. only 40% for the incumbent leader 2013-2016 % gaining market share
Source: The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Source: The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
‐0.8%
1.9%2.3%
1.4%
‐3.0%
‐2.0%
‐1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
2014 2015 2016 2017 13‐17 CAGR
Food majors Private Label All Other Total Food
0.7%
2.7%
3.8%
2.5%
‐3.0%
‐2.0%
‐1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
2014 2015 2016 2017 13‐17 CAGR
Food majors Private label All Other Total Food
‐0.3%
‐0.5%
‐0.1%
0.6%
‐0.6%
‐0.4%
‐0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
#1 brand Top 3 brands Private label All other
40%43%
49%53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
#1 brand Top 3 brands Private label All other
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 4
Exhibit 5: This pattern continued in 2016…
2015-2016 market share change
Exhibit 6: …with small brand share gains now spanning 62% of major food
categories last year 2015-2016 % gaining market share
Source: The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Source: The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Exhibit 7: Brands outside of the top three are gaining share in key categories ranging from cereal to infant formula with yogurt seeing the most erosion and
more commoditized categories such as frozen seafood, milk, eggs and butter the least All other brands (excluding top three and private label) market share change for 2015-2016 and 2013-2016
Source: The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
‐0.1%
‐0.3%
‐0.1%
0.4%
‐0.4%
‐0.3%
‐0.2%
‐0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
#1 brand Top 3 brands Private label All other
34% 34%
40%
62%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
#1 brand Top 3 brands Private label All other
‐7%
‐5%
‐3%
‐1%
1%
3%
5%
Frzn. seafood
Snack cake
Frzn. Sandwiches
Milk
Nuts
Eggs
Butter
Ice cream
Gum
Frnz. entrees
Novelty
Fresh desserts
Ref. juice drinks
Nutritional
Frnz. pizza
New
age bev.
Fresh sausage
Lunchmeat
Crackers
Isotonic bev.
Cookies
Frzn. veg.
Boxed prep. din.
Salty snacks
Shelf stable veg.
Wholesom
e snacks
Cream
Breakfast meat
Fresh meat
RTE cereal
Cheese
Water
SS liquid soup
SS fruit
Coffee
Baked bread
Spice seasoning
SS juices & drinks
Candy
Soft drinks
Shortening & oil
Infant formula
Ref. meals
Veg. & herbs
Yogurt
1 yr 3 yr
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 5
The opportunity: Rise of Millennials’ food at home consumption
While packaged food industry growth has disappointed in the US of late, there is reason for optimism: the rise of the Millennials.
Millennials remain the largest population by size with the peak age cohort of this generation rapidly approaching household
formation years. As household formation begins, growth in household size should follow. With larger households come larger food
expenditures. The current peak household size is in the 35-44 year band (which the oldest Millennials consumer has recently
entered). Nielsen measured food sales increase 70% on a per capita basis as consumers graduate from the 20-34 year old grouping
to the 35-44 year old grouping. Assuming this relationship holds, the math suggests that Millennial consumers should drive the
entirety of the industry’s growth over the next decade.
This presents both opportunity and risk for the industry at large. Given current trends, it speaks to a rich opportunity for
entrepreneurs to continue to rise in the industry while also offering reason to believe that overall category growth can improve.
Recent results, however, suggest that not all incumbent industry leaders are either prepared or well positioned to benefit.
Exhibit 8: Millennials (roughly 18-34) remain the largest generation in the US
and approach household formation years
Size of cohorts by generation 2015 population (in millions)
Exhibit 9: As Millennials age, their household size should grow Household size by age cohort
Source: Euromonitor, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Source: BLS, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78
Millennials88.7 mn
Gen X66.0 mn
Baby Boomers72.6 mn
2.0
2.8
3.4
2.7
2.1
1.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
<25 25‐34 35‐44 45‐54 55‐64 65+
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 6
Exhibit 10: Nielsen data shows age distribution for packaged food and
demonstrates a 70% increase in food expenditures from the 20-34 cohort to
the 35-44 grouping. If this holds… Per capita food expenditures by age cohort
Exhibit 11: …Millennials could constitute nearly all of the industry’s growth
through 2027 Age cohort contribution to growth in food spend between 2016-2027
Source: Euromonitor, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Source: Euromonitor, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
The solution: Investment, portfolio strategy and brand role in focus
Introducing the Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List
In conjunction with Conde Nast’s Food Innovation Group, we have conducted an attitude and usage study (A&U) among 7,555 US
consumers. The respondents included 1,076 millennial consumers between the ages of 18-34, 564 of which we refer to as
“Millennial Foodie Influencers” (a group of Millennial responders who agreed with the statement: “I have a passionate interest in
food, cooking, restaurants and/or food experiences.”) and focus on for our Love List. We polled these consumers on usage habits
and brand association across 35 attributes for 172 brands. We then integrated Nielsen scanner and panel data to merge self-
reported data with measured real behavioral data to glean richer insight. The result is both the output of our Love List – an affinity
ranking for brands with both Millennial and broader consumer sets – and attribute correlation with growth, scale and loyalty metrics.
Key observations, conclusions and recommendations follow.
‐
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
20‐34 35‐44 45‐54 55‐65 Over 65+
Millennials
223.4
246.424.1
8.4
(9.6)
8.4
(8.2)
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
2016 25‐34 35‐44 45‐54 55‐64 <25 & <65 2027
$ bn
spen
d change to
202
7
Today's Millennial will spend $24.1 bn more on packaged food when they are in the 35‐44 bracket in 2027 if current age‐related spending behavior holds
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 7
The Love List – Big brands are far from irrelevant
Not surprisingly, large established brands such as Coca Cola, Heinz Ketchup and Doritos top the list of most commonly purchased
brands – they would not be large established brands were they not commonly purchased. Of more interest is the question of affinity.
Some surprising observations are made when consumers are asked to rank their favorite brands and interesting divergences
between the national sample set and the Millennial Foodie Influencer cohort are revealed:
Millennials still like big brands. Despite conjecture of brand indifference, when asked to rank their favorites, Millennials
demonstrated both a higher level and broader based affinity for big brands.
Premiumization appetite creates opportunity for the smaller. Millennials also ranked small and mid-sized brands that
compete in the premium tier of their respective categories among their favorites (11 of the top 20 favorite brands for both
the national sample and millennial cohorts). Among these premium brands, the majority either laddered to health-oriented
benefits (e.g., Angie’s, Noosa, and Justin’s Nut Butters) or indulgent attributes (e.g., Ferrero Roche and Starbucks).
They like to snack. Eight of the top 20 favorite Millennial Foodie Influencer brands are traditional snack brands including
Angie’s and Haribo which ranked 2nd and 3rd, respectively, among Millennial Foodie Influencers.
Premium over mainstream preference in chocolate. Mainstream-oriented Hershey didn’t make the top 20 list for
Millennial Foodie Influencers but premium brands such as Ferrero Rocher and Mars’ Dove made the cut with 60% and 56%,
respectively, of Millennial Foodie Influencers rating them favorites.
Premium coffee over tea but water trumps all. Nespresso and Starbucks had strong followings among both sample sets,
but San Pellegrino ranked #1 as a favorite for Millennial Foodie Influencers. Poland Spring was not far behind for the
Millennial cohort, tying both Starbucks and Nespresso for the 5th most favorite brand. Traditional mainstream coffee brands
fall far behind (out of the 172 brands, neither SJM’s Folgers nor KHC’s Maxwell House placed in the top 50 favorite brands
for Millennial Foodie Influencers; interestingly, Folgers held the 8th favorite spot for the national sample set).
Ice cream melts. The national sample set ranks both Haagen-Dazs and Ben & Jerry’s among their top favorites, but ice
cream brands are noticeably absent among favorite Millennial Foodie Influencer brands.
Can baking still be relevant? Surprisingly (to us at least) PF’s Duncan Hines baking brand was ranked among the top 20
(#4) by Millennial Foodie Influencers; 13 spots above SJM’s Pillsbury brand and 100 spots above GIS’s Betty Crocker.
Bertolli’s frozen thaw? Despite the brand’s sales challenges in recent years, CAG’s Bertolli is the 5th highest ranking
favorite brand among Millennial Foodie Influencers versus a 76th ranking for Healthy Choice and 83rd for Lean Cuisine.
Yogurt is still a go-to. Noosa, founded in 2010, marks the youngest brand to make the top 20 favorite list with both
Millennial Foodie Influencers and the national sample set ranking it in the top 10. Competitor brands Fage and Yoplait also
made the top 20 list for both cohorts but Chobani was noticeably missing (ranking 36th for millennials and 29th for the
national sample set).
Cookies and crackers crumble. MDLZ’s largest (and still favored) brand Oreo failed to make the cut on either favorite list
but it wasn’t alone. No other cookie brand was ranked in the top 20 for Millennial Foodie Influencers while Cheez-It was the
only cracker brand to hold a spot (#19).
Common attributes—it’s the basics. Delving behind the brand names, there is a consistent pattern of attributes that tie
the favorite brands together. Good tasting. Easy to find. Consistent. Convenient. Good value. What constitutes each will
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 8
vary among consumers, but these are all arguably attributes that large established food companies should be able to
deliver on.
Exhibit 12: Which brands are people purchasing? % surveyed; “which of the following brands have you purchased in the last 6
months”
Exhibit 13: Favorite brands by age bracket % surveyed; “which of the following brands do you consider to be your favorites”
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List
Heinz Ketchup 46% Starbucks 64%Starbucks 45% Coca‐Cola 52%Coca‐Cola 44% Doritos 48%
Land O'Lakes 42% Chobani 47%Campbell's 37% Cheerios 45%Chobani 37% Nature Valley 40%
Boar's Head 36% Oreo 39%Cheerios 36% Heinz Ketchup 39%Doritos 34% Quaker 37%
Hellmann's/Best Foods 34% Land O'Lakes 37%Lay's 34% M&M's 36%
Hershey Chocolate 33% Naked 35%Bush's Beans 33% Hidden Valley 34%
M&M's 31% Cheez‐It 33%Quaker 29% Lay's 33%
Philadelphia 28% Campbell's 33%Ritz 28% Pillsbury 32%Oreo 28% Hershey Chocolate 32%
Tostitos 28% Pepperidge Farm 32%Ghirardelli 27% Ben & Jerry's 32%
All Millennial Foodie Influencers
Top 20 purchased
brands in the last 6 months
Nespresso 68% San Pellegrino 81%San Pellegrino 59% Angie's 77%Starbucks 57% Haribo 71%
Ben & Jerry's 55% Duncan Hines 70%Coca‐Cola 55% Bertolli Frozen 67%Noosa 55% Nespresso 67%Angie's 54% Poland Spring 67%Folgers 53% Starbucks 67%Fage 51% Yoplait 67%
Peet's Coffee 51% Noosa 64%Boar's Head 51% Ferrero Rocher 60%Stouffer's 51% Justin's Nut Butters 59%
Simply Orange 51% Coca‐Cola 59%Ghirardelli 50% International Delight 57%
Cracker Barrel Cheese 50% Kashi 57%Hershey Chocolate 50% Dove Chocolate 56%
Special K 50% Pillsbury 55%Tates 50% Clif 55%Yoplait 49% Cheez‐It 53%
Haagen‐Dazs 48% Fage 52%
All Millennial Foodie Influencers
Top 20 brands which people consider to be their favorites
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 9
Exhibit 14: Broadly speaking, Millennials demonstrate greater affinity for nearly all top brands % surveyed; “which brands would you consider to be your favorites?”
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List
The Growth vs. Scale dichotomy
Basic measures such as purchase behavior and affinity demonstrate that large established brands have continued relevance to
Millennial consumers. While encouraging in terms of an outlook on brand durability, it does not shed light on growth prospects, or
lack thereof. In an effort to assess this, we delved deeper and merged Nielsen data to align brand attributes across realized growth,
scale (sales level) and loyalty (repeat) using both retail scanner data and panel data among both Nielsen’s national and Millennial
aged sample sets.
For both the overall pool and the Millennial Foodie Influencer cohort, affordability and consistency were correlated with scale,
suggesting that those attributes are non-negotiable when it comes to establishing a big, scalable brand. It’s also imperative to check
“basic” boxes including “easy to find”, “convenient”, and “good variety”. In order to drive growth, however, a different set of
boxes need to be checked. For the national sample set, Nielsen sales growth was strongly correlated with “unique”, “trendy”,
“innovative” and “a brand not many people know of”. The perception of the ingredient profile (e.g., “made with clean ingredients”
and “less processed”) also correlated strongly with sales growth.
As is evident in Exhibits 15 and 16, almost all of the attributes that correlate with growth are negatively correlated with size. There
are, however, a few exceptions and both the broader pattern of conflict and rare exceptions have implications in terms of both
optimal brand messaging and portfolio strategy, in our opinion.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Angie's
Ben & Jerry's
Bertolli Frozen
Boar's Head
Cheez‐It
Clif
Coca‐Cola
Cracker Barrel Cheese
Dove Chocolate
Duncan Hines
Fage
Ferrero Rocher
Folgers
Ghirardelli
Haagen‐Dazs
Haribo
Hershey Chocolate
International Delight
Justin's Nut Butters
Kashi
Nespresso
Noosa
Peet's Coffee
Pillsbury
Poland Spring
San Pellegrino
Simply O
range
Special K
Starbucks
Stouffer's
Tate's
Yoplait
Which brand
s wou
ld you
con
sider to
be your
favorites?
All Millennial Foodie Influencers
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 10
There are no attributes at the intersection of positive growth and scale when looking at the national sample set. Amongst the
Millennial Foodie Influencer cohort, there are three attributes that lie at the intersection of both positive growth and scale: “good
variety”, “convenient” and “consistent”. These seem like basic and obvious attributes, but they are nonetheless strengths of legacy
brands that are largely being neglected in modern consumer communication. The industry instead has focused on messages
around transparency, authenticity and natural/clean ingredients. While the evolution of product formulation toward these attributes
is likely warranted (effectively unwinding the over-engineering trend from the 1990’s into the early 2000’s), the data suggest that
brand messaging and communication may be more effective when focused on inherent taste, variety and convenience attributes –
all attributes where incumbent brands arguably have a right to win.
Exhibit 15: National sample set: which attributes correlate with scale and growth National sample set population growth and scale correlation scatter plot
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 11
Exhibit 16: Millennial Foodie Influencer population: which attributes correlate with scale and growth
Millennial Foodie Influencer population growth and scale correlation scatter plot
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 12
Exhibit 17: Among the national sample set, a lack of overlap between growth and scale attributes suggests brands can’t “have it
all”
Brand attributes split into 3 GS-defined buckets based on strong positive correlation for national sample set
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
‐Affordable‐Consistent‐Convenient‐Easy to find‐Good value‐Good variety‐Made by a manufacturer I trust‐One that reminds me of my childhood‐Trusted
‐A brand not many people know of‐Expensive‐Innovative‐Less processed‐Made with clean ingredients‐Natural‐One I recommend to friends/family‐Organic‐Transparent about how it is produced‐Trendy‐Unique GROWTH
LOYALTY
SCALE‐One of my favorites
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 13
Exhibit 18: When we zoom into the Millennial cohort, overlap between growth and scale attributes emerge in “convenient” and
“good variety”
Brand attributes split into 3 GS-defined buckets based on strong positive correlation for Millennial Foodie Influencers
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
A Portfolio Approach: Challenging the big brand first paradigm
The findings of the analysis have aforementioned implications on brand communication – a ‘fix your food/ingredient issues’ but
‘trumpet your inherent virtues (taste, variety, convenience)’ conclusion. They also have potential implications on portfolio
management strategy that may run counter to the big-brand silo cultures that are inherent in many established CPG companies.
‐Affordable‐Consistent‐Easy to find‐One that reminds me of my childhood
‐A brand not many people know of‐Expensive‐For me/my lifestyle‐Fresh‐Good tasting‐Less processed‐Made by a manufacturer I trust‐Natural‐One I recommend to friends/family‐One of my favorites‐Organic‐Safe for me/my family‐Trendy‐Unique
GROWTHLOYALTY
SCALE
‐Convenient‐Good variety
‐Good value
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 14
The modern day brand management structure of the CPG industry emerged as early as 1931 with implementation at P&G. It took
nearly three decades to spread throughout the industry but is now commonplace. Most established CPG companies have now
organized their marketing functions around and allocated resources against their stable of priority brands. The best talent and most
resources generally gravitate to or are assigned to the priority brands, which most often correlate with the largest brands. The focus
of both the people and resources is generally to drive growth. The aforementioned analysis, however, suggests that these brands
may inherently lack the attributes requisite to achieve the growth and that these resources may be more effective if directed toward
small or newer brands that can carve out a growth “niche”. The implicit portfolio strategy of managing large incumbent brands for
stability and cash and nurturing small or new brands for growth may seem obvious, but it is both uncommon and conflicting with
common food company culture. The evidence of this can be found at retail. Major food companies arguably have an advantage in
developing and commercializing the next rising brand in Food, but too few have found success on this front and instead have turned
to M&A to fill their portfolio holes (often with mixed results). It is time for big brands to embrace a small brand mindset, in our view.
The leaders and the laggards: MDLZ & Nestle set examples; KHC & CPB lag
Based on the realities of recent trends and analysis of underlying drivers, we believe that category fragmentation, the shrinking of
big brands and the growth of small brands is likely to continue. The evidence, however, suggests that this does not need to be a
universal trend or translate into big companies lagging even if their big brands are no longer driving the growth. In short, we see
some better positioned than others based on both their existing stable of brands and actions on both brand investment and
portfolio management. We screen our coverage universe for the following in effort to gauge the likelihood of future success as the
Millennial generation graduates to its core food at home consumption life-stage:
Brands with an already demonstrable affinity among Millennials.
A consistent track record and pattern of brand investment.
A flexible portfolio approach that demonstrates willingness and ability to invest and execute behind large and small brands
alike, often with an effort of driving premiumization within their categories.
Based on these attributes, we highlight the following leaders and laggards we believe are better or worse positioned to capture the
Millennial growth opportunity.
The leaders who appear better positioned:
MDLZ:
Broadly aligned with snack food preferences. Broadly speaking, snack food category growth has consistently outpaced
traditional packaged food growth over the past decade. With eight of the top 20 favorite Millennial Foodie Influencer brands
being snack brands, we generally expect this trend to continue.
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 15
MDLZ’s big brands resonate with Millennials. This is evidenced by the measured consumer affinity for its brands. Oreo,
for example, was the top ranking cookie brand among Millennial Foodie Influencer favorites in our survey (ranking 83 spots
above K’s Keebler brand and 37 spots above CPB’s Pepperidge Farm).
MDLZ demonstrates an embracement of a small brand mindset. Two brands in particular showcase this mindset:
Belvita and Vea. Belvita, which was launched in North America in 2012 and ranks among some of the youngest US brands
in our survey, is considered a favorite among 30% of millennials and ranked higher than traditional breakfast/snack bars
such as Nature Valley or Nutri-Grain. It has resonated with millennial consumers in particular for being “convenient”,
“consistent”, “good tasting” and “for me/my lifestyle”. MDLZ has supported this brand with various TV and media
campaigns. It is now seeking to replicate this success with the launch of another new brand – Vea. Vea is launching in the
US this July with a line of premium priced crackers featuring on-trend health attributes (e.g., Non-GMO Project Verified, no
artificial ingredients, colors or flavors) with a variety of ethnic rooted flavors (e.g., Thai Coconut, Tuscan Herbs, Greek
Hummus). Its efforts demonstrate a balance of both nurturing its core brands while investing in new growth equities.
A consistent brand investment pattern that stands out among peers. Advertising and promotion curtailment in the
Food industry has been commonplace over the past five years – since 2011, the percent of sales reinvested in A&P has
fallen from 5.7% to 5% in 2016. This compares to a modest increase from 5.2% of sales at MDLZ to 5.4% in 2016 (we expect
that measure to rise to 5.8% by FY18).
Nestle:
Advantaged positions in majority of categories. Starting in coffee, Nespresso ranked as the #1 coffee brand for our
survey for both the national sample set and Millennial Foodie Influencers. The brand also ranked as #1 overall (out of 172
brands) for the national sample set (with 68% of those surveyed ranking it as a favorite). Compared to Starbucks, which
placed #2 in coffee, Nespresso was ranked higher by the national survey sample for key growth beverage attributes such as
“good tasting”, “innovative” and “unique”. Starbucks, however, was rated higher for “easy to find” (38% of the national
set and 46% of Millennial Foodie Influencers said Starbucks was “easy to find” vs. 6%/7% for Nespresso) which reflects
Nespresso remaining exclusive to DTC online sales and Nespresso stores but suggests the brand could benefit from
broader distribution without diluting the premium attributes of the brand. In water, Nestle held the top 3 spots for the
national sample set and the #1 and #2 spots for Millennial Foodie Influencers. San Pellegrino impressively ranked #1 in the
survey overall for Millennial Foodie Influencers and #2 for the national sample set while Poland Spring tied as the #5
favorite brand for Millennial Foodie Influencers. Nestle also held superior positions in frozen meals, with Stouffer’s ranking
as the favorite brand for the national sample set and DiGiorno ranking as the 2nd favorite among Millennial Foodie
Influencers. For the national survey pool, Lean Cuisine ranked as the superior “better-for-you” frozen entrée brand (and 30th
favorite overall) above KHC’s Weight Watchers (86th) and CAG’s Healthy Choice (118th). This positioning in Frozen is notable
given the category returned to growth for Nestle in 2016 having been in decline in 2015.
Opportunity awaits for these big brands. In beverage enhancers, Nestle’s Coffee-Mate ranked #2, behind WhiteWave’s
International Delight. Despite its relative ranking to a direct competitor, the brand ranked 21st overall for Millennial Foodie
Influencers’ favorite brands, just shy of our top 20 list (International Delight ranked 14th). In ice cream, Nestle’s brands
ranked inferior to Ben & Jerry’s (Ben & Jerry’s was the 27th overall favorite brand for Millennial Foodie Influencers
compared to Haagen-Dazs 46th and Dreyer’s/Edy’s 119th). Nestle’s brands, however, outranked Ben & Jerry’s for “one that
reminds me of my childhood” which suggests Nestle could have some success by embracing the nostalgic attributes of its
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 16
brands. 81% of Millennial Foodie Influencers said Haagen-Dazs was “good tasting” (compared to 64% for Ben & Jerry’s)
and 31% would recommend the brand to friends and family (compared to 12% for Ben & Jerry’s).
The laggards who appear less well positioned:
KHC:
Relative disadvantage with value-focused brands. KHC’s portfolio has a relative disadvantage in our survey affinity
ranking for both the national sample met and Millennial Foodie Influencers: Starbucks/premium coffee > Maxwell House;
Planters lags in snacking; Hillshire Farm & Ball Park > Oscar Mayer; Crystal Light and Country Time lag in beverages;
Cracker Barrel Cheese was the only KHC brand to show up in either top 20 favorite lists (out of the 16 KHC brands that were
included in the survey). Out of the 5 coffee brands we surveyed, Maxwell House came in last place in coffee for the overall
sample with only 38% of the national sample set ranking it as a favorite (vs. Starbucks 57%). KHC’s brands comprised our
entire sample set for cheese brands (including Cracker Barrel Cheese, Kraft Singles and Velveeta). Although the relative
rankings for Kraft Singles and Velveeta were uninspiring (neither breaking the top 50 favorite brands for either sample set),
Cracker Barrel Cheese ranked as the 15th most favorite brand for the national sample set with 50% of those surveyed
considering it to be a favorite. In frozen meals, KHC’s Weight Watchers brand ranked below Nestle’s Lean Cuisine and
received low overall attribute ratings.
Cost discipline a likely impediment to brand building. KHC’s focus on price discipline, cost cuts and synergy realization
resulted in low brand investment (in fact, the lowest out of food peers). A&P as a % of sales averaged 2.5% from 2014-2016.
We believe management’s intense focus on scale and cost efficiency is a likely impediment to the natural inefficiencies that
can result from a more fragmented portfolio of smaller brands. In order to add complexity to the portfolio, which usually
results in increased costs, KHC may need to reevaluate its low brand investment.
CPB:
Inferior positioning in its categories. CPB’s flagship Campbell’s soup brand ranked below GIS’s Progresso for Millennial
Foodie Influencers. Core sauce brand Prego ranked 97th among Millennial Foodie Influencers’ favorite brands while it ranked
145th for the national sample set. Bolthouse Farms, which was once slated to be the growth engine for the Campbell Fresh
division, ranked below the struggling V8 brand. V8’s relative ranking (3rd for Millennial Foodie Influencers in the juice
category) was surprising to us as 46% of Millennial Foodie Influencers ranked the brand a favorite (compared to 42% for
Bolthouse Farms). The attribute data, however, was less encouraging with both brands receiving low overall rankings for
key beverage attributes. “Good tasting” was identified as a leading indicator to achieve both growth and scale in the
beverage category. CPB’s beverage brands ranked significantly below its key competitors for Millennial Foodie Influencers
(25%/33% selected “good tasting” as an attribute for V8/Bolthouse Farms vs. Simply Orange 76%, Bai 70%, Tropicana 52%).
Cutting ad spend. Advertising and promotion spend as a % of sales for CPB has declined from 6.4% in 2011 to 5% in 2016
while overall marketing and selling expenses as a % of sales went from 13% in 2011 to 10.6% in 2016. While we
acknowledge that not all marketing and promotion spend is effective and profitable, we also recognize the need for
manufacturers to nurture businesses and recent levels show CPB pulling back.
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 17
HSY:
HSY’s investment behind its brands has been at the top of its peer group (average 7.6% A&P as a % of sales from 2014-
2016). However, both measured results and survey results suggest the company’s portfolio is not resonating with current
trends, namely, the shift to premiumization in the chocolate category. Only 48% of millennials ranked Reese’s as one of
their favorites compared to Ferrero Rocher and Mars’ Dove which 60%/56% of Millennial Foodie Influencers ranked as their
favorites. The lack of premium products in HSY’s portfolio signals potential growth challenges in the future.
HSY’s acquired brand, Krave, for example, also did not rank well in our survey among Millennial Foodie Influencers
(ranking among the bottom 20 for the most purchased brands in the past 6 months and in the bottom 20 for brands which
people consider to be their favorites).
Exhibit 19: Ratings, price targets, methodologies, and risks
Source: FactSet, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Why this trend is here to stay: Venture propels small brands
Venture/private equity in food & non-alcoholic beverage
In addition to lower barriers to entry, one could also argue that the recent rise of small brands has been facilitated by improved
access to capital. Since 2014, more than $12.7 bn of new funds have been injected into small, up-and-coming food and beverage
Ticker Rating Methodology Price: 6/9/2017
Target Price (12mo)
Upside / Downside
KHC Buy FNTM 24x P/E & 16x EV/EBITDA* 90.83 94 2.4%
MDLZ Buy** Equal weighted FNTM 22x P/E & 15.5x EV/EBITDA (85%); 17X M&A EV/EBITDA (15%) 45.62 53 15.3%
NESN.S
Buy
50% by applying a P/E of 16.7x to our 2020 forecasts and50% by applying a P/E of 20.7x to our 2020 ‘change’ case (both
discountedback to December 2018)
SFr 80.95 SFr 81 0.1%
CPBNeutral FNTM 18x P/E & 12x EV/EBITDA* 56.54 59 4.0%
HSY Neutral FNTM 21x P/E & 13x EV/EBITDA* 114.02 109 -4.4%Notes:
*Denotes 50%/50% weighting to price target**On the Americas Conviction List
Risks
Integration challenges; executional missteps; greater-than-expected sales shortfalls at legacy Kraft; FX & commodity price volatility.
Worse core category growth, innovation success, cost & FX volatility, strategic actions
(1) Weaker-than-expected cost savings; (2) higher than-expected cost saving reinvestment; (3) weaker-than-expected organic sales growth; (4) lower-thanexpected or value-destructive cash use; and (5) adverse FX moves.
Better/worse productivity realization, input cost relief, innovation success, strategic activity
More/less favorable input costs, demand growth, strategic actions
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 18
brands across the globe (both private equity and venture rounds and including e-commerce). Funding since 2014 makes up 83% of
all funding rounds since 2009 (which total close to $15.5 bn). 29% of the funding since 2014 supported companies based in the
United States (with the vast majority of those based in California, followed by New York and Texas).
Funding levels during 2014-2016 increased 455% compared to 2011-2013 levels. Given the lack of organic growth in the space and
the success of new, smaller brands, we are not surprised to see a recent uptick in funding. The spike in 2014 and 2015, however,
came from large private equity inflows for a few deals (ex. Weetabix receiving funding of $764 mn in 2015 and Agropur receiving
funding of $470 mn in 2014). In 2016 funding levels fell back closer to pre-2014 levels. On the forward, we expect funding to
accelerate, as 2017 funding year-to-date is outpacing prior years (funding YTD of $1.4 bn vs. the same period for 2016 of $1.1 bn).
Newer start-ups (those founded in 2010 or later) received 52% of new funds from 2014-2017. E-commerce companies obtained 50%
of new funding since 2014 (48% of new funding since 2009) while mobile commerce received 14% of new funding since 2014 (12%
of new funding since 2009). A lot of the new funding over the past few years has been flowing into a few key “buckets”, including
non-alcoholic beverages, e-commerce, mobile commerce, protein-based food and free-from products. We have highlighted a
number of deals in these categories in Exhibit 26.
Exhibit 20: The Global Venture Landscape: Food and Non-alcoholic Beverage, including e-commerce $ mn (lt. axis), # of deals (rt. axis)
Source: CB Insights, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 YTD2017
Funding amount $ (LHS) Number of deals (RHS)
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 19
Exhibit 21: More than 57% of venture funding is coming from early stage
(Angel, Seed, Series A, Series B and Series C funding) Food & bev (including e-comm) venture funding amount in $ mn by stage
Exhibit 22: Average deal size has been on the rise in recent years
Average and median deal size in $ mn for food and beverage companies
Source: CB Insights, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Source: CB Insights, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Exhibit 23: US and China lead new funding since 2009
% of new funding since 2009 by country for food and non-alcoholic beverage
Exhibit 24: By subsector, e-commerce has received the majority of share of
funding % of funding by subsector
Source: CB Insights, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Source: CB Insights, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
‐
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 YTD2017
Angel Seed Series A Series B Series C Series D+ Growth equity
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
05
101520253035404550
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 YTD2017
Average deal size (LHS) Median deal size (RHS)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 YTD2017
% of total fu
nding
E‐commerce Mobile commerce
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 20
Exhibit 25: Highlighting emerging companies; start-up funding for companies founded after 2010 with more than $75 mn Year founded (LHS) and total funding amount $ mn (RHS); total funding above $75 mn
Source: CB Insights, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
‐ 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Flagstone FoodsMasan Nutri‐SciencePicnic
MissFreshSwiggyThrive Market
DeliverooDoorDashJuicero
Benlai Life
Blue Apron foodpanda InstacartPlated
Suja Life
BigBasket
Hampton Creek
HelloFresh
iFood Munchery
Woowa Brothers
Valeo Foods
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 21
Exhibit 26: Key PE/VC investments in food and beverage categories Total funding/amount by round in $ mn; includes deals with total known funding of over $10 mn
Source: CB Insights, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Company Company description RoundDate of funding
Year founded
AmountTotal Funding
Country City
Soylent Maker of nutritional meal‐replacement drinks and reduces environmental impact. Series B 5/4/2017 2013 $50 $72 United States Los Angeles
Juicero The first home cold‐pressed juicing system. Series B 3/31/2016 2013 $70 $100 United States Lafayette
Blue Bottle Coffee Small network of cafes, wholesale partners, an espresso cart, a coffee kiosk, and vintage German coffee roasters. Series C 6/5/2015 2002 $70 $116 United States Oakland
Suja Life Handcrafted lines of cold‐pressured juices Series C 12/1/2014 2012 $20 $196 United States San Diego
All Market All Market is the manufacturter of Vita Coco Coconut Water. Series D 5/24/2012 2012 $11 $208 United States New York
Joint Juice Ready‐to‐drink glucosamine supplement that builds stronger bone cartilage and lubricates joints. Series E 10/25/2011 1999 $73 $124 United States San Francisco
HelloFresh Global provider of fresh food at home via its soft subscription model business. Series G 12/20/2016 2011 $89 $367 Germany Berlin
Yiguo Ego is a Chinese online fresh‐food eCommerce platform. Series C ‐ II 11/9/2016 2005 $200 $200 China Shanghai
Deliveroo End‐to‐end food delivery service that brings high‐quality local restaurant food to homes and offices. Series E 8/5/2016 2013 $275 $475 United Kingdom London
BigBasket Online grocery store. Series D 3/22/2016 2011 $150 $253 India Bengaluru
DoorDash On‐demand delivery service that connects customers with local businesses. Series C 3/22/2016 2013 $127 $187 United States San Francisco
Womai Sells imported products from overseas markets directly to Chinese consumers. Series C 10/12/2015 2008 $220 $320 China Beijing
Ele.me China‐based online food ordering site. Website and apps enable users to search for restaurants nearby. Series F 8/27/2015 2008 $630 $2,335 China Shanghai
Blue Apron Once‐a‐week subscription service, delivering all the fresh ingredients needed to make 3 meals. Series D 6/9/2015 2012 $135 $193 United States Brooklyn
NatureBox Allows consumers to discover new & healthy foods through a monthly subscription service. Series C 5/5/2015 2012 $30 $59 United States San Carlos
Delivery Hero Online food ordering and delivery sites. More than 150,000 restaurants are connected to its service. Series H 6/8/2015 2011 $110 $1,753 Germany Berlin
Picnic App to place orders, and suppliers then deliver the goods to a central distribution center run by Picnic. Series B 3/28/2017 2015 $109 $109 Netherlands
Instacart Mobile app that allows users to shop for groceries directly from a phone. Series D 3/8/2017 2012 $400 $675 United States San Francisco
MissFresh Fresh produce e‐commerce mobile application which enables users to order fresh produce and get it delivered. Series C 1/23/2017 2014 $100 $177 China Beijing
Meicai Mobile e‐vendor of agricultural products, which serves tens of thousands of restaurants in China. Series D 6/22/2016 2014 $200 $200 China Beijing
Masan Nutri‐Science Fully‐integrated branded meat platform, focused on driving productivity in Vietnam's animal protein industry. Private Equity 4/3/2017 2015 $150 $150 Vietnam Ho Chi Minh City
Icelandic Provisions Brand of Traditional Icelandic Skyr which is packed with more protein than yogurt. Series B 1/24/2017 2015 $9 $20 United States New York
Beyond Meat Offers a plant protein that looks, feels, tastes, and acts like meat. Series F 10/10/2016 2009 $23 $40 United States El Segundo
Hampton Creek 100% vegan, cholesterol and gluten free, egg substitute. Series D 7/29/2015 2011 $120 $240 United States San Francisco
The Chia Company Producer of Chia, a plant based source of omega 3, fiber and protein with a fully traceable global supply chain. Series B 5/27/2015 2003 $6 $28 Australia Port Melbourne
COFCO Meat Engaged in feedstuff processing, livestock and poultry breeding, slaughtering, processing, and more. Private Equity 6/6/2014 2002 $270 $270 China Beijing
Justin's Manufacturer of almond butter snacks including nut butters and candy bars. Private Equity 10/17/2013 2004 $47 $48 United States Boulder
Rhythm Superfoods Develops nutrient‐rich, delicious, raw, vegan, gluten‐free, no cholesterol and non‐GMO foods. Series D 1/18/2017 2009 $6 $17 United States Austin
Kite Hill Maker of non‐dairy cheese. Series A 5/20/2016 2013 $18 $25 United States Hayward
Non‐alcoholic beverages
Mobile commerce
Protein‐based
Free‐from
E‐commerce
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 22
Appendix
Love List Rankings
Exhibit 27: Beverage occasion relative ranking of brands within categories **brands with no data or ranking are brands where less than 10 people answered survey
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Category OccasionRank within sub‐
category for national sample set
Rank within sub‐category for Millennial Foodie
Influencers
Overall favorite rank for national sample
set
Overall favorite rank for Millennial Foodie
InfluencersBeverage OccasionInternational Delight Beverage enhancer Beverage 1 1 32 14Coffee‐Mate Beverage enhancer Beverage 2 2 42 21Crystal Light Beverage enhancer Beverage 3 133Minute Maid Beverage enhancer Beverage 4 3 141 107Country Time Beverage enhancer Beverage 5 4 153 113Nespresso Coffee/hot chocolate Beverage 1 1 1 5Starbucks Coffee/hot chocolate Beverage 2 1 3 5Folgers Coffee/hot chocolate Beverage 3 3 8 83Peet's Coffee Coffee/hot chocolate Beverage 4 10Maxwell House Coffee/hot chocolate Beverage 5 89Swiss Miss Coffee/hot chocolate Beverage 6 4 159 123Simply Orange Juice Beverage 1 1 13 23Tropicana Juice Beverage 2 7 37 63V8 Juice Beverage 3 3 39 37Bolthouse Farms Juice Beverage 4 5 67 51Odwalla Juice Beverage 5 91Bai Juice Beverage 6 6 96 58Naked Juice Beverage 7 4 123 40Gatorade Juice Beverage 8 2 148 28Powerade Juice Beverage 9 8 154 105Horizon Organic Milk Beverage 1 2 24 48So Delicious Milk Beverage 2 38Silk Milk Beverage 3 1 53 43Coca‐Cola Soda Beverage 1 1 5 13Pepsi Soda Beverage 2 2 43 57Lipton Tea Beverage 1 1 52 55Honest Tea Tea Beverage 2 2 136 69Nestea Tea Beverage 3 3 164 129San Pellegrino Water/enhanced water Beverage 1 1 2 1Perrier Water/enhanced water Beverage 2 6 31 119Poland Spring Water/enhanced water Beverage 3 2 34 5Smart Water Water/enhanced water Beverage 4 3 63 29Vitamin Water Water/enhanced water Beverage 5 5 71 63Dasani Water/enhanced water Beverage 6 4 151 48Aquafina Water/enhanced water Beverage 7 7 155 125
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 23
Exhibit 28: Breakfast occasion relative ranking of brands within categories **brands with no data or ranking are brands where less than 10 people answered survey
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Exhibit 29: Condiment/dressing occasion relative ranking of brands within categories **brands with no data or ranking are brands where less than 10 people answered survey
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Category OccasionRank within sub‐
category for national sample set
Rank within sub‐category for Millennial Foodie
Influencers
Overall favorite rank for national sample
set
Overall favorite rank for Millennial Foodie
InfluencersBreakfast OccasionSpecial K Cereal/granola Breakfast 1 2 17 29Kashi Cereal/granola Breakfast 2 1 25 14Cheerios Cereal/granola Breakfast 3 3 45 33Quaker Cereal/granola Breakfast 4 4 62 51Bear Naked Cereal/granola Breakfast 5 5 115 69Cascadian Farm Cereal/granola Breakfast 6 132Chex Cereal/granola Breakfast 7 6 135 81Noosa Yogurt Breakfast 1 2 6 10Fage Yogurt Breakfast 2 3 9 20Yoplait Yogurt Breakfast 3 1 19 5Siggi's Yogurt Breakfast 4 21Chobani Yogurt Breakfast 5 4 29 36Dannon Yogurt Breakfast 6 5 130 83Oikos Yogurt Breakfast 7 6 138 96
Category OccasionRank within sub‐
category for national sample set
Rank within sub‐category for Millennial Foodie
Influencers
Overall favorite rank for national sample
set
Overall favorite rank for Millennial Foodie
InfluencersCondiment/dressing OccasionHellmann's or Best Foods Dairy/spread Condiment/dressing 1 4 36 101Land O'Lakes Dairy/spread Condiment/dressing 2 3 40 94Miracle Whip Dairy/spread Condiment/dressing 3 1 69 23Philadelphia Dairy/spread Condiment/dressing 4 6 84 112Breakstone's Dairy/spread Condiment/dressing 5 121I Can't Believe It's Not Butter Dairy/spread Condiment/dressing 6 5 125 110Country Crock Dairy/spread Condiment/dressing 7 2 127 37Reddi‐Wip Dairy/spread Condiment/dressing 8 146PAM Dairy/spread Condiment/dressing 9 7 156 117Hidden Valley Salad dressing Condiment/dressing 1 1 117 108Wish‐Bone Salad dressing Condiment/dressing 2 137Sabra Sauce/salsa Condiment/dressing 1 1 64 46Pace Sauce/salsa Condiment/dressing 2 65Prego Sauce/salsa Condiment/dressing 3 2 145 97Knorr Meal enhancer Condiment/dressing 1 1 90 45Old El Paso Meal enhancer Condiment/dressing 2 2 143 122
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 24
Exhibit 30: Lunch/dinner occasion relative ranking of brands within categories **brands with no data or ranking are brands where less than 10 people answered survey
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Category OccasionRank within sub‐
category for national sample set
Rank within sub‐category for Millennial Foodie
Influencers
Overall favorite rank for national sample
set
Overall favorite rank for Millennial Foodie
InfluencersLunch/dinner OccasionBush's Beans Canned and frozen vegetables Lunch/dinner 1 1 26 63Green Giant Canned and frozen vegetables Lunch/dinner 2 2 66 90Ore‐Ida Canned and frozen vegetables Lunch/dinner 3 3 79 98Hunt's Canned and frozen vegetables Lunch/dinner 4 4 168 119Cracker Barrel Cheese Cheese Lunch/dinner 1 1 15 72Kraft Singles Cheese Lunch/dinner 2 2 103 83Velveeta Cheese Lunch/dinner 3 2 113 83Annie's Homegrown Dry meals Lunch/dinner 1 1 32 23Kraft Mac and Cheese Dry meals Lunch/dinner 2 2 49 72Back to Nature Meals Dry meals Lunch/dinner 3 170Stouffer's Frozen meals Lunch/dinner 1 6 12 63Amy's Frozen meals Lunch/dinner 2 5 23 56Lean Cuisine Frozen meals Lunch/dinner 3 8 30 83MorningStar Farms Frozen meals Lunch/dinner 4 3 48 33Birds Eye Frozen meals Lunch/dinner 5 10 70 135DiGiorno Frozen meals Lunch/dinner 6 2 81 32Weight Watchers Frozen meals Lunch/dinner 7 86P.F. Chang's Frozen meals Lunch/dinner 8 91Bertolli Frozen Frozen meals Lunch/dinner 9 1 98 5Marie Callender's Frozen meals Lunch/dinner 10 9 107 116Healthy Choice Frozen meals Lunch/dinner 11 7 118 76Hot Pockets Frozen meals Lunch/dinner 12 4 142 44Banquet Frozen meals Lunch/dinner 13 149Udi's Gluten Free Lunch/dinner 1 51Glutino Gluten Free Lunch/dinner 2 100Boar's Head Meat Lunch/dinner 1 1 11 75Nathan's Famous Meat Lunch/dinner 2 56Hebrew National Meat Lunch/dinner 3 2 59 76Tyson Meat Lunch/dinner 4 4 102 114Jimmy Dean Meat Lunch/dinner 5 2 105 76Hillshire Farm Meat Lunch/dinner 6 6 111 127Jennie‐O Meat Lunch/dinner 7 116Ball Park Meat Lunch/dinner 8 147Oscar Mayer Meat Lunch/dinner 9 5 152 115Hormel Meat Lunch/dinner 10 162Skippy Nut butter/jam/jelly Lunch/dinner 1 4 46 105Smucker's Nut butter/jam/jelly Lunch/dinner 2 2 68 91Welch's Nut butter/jam/jelly Lunch/dinner 3 3 72 98Justin's Nut Butters Nut butter/jam/jelly Lunch/dinner 4 1 73 12Campbell's Soup Lunch/dinner 1 2 101 110Progresso Soup Lunch/dinner 2 1 104 69Swanson Soup Lunch/dinner 3 166
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 25
Exhibit 31: Snack occasion relative ranking of brands within categories **brands with no data or ranking are brands where less than 10 people answered survey
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Category OccasionRank within sub‐
category for national sample set
Rank within sub‐category for Millennial Foodie
Influencers
Overall favorite rank for national sample
set
Overall favorite rank for Millennial Foodie
InfluencersSnack OccasionTate's Biscuit/cookie Snack 1 17Oreo Biscuit/cookie Snack 2 1 47 51Pepperidge Farm Biscuit/cookie Snack 3 2 55 88Snackwell's Biscuit/cookie Snack 4 58Keebler Biscuit/cookie Snack 5 5 88 134Belvita Biscuit/cookie Snack 6 3 95 98Famous Amos Biscuit/cookie Snack 7 157Newtons Biscuit/cookie Snack 8 4 160 123Duncan Hines Baking Snack 1 1 60 4Pillsbury Baking Snack 2 2 82 17Betty Crocker Baking Snack 3 3 110 104Hostess Baking Snack 4 4 161 133Haribo Candy Snack 1 1 114 3Sour Patch Candy Snack 2 2 122 76Swedish Fish Candy Snack 3 3 144 132Cape Cod Chips Snack 1 2 27 42Food Should Taste Good Chips Snack 2 34Stacy's Chips Snack 3 1 61 37Lay's Chips Snack 4 5 76 60Doritos Chips Snack 5 4 87 54Ruffles Chips Snack 6 6 109 63Tostitos Chips Snack 7 3 120 48Pringles Chips Snack 8 7 163 127Ghirardelli Chocolate Snack 1 8 14 89Hershey Chocolate Chocolate Snack 2 3 16 22Dove Chocolate Chocolate Snack 3 2 22 16M&M's Chocolate Snack 4 5 54 41Reese's Chocolate Snack 5 4 77 29Snickers Chocolate Snack 6 7 78 82Ferrero Rocher Chocolate Snack 7 1 97 11Brookside Chocolate Snack 8 6 119 76Cheez‐It Cracker Snack 1 1 41 19Triscuit Cracker Snack 2 3 50 129Ritz Cracker Snack 3 2 80 58Ben & Jerry's Ice cream Snack 1 1 4 27Haagen‐Dazs Ice cream Snack 2 2 20 46Dreyer's or Edy's Ice cream Snack 3 3 93 119Krave Meat Snack 1 129Slim Jim Meat Snack 2 150Sahale Snacks Nuts Snack 1 57Planters Nuts Snack 2 1 139 95Angie's Popcorn Snack 1 1 7 2Popcorn Indiana Popcorn Snack 2 73Smartfood Popcorn Snack 3 3 83 62Skinny Pop Popcorn Snack 4 2 85 61Orville Redenbacher's Popcorn Snack 5 4 131 102Kind Snack bar Snack 1 2 44 63Larabar Snack bar Snack 2 106Clif Snack bar Snack 3 1 124 18Pop Tarts Snack bar Snack 4 3 128 91Nature Valley Snack bar Snack 5 6 140 108Fiber One Snack bar Snack 6 3 158 91Nutri‐Grain Snack bar Snack 7 5 165 102
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 26
Day part roadmap: What it takes to win in breakfast, lunch/dinner, snacks, beverage etc.
We examined the similarities and differences of what drives growth, scale and loyalty for different eating occasions for the national
sample set. We grouped brands based on day part: breakfast, lunch/dinner, snacks, condiments/dressings and beverages.
Exhibit 32: What it takes to succeed in breakfast Brand attributes with positive correlation to GS-defined buckets of scale, growth
and loyalty for breakfast
Exhibit 33: Which brands straddle these buckets Top 5 ranked brands for aggregate of attributes by % for each GS-defined bucket
(ex. Fage appeared the most in the top 5 for the various growth attributes; it
“checks the most boxes” for the growth attributes); more than 5 listed for ties
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
‐Affordable‐Consistent‐Convenient‐Easy to find‐Good value‐Good variety
‐Made by a manufacturer I trust‐One that remainds me of my childhood‐Trusted
‐Expensive‐Fresh‐Good variety‐Innovative‐Less processed‐Made by a manufacturer I trust‐Made with clean ingredients‐One that reminds me of my childhood
‐Natural‐Organic‐Trendy ‐Unique‐Transparent about how it is produced‐A brand not many people know of‐One I recommend to friends/family
GROWTH
LOYALTY
SCALE
‐Cheerios‐Chex‐Dannon‐Quaker‐Special K
‐Chobani‐Bear Naked‐Fage‐Noosa‐Siggi's
GROWTH LOYALTY
SCALE
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 27
Exhibit 34: What it takes to succeed in lunch/dinner Brand attributes with positive correlation to GS-defined buckets of scale, growth
and loyalty for lunch/dinner
Exhibit 35: Which brands straddle these buckets Top 5 ranked brands for aggregate of attributes by % for each GS-defined bucket
(ex. Udi’s appeared the most in the top 5 for the various growth attributes; it
“checks the most boxes” for the growth attributes); more than 5 listed for ties
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
‐Affordable‐Consistent‐Easy to find‐Good value‐Good variety‐Made by a manufacturer I trust‐One that reminds me of my childhood
GROWTH
LOYALTY
SCALE
‐Good tasting‐Trusted
‐A brand not many people know of‐Expensive‐Fresh‐Innovative‐Less processed‐Made with clean ingredients‐Natural ‐One I recommend to friends/family
‐One of my favorites‐Organic‐Safe for me/my family‐Transparent about how it is produced‐Trendy‐Unique
‐Banquet‐Campbell's‐Hunt's‐Lean Cuisine‐Smucker's‐Stouffer's
‐Amy's‐Annie's Homegrown‐Back to Nature Meals‐Justin's Nut Butters‐Udi's
GROWTH LOYALTY
SCALE
‐Progresso
‐Cracker Barrel Cheese
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 28
Exhibit 36: What it takes to succeed in snacks Brand attributes with positive correlation to GS-defined buckets of scale, growth
and loyalty for snacks
Exhibit 37: Which brands straddle these buckets Top 5 ranked brands for aggregate of attributes by % for each GS-defined bucket
(ex. Clif appeared the most in the top 5 for the various growth attributes; it “checks
the most boxes” for the growth attributes); more than 5 listed for ties
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
‐One of my favorites
GROWTHLOYALTY
SCALE
‐Affordable‐Consistent‐Convenient‐Easy to find‐Good value‐Good variety
‐Made by a manufacturer I trust‐One that reminds me of my childhood‐Trusted
‐A brand not many people know of‐For me/my lifestyle‐Fresh‐Innovative‐Less processed‐Made with clean ingredients‐Natural
‐One I recommend to friends/family‐Organic‐Safe for me/my family‐Transparent about how it is produced‐Trendy‐Unique
‐Betty Crocker‐Duncan Hines‐Hershey Chocolate‐Keebler‐Pillsbury
‐Angie's‐Clif‐Food Should Taste Good‐Krave‐Larabar‐Sahale Snacks‐Skinny Pop
GROWTHLOYALTY
SCALE
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 29
Exhibit 38: What it takes to succeed in beverages Brand attributes with positive correlation to GS-defined buckets of scale, growth
and loyalty for beverages
Exhibit 39: Which brands straddle these buckets Top 5 ranked brands for aggregate of attributes by % for each GS-defined bucket
(ex. Silk appeared the most in the top 5 for the various growth attributes; it
“checks the most boxes” for the growth attributes); more than 5 listed for ties
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
GROWTH
LOYALTY
SCALE‐Affordable‐Consistent‐Convenient‐Easy to find‐Good value‐Made by a manufacturer I trust
‐One of my favorites‐One that reminds me of my childhood
‐A brand not many people know of‐Expensive‐For me/my lifestyle‐Good variety‐Innovative‐Less processed‐Made with clean ingredients‐Natural
‐One I recommend to friends/family‐Organic‐Safe for me/my family‐Transparent about how it is produced‐Trendy‐Unique
‐Goodtasting
‐Folgers‐Lipton‐Maxwell House‐Minute Maid‐Poland Spring‐Swiss Miss
‐Bolthouse Farms‐Naked‐Nespresso‐Odwalla‐Silk‐So Delicious
GROWTHLOYALTY
SCALE‐Starbucks
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 30
Exhibit 40: What it takes to succeed in condiments/dressings/sauces Brand attributes with positive correlation to GS-defined buckets of scale, growth
and loyalty for condiments/dressings/sauces
Exhibit 41: Which brands straddle these buckets Top 5 ranked brands for aggregate of attributes by % for each GS-defined bucket
(ex. Sabra appeared the most in the top 5 for the various growth attributes; it
“checks the most boxes” for the growth attributes); more than 5 listed for ties
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
Source: Conde Nast-Goldman Sachs Love List, The Nielsen Company, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
GROWTH
LOYALTY
SCALE
‐Convenient‐Easy to find‐Good variety‐Organic
‐Transparent about how it is produced‐Trendy
‐A brand not many people know of‐Less processed
‐Affordable‐Good value
‐Consistent‐Good tasting‐MAde by a manufacturer I trust‐One of my
favorites‐One that reminds me of my childhood‐Trusted
‐Expensive‐Fresh‐Made with clean ingredients‐Natural
‐Breakstone's‐Heinz Ketchup‐Pace
‐Prego‐Reddi Wip‐Sabra
GROWTH
LOYALTY
SCALE
‐Knorr
‐Land O'Lakes‐Philadelphia
‐Old El Paso
‐Hellmann's/Best Foods
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 31
Disclosure Appendix
Reg AC
We, Jason English, Mitch Collett, CFA, Dylann B. Katz and Vivek Srivastava, hereby certify that all of the views expressed in this report accurately reflect our personal views about the subject company
or companies and its or their securities. We also certify that no part of our compensation was, is or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations or views expressed in this
report.
Unless otherwise stated, the individuals listed on the cover page of this report are analysts in Goldman Sachs' Global Investment Research division.
GS Factor Profile
The Goldman Sachs Factor Profile provides investment context for a security by comparing key attributes of that security to its conviction sector and the market. The four key attributes depicted are:
growth, returns, multiple and an integrated IP score. Growth returns and multiple are indexed based on composites of several methodologies to determine the stocks percentile ranking within the
region's coverage universe. The precise calculation of each metric may vary depending on the fiscal year, industry and region but the standard approach is as follows:
Growth is a composite of next year's estimate over current year's estimate, e.g. EPS, EBITDA, Revenue. Return is a year one prospective aggregate of various return on capital measures, e.g. CROCI,
ROACE, and ROE. Multiple Multiple is a composite of one-year forward valuation ratios, e.g. P/E, dividend yield, EV/FCF, EV/EBITDA, EV/DACF, Price/Book. Integrated IP score is a composite of
Growth, Return and Multiple scores.
Quantum
Quantum is Goldman Sachs' proprietary database providing access to detailed financial statement histories, forecasts and ratios. It can be used for in-depth analysis of a single company, or to make
comparisons between companies in different sectors and markets.
GS SUSTAIN
GS SUSTAIN is a global investment strategy aimed at long-term, long-only performance with a low turnover of ideas. The GS SUSTAIN focus list includes leaders our analysis shows to be well
positioned to deliver long term outperformance through sustained competitive advantage and superior returns on capital relative to their global industry peers. Leaders are identified based on
quantifiable analysis of three aspects of corporate performance: cash return on cash invested, industry positioning and management quality (the effectiveness of companies' management of the
environmental, social and governance issues facing their industry).
Disclosures
Coverage group(s) of stocks by primary analyst(s)
Jason English: America-Food: Packaged & Manufacturing, America-Household Products/Personal Care. Mitch Collett, CFA: Europe-Beverages, Europe-Food.
America-Food: Packaged & Manufacturing: Amplify Snack Brands Inc., Campbell Soup Co., Conagra Brands Inc., General Mills Inc., Hershey Co., J. M. Smucker Co., Kellogg Co., Kraft Heinz Co., Mead
Johnson Nutrition Co., Mondelez International Inc., Pinnacle Foods Inc., Post Holdings.
America-Household Products/Personal Care: Church & Dwight Co., Clorox Co., Colgate-Palmolive Co., Edgewell Personal Care, Energizer Holdings, Estee Lauder Co., Freshpet Inc., Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
Procter & Gamble Co., Valvoline Inc..
Europe-Beverages: Anheuser-Busch InBev, Britvic Plc, Carlsberg, Coca-Cola HBC AG, Davide Campari, Diageo, Heineken, Pernod Ricard, Remy Cointreau.
Europe-Food: Agrana, Aryzta, Barry Callebaut, Chr Hansen, Danone, Kerry, Lindt & Sprungli, Nestle, Novozymes, Orkla ASA, Suedzucker AG, Tate & Lyle, Unilever, Unilever Plc.
Company-specific regulatory disclosures
The following disclosures relate to relationships between The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (with its affiliates, "Goldman Sachs") and companies covered by the Global Investment Research Division of
Goldman Sachs and referred to in this research.
Goldman Sachs has received compensation for investment banking services in the past 12 months: Campbell Soup Co. ($56.54), Kraft Heinz Co. ($90.83), Mondelez International Inc. ($45.62) and Nestle
(SFr80.95)
Goldman Sachs expects to receive or intends to seek compensation for investment banking services in the next 3 months: Campbell Soup Co. ($56.54), Hershey Co. ($114.02), Kraft Heinz Co. ($90.83),
Mondelez International Inc. ($45.62) and Nestle (SFr80.95)
Goldman Sachs had an investment banking services client relationship during the past 12 months with: Campbell Soup Co. ($56.54), Kraft Heinz Co. ($90.83), Mondelez International Inc. ($45.62) and
Nestle (SFr80.95)
Goldman Sachs had a non-investment banking securities-related services client relationship during the past 12 months with: Campbell Soup Co. ($56.54), Kraft Heinz Co. ($90.83) and Nestle (SFr80.95)
Goldman Sachs had a non-securities services client relationship during the past 12 months with: Campbell Soup Co. ($56.54), Hershey Co. ($114.02), Kraft Heinz Co. ($90.83), Mondelez International Inc.
($45.62) and Nestle (SFr80.95)
Goldman Sachs makes a market in the securities or derivatives thereof: Campbell Soup Co. ($56.54), Hershey Co. ($114.02), Kraft Heinz Co. ($90.83) and Mondelez International Inc. ($45.62)
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 32
Distribution of ratings/investment banking relationships
Goldman Sachs Investment Research global Equity coverage universe
Rating Distribution Investment Banking Relationships
Buy Hold Sell Buy Hold Sell
Global 33% 53% 14% 63% 57% 50%
As of April 1, 2017, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research had investment ratings on 2,857 equity securities. Goldman Sachs assigns stocks as Buys and Sells on various regional Investment
Lists; stocks not so assigned are deemed Neutral. Such assignments equate to Buy, Hold and Sell for the purposes of the above disclosure required by the FINRA Rules. See 'Ratings, Coverage groups
and views and related definitions' below. The Investment Banking Relationships chart reflects the percentage of subject companies within each rating category for whom Goldman Sachs has provided
investment banking services within the previous twelve months.
Price target and rating history chart(s)
70 7170
6564
5960
59
61.5
6763
6160
66
6465
90 82 81
350370390410430450470490510530550
505560657075808590
Nestle (NESN.S)
Goldman Sachs rating and stock price target history
Stock Price Currency : Sw iss Franc
Source: Goldman Sachs Investment Research for ratings and price targets; FactSet closing prices as of 3/31/2017.
The price targets show n should be considered in the context of all prior published Goldman Sachs research, which may or may not have included price targets, as w ell as developments relating to the company, its industry and financial markets.
Rating
Price target
Price target at removal
Covered by Mitch Collett, CFA
Not covered by current analyst
FTSE World Europe (GBP)
Inde
xPr
ice
Stoc
kPric
e Dec 2 Sep 13N S
MB
J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M2014 2015 2016 2017
41 3937
36
35 41 38 40 4547
50 62
6162
68
66
59
61
6063
1,800
1,900
2,000
2,100
2,200
2,300
2,400
303540455055606570
Campbell Soup Co. (CPB)
Goldman Sachs rating and stock price target history
Stock Price Currency : U.S. Dollar
Source: Goldman Sachs Investment Research for ratings and price targets; FactSet closing prices as of 3/31/2017.
The price targets show n should be considered in the context of all prior published Goldman Sachs research, which may or may not have included price targets, as w ell as developments relating to the company, its industry and financial markets.
Rating
Price target
Price target at removal
Covered by Jason English
Not covered by current analyst
S&P 500
Inde
xPr
ice
Stoc
kPric
e Jul 14 Feb 28N S
MN
J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M2014 2015 2016 2017
909189
107
106
101
92 9392
9394
89
99
110
106
101 105107
1,800
1,900
2,000
2,100
2,200
2,300
2,400
80859095
100105110115120
Hershey Co. (HSY)
Goldman Sachs rating and stock price target history
Stock Price Currency : U.S. Dollar
Source: Goldman Sachs Investment Research for ratings and price targets; FactSet closing prices as of 3/31/2017.
The price targets show n should be considered in the context of all prior published Goldman Sachs research, which may or may not have included price targets, as w ell as developments relating to the company, its industry and financial markets.
Rating
Price target
Price target at removal
Covered by Jason English
Not covered by current analyst
S&P 500
Index
Price
Stoc
kPric
e
Apr 1, 2014 N
Apr 8 Jan 15S
MN
J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M2014 2015 2016 2017
605955
5473
72
7393
91
8382 83 84
89
9398
100
9894
95
1,800
1,900
2,000
2,100
2,200
2,300
2,400
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Kraft Heinz Co. (KHC)
Goldman Sachs rating and stock price target history
Stock Price Currency : U.S. Dollar
Source: Goldman Sachs Investment Research for ratings and price targets; FactSet closing prices as of 3/31/2017.
The price targets show n should be considered in the context of all prior published Goldman Sachs research, which may or may not have included price targets, as w ell as developments relating to the company, its industry and financial markets.
Rating
Price target
Price target at removal
Covered by Jason English
Not covered by current analyst
S&P 500
Index
Price
Stoc
kPric
e Jan 15N
MB
J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M2014 2015 2016 2017
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 33
Regulatory disclosures
Disclosures required by United States laws and regulations
See company-specific regulatory disclosures above for any of the following disclosures required as to companies referred to in this report: manager or co-manager in a pending transaction; 1% or
other ownership; compensation for certain services; types of client relationships; managed/co-managed public offerings in prior periods; directorships; for equity securities, market making and/or
specialist role. Goldman Sachs trades or may trade as a principal in debt securities (or in related derivatives) of issuers discussed in this report.
The following are additional required disclosures: Ownership and material conflicts of interest: Goldman Sachs policy prohibits its analysts, professionals reporting to analysts and members of their
households from owning securities of any company in the analyst's area of coverage. Analyst compensation: Analysts are paid in part based on the profitability of Goldman Sachs, which includes
investment banking revenues. Analyst as officer or director: Goldman Sachs policy prohibits its analysts, persons reporting to analysts or members of their households from serving as an officer,
director, advisory board member or employee of any company in the analyst's area of coverage. Non-U.S. Analysts: Non-U.S. analysts may not be associated persons of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and
therefore may not be subject to FINRA Rule 2241 or FINRA Rule 2242 restrictions on communications with subject company, public appearances and trading securities held by the analysts.
Distribution of ratings: See the distribution of ratings disclosure above. Price chart: See the price chart, with changes of ratings and price targets in prior periods, above, or, if electronic format or if
with respect to multiple companies which are the subject of this report, on the Goldman Sachs website at http://www.gs.com/research/hedge.html.
Additional disclosures required under the laws and regulations of jurisdictions other than the United States
The following disclosures are those required by the jurisdiction indicated, except to the extent already made above pursuant to United States laws and regulations. Australia: Goldman Sachs Australia
Pty Ltd and its affiliates are not authorised deposit-taking institutions (as that term is defined in the Banking Act 1959 (Cth)) in Australia and do not provide banking services, nor carry on a banking
business, in Australia. This research, and any access to it, is intended only for "wholesale clients" within the meaning of the Australian Corporations Act, unless otherwise agreed by Goldman Sachs. In
producing research reports, members of the Global Investment Research Division of Goldman Sachs Australia may attend site visits and other meetings hosted by the issuers the subject of its research
reports. In some instances the costs of such site visits or meetings may be met in part or in whole by the issuers concerned if Goldman Sachs Australia considers it is appropriate and reasonable in the
specific circumstances relating to the site visit or meeting. Brazil: Disclosure information in relation to CVM Instruction 483 is available at http://www.gs.com/worldwide/brazil/area/gir/index.html.
Where applicable, the Brazil-registered analyst primarily responsible for the content of this research report, as defined in Article 16 of CVM Instruction 483, is the first author named at the beginning of
this report, unless indicated otherwise at the end of the text. Canada: Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. is an affiliate of The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and therefore is included in the company specific
disclosures relating to Goldman Sachs (as defined above). Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. has approved of, and agreed to take responsibility for, this research report in Canada if and to the extent that
Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. disseminates this research report to its clients. Hong Kong: Further information on the securities of covered companies referred to in this research may be obtained on
request from Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. India: Further information on the subject company or companies referred to in this research may be obtained from Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Private
Limited, Research Analyst - SEBI Registration Number INH000001493, 951-A, Rational House, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025, India, Corporate Identity Number
U74140MH2006FTC160634, Phone +91 22 6616 9000, Fax +91 22 6616 9001. Goldman Sachs may beneficially own 1% or more of the securities (as such term is defined in clause 2 (h) the Indian
Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956) of the subject company or companies referred to in this research report. Japan: See below. Korea: Further information on the subject company or
companies referred to in this research may be obtained from Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., Seoul Branch. New Zealand: Goldman Sachs New Zealand Limited and its affiliates are neither "registered
banks" nor "deposit takers" (as defined in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989) in New Zealand. This research, and any access to it, is intended for "wholesale clients" (as defined in the Financial
Advisers Act 2008) unless otherwise agreed by Goldman Sachs. Russia: Research reports distributed in the Russian Federation are not advertising as defined in the Russian legislation, but are
information and analysis not having product promotion as their main purpose and do not provide appraisal within the meaning of the Russian legislation on appraisal activity. Singapore: Further
information on the covered companies referred to in this research may be obtained from Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte. (Company Number: 198602165W). Taiwan: This material is for reference
only and must not be reprinted without permission. Investors should carefully consider their own investment risk. Investment results are the responsibility of the individual investor. United Kingdom: Persons who would be categorized as retail clients in the United Kingdom, as such term is defined in the rules of the Financial Conduct Authority, should read this research in conjunction
with prior Goldman Sachs research on the covered companies referred to herein and should refer to the risk warnings that have been sent to them by Goldman Sachs International. A copy of these
risks warnings, and a glossary of certain financial terms used in this report, are available from Goldman Sachs International on request.
44
4139
41 42 43
46 45
47
4543 44
46 45
46
4945
4647
49
1,800
1,900
2,000
2,100
2,200
2,300
2,400
30.0032.0034.0036.0038.0040.0042.0044.0046.0048.0050.00
Mondelez International Inc. (MDLZ)
Goldman Sachs rating and stock price target history
Stock Price Currency : U.S. Dollar
Source: Goldman Sachs Investment Research for ratings and price targets; FactSet closing prices as of 3/31/2017.
The price targets show n should be considered in the context of all prior published Goldman Sachs research, which may or may not have included price targets, as w ell as developments relating to the company, its industry and financial markets.
Rating
Price target
Price target at removal
Covered by Jason English
Not covered by current analyst
S&P 500
Index
Price
Stoc
kPric
e Jul 30B
MN
J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M2014 2015 2016 2017
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 34
European Union: Disclosure information in relation to Article 4 (1) (d) and Article 6 (2) of the European Commission Directive 2003/125/EC is available at
http://www.gs.com/disclosures/europeanpolicy.html which states the European Policy for Managing Conflicts of Interest in Connection with Investment Research.
Japan: Goldman Sachs Japan Co., Ltd. is a Financial Instrument Dealer registered with the Kanto Financial Bureau under registration number Kinsho 69, and a member of Japan Securities Dealers
Association, Financial Futures Association of Japan and Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association. Sales and purchase of equities are subject to commission pre-determined with clients plus
consumption tax. See company-specific disclosures as to any applicable disclosures required by Japanese stock exchanges, the Japanese Securities Dealers Association or the Japanese Securities
Finance Company.
Ratings, coverage groups and views and related definitions
Buy (B), Neutral (N), Sell (S) -Analysts recommend stocks as Buys or Sells for inclusion on various regional Investment Lists. Being assigned a Buy or Sell on an Investment List is determined by a
stock's return potential relative to its coverage group as described below. Any stock not assigned as a Buy or a Sell on an Investment List is deemed Neutral. Each regional Investment Review
Committee manages various regional Investment Lists to a global guideline of 25%-35% of stocks as Buy and 10%-15% of stocks as Sell; however, the distribution of Buys and Sells in any particular
coverage group may vary as determined by the regional Investment Review Committee. Additionally, the regional Investment Review Committees each manage regional Conviction lists which
represent investment recommendations focused on either the size of the potential return or the likelihood of the realization of the return. Addition or removal of stocks from such Conviction lists do not
represent a change in the analysts’ investment rating for such stocks.
Total return potential represents the upside or downside differential between the current share price and the price target, including all paid or anticipated dividends, expected during the time horizon
associated with the price target. Price targets are required for all covered stocks. The total return potential, price target and associated time horizon are stated in each report adding or reiterating an
Investment List membership.
Coverage groups and views: A list of all stocks in each coverage group is available by primary analyst, stock and coverage group at http://www.gs.com/research/hedge.html. The analyst assigns one
of the following coverage views which represents the analyst's investment outlook on the coverage group relative to the group's historical fundamentals and/or valuation. Attractive (A). The
investment outlook over the following 12 months is favorable relative to the coverage group's historical fundamentals and/or valuation. Neutral (N). The investment outlook over the following 12
months is neutral relative to the coverage group's historical fundamentals and/or valuation. Cautious (C). The investment outlook over the following 12 months is unfavorable relative to the coverage
group's historical fundamentals and/or valuation.
Not Rated (NR). The investment rating and target price have been removed pursuant to Goldman Sachs policy when Goldman Sachs is acting in an advisory capacity in a merger or strategic
transaction involving this company and in certain other circumstances. Rating Suspended (RS). Goldman Sachs Research has suspended the investment rating and price target for this stock, because
there is not a sufficient fundamental basis for determining, or there are legal, regulatory or policy constraints around publishing, an investment rating or target. The previous investment rating and
price target, if any, are no longer in effect for this stock and should not be relied upon. Coverage Suspended (CS). Goldman Sachs has suspended coverage of this company. Not Covered (NC). Goldman Sachs does not cover this company. Not Available or Not Applicable (NA). The information is not available for display or is not applicable. Not Meaningful (NM). The
information is not meaningful and is therefore excluded.
Global product; distributing entities
The Global Investment Research Division of Goldman Sachs produces and distributes research products for clients of Goldman Sachs on a global basis. Analysts based in Goldman Sachs offices
around the world produce equity research on industries and companies, and research on macroeconomics, currencies, commodities and portfolio strategy. This research is disseminated in Australia
by Goldman Sachs Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 21 006 797 897); in Brazil by Goldman Sachs do Brasil Corretora de Títulos e Valores Mobiliários S.A.; in Canada by either Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. or
Goldman, Sachs & Co.; in Hong Kong by Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C.; in India by Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Private Ltd.; in Japan by Goldman Sachs Japan Co., Ltd.; in the Republic of Korea by
Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., Seoul Branch; in New Zealand by Goldman Sachs New Zealand Limited; in Russia by OOO Goldman Sachs; in Singapore by Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte. (Company
Number: 198602165W); and in the United States of America by Goldman, Sachs & Co. Goldman Sachs International has approved this research in connection with its distribution in the United
Kingdom and European Union.
European Union: Goldman Sachs International authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, has
approved this research in connection with its distribution in the European Union and United Kingdom; Goldman Sachs AG and Goldman Sachs International Zweigniederlassung Frankfurt, regulated
by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, may also distribute research in Germany.
General disclosures
This research is for our clients only. Other than disclosures relating to Goldman Sachs, this research is based on current public information that we consider reliable, but we do not represent it is
accurate or complete, and it should not be relied on as such. The information, opinions, estimates and forecasts contained herein are as of the date hereof and are subject to change without prior
notification. We seek to update our research as appropriate, but various regulations may prevent us from doing so. Other than certain industry reports published on a periodic basis, the large majority
of reports are published at irregular intervals as appropriate in the analyst's judgment.
Goldman Sachs conducts a global full-service, integrated investment banking, investment management, and brokerage business. We have investment banking and other business relationships with a
substantial percentage of the companies covered by our Global Investment Research Division. Goldman, Sachs & Co., the United States broker dealer, is a member of SIPC (http://www.sipc.org).
Our salespeople, traders, and other professionals may provide oral or written market commentary or trading strategies to our clients and principal trading desks that reflect opinions that are contrary
to the opinions expressed in this research. Our asset management area, principal trading desks and investing businesses may make investment decisions that are inconsistent with the
recommendations or views expressed in this research.
The analysts named in this report may have from time to time discussed with our clients, including Goldman Sachs salespersons and traders, or may discuss in this report, trading strategies that
reference catalysts or events that may have a near-term impact on the market price of the equity securities discussed in this report, which impact may be directionally counter to the analyst's published
June 11, 2017 Americas: Food: Packaged & Manufacturing
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research 35
price target expectations for such stocks. Any such trading strategies are distinct from and do not affect the analyst's fundamental equity rating for such stocks, which rating reflects a stock's return
potential relative to its coverage group as described herein.
We and our affiliates, officers, directors, and employees, excluding equity and credit analysts, will from time to time have long or short positions in, act as principal in, and buy or sell, the securities or
derivatives, if any, referred to in this research.
The views attributed to third party presenters at Goldman Sachs arranged conferences, including individuals from other parts of Goldman Sachs, do not necessarily reflect those of Global Investment
Research and are not an official view of Goldman Sachs.
Any third party referenced herein, including any salespeople, traders and other professionals or members of their household, may have positions in the products mentioned that are inconsistent with
the views expressed by analysts named in this report.
This research is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction where such an offer or solicitation would be illegal. It does not constitute a personal
recommendation or take into account the particular investment objectives, financial situations, or needs of individual clients. Clients should consider whether any advice or recommendation in this
research is suitable for their particular circumstances and, if appropriate, seek professional advice, including tax advice. The price and value of investments referred to in this research and the income
from them may fluctuate. Past performance is not a guide to future performance, future returns are not guaranteed, and a loss of original capital may occur. Fluctuations in exchange rates could have
adverse effects on the value or price of, or income derived from, certain investments.
Certain transactions, including those involving futures, options, and other derivatives, give rise to substantial risk and are not suitable for all investors. Investors should review current options
disclosure documents which are available from Goldman Sachs sales representatives or at http://www.theocc.com/about/publications/character-risks.jsp. Transaction costs may be significant in option
strategies calling for multiple purchase and sales of options such as spreads. Supporting documentation will be supplied upon request.
All research reports are disseminated and available to all clients simultaneously through electronic publication to our internal client websites. Not all research content is redistributed to our clients or
available to third-party aggregators, nor is Goldman Sachs responsible for the redistribution of our research by third party aggregators. For research, models or other data available on a particular
security, please contact your sales representative or go to http://360.gs.com.
Disclosure information is also available at http://www.gs.com/research/hedge.html or from Research Compliance, 200 West Street, New York, NY 10282.
© 2017 Goldman Sachs.
No part of this material may be (i) copied, photocopied or duplicated in any form by any means or (ii) redistributed without the prior written consent of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.