The Future of Snacking

I recently led a trends panel at the largest candy and snack show in the country, the 2010 Sweets & Snacks Expo, where more than 2,000 new confectionery and snack products were launched.  With so many options coming on the market, my panel of three trend experts – a CPG research guru, a futurist, and a ‘mommy-blogger’ – convened to discuss which types of products, trends, and other driving forces they think will drive ‘snacking’ in the near future.

With the hardship of having received a box filled with hundreds of new products at our offices to sample (read: devour) as part of our preparation, we were all filled with inspiration about the future. But it wasn’t the new products that shocked me, it was the provocative insights from the panel itself about what’s next for the audience of candy, snack, and CPG execs:

My candy will not be your candy: Large-scale trends from life sciences, like the mapping of the human genome, opens up the real possibility of targeting products to distinct consumer segments or even individuals based on science.  “Imagine individual snacks created based on your own DNA and mapped to your specific dietary or nutritional needs,” said Michelle Bowman, cofounder of AndSpace Consulting.

Nutrition Labeling – putting it out there: Mommy-blogger, Kim Moldofsky, founder of MomImpact.com, likes how companies such as MARS are being more transparent about their nutritional values right on the FRONT of their packaging.

Future 2049: Clone My Meal

Below is the sixth ‘prediction’ in an 8 part series on “The Future in 2049”:

Cloning, once the purview of hardcore genetic scientists, is now a mandatory course taught when becoming a food scientist. And why not? In 2021, cloning was approved as a means for improving our food capacity problem and deemed completely safe. With the population greatly increased and land at a premium as a result, it is widely accepted that cloning is a great solution to better engineering food. Like our plants and vegetables that have been genetically modified for years (pluot anyone? Brocciflower?), now meats, chicken and fish are enhanced and reproduced, to create new, healthy, protein SUPERFOODS. With the taboo of cloning long past and the fear of human clones now seen as a science fiction fear (although we do clone body PARTS for regenerative reasons, amputees, surgeries etc). Cloning is a part of food-life and seen as a smart way to manage the food supply. Like plants that can be grown bigger and become more resistant to disease, cloned protein food acts much in the same way and are grown pre-enriched with vitamins than every before.

Future 2049: It’s all about the package.

This is Part II of a series of predictions of the future in 40 years. Click here to view my previous prediction, Microwave World.

It’s all about the package.

Thanks to the proliferation of computers and online commerce across all economic classes, in the future we all use online shopping for 80% of our purchases. No more grocery stores (who needs them when there’s Fresh Direct or Peapod? People used to waste an hour in a grocery store? It’s one less stop in the ‘food chain’ if I get it right from a ‘distributor’ like Fresh Direct anyway right?).

With all of our food being delivered directly to our door, our first point of interaction with a brand for many is now AFTER the purchase decision has been made, not before.

What’s the implication of this? Marketers and brand experts now put almost all their emphasis on the packaging of an item – injecting all kinds of functions, incentives, and whiz-bangs into it – ensuring that your brand ‘interaction’ is good when you open the grocery box that arrives at your door. The most important part of branding is no longer about the ‘pre-purchase’ which used to be ‘at shelf’ in the store – this is due to the shift in consumer purchase habits; marketers now almost solely focus on the POST purchase and what they can do to make their package stand-out in the delivery box.

Crying Over Spilt Milk

A redesigned milk jug has been the surprising target of much press attention over the past few weeks. The new jugs; which is slowly being rolled out in U.S. retailers such as Sam’s Club, Wal-Mart, and Costco; is taller, rectangular, and has no real spout. The jug was essentially designed with one goal in mind: reduce the environmental impact of milk.

To that end, the new design allows for jugs to be stacked (they’re flat on top), and eliminates the need for plastic milk crates since the stackable design allows for cardboard dividers and shrink wrap to be used. This translates to reduced packing time, faster delivery to stores (which means fresher milk), and fewer wasted resources along the distribution chain. More milk can fit in each delivery truck and in the grocer’s cooler; and empty trucks don’t need to travel back and forth to collect milk crates.

Brewing Innovation at Starbucks

I finally had some time to flip through the latest issue of GQ this week, and was struck by one of my favorite sections: open letter. I generally love this section-chock full or snark and irreverence for all things pop culture-but this month, I felt a little attacked. Staring at me was a picture of a modified Starbucks Siren, holding a cardboard sign and looking distraught. The open letter (which you can read here) was a full-on attack against the recently troubled coffee company.

Tap for Good

The Tap Project aims to get Americans to contribute to solving one of the world’s biggest issues – lack of clean drinking water.

Beginning Sunday, March 16 through Saturday, March 22, restaurants will invite their customers to donate $1 for the tap water they would normally get for free. For every dollar raised, a child will have clean drinking water for 40 days. The project, organized by UNICEF and supported by American Express, helps UNICEF provide access to safe water and sanitation facilities in more than 90 countries. UNICEF hopes to reduce the number of people without safe water by 50% by 2015.

(Cloned) Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner

Yesterday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed its earlier approval for meat and milk from cloned cows, pigs, and goats to enter the U.S. food supply (it provided preliminary approval in December of 2006). After seven years of research, the agency released a report in which they state that it’s “unlikely” there is any difference between the safety of food from clones and their progeny and that of food from animals bred using more traditional methods (you know, the birds and the bees). While it would currently be cost prohibitive to clone animals for food (it costs between $15000 and $20000 to clone a single animal), farmers hope to use cloning to increase the quality of their breeding stock.

The ethics of cloning aside, the announcement has sparked a heated debate in the public. Some argue that this is simply a new technology and that it would be silly to ignore its potential just because it has to do with animals and not, say, mobile phones. Others argue that this “technology” is too new and that the FDA should perform more studies before  making a final call – studies similar to those performed on drugs and other medical technologies.

The other big debate is over whether or not food should be labeled as having come from a cloned animal or its progeny. Farmers and advocates of cloning argue that labeling food would essentially kill the market for cloned food before it has a chance to succeed, while opponents argue that any potential safety recalls would be impossible unless cloned foods were labeled and tracked. The FDA’s official stance:

The agency is not requiring labeling or any other additional measures for food from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or their offspring because food derived from these sources is no different from food derived from conventionally bred animals.

Whichever side of the debate you’re on – this development raises some interesting questions. 

A Large, Skinny McLatte, Please. Hold the Fries.

Today’s Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on McDonald’s’ plan to add a full-scale coffee bar to most of its 14,000 US locations in 2008. From the article:

Internal documents from 2007 say the program, which also will add smoothies and bottled beverages, will add $1 billion to McDonald’s annual sales of $21.6 billion.

The two fast-food giants have been battling out for a few years now, as McDonald’s has upped the quality and selection of its coffee beverages and undercut Starbucks on price. Starbucks, meanwhile, has added warm breakfast sandwiches to its menu, with the hope of becoming more of a food-destination. Who will win? It’s anyone’s guess at this point. Starbucks most certainly has McDonald’s beat in terms of its inviting, sit-and-stay atmosphere, but McDonald’s will most certainly be competing on price. At the end of the day, price is important, especially if McD’s manages to compete on quality. Here at futurethink, we’re Starbucks loyalists,  but that’s really because it’s closer than McDonald’s. Who wants to walk an extra three blocks for a cup of coffee? Not us. Read more at the Wall Street Journal (subscription required).