 Adam Hoffman  Justin Hamby  Isaac Lane

 In the tuna category, all evidence indicates that Starkist is in complete control of the category.  They dominate:  Shelf space (>50% in most stores)  Revenue(>50%)  Stocking rate(>34%) A: Rumor has it he was rotten to the albacore.

HWed FMeanN Total TJoyFMeanN Total WMML KFMeanN Total

 Tuna in cans  Core Traffic  Tuna in pouches  Cash Machine

 Income  Different brands target different incomes  Family Size  High in families of 2+, but especially 5+  Children’s Age  Highest when children between are present

 Tuna is a $100,000,000 category (as of 2007)  Starkist is dominant  $50,000,000  Private Label is second highest  $20,000,000  All other brands make up the remaining 28% of the category sales.  Ex: Chicken of the Sea, Bumble Bee, etc.

ITEM $ (000) ITEM PENET RATIO N LOYA LTY (SHAR E OF $ REQ.) % ITEM $ ON DEAL SEAFOOD- TUNA- SHELF STABLE 98, BUMBLE BEE - SEAFOOD- TUNA- SHELF STABLE 5, CHICKEN OF THE SEA - SEAFOOD- TUNA- SHELF STABLE 19, CTL BR - SEAFOOD- TUNA- SHELF STABLE 20, STAR KIST - SEAFOOD- TUNA- SHELF STABLE 50, VAN CAMP'S - SEAFOOD- TUNA- SHELF STABLE

 Starkist has the only SKU’s in double digit stores  11 Stores carry Light Tuna in Water  10 Stores carry Light Tuna in Oil  Stocking rates  Starkist= 35%  Bumble Bee= 29.4%  Chicken of the Sea= 24.7%  Private Label= 15%

ManufacturerWMMLKGmWMJoyGmHFSFGmTJoyGm AWG Harps PL Mean.417 N 5 Bumble Bee Foods LLC Mean N7622 Crown Prince Inc Mean.699 N 1 Safcol USA, IncMean.368 N 1 StarKist Foods Inc. Mean N Target PLMean.313 N 6 Tri-Union Seafoods LLC Mean N218 Walmart PLMean.3213 N44

Manufacturer WMMLKWMJoyHFSFHCros TJoyF Bumble Bee GM11.9%12.4%7.8%4.2% 7.7% SKUs Facing %13.6%17.6%6.3%5.8% 3.7% Starkist GM75.3%77.9%39.1%54.4% 74.4% SKUs Facing %53.2%58.8%41.3%39.7% 72.9% Chicken of the Sea GM4.7%1.7%32.9%33.3% SKUs7395 N/A Facing %5%3.5%28.6%32.3%

 Chicken of the Sea  42.97%  Starkist  36.99%  Bumble Bee  33.62%  Private Label  30.1% Average Gross Margin Comparisons

 Private label tuna accounts for 20% of the categories revenue.  That is second only to Starkist’s revenues.  All major retailers have some form of private label tuna fish.  Harp’s: 37.6%  Walmart: 31.29%  Target: 24.3%  Aldi: 10.6%

 Private Label will have an increasing effect on the category due to their relatively low prices but competitive gross margins.  Smaller households have increased their purchase of private label, while larger households have decreased their purchases electing to go with name brand tuna.

 Wal-Mart stocks 4 SKU’s of private label, 1 of which has 17 facings. We recommend that they introduce a higher quality/price private label.  Premium Lite? (Sam’s Choice Tuna?)  We also recommend that they increase the number of SKU’s they offer in their current private label.

 More broad focus of private label. More SKU’s and spacing distributed to Private Label. More committed to Private Label.  Only stocks Starkist, Bumble Bee, and Private Label  High dependence on Starkist (75% total GM)  Would more involvement in an additional brand affect total GM? Would this affect Private Label?

 Small Spacing and SKU depth for Private Label. (4 SKU’s with 5 spacing's)  Higher GM on Private Label, but fewer SKUs.  Addition of higher quality Private Label?

 Overall recommendation for retailers to invest more in private label pouches.  Why? Higher Margins and (hopefully) increase buying power.  Reduce dependence on Starkist.  Focus on higher quality Premium lite type products to entice switching and to reduce brand loyalty.