2025-06-10-花旗集团-美国饮料及家庭和个人护理产品_截至5月31日的美国尼尔森自有品牌及促销追踪报告_22页_369kb

US Beverages and Household & Personal Care: Private Label & Promotion Tracker Summary (Through 5/31/2025)

Core Content Overview

This report provides an analysis of private label penetration, price gaps compared to private label, and promotional activity for several companies in the US Beverages and Household & Personal Care (HPC) sectors, based on Nielsen data. The data is presented for two time frames: the last 4 weeks (L4W) and the prior 12 weeks (L26W), with year-over-year (Y/Y) changes.

Key Companies and Their Performance

CLX

• Private Label Penetration (L4W): 20.1% (-8 bps Y/Y)
• Price Gap vs. Private Label (L4W): 156.2% (-351 bps Y/Y)
• Promotional Level (L4W): 27.8% (-633 bps Y/Y)

KMB

• Private Label Penetration (L4W): 26.0% (-45 bps Y/Y)
• Price Gap vs. Private Label (L4W): 161.6% (1114 bps Y/Y)
• Promotional Level (L4W): 27.2% (97 bps Y/Y)

PG

• Private Label Penetration (L4W): 12.5% (-21 bps Y/Y)
• Price Gap vs. Private Label (L4W): 230.8% (1536 bps Y/Y)
• Promotional Level (L4W): 30.1% (183 bps Y/Y)

CL

• Private Label Penetration (L4W): 5.8% (-12 bps Y/Y)
• Price Gap vs. Private Label (L4W): 113.3% (231 bps Y/Y)
• Promotional Level (L4W): 28.3% (88 bps Y/Y)

CHD

• Private Label Penetration (L4W): 9.2% (-17 bps Y/Y)
• Price Gap vs. Private Label (L4W): 159.7% (-1340 bps Y/Y)
• Promotional Level (L4W): 20.5% (-22 bps Y/Y)

NWL

• Private Label Penetration (L4W): 18.9% (29 bps Y/Y)
• Price Gap vs. Private Label (L4W): 249.0% (-707 bps Y/Y)
• Promotional Level (L4W): 25.2% (726 bps Y/Y)

COTY

• Private Label Penetration (L4W): 3.0% (40 bps Y/Y)
• Price Gap vs. Private Label (L4W): 295.4% (6152 bps Y/Y)
• Promotional Level (L4W): 26.9% (-20 bps Y/Y)

KVUE

• Private Label Penetration (L4W): 20.6% (-9 bps Y/Y)
• Price Gap vs. Private Label (L4W): 298.6% (243 bps Y/Y)
• Promotional Level (L4W): 31.1% (247 bps Y/Y)

KO

• Private Label Penetration (L4W): 5.7% (12 bps Y/Y)
• Price Gap vs. Private Label (L4W): 229.7% (628 bps Y/Y)
• Promotional Level (L4W): 45.4% (27 bps Y/Y)

PEP

• Private Label Penetration (L4W): 6.2% (3 bps Y/Y)
• Price Gap vs. Private Label (L4W): 198.2% (-663 bps Y/Y)
• Promotional Level (L4W): 43.2% (-182 bps Y/Y)

KDP

• Private Label Penetration (L4W): 6.1% (18 bps Y/Y)
• Price Gap vs. Private Label (L4W): 207.3% (221 bps Y/Y)
• Promotional Level (L4W): 47.8% (185 bps Y/Y)

MNST

• Promotional Level (L4W): 42.9% (26 bps Y/Y)

Main Observations

• Private Label Penetration:

  • Most companies saw a decline in private label penetration in the last 4 weeks compared to the prior 12 weeks.
  • CLX and KMB showed the most significant drops in private label penetration, while NWL and KDP experienced increases.

• Price Gap vs. Private Label:

  • The price gap for most companies widened or decreased slightly in the last 4 weeks compared to the prior 12 weeks.
  • COTY and KMB showed the largest increases in price gaps, indicating a stronger premium over private label.
  • PG and CLX had the largest declines in price gaps, suggesting they are becoming more competitive with private label.

• Promotional Activity:

  • Promotional levels increased for most companies, with KMB and NWL showing the highest increases.
  • CL and PEP experienced significant declines in promotional activity, which may indicate a shift in promotional strategies or reduced market demand.

Key Categories and Trends

• Trash Bags:

  • Penetration and promotional activity fluctuated across periods, with notable drops in promotional levels for CLX and increases for KMB.

• Multipurpose Cleaners:

  • Penetration and promotional activity varied, but overall, the price gap decreased significantly, especially for CLX.

• Ranch:

  • Penetration and promotional activity increased, with the largest increases in promotional levels for KMB.

• Charcoal:

  • Penetration and promotional activity were relatively stable, but the price gap fluctuated, indicating mixed performance.

• Cat Litter:

  • Penetration and promotional activity showed significant volatility, with large drops in promotional levels for CLX and increases for KMB.

• Bleach:

  • Penetration and promotional activity were largely stable, but the price gap showed large fluctuations, suggesting inconsistent pricing strategies.

Conclusion

The report highlights the evolving dynamics between private label and branded products in the US Beverages and HPC sectors, with a notable increase in promotional activity across most companies. However, private label penetration has generally declined, and the price gap has either widened or decreased inconsistently. Companies like COTY and KMB are showing a stronger premium over private label, while others like PG and CLX are becoming more competitive. These trends suggest a complex market environment where promotional strategies and pricing decisions are key factors influencing market share and consumer behavior.