Patterns of Beef Consumption At Home
May, 2013
Rick McCarty, Vice President Issue Analysis & Strategy, NCBA, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff Program
Wendy Neuman, Director of Market Research, NCBA, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff Program
INTRODUCTION
A checkoff-funded consumer research study completed in January 2013 analyzed at home protein
consumption patterns by overall consumption, frequency of types of beef and chicken consumed,
typical household meals and what is consumed during the week vs. weekend and special occasions.
The analysis also examined average monthly meat & beef expenditures, where and how proteins are
purchased and reported changes in beef consumption.
The study was conducted online with a sample of 750 consumers who met a set of screening criteria
including consuming beef and chicken at least 2-3 times a month, doing at least half the grocery
shopping, having input into meal planning and falling into one of three beef favorability segments called
Buckets (see below). A quota of 75 Millennials per bucket was recruited.
Consumer consumption behaviors were differentiated by Millennials vs. non-Millennials and by the
standard market research beef favorability segmentation (Buckets 1 – 3). Although this is an attitudinal
segmentation, these segments are strongly correlated with beef consumption. Descriptions of
consumer attitudes by bucket are:
Bucket 1: [Positives of beef strongly outweigh the negatives] Strong beef loyalists who eat beef of all
types more frequently (and also more often eat chicken of all types) than buckets 2 & 3. Bucket 1
consumers typically eat beef an average of three times per week and love beef’s taste and pleasurable
eating experience. They don’t really want to know more about beef production. In fact, too much
production information turns them off. Bucket 1 consumers make up about 26 percent of all
consumers.
Bucket 2: [Positives of beef somewhat outweigh the negatives] Bucket 2 consumers make up about 48
percent of the consumer market. These consumers usually eat beef an average of twice a week and,
while positive overall about beef, they do have some concerns. They are more likely than Bucket 1 to
have questions about healthfulness.
Bucket 3: {Negatives of beef somewhat outweigh the positives] Bucket 3 consumers account for
approximately 18 percent of the consumer market. Bucket 3 consumers eat beef an average of one time
per week or less and are skeptical of beef, particularly how it is produced. They are more susceptible to
anti-beef arguments about production.
An additional 8 percent of consumers are classified as Bucket 4 (negatives of beef strongly outweigh the
positives) which is made up of those with anti-beef attitudes who are not a target for any beef
promotion activities.
DISCUSSION
Overall Protein Consumption
Chicken is eaten more often than beef with respondents eating chicken about 5 times per month
compared to beef at 4.5 times per month. Just over a third (36%) of consumers eat beef more than
once a week compared to 60 percent who eat chicken more than once a week (Fig. 1).
This is a statistic that also is validated in other market research studies such as the Consumer Beef Index
which is run bi-annually.
Fig. 1
Consumption frequency
Regarding consumption frequency of
specific proteins, chicken breast and
ground beef are most likely to be
eaten once a week. Sirloin and top
round steaks are eaten 2-3 times a
month as are chicken tenders, thighs
and rotisserie chicken. Tenderloin
and ribeye are eaten only about once
a month (Fig. 2). Bucket 1 consumers
(the strong beef loyalists) eat all
types of beef and chicken more often
than Buckets 2 and 3.
Fig. 2
Typical household meal
A typical household dinner
feeds an average of 2.84
people and 1.2 pounds of
protein are eaten per
dinner with Bucket 1
consumers eating more
protein than the average.
Consumers said out of 10
dinner meals that, on
average, four would be
chicken, two or three would
be ground beef, one would
be steak and two or three
would be another protein
source (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3
When proteins are eaten for dinner
Ground beef and chicken breasts
are the leading proteins for
weekday dinners but all types of
beef and chicken are eaten for
weekend dinners. While ground
beef and chicken breasts typically
are eaten for weekday dinners they
are rarely eaten for special
occasions. Steak, however, is
definitely a special occasion protein
with almost half of consumers
(49%) eating ribeye steak on special
occasions followed by tenderloin
(44%) and sirloin (41%) (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4
Shopping for beef –
expenditures
Overall, consumers in this
study spend an average of
$119 per month on any type
of meat with 44 percent
($52) spent on beef
purchases. However, Bucket
1 consumers spend
significantly more per month
on meat ($138) with 51
percent ($70) spent on beef
(Fig. 5).
Fig. 5
Shopping for beef – store
selection/cut selection
A large majority of
consumers (65%) buy
their beef most often
from a grocery store
followed by Wal-Mart
(17%). Consumers most
often purchase beef on a
“stock up” shopping trip
(39%) where a lot of
browsing is done in the
store. However, almost a
third of consumers (31%) say they don’t have a specific type of shopping trip in which they purchase
beef. Women (72%) tend to be the decision-makers regarding what type of steak to buy, in addition, half
of consumers say they read the nutrition label when selecting beef (they most likely read the ground
beef percent fat/percent lean ratio) (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6
How proteins are purchased
(fresh/frozen) & at-home
behaviors
Both ground beef (75%) and
steak (80%) tend to be
purchased fresh compared to
57 percent of chicken
purchased fresh. Similarly,
twice as much chicken (17%)
is purchased frozen
compared to ground beef
(8%) and steak (7%). Buying
in bulk is much more likely
with ground beef (56%) and
chicken (48%) than with
steak (25%). Those who do
buy in bulk are much more
likely to freeze at home.
Changes in beef consumption
Consumers were asked if they had changed beef consumption in the past 6 months and what changes
they would make in the next 6 months. Not surprisingly, Bucket 1 consumers were significantly more
likely to have increased their consumption in the past 6 months (26%) and to plan to increase it in the
next 6 months (16%). Overall, 16 percent of consumers said they had increased beef consumption in the
past 6 months but only half that amount (8%) planned to increase beef looking forward. On the eating
less side, 26 percent said they had decreased beef consumption in the past 6 months and 15 percent
said they would eat less in the coming 6 months (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7
Non-Millennials cite higher
beef prices much more
often than Millennials (47%
vs. 16%) as a reason for
decreasing beef
consumption. Millennials
are more likely to say they
decreased beef
consumption because they
are reducing their red meat
intake (23% vs. 7% of nonMillennials).
Profile – Millennial beef consumption
Millennials (born from 1980 – 2000) are the consumers of the future (and at about 30% of all adults a
big chunk of the current market). Therefore, beef checkoff market research always has a focus on
Millennials (Fig. 8).
Millennial respondents differed from non-Millennials in a number of ways. First, they eat all types of
steak more often than non-Millennials and frequently eat top round, sirloin and ribeye steak for
weeknight dinners. In addition, they more often eat less expensive proteins (ground beef, top round
steak and all types of chicken) on special occasions.
Millennials like to shop at Walmart. They purchase beef at Walmart significantly more often than nonMillennials (20% vs. 14%)
Fig. 8
and buy frozen ground beef,
steak and chicken more often
than non-Millennials.
Millennials also spend
significantly less on meat
products each month ($101
vs. $127) than nonMillennials yet they spend a
higher proportion of their
meat budget on beef (48%
vs. 43%).
In addition, significantly
more Millennials have
increased overall beef
consumption in the past six
months (27% vs. 9%) and a
higher percentage also plan
to eat more beef in the next
six months
(12% vs. 5%).
CONCLUSIONS
Some of the disparity between frequency of beef and chicken consumption undoubtedly is driven by
price. But ground beef tends to be seen as a good value and holds its own as a protein choice for
weeknight dinners with 86 percent of consumers saying they eat ground beef and 84 percent saying
they eat chicken breasts on weeknights. Except for Millennials.
Ground beef and chicken generally are not eaten on special occasions. Steaks rule the special occasion
meal choice and are eaten for special occasions much more often than ground beef or any types of
chicken. Except for Millennials.
The Millennial respondents in this study showed different consumption patterns from non-Millennials.
They eat steak more often than non-Millennials and frequently eat less expensive steak cuts for
weeknight dinners. In addition, they more often eat less expensive proteins (such as ground beef and all
types of chicken) on special occasions. As other studies also have shown, the “experience” of beef is
much less positive to Millennials.
This suggests that positioning beef with the Millennial target should focus more on value and practicality
and less on promoting beef as a food that makes memorable meals, is very pleasurable to eat and
provides lasting satisfaction.
Many, if not most, consumers still retain their frugal recessionary behaviors and value is important.
Since almost two-thirds of consumers buy their beef at supermarkets, this suggests that retail featuring
can be effective and retailers should be encouraged to do beef featuring. This should be true even for
Bucket 1 consumers because they spend the most for beef and eat it more frequently.
Millennial respondents in the study spend significantly less on meat than non-Millennials ($101 vs. $127)
but a higher percentage (48% vs.43%) on beef. Although Millennials spend significantly less overall for
meat (but a greater percentage for beef), they appear to be less price conscious. This, however, maybe
due to the fact many Millennials are buying for one person or two, and not buying for a family.
Millennial issues with beef appear to be grounded more in perceptions of its healthfulness than in price.
Non-Millennials cite higher beef prices much more often than Millennials (47% vs. 16%) as a reason for
decreasing beef consumption. Millennials are more likely to say they decreased beef consumption
because they are reducing their red meat intake (23% vs. 7% of non-Millennials). This suggests nonMillennials will pay attention to a value message while a health & nutrition message may resonate with
Millennials.