2017简单包装行业报告（英文版）.pdf

PlainPackagingBrand Impact AnalysisDecember 20172017Brand Finance Plain Packaging December 2017  3.Brand Finance Plain Packaging December 20172.Executive Summary 3Background 4Findings 6Definitions 18Methodology 20How we can help 22About Brand Finance & Contact Details 23ContentsFront cover image supplied by The Grocer from the plain packaging special feature, 14 October 2017Executive SummaryArticle from The GuardianFollowing the introduction of plain packaging for tobacco products and calls to extend the legislation to other sectors, Brand Finance has analysed the potential impact of such a policy on food and beverage brands in four categories: alcohol, confectionery, savoury snacks, and sugary drinks. Brand Finances valuation methodology has been adapted to consider the impact on brand and enterprise value of the removal of branding elements.8 major brand-owning companies were analysed (sample based predominantly on the Fortune  Global 500 list of the worlds largest companies):$187 billion of total implied loss in value as a result of reduced brand strength and   marketing effectivenessCompanies with alcohol and sugary drinks brands are most at risk:PepsiCo has the largest proportion of enterprise value at stake - 27%The Coca-Cola Company would lose most in absolute terms - $47 billionAB InBev, Heineken, Pernod Ricard would see 100% of their brands exposedBecause of the observed vulnerability of the beverage industry to plain packaging, the results  were then extrapolated across all alcohol and sugary drinks brands valued by Brand Finance in  2017, whose parent companies have an enterprise value of more than $1 billionAt least $293 billion of total implied loss across the beverage industryBrand Finance Plain Packaging December 2017  5.Brand Finance Plain Packaging December 20174.BackgroundPlain packaging is often referred to as a branding ban or brand censorship. By imposing strict rules and regulations, the legislator requires producers to remove all branded features from external packaging, except for the brand name written in a standardised font, with all surfaces in a standard colour. Australia, France, the UK, and Ireland have already implemented plain packaging for tobacco products while many others, including Norway, Georgia, Slovenia, Hungary, and New Zealand have legislated for it. However, the policies have been hugely controversial. Advocates claim that plain packaging removes the visual cues that prompt existing users to purchase the product and that it prevents children or other potential new customers from developing brand loyalty. Ultimately, this leads to better health outcomes for these individuals and the population as a whole. On the other hand, opponents suggest that, despite having been in place in Australia since December 2012, there is still no reliable evidence that plain packaging works to achieve such aims. They claim that the removal of branding has merely led to commoditisation with well-established brands losing market share to cheaper alternatives. Latest Australian government data shows that smoking rates have recently flatlined, having been in steady decline for over 20 years. In addition, demand for the cheapest options of all, counterfeit or trafficked cigarettes, has increased, empowering criminals and increasing the burden on overstretched police services. Philosophical debates about whether it is even the place of the state to nudge citizens towards healthier decisions or whether the imposition of plain packaging amounts to theft of expensively developed intellectual property, continue to be fought too. Despite the ongoing disagreement, it appears as though plain packaging in the tobacco sector may have set legislators on a slippery slope that could see more products subject to similar measures. Alcohol, confectionery, savoury snacks, and sugary drinks can all have negative health effects if consumed to excess and their prevalence and promotion is coming increasingly under intense scrutiny. In the past, food and drink producers distanced themselves from tobacco on the basis that if their products were consumed in moderation, they were not harmful.Today, this view is being challenged worldwide as more and more countries introduce regulations in an attempt to prevent obesity and lifestyle diseases. Numerous jurisdictions apply restrictions on the times when certain foods and drinks can be advertised, to deter marketers from targeting children. Denmark has had a tax on sugary Image by World Health Organisationdrinks since the 1930s and in the intervening decades dozens of countries have followed suit; the UK and Ireland have legislation set to come into force in 2018. Scotland will become the first country in the world to introduce minimum unit pricing on alcohol from next May.Activists are increasingly advocating more intrusive measures than taxation, minimum pricing, and regulation of advertising, and the prospect of further applications of plain packaging looks increasingly likely. Already in 2015, the WHO-backed Tobacco Atlas, called for extending plain packaging to alcohol and some food and drink products in a bid to prevent non-communicable diseases. The Ontario Medical Association has mocked up images of plain packaging on food and drink products, and, in 2016, Public Health England released a report calling for plain packaging to be considered for alcohol, a topic which was raised again only last month in medical journal, The Lancet.In March this year, Cambridge academic Wolfram Schultz, winner of the 1 million Brain Prize for the understanding of decision-making, made a widely publicised call for plain packaging to be applied to fatty, salty foods to improve public health. In June, ahead of their annual conference, the British Medical Association called for cigarette-style labels on sweets “to help wean children off sugar.” In the same week, a lobby group in Australia, the Obesity Policy Coalition, suggested that cartoon characters be removed from cereal boxes, yet another example of brand censorship. Now, Canadas Yukon has become the first territory in the world to introduce sizeable health warning labels on all alcohol products, cautioning against the risk of breast and colon cancer.To apply plain packaging to alcohol, confectionery, savoury snacks, and sugary drinks would render some of the worlds most iconic brands unrecognisable, changing the look of household cupboards and supermarket shelves forever. We have therefore felt it pertinent to examine the potential financial impact of such a policy and conducted a study to model the brand and business value impact of a broader application of plain packaging legislation. A comprehensive examination of every affected brand at a global level would of course be impractical. However, a look at just a handful of the worlds biggest and most iconic brands reveals the profound potential impact of plain packaging to corporate stock values.Advertisement from Ontario Medical Association“It is not unimaginable that bottles of Chteau Mouton Rothschild, which once bore the artwork of Salvador Dal and Pablo Picasso, might one day be required to have plain packaging and images of oesophageal cancer or a cirrhotic liver.”The Lancet, November 2017Brand Finance Plain Packaging December 2017  7.Brand Finance Plain Packaging December 20176.FindingsBrand Finances latest research points to potential losses of $186.7 billion for eight major food and drink brand-owning companies, if plain packaging legislation were to be applied to alcohol, confectionery, savoury snacks, and sugary drinks (Fig.1).Due to concerns over the health impacts of smoking, plain packaging for cigarettes has already been introduced or legislated for in over half a dozen countries. Arguments continue over the efficacy of such policies, yet there are increasing calls for plain packaging legislation to be extended to other sectors to combat diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and alcoholism (see Background, pp.4-5). This has the potential to affect some of the worlds biggest brands and brand-owning businesses.Brand Finance has analysed the potential effects of the global adoption of such a policy on eight major brand owners: AB InBev, The Coca-Cola Company, Danone, Heineken, Mondelez International, Nestl, PepsiCo, and Pernod Ricard. Between them, these firms control 1,242 brands, 907 of which are used to market alcohol, confectionery, savoury snacks, and sugary drinks.Plain packaging would severely limit the effectiveness of these brands as marketing tools, preventing firms from differentiating their products. A before and after analysis of the brand strength of each of the 907 brands owned by these eight firms indicates a loss to enterprise value of $186.7 billion.The contribution of the analysed brands to their parent companies would fall 33.9% from $551.0 billion to $364.3 billion, seeing overall enterprise value fall 16.5% from $1.133 trillion to $946.6 billion (Fig.1). To put this into context, this loss, from just a handful of companies, is equivalent to the GDP of countries such as Kuwait, Vietnam or Romania. It is more than the market capitalisation of vast companies that are household names or underpin many peoples daily lives such as Disney, Oracle, Toyota, Intel, Citigroup or Home Depot.With this value at stake, there is no doubt that policy makers, governments, brand owners, accountants, marketers, and campaigners should all take note.Losses to soft drink and alcohol giantsAmong the companies in our analysis, PepsiCo is set to be most severely affected, with 27% of its total enterprise value at stake (Fig.2). PepsiCo is one of the worlds most iconic and important brand-owning businesses. As well as the eponymous Pepsi brand, its beverage brands include household names such as Mountain Dew, Gatorade, and 0200400600800100012001,133.3551.0-186.7946.6364.3USDbnEnterprise ValueBefore Legislation Brand ContributionBefore Legislation Implied LossAfter LegislationBrand ContributionAfter Legislation Enterprise ValueAfter LegislationGeneral graph APepsicoEnterprise ValueBefore Legislation 050100150200Brand ContributionBefore Legislation Implied LossAfter LegislationBrand ContributionAfter Legislation Enterprise ValueAfter Legislation161.6105.8-43.0118.662.8USDbnPernod RicardEnterprise ValueBefore Legislation 010203040Brand ContributionBefore Legislation Implied LossAfter LegislationBrand ContributionAfter Legislation Enterprise ValueAfter Legislation39.222.8-10.029.112.8USDbnFig. 1 - Implied Loss for Analysed Brand-Owning Companies in the Sample if Plain Packaging Enacted Globally7Up. Its snack division is also huge, including Cheetos, Doritos, Fritos, and Lays.However, PepsiCos rival, The Coca-Cola Company, is no less susceptible to the impact of plain packaging extension. Although it is less exposed in relative terms as its enterprise value could sink by 24% compared to PepsiCos 27%, The Coca-Cola Companys larger size means that it would lose more in absolute terms, with a hit to value of $47.3 billion, compared to PepsiCos $43.0 billion.Pernod Ricard, Heineken, and AB InBev all operate entirely in alcoholic beverages, which means that 100% of these companies brands are exposed. In such a scenario, Pernod Ricard is estimated to lose most in relative terms (26%). But the plain-packaging legislation could knock off a significant proportion of the enterprise values of Heineken and AB InBev too (20% and 15% respectively). However, AB InBev could lose the most in absolute terms with $43.3 billion at stake.Extrapolation to the entire beverage industryThe analysis clearly shows that companies which own alcohol and sugary drinks brands would be affected the most. An extrapolation of the results for the sample companies in the study to all brands valued by Brand Finance in 2017, points towards a loss of $292.7 billion for the beverage industry (Fig.3).Illustration by David ParkinsIllustration by Lawrence YangParentBrands PortfolioAlcoholSugary DrinksSavoury SnacksConfectionary ExposureImplied Loss (USDm)Loss as Proportion of Enterprise ValuePepsiCo 135 1% 17% 36% 8% 62% -43,019 -27%Pernod Ricard 218 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% -10,029 -26%The Coca-Cola Company101 0% 50% 1% 0% 51% -47,293 -24%Heineken 196 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% -12,223 -20%AB InBev 234 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% -43,331 -15%Nestl 114 0% 4% 1% 29% 33% -24,344 -10%Mondelez International105 0% 1% 8% 60% 69% -6,156 -8%Danone 139 0% 3% 1% 5% 9% -299 -1%Fig. 2 - Breakdown of Affected Brands and Exposure to Legislation by CompanyBrand Finance Plain Packaging December 2017  9.Brand Finance Plain Packaging December 20178.FindingsThe multiples for this extrapolation were obtained by identifying the percentage loss of brand contribution for five companies from the sample that operate brands within the alcohol and sugary drinks categories. The multiples were then applied across Brand Finances database to over 1300 beverage brands whose parent companies have an enterprise value of more than $1 billion, to arrive at the estimated loss in brand contribution value to the sector.Impact on the food sectorDespite being the largest firm in the analysed sample in terms of brand value, with only a third of its brands in affected categories, Nestl is less exposed than PepsiCo or The Coca-Cola Company, or the alcohol producers. 33% exposure translates to a $24.3 billion loss of brand contribution value. While significant, this is only 10% of Nestls enterprise value. Mondelez International would lose a similar proportion of enterprise value after the introduction of plain packaging for FMCG products (8%, compared with Nestls 10%). With a main focus on confectionery, more than two thirds of its brands are in affected categories, however, because the US company is much smaller than its Swiss competitor, its absolute loss in terms of brand contribution value is smaller at $6.2 billion.Further Graphs Plain Packaging graphEnterprise ValueBefore Legislation 025050075010001250Brand ContributionBefore Legislation Implied LossAfter LegislationBrand ContributionAfter Legislation Enterprise ValueAfter Legislation1,235.9627.8-292.7943.2335.1USDbnFig. 3 - Implied Loss for the Beverage Industry if Plain Packaging Enacted GloballyImage from PepsiCos Official WebsiteImage from Nestls Official WebsiteDanone, in turn, has less than 10% of its brands in affected categories, corresponding to a 1% loss in enterprise value, or $300 million at risk. Scope of analysisThe analysis does not extend to incorporate other core performances such as price and volume of the products sold. For example, the effects of a potential increase in illicit trade on reported sales volumes have not been modelled as part of this study. The impact of illicit trade on the sectors analysed would likely differ, depending on the nature of the products, i.e. illicit trade in alcohol would likely arise, although savoury snacks would not be affected in the