Connect with us

News

How Heineken tapped into China’s beer market

Published

on

How Heineken tapped into China’s beer market

Western consumer brands in China have long been coming to terms with the prospect of lower growth in the world’s second-largest economy. But demand for Heineken’s beers tells a different story.

In 2023, sales volumes for the Dutch lager maker’s various brands, including Amstel, rose more than 50 per cent. Last year, as the overall mainland China beer market shrank, its volumes increased nearly 20 per cent to just under 700mn litres — almost enough to serve a pint to everyone in the country.

Heineken’s growth comes after a deal agreed in 2018 with China Resources Beer, China’s biggest brewer, which gave the state-owned group rights to the brand on the mainland while Heineken took a stake in China Resources Beer and gets royalties from the deal.

The approach points to pockets of opportunity for well-known foreign names in China’s fast-evolving consumer sector, even if the wider markets in which they operate are saturated.

“This is a very healthy transactional relationship,” said Tristan van Strien, global investor relations director at Heineken of the relationship with China Resources Beer. “They need us and we need them.”

Advertisement

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Heineken’s growth rates “have undoubtedly outperformed”, said Euan McLeish, an analyst at Bernstein. “None of the other premium brands have been talking about double digits.” 

China’s overall beer market is in decline. Sales fell an estimated 4 to 5 per cent last year amid concerns over consumer confidence.

But for China Resources Beer, whose sales dropped 2.5 per cent in 2024, Heineken is a pick-me-up.

Its deal with Heineken gave it rights to the Dutch beer in China for an initial 20 years, in exchange for a stake in one of its holding companies that gives Heineken an effective interest of about 21 per cent in China Resources Beer.

Advertisement
The boxes are moving along a conveyor belt
Cartons of Heineken beer on the assembly line at the Jiashan factory in eastern China’s Zhejiang province © Imagine China/Reuters

The lager, previously mainly sold in two southern provinces, was rolled out across the country. Growth has been rapid, helped by sponsorship of events such as the Shanghai Formula 1 grand prix in March, where 500ml servings were on sale for Rmb40 ($5.5).

A 500ml serving of Heineken in China costs an average of Rmb12-15 ($1.67-2.08), according to Morningstar, though prices vary significantly across regions and from bars to shops.

Heineken has grown by “leveraging the distribution network of China Resources Beer”, said Jacky Tsang, an analyst at Morningstar. 

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

China Resources Beer, whose local Snow beer is the country’s best-seller, is using Heineken to push into China’s premium market — often defined as beers that cost at least 20 per cent more than the average.

“The overall beer volume in China is on a gradual decline trend,” said Tsang, meaning China Resources had “to go after price growth to drive profit growth”.

Heineken’s growth, from a low base, contrasts with other western brands, which have also generally positioned themselves as premium options in China.

Advertisement

Danish brewer Carlsberg, which has about 10 per cent of China’s beer market, reported that sales edged 1 per cent lower last year. Jacob Aarup-Andersen, chief executive, said last month the market had been “structurally declining” for 15 years, but there were still “ample growth opportunities”.

A woman looks at a bottle of beer
Budweiser built its distribution network in China before Heineken. © Oriental Image/Reuters

Anheuser-Busch-owned Budweiser, which, unlike Heineken, has built a significant distribution network in China, has also reported declining sales.

Competition between the two “is viewed as a winner-takes-all celebrity death match in the mind of many investors”, said McLeish, in reference to the still-developing premium market.

It now takes just 37 minutes of work for the average Chinese to afford 500ml of premium beer, Bernstein estimated, compared with well over an hour a decade ago — close to a global definition of affordability.

“We think in 20-year cycles, and this is the premium development cycle that’s happening in China,” said van Strien, who added that “premium beer tends to do really well” in downturns.

“You’re not talking about a huge capital outlay for someone to have a nice sociable evening.”

Advertisement

For McLeish, China Resource’s strategy poses a risk to “brand positioning” if the rapid expansion has an adverse impact on price and its premium status.

China Resources Beer “does not really have experience building premium brands” but “if they had taken their time . . . the growth rates would never have been nearly as fast”, he said.

Kevin Leung, investor relations director at China Resources Beer, said there were some promotions but no “significant price drop on any Heineken product”.

There are other risks. Heineken’s exposure to China Resources Beer’s falling share price led it to take a €874mn impairment charge last year, even as its own volumes sharply increased.

The Dutch company does not disclose its dividends and royalty income from the deal, but said its share of income from China Resources Beer and its royalties from China equate to about 6 to 7 per cent of net income globally.

Advertisement

Van Strien said volumes grew faster than 20 per cent in the first quarter of this year, and that in the same period, volumes of its Amstel brand doubled.

The deal with China Resources had “no planned endpoint”, said van Strien. “The reality is, having a local ownership is often a good thing for us,” he said.

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending