Author: Alessandro Gecchele
Date: 08-05-2026

INTRODUCTION

The Carnival represents one of the oldest and most deeply rooted celebrations in European and global culture, with origins that trace back to the pagan traditions of various civilizations.
Over the centuries, this festivity has maintained a strong symbolic and cultural value, gradually evolving from a collective ritual linked to seasonal cycles into a social event capable of involving entire communities.
Today, however, Carnival is not only an expression of identity and tradition. It is also a significant economic phenomenon that generates value across multiple sectors, ranging from tourism and entertainment to the food industry and large-scale retail. During this period of the year, millions of consumers purchase products associated with the celebration, contributing to the growth of an increasingly structured seasonal market.
It is precisely this dual dimension, cultural and economic, that makes Carnival a particularly interesting phenomenon to analyze through the lenses of economics and marketing.

Through an integrated approach that combines market analysis, qualitative research, and a quantitative survey conducted on a sample of Italian consumers, this study aims to understand the drivers of choice, territorial differences, and the main consumer segments within the market.
The objective is to provide a deeper understanding of Carnival as a consumption phenomenon, identifying not only the underlying logics that drive purchasing behavior but also the strategic opportunities for companies and brands operating in this sector.

MARKET OVERVIEW AND COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE

Starting from the market context, Nielsen data outline a clear picture: the Carnival sweets market within large-scale retail is experiencing strong growth and, in 2025, reaches its best performance in recent years, with a value of approximately €39.5 million and an increase of nearly 30% compared to 2024.

This result is driven by two main factors: an extension of the sales period and an increase in the number of buyers.

Figure 1 – Sell-out Value, Multi-Year Trend

To understand this market, it is necessary to be aware of one of the structural characteristics of this occasion: Carnival does not have a fixed date but varies each year depending on Easter, resulting in a different number of selling days and directly affecting overall revenue. Sales are generally concentrated in the period between January 7th and Shrove Tuesday, whose date depends on the Easter calendar.

This variability makes it essential to distinguish between real market growth and the duration effect. To do so, it is useful to analyze the average daily revenue.

Figure 2 – Average Daily Sell-out, Multi-Year Trend (with the Number of Selling Days Indicated for Each Year)

The comparison between 2024 and 2025 highlights a significant difference: in 2024 there were only 38 selling days, compared to 57 in 2025. However, despite the shorter duration, 2024 recorded a higher average daily revenue.
This demonstrates that when the selling period is more concentrated, consumption tends to be more intense, indicating stronger short-term purchasing pressure.

Table 1 – Consumer insights

As for consumer data, they can be briefly summarized as follows:

• the pool of buyers is expanding and consolidating: the number of purchasing households is increasing, as is category penetration. At the same time, loyalty is strengthening: the share of occasional buyers is decreasing, while the proportion of households purchasing multiple times during the period is growing.
• average spending per household is increasing, driven by dynamic brands such as Asolo Food, while spending per purchase remains broadly stable or slightly declining. This indicates that overall growth is mainly supported by the increase in the number of households and higher purchase frequency, rather than by a rise in basket value.
• the number of packs purchased per household is increasing, signaling broader participation in the category. Conversely, packs per purchase are slightly declining, reflecting a more fragmented consumption behavior: more shopping trips, but smaller quantities per occasion.
• promotional pressure is decreasing, also due to the extension of the selling period, which allows for a more natural product rotation on shelves.

In summary, this is not episodic growth, but rather a seasonal market that is progressively taking on increasingly structural characteristics.

QUESTIONNAIRE STRUCTURE 

The analyzed sample, collected through a research institute and subsequently cleaned, consists of 597 respondents. The gender distribution is balanced, with a slight prevalence of females (50.75%) compared to males (49.25%).

From an age perspective, the sample appears relatively mature: the most represented group is over 55 (39.2%), followed by the 35–54 segment (36.85%), while younger respondents (18–34) account for approximately 24%. This is particularly relevant, considering that this product category is mainly purchased by consumers with more established consumption habits.

Geographically, respondents are mainly concentrated in the Center-North of Italy. Area 1 (particularly Lombardy and Piedmont) is the most represented, accounting for 38% of the sample, followed by Central Italy (28%) and the North-East (27%). The South is less represented, with approximately 7% of respondents.

This distribution reflects the market dynamics observed in the desk analysis, where Northern regions emerge as the primary drivers of Carnival-related consumption.

CLASSICAL SEGMENTATION

The questionnaire results were analyzed through customer segmentation, a fundamental step for correctly interpreting the data and understanding differences in consumer behavior.
The segmentation was developed based on responses to the question: “How important do you consider the following aspects when making a purchase?”, the results of which are shown in the following chart.
Participants evaluated the different attributes using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “not at all important” to “extremely important.”

Figure 3 – Average Importance of Items

Before delving into multivariate techniques, a univariate analysis was conducted to assess three key aspects: how responses are distributed, whether respondents actually used the full range of the scale, and whether the variability of the data is adequate.
The results were reassuring: standard deviations are close to one, while skewness and kurtosis fall within the limits commonly accepted in the literature. In other words, the data are well distributed, sufficiently variable, and free from significant distortions.

At this point, the analysis moved on to examine the relationships between variables. Through bivariate analysis and Pearson’s correlation coefficient, a consistent pattern emerges: the items are significantly correlated with one another.
Having verified the robustness of the data, it was then possible to proceed with the exploratory factor analysis, with the aim of identifying the latent dimensions that drive consumer choices.

Before factor extraction, model adequacy checks were performed: the KMO value of 0.831 indicates excellent sampling adequacy, while Bartlett’s test (significant with p < .001) confirms that the correlations between variables are sufficiently strong to apply this technique.
The analysis led to the identification of three main factors, each with an eigenvalue greater than 1, in line with what is also suggested by the scree plot.
Communalities are all above the acceptable threshold, confirming that each item is well represented by the factor structure.
However, the most interesting point lies elsewhere: these factors are not merely statistical constructs, but rather reflect three different logics through which consumers evaluate the product.

Figure 4 – Variance Explained by the Different Factors

The first dimension is Perception, which alone explains 35.4% of the variance. It includes elements such as brand awareness, packaging, reviews, digital communication, the possibility of online purchase, and even caloric content. It essentially represents the symbolic and informational dimension.
The second dimension is Quality, accounting for 16.4% of the variance. It includes aspects such as the quality of raw materials, freshness, and sweetness of the product, and is therefore more closely linked to the sensory experience.
Finally, Convenience explains 10.6% of the variance and includes variables such as price, promotions, and ease of availability. It represents the most rational and economic-functional dimension.

Figure 5 – Factor Loadings of Items Across the Different Factors

These three dimensions form the basis for the subsequent step: consumer segmentation.

To construct it, a two-step approach was adopted. In the exploratory phase, hierarchical clustering was used to identify the optimal number of groups. Subsequently, the k-means algorithm was applied to factor scores in order to define the clusters more precisely.
The quality of the segmentation was assessed through a one-way ANOVA: F-tests are highly significant across all dimensions (p < .001), confirming that the identified groups are clearly distinct from one another.

The final result is a segmentation into four well-defined profiles:

Figure 6 – Cluster Composition

The Aware consumers (115 individuals) show high scores across all dimensions: they are engaged, informed, and attentive to symbolic, qualitative, and economic aspects.
The Quality-oriented consumers (174) are strongly focused on product quality, while being less sensitive to price and communication.
The Convenience-driven consumers (168) primarily focus on price, promotions, and availability, adopting a more pragmatic purchasing approach.
The Low-involvement consumers (140) show low scores across all dimensions, indicating a weak relationship with the category.

A final element further reinforces the robustness of the results: the clusters are numerically balanced, making the segmentation not only statistically sound but also easily interpretable and applicable from a managerial perspective.

POSITIONING 

Starting from items related to crunchiness, sweetness, lightness, visual appearance, and quality of raw materials, the research aimed to address one of the central questions of the thesis: are consumers able to distinguish between the main confectionery products associated with Carnival?

Although many consumers claim to be able to recognize different product types, the empirical analysis does not reveal sufficiently clear distinctions to strongly support this statement.

The analysis was conducted using correspondence analysis, a multivariate technique used to graphically represent associations between categories of variables.

The perceptual map shows an overall weak structure, with a total inertia of 0.019. Inertia measures the overall level of differentiation in the data; a low value indicates only limited differences.

This means that distances between products in the perceptual space are relatively small and that the level of market differentiation is limited. In other words, differences do exist, but they are not particularly pronounced.

The first dimension explains 68.9% of the total inertia, meaning that nearly 69% of the available information is captured by the first axis of the map.

This dimension is mainly driven by sensory attributes, particularly sweetness, crunchiness, and lightness. This suggests that the primary criterion of perceived differentiation is sensory rather than symbolic or quality-related.

Figure 7 – Positioning Map

Observing the map, chiacchiere tend to occupy a central position, suggesting a more generalist and less distinctive profile, with a slight association with lightness and quality of raw materials. A central position indicates a lack of strong perceptual specialization.

Crostoli are more strongly associated with crunchiness, while bugie are positioned closer to sweetness and, to a lesser extent, visual appearance. These interpretations derive from the spatial proximity between points, which reflects perceived associations.

In summary, the differentiation declared by consumers is not fully supported by the data: the perceptual structure of the market is weak, and products appear largely overlapping. The proximity between points indicates the absence of clearly distinctive positioning.

CONCLUSIONS

The research process provides a clear picture of a market that has shown significant and structural growth in recent years. In the past year alone, market value increased by approximately 30%, and the evidence collected—also supported by insights from an industry expert—suggests that this positive trend is not merely episodic but potentially sustainable in the medium term.

Future development prospects appear to be mainly linked to the strengthening of currently less mature areas and expansion into international markets, where the product is appreciated even outside its original cultural context.

A particularly interesting finding from the survey concerns the willingness of over 60% of respondents to purchase Carnival sweets even outside the traditional festive period. This result opens up relevant scenarios in terms of partial deseasonalization: a more evenly distributed production over time would allow for better allocation of fixed costs, greater efficiency in production lines, and potentially increased investment in innovation. At the same time, however, the strong symbolic value of the product must be preserved in order to avoid a loss of identity.

From a demand perspective, the segmentation analysis confirmed the existence of different consumer profiles, while also highlighting some cross-cutting dynamics. In particular, price emerges as a central lever across all clusters: even segments less oriented toward convenience report primarily evaluating the price per kilogram, indicating a rational and comparative purchasing behavior.

Finally, the positioning analysis shows that the main product types—chiacchiere, bugie, and crostoli—are largely overlapping in consumers’ perceptions. The category is interpreted in a homogeneous way, both at the product and brand levels. This suggests that the key strategic priority is not so much to build brand equity in abstract terms, but rather to make qualitative differences between products more perceptible, in order to justify potential price differences and foster greater consumer awareness in decision-making.

In conclusion, the market appears solid and growing, but its full maturation will depend on companies’ ability to enhance the identity of individual products, overcoming the current simplified perception of the category and shifting the focus from price alone to the communication of the intrinsic value of the offering.