Skip to main content

Benchmark yourself against Sainsbury

Read through Sainsbury's annual report and you can find some good statistics to use in checking how your shop or shops is/are doing.

One figure I like is measuring sales per square foot. For Sainsbury in 2010/11 it was £20.04 (including VAT, for which is has made adjustments). If you have a 400 square foot shop, then you would need to be selling just more than £8,000 a week to match them. A thousand square feet and it is just more than £20,000.

But Sainsbury also publishes its figures for the past five years that show it has moved from £19.30 up to a peak of £20.42 in 2009/10. Meaning its sales fell by 1.9 per cent in the latest year but are up by 5.8 per cent across five years.

But remember, this is an average across 934 outlets in the latest year and 788 five years ago so its best shops will be doing much better. And its worst...perhaps they will be on the market? At the same time its sales area has risen by 21.6 per cent to just more than 19.1 million square feet.

Obviously, it has invested in a lot of new space and has improved the sales it generates from each extra square foot of space. If you expanded your 400 square foot shop to say 800 square feet then you can use  this benchmark to check is the new products were generating sales in a way that maintains your profitability  in the medium term and your popularity with shoppers.

A second benchmark that Sainsbury publishes is the underlying operating profit margin from its retailing activities, which was 3.5 per cent in the latest year. This has risen from 2.5 per cent in 2006/07, which is a good achievement. On your £8,000 per week that is £14,560 a year. On £20,000 it is £36,400. In the cased of Sainsbury, operating profit is calculated after staff costs.

PS: On the back of a fag packet, the c-stores appear to be operating at around £21.38 per square foot a week. In the report,  Justin King suggests that the market is open for consolidation, which is why it is opening more stores.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Think before you delist your slowest seller

Retailers need to introduce new products to provide their shoppers with "good news" and to generate interest. But for each new product that you introduce you need to consider delisting an existing line. Easy, you might think. I will just print out the list of products in the category and take off the one with the lowest sales. However, if you do this research from the US suggest you might be wrong. What you need to consider is what sort of demand you have for each product, a white paper by Demand Tec, a US specialist software provider shows. It says that there are two kinds of sales: incremental sales, when products add to the total shopper spend and are not readily substituted by another item transferable sales, where shoppers find an alternative easily when it is not available. Using its software, it shows a category with 50 products from top seller to bottom seller. At the same time it also measures the incremental sales each product provides. The number 50 in ove...

Busy street, empty shop, missed profits

True in part to my New Year resolution, I held a business meeting in an independent coffee shop today just next door to a Starbucks. The cafe was presented well and four staff were busy preparing for the lunchtime rush, at 11am. As my guests were late, I had a half hour overview of footfall on the street outside and in the restaurant. Six customers. Barely enough to form the queue in Starbucks or Pret-a-Manger just down the road. Plus one Italian girl who dropped off her CV. Some people stopped to look at the posters in the window and moved on. The owners seemed quite happy. When I left just after 1215, they were doing brisk trade. However, I have the impression that the business is not working hard enough. It could easily have managed 120 customers between 11 and 12, instead of 12. This is lost profit as the fixed overheads and staff costs are already in place. The owners are clearly busy - perhaps too busy to take time to look at the potential that their cafe has. What shou...

Sticks and stones do hurt

My 17 year-old son returned from a rock festival this week wearing a wristband proudly declaring him 0ver 18. He explained how easy it had been to use someone else's ID to get the identification and said it was ironic that he had not needed to show the over 18 band when buying alcohol. Today, Scottish retailer Abdul Qadar is complaining that public authorities are asking people to lie about their age when making test purchases. What trading standards officers may be forgetting is that the fact that retailers invest in a business premises and trade consistently from it make their job much, much easier. The alternative, a world of markets and itinerant traders, will be far harder to police. Mr Qadar's sense of injustice is fair. Those retailers, like Mr Qadar, who value their investment will seek to trade legally and will not sell alcohol to people under the age of 18. Asking children to lie about their age to local traders is a slander on all retailers.