Skip to main content

The US convenience gap and UK local stores

In its second feature on Tesco this week, the Financial Times discusses Terry Leahy's vision for 10,000 small convenience stores "on every junction of every major city in the US". His working name for the chain was Fresh & Easy.

Interviewing the executive who Sir Terry picked to develop Fresh & Easy, Colin Smith, the newspaper finds that after 18 months of research his team came up with a vision very close to that of Sir Terry. The gap was for neighbourhood stores selling fresh, cheap food and that was easy to shop in terms of range and location.

The target sales density was between $14-$20 a square foot, above the US average of $10 a square foot. But most US stores are much bigger than the Fresh & Easy model. In contrast, the UK Tesco Express stores achieve £20-£30 a square foot ($31-$46).

The speculation is that Tesco may give up on F&E because it can make more money in Asia, where its incoming chief executive Philip Clarke has made his name. However, this does not mean that Sir Terry got the concept wrong.

Pricing in the Fresh & Easy shops is 10 per cent to 25 per cent cheaper than in other supermarkets as it is pegged against Wal-mart's supercentres.

If you take the US blueprint and overlay it on the UK market, you could imagine that Wal-mart is Tesco and Fresh & Easy is Tesco Express. The big difference is that Tesco Express does not have to compete on price with Tesco. Another big difference is that in the US Fresh & Easy will take shoppers from a competitor, Wal-mart. In the UK Tesco Express will take shoppers from its own superstores.

As local shops who compete with Tesco know, it is a fantastic operation. However, it is also now at a size where its outlets are competing with each other. A few year's ago the Starbucks model of owning every coffee shop in an neighbourhood seemed unbeatable. Not so now.

There is much to learn from Tesco, much to fear, but for the courageous retailer, much to gain by taking it on.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Digital disruption in the UK wholesale space

“Twenty years ago I was driving boxes to the post office in my Chevy Blazer and dreaming of a forklift,” says Jeff Bezos in his most recent letter to shareholders. A blink later and he points out that the company has grown from 30,000 employees in 2010 to 230,000 now. But his ambition is the same. “We want to be a large company that’s also an invention machine. We want to combine the extraordinary customer-serving capabilities that are enabled by size with the speed of movement, nimbleness and risk-acceptance mentality that is normally associated with entrepreneurial start-ups.” Amazon is great at disruption because of its customers focus and the fact that the internet means it needs none (or very few) people between its warehouses and the shopper. The threat of Prime, its membership service, is the biggest challenge facing the UK retail market and the wholesale market by extension. It is both a direct threat and an indirect threat in that is inspiring countless numbers of othe...

Traffic lights: a fuss about nothing

I am sure that FT columnist Michael Skapinker has written about traffic lights food labelling before and his latest article is provocatively called: The food companies that make people fat. He criticises Coca-Cola and Unilever for sticking with guideline daily amounts (GDAs) when traffic lights work much better. Former Walmart Europe public affairs head Bernard Hughes wrote in to support Skapinker. He said: "There isn't ever a perfect information system flowing with beautiful logic. But traffic lights give powerful direction to the busy consumer." But in this age of smart phones surely this debate over the labelling on the packaging is easily overcome. The government can simply issue an app that when held over a bar code provides shoppers with a traffic light system. The supermarkets could do this on their websites. Surely the whole point about the future is that the internet and limitless data storage means that the shopper is being empowered with the informatio...

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...