Wednesday, 8 April 2015

'Back-to-Front' thinking spreads on-shelf as Melbourne shopper encourages people to buy local

                                                                                                                   pic: Daily Mail

In a classic example of unforeseen consequences of shopper engagement, the Daily Mail reports on an Australian woman starting a ‘flip it and reverse it’ campaign and turning labels around so people can see where supermarket foods ACTUALLY come from...

The issue for retailers is whether this one-off initiative represents a single-shopper quirk, or is perhaps the tip of a consumer-need iceberg. In other words, should enterprising retailers seize a competitive edge by filling shelves to reveal label contents, and perhaps add an occasional normal facing to aid brand-identification?

Given that this 'dumbing-up' would reverse years of simplifying shelf-filling process, and could result in knock-on labour cost-increases, perhaps suppliers could play their part by modifying their shelf-ready pack configurations?

Meanwhile, marketing colleagues on regular store-visits are bound to notice the slight reduction in pulling power of current back-of-pack labelling, and may hopefully authorise enhanced branding of rear labels..

...thereby begging the question as to the function of the now-redundant front label, in these unprecedented times?   

A Post-Easter Bargain from Sainsbury's?

                                                                                         Pic: MEN/Alex Kilpatrick

A Manchester offer you can refuse, and one you cannot, Moscow-style?

                                                                                                  pic: Business Insider

With inflation in Russia running at 11.4%, maintaining the retail price represents a discount!

Meanwhile, in deflationary UK, holding the price steady indicates a price increase!

Fortunately, in each case, the consumer is savvy, and understands these subtleties!

More on Russian pricing here at Business Insider

Tuesday, 7 April 2015

Tesco & Walmart: going in different directions to reach the same point?

News that Walmart are telling suppliers to 'keep those trade funds and put them toward the cost of goods' will result in significant - and permanent - price cuts, has to indicate that Asda may at least consider a similar approach in the UK....

Given that trade investment can be 20% of supplier selling prices - translating to 15% of net shelf-prices for a retailer on average margins of 25%, the impact on retail prices would be significant..

Meanwhile, Tesco's move from 27  to 3 negotiation points re trade investment would achieve a similar result on shelf.

Whilst each retailer is taking responsibility for setting the selling price in a drive for market share, the difference between the two approaches are:
  • Walmart/Asda are implying that trade investment transferred into lower buying-in prices and then to EDLP has more impact on consumers    
  • Tesco sees merit but overlap in some trade investment buckets and will presumably negotiate the transfer of 'surplus' monies to the front margin, where they will presumably fund price reductions?

The issue for UK suppliers has to  be the extent to which the other retailers will follow the trade-investment funded pricing route...

Saturday, 4 April 2015

Easter 2015: Is nothing sacred?

                                                          Brighton Easter 2015    pic Brian Moore

...or, in flat-line markets, simply high-level headhunting, at the expense of the competition..?

Thursday, 2 April 2015

Tesco's Margin Objectives: Going from Back to Front to go Back to Basics

Given that Tesco plans to reduce the negotiating elements of Back Margin from 24 to just three, it may be useful for NAMs to work this through in terms of the financial impact on their Tesco relationship.

Essentially, it is probable that the total Tesco take from your brand will remain the same i.e. they are unlikely to surrender any income currently coming from Back Margin; a proportion of this will simply move into Front Margin.

In other words, say the current 20% of trade price represented by trade investment will translate into 15% of ex VAT shelf price, assuming a 25% retail margin.

Only issues are 
-   What will happen to shelf price if Tesco want to drive sales really hard via a 15% price cut?
-   Will scale discounts be large enough to satisfy Tesco (i.e. their January price-cut test appeared to be profit-neutral)?    

However, on balance, Tesco’s move on Back to Front Margin represents a quantum leap for suppliers in that their front margin will be a direct result of sales made and will be paid in arrears

BTW, it might be wise to hold a bit back in case a change of management at some stage concludes that your category’s in-store presence needs a little ‘livening-up’ via an additional injection of trade investment…  

Wednesday, 1 April 2015

Passing the Tesco Cull-test: Hints from the Dave Lewis Grocer interview


See the full in-depth interview here, a treasure-trove of insight

The cull-test: Opportunities for all suppliers to get it right, irrespective of size…

Criteria for de-listing:
- SKUs with a small amount of customer appeal i.e. not meeting a real need
- SKUs needing too much Tesco effort i.e. vs consumer benefit derived

What Tesco want:
- Unique Propositions i.e. a demonstrable difference, a major hurdle for realists
- Innovations that customers value i.e. a real step forward that makes a demonstrable difference
- A good economic equation i.e. an appropriate mix of back & front margin

In other words, a mix of product, price, presentation and place that satisfies the felt-need of the savvy consumer…
…..and not forgetting the margin…

Tuesday, 31 March 2015

Tesco to move to 14 day payment for smaller suppliers – a ‘temporary’ competitive edge?

In a specially extended interview The Grocer’s Adam Leyland talks to Dave Lewis about future moves. The real value of this type of uncut, indepth interview is that it can be a source of missing pieces of their particular Tesco jigsaw, for individual suppliers. In other words, well worth a read by any NAM trying to anticipate what to expect from their largest customer…

The 14-day move
One particular gem is Lewis’ promise to pay smaller suppliers (less than £100k sales) in 14 days, and to make payment days category-specific, presumably reflecting delivery-resale cycles, and related to size of supplier.

Apart from the obvious relief, such NAMs need to calculate the financial benefit (and cost to Tesco) of moving from Tesco’s average 37 days to 14 day payment.

Assumptions:
Annual sales to Tesco                            = £95m
Current payment period                          = 35 days
i.e. Tesco pays 365/37 times/annum       = 9.86 times/annum
:. Amount that Tesco owe, at any time    = £9.635m
Cost of money say 10%
i.e. financing free credit                          = £0.964m

New payment period                               = 14 days
i.e. Tesco pays 365/14 times/annum       = 26.07 times/annum
:. Amount that Tesco owe, at any time    = £3.64m
Cost of money say 10%
i.e. financing free credit                          = £0.364m
:. Saving for supplier                              = £600k
i.e. Percentage of sales 0.6/95.0   x 100  = 0.6%
In other words, a gain of £600k to the bottom line

Impact on other retailers?
However, the real issue is how other retailers will react to this master-stroke in PR by a Tesco going to the heart of the public’s growing concern that ‘abuse’ of small suppliers can lead to less choice on shelf…

In other words, Tesco stand to gain a distinct competitive edge by leading the market in fair-share payment, resulting in loss of share by those who fail to follow suit…