The ever evolving supermarket business model

The ever evolving supermarket business model

 

 

The supermarket business model, like most others, is evolving as we watch. It is slower in Australia than elsewhere given the challenge of distance and the stranglehold of Coles and Woolies. Nevertheless, it is evolving, and we can learn from elsewhere.

Four years ago, with great fanfare, Tesco in the UK launched a discount supermarket chain they called ‘Jack’s’. It was intended to compete with discounters Aldi and Lidl, to be the British hammer blow on the invading German discount retailers.

At the time, it seemed to me that the game was already up, that the position the discounters had carved in the market would be impervious to the exhortations of then Tesco MD David Lewis, calling Britain to arms.

Prior to the launch of Jacks, there was considerable shuffling of deck chairs as other retailers, Sainsbury and Asda particularly adjusted to the discounters by M&A. Since then of course we have had the fiasco of Brexit, still evolving amongst the shattered supply chains. This has been graphically illustrated by the carnage at the port of Dover, and inability of British farmers to farm in the absence of eastern European labour.

Now Jacks is closing, its promises of stores in every major town never eventuating. Jacks only ever opened thirteen stores, six of which will be converted to Tesco, the other seven just closed.

At the time in a post I reminisced on the demise of discounters in Australia, saying ‘I suspect history will reveal that Tesco has made a huge blue’. At least they recognised the mistake relatively early and reversed course under a new MD.

Given Australia tends to follow the evolution of the British supermarket sector by a year or two, what can we anticipate domestically, particularly from the two current retail gorillas, Woolies and Coles?

  • I would not expect either to make the mistake Tesco made and open a discounter. In the past, both have dabbled with discount retail brands, none of which have survived. Besides, they have both watched as Aldi has carved out a place without launching a discount rival, it is unlikely they will change direction now.
  • The doubling down on home delivery will continue, as will the logistic arrangements that support home delivery, and the technology that enables it.
  • Retail is fragmenting. Consumer behaviour is evolving rapidly, accelerated by Covid. There is an obvious trend towards on-line and specialist retail using multiple channels of distribution, attracting consumers from their large-scale competitors by offering other than ‘average’ products. Some retailers are designing their stores as an ‘experience’ as much as a place to shop. These stores are a brick in the brand building wall, and are in effect, another form of media as well as a retail outlet. Apple saw this first, opening stores progressively around the world. By the traditional retail measure of success of margin/sq foot, Apple is now the most successful retailer in the world. At the other end, we see small stores, even ‘pop-ups’ selling very specific and focussed ranges. In between, shopping malls have passed their peak, the massive floor space they occupy will need to be re-purposed, at least in part. The potential here is for locally focussed office and residential hubs with a mix of specialist stores and entertainment venues.
  • Direct to consumer from the farm is increasingly possible and attractive. Farmers markets will continue to grow and nibble away at the supermarket share of produce, by delivering superior taste and quality. I love so called ‘summer fruit’, peaches, nectarines, and plums. Finding any in a supermarket that do not feel and taste like a cricket ball is impossible, as they are picked in bulk and green to survive the supermarket supply chain. They may look OK, but the taste is what really counts, and here they miss out badly to specialist stores.
  • Harris Farm has considerable potential if they can resist the temptation to become more like a ‘chain’. Woolies had a go at high quality specialist food retailing with Thomas Dux, and at first got the recipe right. Sadly, success breeds intervention by the back office boys who never actually see a customers, which resulted in ‘Dux’ being sent to the naughty corner to die.
  • Automation in big distribution centres will continue to drive costs out of the system. Ocado, the British online grocer is licencing their technology around the world. Coles did a deal with them back in 2019 to build two automated fulfilment centres, which will feed into their home delivery strategy and no doubt generate a lot of thinking for the standard supermarket Distribution Centre logistics chain.
  • Aldi will continue to grow, more slowly than to date, as they expand store numbers in an already saturated market. Costco with currently thirteen locations around Australia have the potential to double in the next few years. Their differentiator is an entirely different business model, which is very hard to copy for any established retailer.
  • The demise of proprietary brands in Australian FMCG has probably reached its lowest point. Coles and Woolies have ransacked the profitability of their supply base, who have responded with little or no investment in genuine innovation, ultimately the only source of real growth. I suspect that some smaller brands may start to reappear as Coles and Woolies seek to differentiate themselves from each other, Aldi, and the alternative distribution channels slowly emerging.
  • The big retailers will, or should, start to experiment with some of the technology proving successful in the US and China. The obvious place for such an experiment is in some of the CBD locations they both have. Shoppers looking for a quick shop for dinner as they run for the train home, might value the sort of service offered by Amazon Go and others.
  • Managing inventory for suppliers will become even more difficult. Retailers are continuing to reduce their order quantities while increasing the order frequency and placing rigid delivery times on suppliers. This volatility is making supplier demand planning progressively more challenging, while getting paid in a reasonable time means they are funding the retailers. I suspect there will be technical solutions to demand planning evolving that involve AI, interacting in real time with store traffic, weather, and events to deliver a demand number by location. It may be that the DC starts to pack retail shelves, which are delivered on a roll in roll out basis to stores, removing the in-store labour and reducing back store footprint size. At Dairy Farmers 30 years ago, we experimented with this idea for fresh milk, and while it was promising, it did not catch on. Just 30 years too early?
  • The physical movement through the supply chains is an increasing problem for supermarkets. Traffic density, and fewer drivers available as the old guard retires, unreplaced by a new driver cohort willing to accept the rigors of driving semis in heavy traffic for 12 hours a day. Combined with the challenge of demand planning, this will increase the number of product out of stock at the retail face, encouraging consumers to alternatives.

No business model remains unchallenged, and can remain unchanged in the face of evolving competitive circumstances. The supermarket business model is no different, although proving to be more resilient than I had thought it would be a decade ago. The core assumption of the business model however remains  unchanged. They control a choke point in the supply chain, and take a margin that reflects their power on both sides of that choke point.

 

 

 

 

How to generate successful change efforts

How to generate successful change efforts

For a change effort to succeed, it must solve a problem people care about.

The first challenge I have seen in many years of looking, is to find the few who care enough to get off their arses, and then make sure those few care about the same things for the same reasons.

Start small and focussed.

The status quo is a powerful antagonist, one that resists change with a power that is almost always underrated by those advocating for the change. There is a very real difference between the apparent agreement to change, and taking the actions that will lead to the changes seemingly agreed becoming a new status quo.

Being misled is a common occurrence. ‘I thought we had agreed‘ a common cry, followed up by a litany of excuses why the agreed changes were not able to be executed at this time.

The most common mistake the change-makers make, is to try and leap from the grievance to the solution in one step. It seems so obvious to them. Instead, small steps work much better. It is like changing a habit in your own life, going ‘cold turkey’ is much harder than making a series of small changes, none of which are too difficult, moving progressively towards the objective of a changed habit.

Once the change has been achieved, there must be some sort of foundation to prevent what I call ‘change recidivation’. That tendency to declare success, only to find later that there was slippage back to the old ways.

The metaphor I use is of a stretched elastic band. Once the pressure comes off, the tendency is for the band to revert to its former shape. You must ensure that when you think the change is successful, that it really is embedded, absolutely nailed down, not just waiting for the chance to revert when you are not looking.

The corollary of course is that in an environment where constant change is necessary just to keep up with what is happening around you, a stop/start approach will not be enough to stay competitive. The leadership challenge is to enable change to be the status quo, always happening on autopilot, rather than being that stop/start exercise undertaken as a separate project.

Does familiarity really breed contempt?

Does familiarity really breed contempt?

 

When you do something over and over, you get better at it, the actions become automatic.

Remember the first time you drove to that new job? You looked up the route, probably put the address into the GPS (if you are under 30) and concentrated all the way, ensuring you were in the right lane to turn, and did not arrive at that annoying one way street the wrong way. After a short time, the drive became almost automatic, and you were sufficiently familiar with it to experiment with alternatives at divergent times to avoid bottlenecks and difficult spots.

Rather than contempt, familiarity builds competence.

Processes in a business are the same.

Do them over and over, and they tend to become automatic. This means you can spend the cognitive energy thinking about other things. It is the way we evolved, to preserve cognitive energy to be available when it was really needed, rather than being wasted on the routine.

However, the downside is that once something has become routine, carried out time after time in a relatively automatic manner, it becomes very hard to change.

 

 

 

NDG: The critical supermarket supplier KPI

NDG: The critical supermarket supplier KPI

 

 

Life in FMCG world is, almost unbelievably, becoming more competitive than it has ever been. However, the nature of competition has changed radically over the last 25 years.

Performance measures that we have relied on in the past no longer serve as well, we need a rethink.

The business model, while retaining the foundations that had delivered such success to supermarket chains in the past, has morphed.

No longer do big brands hold sway.

I suggest ‘Net Distribution Gain’ should be a standard measure in the FMCG marketer’s toolbox.

The previous business model used to be big add budgets splashed on TV, an OK product that appealed to the general average consumer, drove weight of distribution and shelf offtake.

That has all changed.

Most brands have disappeared, for those remaining, the name of the game is shelf space and position.

Where there used to be 5 or 6 brands competing in a decent sized category, there is now one, sometimes two, or at most three proprietary brands in big categories competing with house brands under various guises. These remaining brands have eroded their position by allowing retailers to convert their marketing budgets from brand building into price promotion, shelf position, and retailer margin enhancement.

Gaining distribution these days is a matter of buying it, and for a new product, if you are successful, there will be a copy house brand coming very quickly.

The outcome of all this is that innovation is at an all-time low, and the cycle just accelerates.

Retailers practise the one in one out method, it has become a standard procedure across supermarket retailers. It recognises their inelastic store sides and imposes minimum sales discipline on the suppliers.

For a supplier, having one of your competitors products deleted to make room for yours is a win, but for the retailer, it makes little difference which SKU is sold beyond any differences in the delivered margin. However, genuinely new products, ones that warrant net new space in a category, are where the real category gains and marketing success lie hidden.

NDG should be a standard measure to use by suppliers considering the planning and KPI of product launch strategies. There are several choices, which could become very complex with the addition of a weighting index based on shelf position:

One in one out of your range

Yours in, competitor SKU out

New space for the category.

Clearly in the last case the retailer is making choices elsewhere in the category mix, and the ripples widen, but for the category marketer, a NDG would be an indicator of a successful genuinely new product as distinct from a line extension of a successful competitive SKU.

 

 

Australia Day 2022. Monty Python must be laughing fit to burst!

Australia Day 2022. Monty Python must be laughing fit to burst!

 

I am sitting here on January 26, 2022, contemplating another year gone, with the new one coming at us, wondering if anyone in power has ever heard Henry Ford’s quote: “If you always do what you have always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got’

Such was 2021, except we seem to have doubled down on the stuff that generated a negative outcome in the past, mistakenly betting on a better outcome this time. I looked back to the Australia Day post for 2021, and almost all of the issues aired remain valid.

Little has changed, apart from the date, and the conga line of politicians has evolved a bit. There have been a few political scalps have been taken, and a few resurrections in the national party that surely rival any spoken of in the good book!

New South Wales’s god-fearing Premier who took over in unusual circumstances in October 2021, said at the time: ‘I will take NSW to the next level‘ has been proved correct, at least in relation to Covid cases. He has put all our eggs in the almighty’s basket, and the almighty seems to be on holiday, or is perhaps isolated, as infection levels skyrocket.

Clearly the only way to reduce the reported cases is to reduce testing, while playing with the definitions of what constitutes a ‘contact’.

Monty Python would be proud!

In November, the report of the review into the parliamentary workplaces landed on the federal governments desk. This is in contrast to the yet to be seen report commissioned by the PM to be conducted by the head of his department on the specifics surrounding the alleged rape in the office of the defence minister in February. Clearly the stench coming from the big house is not what anyone should expect in the place that is supposed to be governing the rest of us, making laws about how we will behave, and the penalties for not doing so.

As we go into an election campaign, we will see a lot of the PM in high vis. being the daggy bloke from next door, telling outrageous porkies while looking everyone directly in the eye. Must be a learned skill, honed with extensive practice, as few are as good. Meanwhile, the opposition leader, despite a bit of cosmetic work with the glasses, hides from just about everyone. Probably a good strategy.

I can smell the baking pork from the coming election BBQ from here!

The trading relationship with China still resembles a pygmy kicking a giant in the foot trying to get his attention. The reality is that we have affronted the Chinese leadership, they have reacted, will not forget, and we can do nothing about it, beyond swallow the medicine and stop being stupid. A big ask, especially for some of the conservatives in the government who, perhaps rightly based on its sad history, believe there are votes in being belligerent. The narrative that Australia must ‘pick a side’ between the US and China assumes a binary world, when it is in fact way more nuanced and complex than that. It seems crazy to me that this is not obvious to those who find themselves in positions of political power.

I guess it is lucky we might have a few nuclear subs to use as a deterrent in about 30 years. Pity they require very deep oceans to operate effectively, and our area is surrounded by largely shallow ones. Sadly, they also require deep and practical nuclear engineering expertise to keep them operational, which we do not have, and are unlikely to ever develop to the level required. This is before we consider either the time before these mirages emerge from the deep, and there is any consideration of the anti-submarine technology that might emerge over those 30 years, making our subs very expensive coffins. Knowing a few very senior navy officers over the years, I am sure they pointed out these obvious facts to the politicians, who seemed not to be listening. Ah well, it must have seemed like a good press release at the time.

Climate change. What can you say about the triumph that was Glasgow?

Our dear leader speaking to a packed house at midnight, explained the ‘Australian way’ of tackling this global problem. It amounts to subsidising fossil fuel emissions and funding research into technology that has as much potential to capture meaningful CO2 emissions, as medieval alchemy had of turning copper into gold. Never mind: our supporters want, and are paying for the effort via party donations, just don’t let on to the taxpayers, which does not include the aforementioned political donors.

Some of this nonsense might be excised if there was a version of a federal ICAC. Clearly nobody in the big house wants such a body to examine the entrails of their shenanigans, it might be embarrassing. The first effort by the then Attorney general, later to be pushed towards the exit kicking and screaming after a nasty scandal involving, wait for it, a woman now deceased, was laughed out of the place. The simple fact that it was so obviously a piece of window dressing was made clear by the fact that the opposition was laughing at it as well. This is despite knowing they might have to live with the consequences of a beefed-up version, if they ever regained power.

The two-laned economy we are building where the benefits go to those in a position to charge economic rent, is continuing to significantly distort the choices made in the allocation of resources. As the gap continues to widen between the ‘Haves’ and ‘have nots’, as it will if nothing changes, it will at some point become toxic, as it did on January 6 last year in Washington.

As an illustration of our challenge as a competitive economy that will serve Australians more equally, we should consider the asymmetrical picture painted by the ASX top 10 in Australia compared to the S&P top 10 In the US. Our top 10 are all traditional hard asset companies, all from mining or financial services, with the single exception of CSL. By contrast, the US top 10 are all, with the single exception of Berkshire Hathaway, ‘soft’ asset, technology-based companies.

The rate of capital growth of soft assets is far greater than those of hard assets. Will 2022 be the year that it hits home that Australian industry is dominated by yesterday’s businesses, and we start to adjust? Fortescue (number 10 on the list) has just started to make those adjustments into areas that rely more on intellectual rather than financial capital.

Making any effort to bridge that gap between ‘New’ and ‘Old’ industries enormously more challenging, is the simple fact that Australian public spending on R&D has over an extended period been dropping. The total spend is being propped up by spending by business in specific areas of digital engineering, almost compensating for the drop in public spending. The total spending amounts to 1.8% of GDP, a number way below some of our international competitors. The OECD average is 3.4% of GDP. Our spending on education, the economy’s investment in the future, in the 2019/20 fiscal was 114 billion, around 1.8% of GDP, before the positive impact of $20 billion of ‘export’ sales to now excluded overseas students is removed. At the same time, the ‘quality’ of education has been dropping consistently. From the gutting of trade and technical education over the last 30 years, to the removal of teaching resources from universities as they are mandated to turn a short-term profit. The latest nonsense is to penalise the humanities, and favour STEM. While we do desperately need greater STEM education resources, it is insane to fund them by reducing our creative and behavioural education that enables the STEM output to be leveraged. While it is not just the amount of money we spend that is important, quality does count, when both are going in the wrong direction, there is unlikely to be a soft landing.

I cannot finish without acknowledging the continuing impact of the Covid pandemic. 2022 will no more be the end of it than was December 2021, and worse, we seem to have given up. Omicron is of less mortal concern than Delta, so we seem to assume that the next variant, emerging from the unvaccinated half of the world’s population will be less virulent again. Let’s hope it is so. However, if we look at very recent history, Aids, Ebola, Mers, Sars, none of them evolved to be less severe at each outbreak, they evolved to avoid the barriers we built.

Covid has been a catalyst for many other seemingly unconnected things happening.

For example, the disruption of our supply chains, firstly the international ones, and more recently the domestic ones. A month ago, a shortage of AdBlue looked like it was going to be a game stopper, and it still may be. However, more of a long-term threat is the closing of a number of (that I know of) significant regional transport companies. These companies, long established in places like Bathurst, Dubbo, and Tamworth, employ hundreds of people in support roles as well as their drivers, and service providers. They contribute significantly to local economies. The drivers are mostly blokes older than 50, who have never done anything else, but now will be lost to the industry. Difficult jobs like moving cattle, machinery, smaller multi-stop loads, will not be taken by the giants in the industry, who are just interested in moving pallets in bulk from point A to point B. In NSW the RMS has a lot to answer for.  Dyslectic drivers who have difficulty filling in a totally unnecessary logbook, as trucks now all have GPS locators, without spelling mistakes cop a fine of $400 a time. This stupidity is just driving them out of the industry. In terms of supply chain disruption, we ain’t seen nothing yet!

In order to address the challenges of Covid and Climate change, politics has privatised the development and distribution of vaccines, and kicked responsibility for acting on climate change down the road. Stick the means to fight the problems in the hands of a few billionaires, and magically, the problem will be resolved. Meanwhile, half the worlds population remains unvaccinated, so the new variants have plenty of opportunity to find the weaknesses in our defences. The polarisation of the populations continues. Politics encourages this polarisation as it suits the coming election in this country, as it has in other developed countries. Politicians tell bigger and bigger porkies, each trying to outdo the other. Sadly, it seems the bigger the lie, the more likely there will be a vocal minority that believes and goes on to proselytise it, compounding the divisions, and compounding the erosion of trust and the concept of mutual benefit and accountability. Two weeks ago, a big bloke in a supermarket shopping centre lift very aggressively abused me for being stupid, brainwashed, and ignorant of facts because I was wearing a mask. Had I been a 70-year-old woman instead of a relatively large and fit 70-year-old man, it would have been terrifying.

I really need to finish and get the Barbie lit.

However, before I go, have you seen the photos of the former, as of today, Australian of the year Grace Tame giving the eye to the PM yesterday? I sense that she does not think highly of our dear leader. I suspect that photo, along with the one in which the PM displayed a lump of coal in the parliament, will get a lot of coverage over the next couple of months.

Have a great Australia Day, however you choose to see and celebrate it.

 

Is decision making momentum a competitive advantage?

Is decision making momentum a competitive advantage?

 

Momentum as we all learnt in high School physics is Mass X Velocity.

Decisions made have no mass, but they do seem to have the characteristic of building momentum.

Those businesses in my experience that have an overt bias for action make more decisions, get more done, succeed more often than those less willing to decide and act. They also make more mistakes, as they make choices with less than complete data, but are also willing to recognise mistakes earlier and back out, avoiding the ‘sunk cost’ syndrome.

Opportunity cost is hard, if not impossible to quantify, but it is clear to me that those who have the bias to action, make decisions and act on them, will suffer from opportunity cost less than those that wait for perfect, or just more information, by which time the opportunity had gone.

Dad joke:

Knock knock…..… Who’s there?  ..….. Opportunity…………Opportunity who? ………….Silence………..

Opportunity does not knock twice!

There is a balance however.

Moving quickly in itself should not be the objective. The challenge is to quickly understand the balance of risk and reward that enables a decision and subsequent action that is important. It makes sense to spend more time considering a ‘bet the farm’ decision than one that is less likely to be catastrophic should it go pear-shaped. Some decisions can be reversed quickly in the event of new data emerging. The mistake is taken as a learning opportunity and embedded in the ‘wisdom’ of the enterprise, to ensure the same mistake is not repeated.

Amazon Prime has been the mother of all marketing tools, delivering Amazon a competitive advantage that has overwhelmed all comers. However, Prime was not born in its current form. It went through a number of iterations over an extended period as Amazon experimented, learnt and doubled down on what worked, while removing the pieces that did not.

Prime started as a ‘2 day shipping’ promotion in a narrow geography, under a promotional name. It evolved to 2 day shipping in the US as the standard, to expedited shipping for a fee, to free shipping with a Prime subscription membership. Over a decade, Amazon has progressively squeezed the time between order receipt and customer delivery at an astonishing rate, that competitors have failed to match. This progressive compression of their decision making and implementation cycle is a key to their competitive advantage.

This bias for action, transparent accountability and learning does build momentum, and once going, is very hard to stop, and almost impossible to compete with successfully.

Nobody ever claimed the prize from Colonel ’40 second’ John Boyd. He was never beaten in a dogfight simulation because he grabbed the initiative and held it, operating inside what he called the oppositions decision making cycle time.

This is decision making momentum, which he codified as the OODA loop.

To me it is one of the decisive competitive tools of the information age.