“Rolling Out the Plan”

“Rolling Out the Plan”PRESENTING YOUR CASE PROJECT TO YOUR CLASSMATES.

Category SnapshotTOTAL AUTOMATIC DISHWASHER COMPOUNDS (DETERGENTS) LBS. Total Dollars Behavior Scape Framework

LifeStyle

BehaviorStage Cosmopolitan Centers

Affluent Suburban Spreads

Comfortable Country

Struggling Urban Cores

Modest Working Towns

Plain Rural Living Total

Start-Up FamiliesHHs with Young Children Only < 6 124 149 145 83 119 124 126Small Scale FamiliesSmall HHs with Older Children 6+ 108 142 126 39 93 89 103

Younger Bustling FamiliesLarge HHs with Children (6+), HOH <40 105 166 161 95 140 134 136Older Bustling FamiliesLarge HHs with Children (6+), HOH 40+ 148 183 168 79 131 140 149Young TransitionalsAny size HHs, No Children, < 35 67 101 96 36 73 73 70

Independent Singles1 person HHs, No Children, 35-64 49 69 61 26 40 34 45

Senior Singles1 person HHs, No Children, 65+ 49 65 55 27 40 42 45

Established Couples2+ person HHs, No Children, 35-54 105 130 132 63 93 100 107

Empty Nest Couples2+ person HHs, No Children, 55-64 107 140 133 57 109 106 116

Senior Couples2+ person HHs, No Children, 65+ 115 143 140 55 105 107 117

Total 93 135 125 53 89 92 100

% Volume Index % Volume Index % Volume Index % Volume Index % Volume Index

55.9% 81 51.6% 75 62.6% 90 65.6% 95 59.5% 86

17.8% 149 5.7% 48 14.5% 121 10.6% 89 19.7% 165

21.1% 170 39.4% 318 14.0% 113 14.4% 116 14.0% 113

1.7% 40 1.5% 34 5.3% 123 7.0% 163 4.6% 108

3.6% 164 1.9% 90 3.6% 166 2.4% 112 2.1% 98

10.5% 133 7.4% 93 3.5% 44 5.1% 64 9.8% 124

20.9% 180 14.4% 124 8.8% 76 4.7% 41 13.2% 114

16.1% 142 22.7% 200 8.4% 74 5.5% 49 13.1% 115

12.5% 118 10.1% 96 12.3% 116 7.9% 75 11.5% 109

12.9% 139 8.5% 92 10.8% 117 5.9% 63 9.6% 104

17.3% 95 18.0% 99 16.0% 88 15.6% 86 17.8% 99

6.6% 56 10.4% 88 13.6% 116 14.9% 127 10.6% 90

2.0% 18 6.5% 57 16.2% 142 20.3% 178 8.7% 77

1.2% 15 2.0% 25 10.4% 129 20.1% 249 5.6% 69

Household Income

Under $10,000

$10,000 - $19,999

$20,000 - $29,999

$30,000 - $39,999

$40,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $74,999

$75,000 - $99,999

$100,000 - $149,999

$150,000 or More

Private label

Demographic Variables

Other

Pampa Armour Star Lard Bertocelli olive oil Dynasty

Race of Head of Household

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Demographic Variables % Total $ Index % Total $ Index % Total $ Index % Total $ IndexRace of Head of Household White 52.6% 76 64.6% 93 57.8% 84 64.8% 94 Black 24.7% 207 16.6% 139 19.5% 163 13.0% 109 Hispanic 15.4% 124 13.6% 109 15.7% 127 14.3% 116 Asian 3.1% 73 2.9% 67 4.6% 107 5.4% 126 Other 4.1% 191 2.4% 110 2.3% 107 2.5% 113Number of Persons 1 Person 20.1% 74 17.7% 65 19.5% 72 18.9% 70 2 Persons 31.6% 97 36.2% 111 33.9% 105 33.9% 104 3 Persons 17.6% 109 17.7% 109 17.3% 107 16.9% 105 4 Persons 13.5% 102 14.4% 109 14.1% 106 15.1% 115 5+ Persons 17.3% 156 14.2% 127 15.2% 137 15.2% 136Household Income Under $10,000 11.0% 139 7.7% 97 7.2% 90 7.9% 99 $10,000 - $19,999 14.0% 120 12.6% 109 10.9% 93 10.8% 93 $20,000 - $29,999 14.9% 132 12.2% 108 11.2% 99 10.8% 96 $30,000 - $39,999 12.3% 116 11.8% 112 11.1% 105 11.3% 107 $40,000 - $49,999 10.7% 116 10.1% 109 10.3% 111 10.7% 116 $50,000 - $74,999 16.9% 94 18.1% 100 18.2% 100 17.9% 99 $75,000 - $99,999 8.8% 75 11.2% 96 11.9% 101 11.3% 97 $100,000 - $149,999 6.7% 58 10.4% 91 11.5% 101 12.0% 105 $150,000 or More 4.7% 58 5.9% 73 7.9% 98 7.3% 91

Ajax Dawn Palmolive Private Label

Step Two: Category Role Share some personal interest in the category,

maybe employment was an issue. Size, in U.S. sales:

>$1 billion = high<$100 million = small

Marsh Supermarket Data on the broader category Interest in penetration, purchase cycles, deal

ITEM $ (000) DOLLAR SHARE

ITEM BUYERS (000)

ITEM PENETRATION

ITEM $ PER ITEM BUYER

PURCHASE CYCLE (IN

ELAPSED DAYS)

% REPEAT BUYERS (% 2+ TIME BUYERS)

LOYALTY (SHARE OF $ REQ.)

% ITEM $ ON DEAL

% DOLLARS WITH

MANUFACTURER COUPON

SHAVE CREAM - OTHER THAN WOMEN'S

TOTAL U.S. 174,090.3 100.0 37,100.2 32.0 $4.69 89.5 45.6 100.0 20.7 7.7WEST SOUTH CENTRAL 19,163.0 100.0 4,499.7 34.6 $4.26 90.4 46.1 100.0 16.2 9.0

SHAVE CREAMS - WOMEN'S


AVEENO - SHAVE CREAM - OTHER THAN WOMEN'S

TOTAL U.S. 3,627.0 2.1 632.5 0.5 $5.73 90.3 28.5 59.7 8.1 1.9WEST SOUTH CENTRAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BARBASOL - SHAVE CREAM - OTHER THAN WOMEN'S


COLGATE - SHAVE CREAM - OTHER THAN WOMEN'S

TOTAL U.S. 3,751.4 2.2 2,115.5 8.9 $1.77 65.2 10.3 44.4 24.5 0.0WEST SOUTH CENTRAL 432.5 2.3 244.1 1.9 $1.77 67.8 7.3 47.4 22.8 0.0

CTL BR - SHAVE CREAM - OTHER THAN WOMEN'S


CTL BR - SHAVE CREAMS - WOMEN'S TOTAL U.S. 2,142.8 2.5 695.1 0.6 $3.08 90.0 21.3 44.8 18.3 0.0WEST SOUTH CENTRAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

EDGE ACTIVE CARE ADVANCED - SHAVE CREAM - OTHER THAN WOMEN'S

TOTAL U.S. 5,655.1 3.3 1,946.3 1.7 $2.91 89.1 14.4 37.8 33.8 16.3WEST SOUTH CENTRAL

588.2 3.1 221.8 1.7 $2.65 102.6 18.3 38.3 26.1 17.6EDGE ADVANCED - SHAVE CREAM - OTHER THAN WOMEN'S


5,611.4 29.3 1,420.5 10.9 $3.95 100.0 35.7 67.3 18.7 9.1ENVI - SHAVE CREAM - OTHER THAN WOMEN'S


GILLETTE FOAMY - SHAVE CREAM - OTHER THAN WOMEN'S


1,548.7 8.1 609.3 4.7 $2.54 107.8 33.5 60.7 14.5 5.9GILLETTE FUSION HYDRA GEL - SHAVE CREAM - OTHER THAN WOMEN'S


1,548.1 8.1 337.8 2.6 $4.58 106.9 32.0 63.2 32.6 30.4GILLETTE SATIN CARE - SHAVE CREAMS - WOMEN'S

TOTAL U.S. 17,893.1 21.1 5,374.2 4.6 $3.33 71.0 30.4 56.0 31.6 16.8WEST SOUTH CENTRAL 2,218.4 25.1 639.9 4.9 $3.47 70.7 32.3 63.3 23.4 12.3

GILLETTE SERIES - SHAVE CREAM - OTHER THAN WOMEN'S


2,233.5 11.7 771.4 5.9 $2.90 88.9 23.8 49.3 23.0 16.7PURE SILK - SHAVE CREAMS - WOMEN'S


SKINTIMATE - SHAVE CREAMS - WOMEN'S


5,599.1 63.3 1,365.0 10.5 $4.10 80.1 33.9 82.2 18.7 9.6

Assigning a Role to the Category

Why Gin?(Spring 2008)

Gin accounted for 4.4% of the market share in the liquor industry in 2007.

That’s $138,739,800! The suppliers are more in control in the liquor

industry because of the increasing demand for it. As long as there’s excess demand, suppliers will continue to make more and more product.

No private brands Not your typical category. Lots of small

manufacturers.

Courtney

Retailers Audited Store # SKU % of Cat WM6 60 38.22%WMJ 82 52.23%IGA 50 31.85%SAMS 2 1.27%TARGET 2 1.27%ALDI 5 3.18%WG 5 3.18%Harps W 45 28.66%Harps G 68 43.31%NHM (S) 84 53.50%NHM (F) 43 27.39%

Springdale NHM had the most assortment with 53.50% of all the SKU’s found!!

Many times the PL is placed directly next to the “Grade A” brand to encourage consumers to purchase based on price

Stores Audited

Fayetteville Aldi’s-1 Deal’s Dollar Store-2 Dollar General-1 Harp’s-39 (deepest) Ozark Natural Foods-

9 Sam’s-1 Target-6 Wal-Mart 6th Street-

21

St. LouisSchnuck’s-32Target-8

Rogers Wal-Mart-25

Bentonville Wal-Mart Neighborhood

Market-20Van Buren

CV’s IGA-27 Price Cutter-27 Walgreen’s-1

Changes in Category

Have any new suppliers or brands appeared since a recent audit was conducted (semester of last audit)?

What has happened to prices and a prior group’s gross margin estimates?

Changes in share of display, at specific stores? Changes were minor or major? Category predictions, its role for the retailer, needs, etc.

The Suppliers

Introduction to suppliers and their brands

What did you describe as a dominant brand—why? SKUs? Number of stores stocking the brand? Stocking rate?

Were there some surprising losers? Any major firms with little shelf space, a single facings, strange or low margins.

SKU’s 94 SKU’s discovered in audit

Supplier w/the most SKU’s of the identical product/formulation- Ocean Spray had 34 SKU’s- Private Label had 37 SKU’s

This leaves 23 SKU’s for the other five brands found Adjacencies next to Cranberry Juices: Other Juices i.e.

Grape Juice, V-8 Juices, etc. Location: in the middle of the aisle

LISTING OF FIRMS

DOMINANT BRANDS Pinnacle Foods (Duncan

Hines) Lindt & Sprungli (Ghirardelli) General Mills (Betty Crocker &

Pillsbury)Aldi’s Ozark Natural FoodsHarpsSTRUGGLING BRANDS Gluten-free pantry All of the OzarkNF brands

Martha White Bakers Corner Nature’s Path Dr. Oetker No Pudge Arrowhead Mills Bob’s Red Mill Cherry Brook Kitchen Namaste Foods Market Pantry Best Choice Always Save

Stores Audited

Total number of stores audited by group Listing of stores Trade area demographics for specific stores Anticipated depth for the stores of interest to

group members

Store without any evidence at category management—no relationship between demographics and category depth

Jams and JelliesReport

13 16 16 522.5% 47.6% 36.8% 100.0%22.0% 42.1% 33.3% 100.0%

31 17 20 151.9% 40.8% 41.2% 50.0%52.5% 44.7% 41.7% 50.0%

11 5 12 1 118.1% 11.7% 21.9% 50.0% 100.0%18.6% 13.2% 25.0% 50.0% 100.0%

47.5%6.8%

59 38 48 2 1 5100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

N% of Total Sum% of Total NN% of Total Sum% of Total NN% of Total Sum% of Total NN% of Total Sum% of Total NN% of Total Sum% of Total N

MFR #PL

JM Smuckers

Welch

Blackburns

Total

WM6_F IGA_F HG_F Target_F SAM_F ALDI_F

How did your group determine gross margin?

What brands had the highest costs, what was it costs per ounce?

What were the estimates for private label, costs per ounce?

What adjustments for sizes, deals, negative gross margins did you have to make?

SPSS, 5-6 stores—of interest, showing average gross margin by brand, % of Total, mean %

% HHs HHs Index % HHs HHs

Index % HHs HHs Index % HHs HHs

IndexRace of Head of Household White 87.9% 127 71.0% 103 51.2% 74 66.3% 96 Black 1.5% 13 5.1% 43 7.3% 61 5.8% 48 Hispanic 4.7% 38 11.9% 97 35.4% 286 16.5% 134 Asian 4.4% 103 9.8% 228 3.1% 73 6.7% 155 Other 1.5% 68 2.1% 97 2.9% 135 4.7% 219

Under $10,000 6.1% 76 3.0% 38 11.9% 150 14.6% 184 $10,000 - $19,999 6.0% 52 3.2% 28 17.0% 147 14.7% 127 $20,000 - $29,999 8.9% 79 7.0% 62 16.4% 145 13.3% 117 $30,000 - $39,999 8.6% 82 9.3% 88 13.2% 125 13.2% 125 $40,000 - $49,999 8.9% 96 8.0% 87 9.3% 101 9.1% 98 $50,000 - $74,999 18.1% 100 22.4% 124 16.9% 94 15.4% 85 $75,000 - $99,999 13.6% 116 16.8% 143 8.8% 75 9.2% 78 $100,000 - $149,999 14.6% 128 19.8% 173 4.9% 43 6.9% 61 $150,000 or More 15.1% 187 10.4% 129 1.5% 18 3.5% 44

Demography#3360 #5124 #5768#2766

Circular Trade Areas: Phoenix Area Supercenters

% HHs HHs Index % HHs HHs

Index % HHs HHs Index % HHs HHs

IndexAge of Head of Household Age 18 - 24 2.8% 65 2.2% 50 6.1% 141 19.8% 455 Age 25 - 34 14.3% 95 15.7% 104 17.2% 115 23.8% 158 Age 35 - 44 18.6% 105 29.3% 166 19.4% 110 15.8% 90 Age 45 - 54 21.5% 105 23.8% 117 20.4% 100 14.2% 69 Age 55 - 64 19.1% 100 15.7% 83 16.8% 88 12.5% 66 Age 65 - 74 12.3% 96 9.3% 72 10.8% 84 7.7% 60 Age 75 or More 11.3% 106 4.0% 37 9.2% 87 6.2% 59Age and Presence of Children Age < 6 5.1% 68 14.0% 187 6.6% 89 7.0% 93 Age 6 - 17 15.9% 85 22.1% 118 17.4% 93 11.7% 63 Age < 6 & 6 - 17 2.9% 45 10.7% 163 9.1% 137 3.6% 54 No Children 76.1% 113 53.2% 79 67.0% 100 77.8% 116Housing Tenure Own 62.2% 96 80.4% 124 54.1% 83 39.7% 61 Rent 37.8% 108 19.6% 56 45.9% 131 60.3% 172Education of Head of Household Not a High School Graduate 2.1% 16 5.5% 42 22.1% 166 9.0% 68 High School Graduate 12.8% 50 16.5% 65 27.2% 107 13.4% 53 Some College 27.3% 95 34.0% 118 32.6% 114 38.3% 133 College Graduate 34.2% 181 27.8% 147 12.4% 65 20.5% 108 Post College Degree 23.5% 173 16.2% 119 5.7% 42 18.8% 138

Demography#3360 #5124 #5768#2766

A.C. Nielsen Circular Trade Areas

Required component, some evidence in your PowerPoint file.

Does it explain differences in depth? Does it explain different in shares of gross

margin? Does it explain difference in average gross

margins?

FACINGSWalGreen-School St. -Facings

WalGreen-6th St. - Facings

Walmart-Mall Ave. -

Facings

WalMart-6thST-Facings

Target-Shiloh- Facings

Harps-Crossover-

Facings

Harps-Garland-Facings

IGA-College-Facings

Dollar General- Garland- Facings

Dollar General- SchoolSt-Facings

% of Total Sum 20.0% 20.6% 14.1% 16.0% 29.6% 32.6% 18.0% 25.5% 17.9% 7.1%

% of Total N 20.6% 21.9% 16.7% 20.0% 35.7% 32.6% 21.8% 25.6% 20.0% 12.2%

N 7 7 6 8 10 15 12 10 11 5

% of Total Sum 2.9% 8.1% 5.0% 2.8% 6.7% 6.6% 9.1% 10.3% 3.6%

% of Total N 3.1% 11.1% 7.5% 3.6% 6.5% 5.5% 10.3% 10.9% 4.9%

N 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 6 2

% of Total Sum 14.3% 14.7% 16.2% 12.0% 18.3% 6.7% 3.3% 4.5% 9.0% 8.6%

% of Total N 14.7% 15.6% 16.7% 12.5% 14.3% 6.5% 3.6% 5.1% 10.9% 12.2%

N 5 5 6 5 4 3 2 2 6 5

% of Total Sum 28.6% 14.7% 22.2% 35.0% 29.6% 19.1% 26.2% 30.9% 6.2% 24.3%

% of Total N 26.5% 15.6% 25.0% 27.5% 25.0% 17.4% 20.0% 28.2% 7.3% 14.6%

N 9 5 9 11 7 8 11 11 4 6

% of Total Sum 22.9% 29.4% 16.2% 9.0% 9.9% 14.6% 9.0% 16.4% 23.4% 23.6%

% of Total N 23.5% 25.0% 8.3% 7.5% 10.7% 15.2% 9.1% 15.4% 21.8% 24.4%

N 8 8 3 3 3 7 5 6 12 10

% of Total Sum 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total N 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

N 34 32 36 40 28 46 55 39 55 41

SC Johnson

Private Label

Total

P&G

Reckitt Benckiser

Report

Manufacturer

Clorox

• Most PL gained best part in share of facings and share of SKUs in small stores (niche market such as DG, IGA)

• But strong national brands such as Windex and Clorox try to fight back and also has strong influence in big stores (Wal-Mart, Harps).

Gross Margin by Store and Manufacturer

5 15 5 11 14.352 .522 .360 .532 .521

9 10 5 9 10.249 .349 .235 .318 .429

6 9 2 6 8.236 .272 .198 .335 .45411 1 1 1

.289 .536 .459 .5363 1 2 1 5

.221 .306 .085 .306 .47334 36 15 27 38

.272 .406 .267 .408 .477

NMeanNMeanNMeanNMeanNMeanNMean

N-MfrPvt Lbl

J.Smucker

ConAgra

VenturaFoods

ACHFoods

Total

WM6-GM HP-GM WNM-GM PC-GM IGFAY-GM

Private label “success”Share of a categoryAcceptance by householdsConsumer “happiness”

Ability to evaluate quality

differences

Brand identity, internal & external

Retail concentration & differentiation

Category & retailer

profitabilityEconomic factors

Structure of supply

Retailer format success

“Good losers?Snacks and confectionaryCosmeticsBaby foodAlcoholic beverages

“Success!”Paper, plastic, and wipesRefrigerated foodFrozen foodShelf stable juices

Bad winners? – no one but ourselves to blame.Pet foodHealthcareDiapers and feminine hygiene

Pric

e ga

p w

ith

man

ufac

ture

r br

ands

High

>30%

Low<

30%

Private label shareLow <12% High > 12%

“Bad stuff” – why?Home careNonalcoholic beveragesPersonal care

Global private label share and price gap

Spring 2014

Fall 2012

Fall 2010

Writing

Follow guidelines for double-spaced number of pages (26 lines, 3-4 paragraphs per page).

If you’re assigned to write a section—be sure all group members re-read it.

Include Heading for each of the eight sections and page breaks to separate sections/steps

Use subheadings within section if discussion in section is more than one page.

Documents

“Rolling Out the Plan”