|
Clash Of Corporate Cultures Seen In Contrast Between Wal-Mart/ASDA Essentials And
Tesco/Fresh & Easy
Jim Prevor's
Perishable Pundit, May 29, 2007
As Tesco prepares to
open operations in America, what sounds like a
reasonably similar concept by arch rival Wal-Mart seems to be
struggling to get past the launch gate.
To
much publicity Wal-Mart, through its
ASDA
subsidiary, had opened a concept in the U.K. called ASDA
Essentials. Like Tesco’s US concept, Fresh & Easy Neighborhood
Market, the ASDA Essentials stores were almost all private-label
and each store was around 10,000 square feet. There was talk of
hundreds of stores being rolled out.
ASDA opened two stores, though, before
closing the first one. Although ASDA management said not to make
too much of that store closing — pointing to unique
circumstances of geography and demographics — closing 50% of
your test stores is not an optimistic statement about the
concept.
The concept also was being
remerchandized to carry more branded product.
This could be a problem for Tesco in the US if consumers look
for brands they are familiar with or want to use manufacturers’
coupons.
It is also possible that the problems with
the ASDA Essentials concept go deeper and Tesco may avoid these
issues. One may be the use of the ASDA name. There are small
store concepts, such as Aldi and Lidl in Europe and Aldi and
Trader Joe’s in the US, that are mostly private label — but they
are independent brands.
Possibly consumers used to the ASDA name
expected branded items and were disappointed that the stores
didn’t have them.
Fresh & Easy will be free to create its
own expectations.
Another issue: ASDA insists on charging
the same prices in its ASDA Essentials as in the large ASDA
stores. This is not the way Tesco Express, the U.K. giant’s
convenience banner, prices in the U.K., and it may make the
whole concept unviable.
In fact these ASDA actions — utilizing the
ASDA brand and requiring the same pricing in stores large and
small — sound like something dictated by Bentonville. It sounds
like the same problems Wal-Mart has imposed on its Neighborhood
Market concept.
The slow growth of this concept has been
because it doesn’t provide the same return on investment as
building supercenters.
Yet that may be because the more
convenient locations of Neighborhood Markets merit higher prices.
Having placed the Wal-Mart brand on the
Neighborhood Market store, though, Wal-Mart executives are
loathe to sully the name with higher prices. Is it possible that
Wal-Mart has repeated the same mistake on two continents, with
ASDA’s name also on its convenience concept?
The other issue is whether being a
discounter is enough? Tesco is cleverly positioning its stores
as green, family-friendly and fresh. Although we understand they
intend to be very competitive on price, they don’t intend to
build their reputation on it.
We can see the difference in corporate
culture in the contrast between ASDA Essentials and Fresh &
Easy.
Wal-Mart, with sales larger than the next
four largest retailers in the world combined, opens just two
test stores over a year and closes one down for poor performance
after 10 months. Tesco, a much smaller company, pours hundreds
of millions of dollars into building a distribution center,
signing leases on a couple hundred stores — all before any
consumer spends even a penny in the concept.
It is clear that Tesco wins points for
audacity. Whether that means it will be a success remains to be
seen. Prudent hands at Wal-Mart probably consider executives at
Tesco to be irresponsible with shareholder’s money. Which they
certainly will be accused of if the venture fails. Some will
surely lose their jobs. Maybe even the CEO.
Yet one advantage of the Tesco method of
plunging in is that it gives those same executives enormous
incentive to find a way to succeed. It is a truism of venture
capital to invest in the people, not the concept. Because bad
people can mess up the best concept and good people will often
find a way to alter even a terrible concept.
If you build two stores and they don’t
work, maybe you just close them. If you build 200 stores, maybe
human creativity kicks in and you find a way to make them a
success.
What's Your View?
Send This Story
permanent Link
Back To Top
print Article
Marketing
Agreement Adds 39 New Names
Scott
Horsfall is
arriving to become CEO of a
California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement that is on a
roll.
Initially
71 handlers signed-up for the agreement.
Then
two more signed on.
Now an additional 39 have put their signature to the agreement.
One company, Five Crowns Marketing, seems to have dropped off the list.
In total we have 111 handlers agreeing to legally bind
themselves to the Agreement and allow state inspectors on their
property Here are the new additions to the list of signatories.
Access Organics, Inc,
Kalispell, MT
Adam Bros. Produce Sales Inc,
Santa Maria
Amigo Farms Inc, Yuma
APIO, Inc, Guadalupe
Blanton Produce
Co, Salinas
Channel Islands
Cooling Inc, Oxnard
Crystal Organic
Farms, Bakersfield
Diamond Produce Co,
Salinas
Double D Farms, Coalinga
Farside Farms,
Coalinga
Four Star
Growers Inc, Lamont
Fresh Choice
Marketing Inc, Oxnard
Fresh Origins
LLC, San Marcos
Greenstar
Produce Marketing Inc, Salinas
Jayleaf Specialties,
Hollister
Jimenez Farms,
Santa Paula
Joe Heger Farms
LLC, El Centro
John S Tamagni
& Sons, Inc, Spreckels
Kawaguchi
Farms, Arroyo Grande
Lakeside Organic
Gardens LLC, Watsonville
LT Farm Inc,
Bakersfield
Monterey Organics Inc,
Salinas
Pacific Fresh
Produce Inc, Oxnard
Pacific
Marketing Co, Salinas
Pacific Pride
Marketing LLC, Oxnard
Pacific
Vegetable Growers Inc, Camarillo
Pauls Pak Inc,
Salinas
Peterson
Specialty Produce, Fallbrook
Premium Fresh Farms LLC,
Salinas
Reliable
Produce Sourcing LLC,
Saint Francis
Cooling Co Inc, Oxnard
Scarborough Farms Inc,
Oxnard
Seaboard
Produce Dist Inc, Oxnard
Sierra Heights
Marketing Inc, Porterville
Sunamerica Produce,
Salinas
Sunfresh USA
Inc, Santa Paula
Suprema Star,
Hollister
Times Produce
Inc, Los Angeles
William Consalo and
Sons, Bakersfield
It is a very impressive list, including
many small handlers. It couldn’t have happened without
incredible effort by the board members and the whole industry.
It allows the trade to point to one
unqualified success in responding to the food safety outbreaks
of last year. It proves that the trade can and will respond —
even without mandatory government regulation.
It is an accomplishment the industry
should be very proud of making happen. Yet, its very success points out its
limitations. It has obviously been so important to get even the
tiniest handler signed up.
Yet it doesn’t cover product from the
other 49 states.
It doesn’t cover imported product.
It only covers leafy greens.
And even if we were to have 100%
participation today — someone is bound to drop out one day or to
start a company without joining. Then we won’t have 100%
participation.
The world is filled with skeptics who
doubt the quality of a set of GAP metrics developed by the
produce industry. They stand in wait to pounce upon the very
first mishap and use that mishap to discredit the whole program.
Let us hope there is no mishap that will
give them a chance to undo so much good.
What's Your View?
Send This Story
permanent Link
Back To Top
print Article
|