Sainsbury's - Elephant-management in the main aisle...

With a less than expected fall in its third quarter, and confirmation of their convenience and quality credentials, there are many things right about Sainsbury’s.

Bearing in mind that the reported results reflect the whole of Sainsbury’s business, NAMs will have already compared their brands’ performance to check fair shares at category level.

However, in order to optimise opportunities, it is necessary for NAMs to go beyond Mike Coupe’s understated warning that "The outlook for the remainder of the financial year is set to remain challenging…” and explore possible issues and implications, ideally ahead of the competition.

Essentially, Sainsbury’s have to be considering the following:

Space redundancy
Like the other multiples, Sainsbury’s are probably occupying retail space that is 20% in excess of need, especially out-of-town. This means they will close and sell off some low-profit outlets. (See impact here )

However, this leaves some outlets that are too big for purpose in terms of the company’s current offering. These require re-engineering in terms of possibly franchising redundant space for complementary categories that might benefit from Sainsbury’s pulling power.

Meanwhile, there are instore theatre opportunities for suppliers in appropriate categories, providing that the resulting numbers exceed current-use performance…

Commercial Income
With Tesco re-negotiating its supplier contracts (see yesterday’s KamBlog below) it is likely that other multiples will have to follow suit.

This could mean that significant amounts of supplier trade investment will transfer into front margin, with a strong possibility (as you know, in current retail, only yesterday is certain!) that this will result in price-cuts sufficient to neutralise the discounters….

Whilst Sainsbury’s will probably edge upmarket to optimise their strengths at Waitrose end of the field, they will need to keep one foot firmly in mass retail and follow Tesco…

Meanwhile, the multiples and their suppliers need to re-assess their use of trade investment /commercial income as per the UK Financial Reporting Council (FRC) warning (see details).

Hopefully, proactive management of these two elephants will leave some time to deal with other distractions like food price deflation, flat-line demand and increasingly savvy consumers…

Tesco Supplier Contracts - a ‘back to front’ move in trade relationships?

On Thursday, Tesco is expected to announce that it is making major changes in supplier contracts by shifting its emphasis from back-margin to front-margin.

In practice, this has to mean that commercial income (trade investment) will be translated into sales-based reward, and presumably negotiated into trade margin and volume discounts. Given the sums involved, with trade investment running at 20% of their sales for many suppliers, and average trade margins at 25% of a retailer’s net sales, it is imperative that suppliers enter these re-negotiations, well prepared.

In effect, this means that a supplier has to be very clear about the actual cost to the business of each element of the supplier trade investment package, the purpose, the KPIs and the terms of compliance. Converting these sums into the incremental retail sales (ex VAT) that they represent, based on the retailer’s current net margin, will help in adding value in negotiation.

More importantly, it will remind the NAM that any transfer into front-margin has to be linked with appropriate levels of incremental sales.

In other words, as front-margin currently consists of a mix of the retailer’s trade margin and unconditional volume discounts (!) it is vital that any additional volume-based discounts should be made conditional upon specific initiatives hitting pre-agreed KPI targets, and paid in arrears – a reward for additional effort by the retail-partner, the original purpose of trade investment.

If Tesco manages to make this fundamental change in their supplier relationships, and unless suppliers are able to tie the incentives to specific in-store initiatives, it is probable that much of the monies will transfer into price support.

This means that other multiples will have to follow suit, or risk loss of market share.

Time for a fundamental re-assessment of the TOTAL support package your brand needs in making itself available to the consumer?

The Squeezed Middle - a surplus opportunity for 2015?

As we enter an unprecedented trading year, it is tempting to regard last year’s and 2015’s anticipated cut-backs as negative, and even causing some nervousness for those that are experiencing unprecedented sales growth, perhaps we should view the new market differently?

Instead of regarding the prolonged downturn in demand as a continuing spiral, how about regarding it as the elimination of surplus, with demand gradually working through the surplus that has resulted from 30 years of credit-fuelled growth?

In other words, in the way that post-Christmas dieting has already begun to yield results for some, so too the savvy consumer has spent the last year re-assessing and modifying their purchasing behaviour in the following ways:

• ‘Making do’ with existing food/non-food stocks and leftovers
• Food wastage being ’corrected’ by the weekly shop
• Less ‘wasteful’ car journeys to out-of-town superstores when a local shop can be more convenient, a source of exercise and helps to reduce car running costs...
• First-hand discovery that discounters are ok, that private label is worth including in the ‘making-do’ repertoire, and can even be ‘better than brands’ in some cases...

Where is this headed?
The above has combined with retailers’ discovery of the under-used tail in large-space retail, a fall in land-bank values, the inevitable closure of at least 20% of mult’s existing selling space, to point us at unprecedented cut-backs in consumer and retail demand in 2015, in order to absorb the now unwanted surplus. In the process, the retailers will rationalise ‘over-lapping’ brands in many categories, in order to simplify the retail offering at point-of-sale

How does it affect you?
‘…if you need to ask….’

What to do about it?
Patently, there is a need to reassess fundamental demand for your brand, vs available alternatives, and cut back obvious surplus, before the consumer/retailer does it on your behalf...

But keep in mind, we are talking about ‘surplus to demand’.

In other words, if we cannot make a case within the business for a real place for our brand, in a deal that is ‘obviously’ better that that available elsewhere, we are simply delaying the inevitable.

But, the consumer still needs our product. Now we need to help them re-appreciate our brand...

At long last we have reached a trading year that will eliminate the surplus and as a result, holds genuine opportunity for those that have the courage to go back to the fundamentals of consumer and trade need-management, faster and better than the other guys…

Coles ordered to pay $11.2m in penalties, legal fees for mistreating suppliers

According to reports in ABC Au News, the ACCC said the supermarket giant had set up the Active Retail Collaboration (ARC) program to make 200 small suppliers pay rebates to boost the company's profits. Details of specific charges here.

Even more importantly, the court used the word ‘unconscionable’ to describe Coles behaviour.
Unconscionable conduct is generally understood to mean conduct which is so harsh that it goes against good conscience. 

Under the Australian Consumer Law, businesses must not engage in unconscionable conduct, when dealing with other businesses or their customers, following a Federal Court decision to uphold an Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) settlement over supplier mistreatment.

The ACCC used its compulsory information gathering powers, forcing suppliers and Coles to provide information about the claims.
.
Why this is serious
There are a number of factors an Au court will consider when assessing whether conduct in relation to the selling or supplying of goods and services to a customer, or to the supplying or acquiring of goods or services to or from a business, is unconscionable.

These include:
- the relative bargaining strength of the parties
- whether any conditions were imposed on the weaker party that were not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the stronger party
- whether the weaker party could understand the documentation used
- the use of undue influence, pressure or unfair tactics by the stronger party
- the requirements of applicable industry codes
- the willingness of the stronger party to negotiate
- the extent to which the parties acted in good faith.

This is not an exhaustive list and it should be noted that the court may also consider any other factor it thinks relevant.

The key idea is that the Au authorities are using legislation and language that will guarantee the wide publication of the details in consumer media, in terms of criticism of retailers for abuse of power, especially with regard to small suppliers.

Application to the UK
Despite a distance of 10,500 miles, the case has to set important precedents for UK authorities….

Apart from the obvious pointers for strengthening UK rules, the case clearly demonstrates the ‘teeth’ that have been given to Au competition authorities, meaning that UK will have re-assess all current supplier-retailer practices in anticipation of eventual application here.

The Tesco SFO investigation will provide a platform and act as a catalyst in defining and accelerating appropriate change in the UK.

The problem for UK retailers is that the combination of 45+ days credit, trade investment of 20+% of purchases, deductions of 5+% and price-cutting currently result in Net Profit margins of approximately 3%, meaning that retailers will be unable roll-back any of these sources of income without diluting their profits…

It remains to be seen how early in 2015 the pace of equivalent change will begin to accelerate in the UK…

See here for guidance on How to avoid becoming a victim of unconscionable conduct, How to avoid engaging in unconscionable conduct, Penalties and remedies, and links to appropriate Au law.

A Christmas message from the SFO to S Claus Enterprises Ltd. via NamNews

DOWNLOAD COPY

'Prompt' Payment - are we all missing something?

News that food giant 2 Sisters has been seeking more than four months to pay its bills, is but the latest in a growing line of companies that apparently see supplier credit as a free source of Working Capital…

Given that the interest-free credit period given by suppliers was originally intended to help a customer to bridge the gap between receipt of the goods and payment by its customers, then payment should be related to this time-frame.

How about replacing the 'Prompt' Payment Code with a Fair Payment Code?

In the fast-moving UK grocery & food industries, with daily deliveries and average supplier credit-periods of 30-45 days, and H&B/Non-foods reaching 90 days, 'prompt' is hardly an accurate description of current payment periods in the industry.

Moreover, government belief that the Prompt Payment Code (i.e. compliance with negotiated terms) fixes the problem, is a misconception.

A supplier in financial difficulties neither has the muscle to negotiate earlier payments, nor can afford to offer sufficient settlement terms to encourage a reduction in days' credit. Besides, in most circumstances, a supplier will still be reluctant to risk reporting a major customer for breaches of the code.

If the government really wants to bring about change, it needs to appreciate that credit period given by suppliers was originally intended to help a customer bridge the gap between receipt of the goods and payment by the shopper or customer. In the current UK market, with stockturns averaging 25 times per annum, but in some categories turning daily, or at least twice per week, surely payment period should be related to delivery frequency?

In practice this means that fresh produce delivered daily to retailers, should be paid for within 5 days, allowing for 'efficiencies' of the current Banking system? Non-foods, delivered weekly, should perhaps be paid for within 10 days of receipt.

Relating credit period to delivery frequency would reward efficiencies on each side, and would shift the emphasis away from free credit as a source of working capital. It would also remove much of the political sensitivity attached to potential charges of abuse of power by the major multiples...

However, simply imposing a category-based credit period, and legislating to reduce to those levels is not the answer.

Current credit periods have developed over time and represent an agreed balance between supply and payment between two business partners. A one-sided reduction of the credit period would be unfair to the retailer.

What has to happen is for each party to agree the financial advantage represented by the current credit-period and calculate the loss to the retailer represented by paying faster. This loss could then be restored via other parts of the supplier-retailer package, thus maintaining a fair-share trading relationship.

A real Christmas present for suppliers everywhere?

Abolishing Trade Investment by suppliers - the impact on brands

News that Tesco is allegedly planning to dismantle the system of using Commercial Income, or Trade Investment, as a source of cash from suppliers raises a number of issues for NAMs and competing retailers.

What does it mean financially?

Conclusions:

• Supplier cannot afford additional investment (in fact the calculation shows why so many suppliers are struggling profit-wise)
• Retailers are not going to surrender Trade Investment & Deductions as sources of income
• Retailers may try to negotiate Trade Investment into Margin, thus removing the issue of how it is booked in the business
• Trade Investment may be absorbed into retail running costs and price-cutting, with less available for in-store customer incentives
• Eventually, additionally funding may be requested in order to 'create a bit of excitement' in-store....

Still ok with your trade agreements for 2015?
(Why not substitute your brand's % in the above calculation and see what it is costing you to be onshelf...?)

Walgreens-Boots: Pessina to acting CEO, Wasson to retire

News just in confirms that following completion of the merger in Q1, 2015, Greg Wasson will retire and Stefano Pessina will become acting CEO.

Although Boots will represent 33% vs Walgreens 66%, the combination of Pessina’s personal shareholding of 16% and the acting CEO role has to give Boots the opportunity to punch way above its weight in 2015…

A happy New Year to NAMs everywhere!!