Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Cereal killers

7 vues

Publié le

Winning Presentation at Circus Maximus, Marketing Case Study Competition at XLRI, Jamshedpur

Publié dans : Marketing
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Cereal killers

  1. 1. Schrodinger’s Foray into India DNA for location success in retail Evaluating framework and locations Value Proposition: Building for the future
  2. 2. Schrodinger’s Foray into India: Case Facts Business Models: 4 Types of Store Formats Decided to target metro cities, beginning with Arcadia Shortlisted 2 Wards for setting up Hypermart, need validation Successful in Europe: Aim to replicate business model in India Major Competitors: Big Mart & Sid’s Supercenters
  3. 3. Factors that Matter Customer Profile/ Patronage Transit, Traffic and Time Operating Cost Competition: Quantity, Quality, Type Potential for Growth Area & Store Composition Profitability
  4. 4. Metrics for Retail Success Profitability Ward 7: ₹ 2,80,97,227 Ward 6: ₹ 2,15,49,037 Ward 2: ₹ 39,57,997 Other units are non profitable. Running Costs Cluster 1: Affordable – Ward 3, 6, 7 Cluster 2: Premium – Ward 2, 8 Cluster 3: Pricey – Ward 4, 5 Ward 7: ₹ 702 /sq feet Ward 6: ₹ 539/sq feet Ward 2: ₹ 99/sq feet Other units provide a loss per square foot. Productivity
  5. 5. Competition Mapping Area & Vicinity BIG MART • Hypermarket in Ward 1 • First Mover Advantage • Anchor Format in large Mall • Direct competitor with same categories • Broken even SID’S • Supercenter in Business Sector • Daily Goods Specialist • Ward 5: Business District • Yet to Break Even • High Footfall • Unmanageable overheads • Highest Ticket Size in Ward High – Income Areas: 5, 4, 2 Mid – Income Areas: 8, 6, 7 Low – Income Areas: 3 Ward 3, 4 and 7 have the highest patronage scores
  6. 6. Ward Evaluation Matrix using Huff’s Law 0.47 0.69 0.55 0.26 0.59 0.49 0.41 Profitable Ward in the Premium Segment in terms of rent & high income consumers. Part of Affluent. 2nd highest no. of households. Profitable ward in Affordable segment with 2nd highest utilization per square feet Ward 5: Business Center with Supercenter competitor High overheads with highest ticket size & Income Ward 4: Business District with costliest rent and maximum overheads. Least profitable sector. Low income households with high growth potential & low costs but no profits due to ticket size The Moderate sector with costs, income, ticket sizes all hovering around average value. Low profitability. Likely to be an adopter. Our pick – Ward 7: Highest profitability Combined with max profit per sq. feet. Low overheads with proximity to Business Center (Highest Incomes) and semi – affluent residential zones
  7. 7. Strategy Forward Where? How?Why? Ward 7 flanked by 2 similar wards 6 and 8 . Ideally – along the south western boundary of ward. High profitability, low costs, largest number of households. Hi – Po secondary catchment. Minting competitive advantage and catering to 50,000+ households in standalone format.
  8. 8. Schrodinger’s Indian Foray: Decisions are easy, when values are clear First Customers Retail Saturation & Decline Early Adopters: Ward 7 Tertiary Catchments & Loyalists Building For Success: ARCADIA for INDIA Adjoining areas with high population density Ease of travelling for High Income Business Center with max income Catering to the burgeoning middle classes rather than the low income or affluent (competitive positioning) Location Advantage: Massive households, distinct positioning

×