July 19, 2007
Consumers Get Lucky, Grocery Banner Returns
The name Lucky means something to consumers in northern California and now Save Mart is bringing the grocery store banner back at 72 locations throughout the San Francisco Bay area.
Bob Spengler, president of Save Mart Supermarkets, told the Oroville Mercury Register the decision to bring the Lucky back was made simple based on its consumer research.
“Lucky kept coming up – and there hasn’t been one in seven years. That’s the power of a brand. That Lucky name is so powerful,” said Mr. Spengler.
According to Mr. Spengler, Lucky stores will look to seek shopper loyalty by building on the chain’s heritage of delivering the low prices, products and service customers desire.
Save Mart intends to position Lucky as the “low-price leader” and to that end has begun cutting prices on SKUs throughout the store.
Mr. Spengler has also decided to operate Lucky without a shopper card program. “I don’t believe in the card,” he said. “I believe every customer is a valued customer. Why single out somebody and give them a reward? Give everyone the same value.”
While the Lucky locations intend to push price, Save Mart’s Spengler said it would also pay attention to customer service issues such as product selection and speeding consumers through checkouts.
Save Mart has said it will determine product mix on a store-by-store basis. “We’re going to get the food they (consumers) need,” Mr. Spengler said. “We’re not going to have cookie-cutter stores.”
According to the Mercury Register report, “one-third of a store in Los Altos is tailored to a Jewish audience, stores in San Francisco will emphasize more Asian foods, and Watsonville stores will sell more foods for a Latino palate.”
As for the grocery store’s Achilles heel, the checkout, Lucky’s will reintroduce its “Three’s a crowd” policy of opening a new lane whenever three people are waiting on line.
Emily Cervino is a former Lucky’s customer who is happy Save Mart is bringing the banner and its old ways back. “When I’m in Albertsons, I’m thinking, ‘Hey, three’s a crowd, man – open another line up!”‘
Discussion Questions: What do companies need to be aware of when bringing a brand out of mothballs as Save Mart is doing with Lucky? What is your assessment of how Save Mart is doing with its planned introduction of the Lucky banner?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Bringing back the goodness of Lucky stores: what a way to raise customer expectations! If the execution isn’t crisp, shoppers will remember and the boomerang will be severe. It’s like a first date: everyone has to be on their best behavior, or it’s awfully hard to get a second chance. That’s why many retail store and hotels use “soft openings.” They don’t advertise a grand opening until they operate for a while, to be sure that the team forms up well, and things are going smoothly. Save Mart’s big publicity push is dares the public to make a comparison ASAP.
While I, and probably many, many others have been looking forward to this since the name appeared on the ABC notices several months ago, a number of caveats should be observed:
1) the ultimate success of SM’s efforts is dependent on delivering a meaningful shopping experience–DUH!: if the experience is similar to Albertsons’ (uninspiring) effort, it will accomplish nothing
(2) this probably says more about SM’s lack of name recognition than anything else (of course, as Macy’s has found out, even a [presumably] strong name is no guarantee of success.)
And for those still hoping to drive a brand new LaSalle down to the corner drugstore and pick-up a copy of “Look”…yes, there IS still hope.
For Lucky to be successful Save Mart needs to deliver low-prices and broad product selection under an enhanced customer service position. Based upon this article, it does not appear that the enhanced customer service position will be one of their core focus points, but that Lucky is still fixated on low-product pricing and product selection. Any customer can get this from the competition. The difference will be the customer service component. This needs to come from the top of the store management chain down to each employee who is hired.
Lucky needs to model its customer service on a Whole Foods, Draegers or other premium customer service grocers that have motivated employees who seek to deliver the best in customer service. Then, Lucky will have delivered on a different value proposition!
I am also waiting for the return of Marshall Field’s, the Russian Tea Room and the Concorde.
There’s a big difference between a brand that died because it was no longer loved, like Montgomery Ward or Woolworth, and a brand that was loved by many, but nonetheless killed and replaced by an interloping, inferior brand, like Lucky by Albertsons and Marshall Field’s by Macy’s. If Save Mart knows how to run Lucky’s the way it should, it will be very successful with both former and new Lucky customers. Unfortunately, it’s obvious to us in Chicago that Macy’s doesn’t know how to run a quality department store (we’ve been underwhelmed by Bloomingdale’s for years) so we’re hoping for a divestiture to someone who can. Lucky’s story gives us hope that we Field’s customers will finally get what we want. Congratulations to Save Mart management for listening and paying attention to its shoppers.
Well, why the change? New ownership, or the did the research amongst shoppers in Northern California rate the brand name Lucky better than Save Mart?
I guess Lucky beat Save Mart’s market image and point of difference.
Hope the owners did their research, and got it right! Hmmmmmmmmmm
The MAD MARKETING world of retail grocers and supermarkets.
I remember visiting Lucky stores years ago while working in California and I really did miss that chain. The 2 stores I frequented really had a down home feeling to them and it was always a pleasure shopping Lucky. When resurrecting brands, companies need to be aware of the hype that builds and deliver on the expectations of the consumer.
It’s hard to see how this can be a negative, given that the Lucky brand equity is costing them nothing to leverage beyond some signage and promotion. Holiday Inns did some interesting nostalgia brand marketing recently with a “remember real breakfasts?” campaign and punched some holes in their newer competitors frosted-doughnut-and-bottled-juice breakfast offerings.
Perhaps there is now more hope for the Marshall Field’s brand to return with the rumored sale of Macy’s and the possible break-up of the chain into higher valued regional components. If I was KKR, I would also get the I. Magnin brand back into the West Coast marketplace in lieu of Bloomingdale’s, pronto before the I. Magnin customers all die.
I would wager that never in the history of industry have so many brands with such high equity been willingly withdrawn from the marketplace as with this “Macy’s Macy’s Macy’s” effort.
Those people who remember the Lucky brand will have specific expectations about the brand which will have to be identified and met for the change to be effective. How many of the Save Mart current customers are new, don’t remember Lucky, and will be confused about losing the retailer to which they have developed loyalty? Making the change sounds as though it is a good move. However, these two issues will be critical to their success.
Many “retired” brands, even years after their demise, continue to have equity and can be brought back to life successfully and profitably. If executed in a way that is reasonably true to the brand’s original roots and reputation, it can be a winning proposition for new owners and customers alike. If it is just a gimmick to save the marketing expense of rolling out a new brand–and there is no “there” there–customers will know soon enough.
My association with American Stores was highlighted by the energy and enthusiasm of the Lucky Food Stores people. A brand is only as good as those people representing it. Yes, many people in California remember Lucky for what it was–who remembers Alpha Beta–but can Save Mart reproduce this unique culture to the satisfaction of Lucky’s old customer base’s memories? I hope so! We had the marriage commercials, bring on the divorce commercials–give them something to talk about in California!
I’m confused as to what Mr. Spengler’s strategy is with respect to resurrecting the Lucky brand. The brand hasn’t existed for over seven years, yet he points out that people still remember it. Yes, they probably do. But what they recall is the fact that the brand has been gone for a number of years. They don’t necessarily recall for what the brand stood.
He then points out that he wants Lucky to be known as the low-price leader. If that is the case, the brand is meaningless. You can be called Bob’s Foods, and if you are selling your product based on price, and price only, people will find you, at least for awhile. But I also caution Mr. Spengler that this strategy seldom works. There is always someone who can sell product for less money.
Finally he points out the loyalty cards are not necessary because every customer should be treated as if they are special. True. But the cards can provide great consumer information if used properly, and you can then start to market on a one-to-one basis.
Selling on price, not building loyalty, and fooling people to believe that the new “Lucky” has the heritage of a former company, when it doesn’t. I’m not sure this is a viable strategy.
This is such a “feel good” move, that it is nothing but a “win-win” for Save Mart.
Lucky has always had a fond and loyal place in many Bay Area shopper’s hearts. You just couldn’t leave a Lucky store there without a big smile on your face and extra savings in your wallet.
Congratulations and bravo to Save Mart for restoring a fine supermarket name and all of its many fine principles to the Bay area. Aren’t they “lucky” to have Lucky back again?
Bringing back an old brand is always an adventure in marketing. While it makes sense to tap into the equity of the old brand, sometimes it is based on simple nostalgia and does not create a sustainable advantage. Certainly, the use of an old brand can conflict with a more modern, trendy image.
In the case of Lucky, I feel it makes sense. I have done quite a bit of consumer research in this market over the years. The Lucky brand is still strongly regarded by shoppers. In some respects, the Albertsons brand was seen as an interloper and the banner lost significant market share.
That said, the use of the Lucky brand will only give Save Mart a short term boost in the market. It will remain for them to ultimately compete on the value they provide the consumer versus the other alternatives in the marketplace.
This is a no brainer–so many Northern Californians have positive memories of Lucky–Save Mart is smart to utilize the brand equity. It IS true though, that execution is key and of the utmost importance! Like others have already stated–you can’t have a “boomerang” effect where expectations are not met and the effort is seen as a simple empty ploy. It does NOT sound or seem that this is the case and I applaud Save Mart.
It IS true that there are so many brands that, although defunct, STILL carry such goodwill and good thoughts in association with them, and Lucky was one of these. The majority of the others I can think of regionally are, of course, department stores. However, in many places, the grocery store also meant so much to a community but they were taken for granted. Many of the local grocers also still survive in smaller forms while the local department stores are gone. The names that come to my mind besides the afore mentioned Marshall Field’s and I. Magnin, include BONWIT TELLER, John Wanamaker, Garfinkel’s, (and Woodies), Bullock’s Wilshire, Rich’s and Burdines. Ask local people in the respective trade areas of these former concerns, and I predict that you will receive positive thoughts and remarks. Much of this is simply nostalgia and some is a reflection of the good work locally performed by these enterprises. The key is to utilize that customer thought in combination with strong resolve and focus of the execution of the store–in this case Lucky–to answer the expectation of the potential customer.
Lucky must know who they want to be and who their target customer is and they must marry these ideas together and it seems very much that Save Mart already has this figured out. I wish them –all the luck!
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Bringing back the goodness of Lucky stores: what a way to raise customer expectations! If the execution isn’t crisp, shoppers will remember and the boomerang will be severe. It’s like a first date: everyone has to be on their best behavior, or it’s awfully hard to get a second chance. That’s why many retail store and hotels use “soft openings.” They don’t advertise a grand opening until they operate for a while, to be sure that the team forms up well, and things are going smoothly. Save Mart’s big publicity push is dares the public to make a comparison ASAP.
While I, and probably many, many others have been looking forward to this since the name appeared on the ABC notices several months ago, a number of caveats should be observed:
1) the ultimate success of SM’s efforts is dependent on delivering a meaningful shopping experience–DUH!: if the experience is similar to Albertsons’ (uninspiring) effort, it will accomplish nothing
(2) this probably says more about SM’s lack of name recognition than anything else (of course, as Macy’s has found out, even a [presumably] strong name is no guarantee of success.)
And for those still hoping to drive a brand new LaSalle down to the corner drugstore and pick-up a copy of “Look”…yes, there IS still hope.
For Lucky to be successful Save Mart needs to deliver low-prices and broad product selection under an enhanced customer service position. Based upon this article, it does not appear that the enhanced customer service position will be one of their core focus points, but that Lucky is still fixated on low-product pricing and product selection. Any customer can get this from the competition. The difference will be the customer service component. This needs to come from the top of the store management chain down to each employee who is hired.
Lucky needs to model its customer service on a Whole Foods, Draegers or other premium customer service grocers that have motivated employees who seek to deliver the best in customer service. Then, Lucky will have delivered on a different value proposition!
I am also waiting for the return of Marshall Field’s, the Russian Tea Room and the Concorde.
There’s a big difference between a brand that died because it was no longer loved, like Montgomery Ward or Woolworth, and a brand that was loved by many, but nonetheless killed and replaced by an interloping, inferior brand, like Lucky by Albertsons and Marshall Field’s by Macy’s. If Save Mart knows how to run Lucky’s the way it should, it will be very successful with both former and new Lucky customers. Unfortunately, it’s obvious to us in Chicago that Macy’s doesn’t know how to run a quality department store (we’ve been underwhelmed by Bloomingdale’s for years) so we’re hoping for a divestiture to someone who can. Lucky’s story gives us hope that we Field’s customers will finally get what we want. Congratulations to Save Mart management for listening and paying attention to its shoppers.
Well, why the change? New ownership, or the did the research amongst shoppers in Northern California rate the brand name Lucky better than Save Mart?
I guess Lucky beat Save Mart’s market image and point of difference.
Hope the owners did their research, and got it right! Hmmmmmmmmmm
The MAD MARKETING world of retail grocers and supermarkets.
I remember visiting Lucky stores years ago while working in California and I really did miss that chain. The 2 stores I frequented really had a down home feeling to them and it was always a pleasure shopping Lucky. When resurrecting brands, companies need to be aware of the hype that builds and deliver on the expectations of the consumer.
It’s hard to see how this can be a negative, given that the Lucky brand equity is costing them nothing to leverage beyond some signage and promotion. Holiday Inns did some interesting nostalgia brand marketing recently with a “remember real breakfasts?” campaign and punched some holes in their newer competitors frosted-doughnut-and-bottled-juice breakfast offerings.
Perhaps there is now more hope for the Marshall Field’s brand to return with the rumored sale of Macy’s and the possible break-up of the chain into higher valued regional components. If I was KKR, I would also get the I. Magnin brand back into the West Coast marketplace in lieu of Bloomingdale’s, pronto before the I. Magnin customers all die.
I would wager that never in the history of industry have so many brands with such high equity been willingly withdrawn from the marketplace as with this “Macy’s Macy’s Macy’s” effort.
Those people who remember the Lucky brand will have specific expectations about the brand which will have to be identified and met for the change to be effective. How many of the Save Mart current customers are new, don’t remember Lucky, and will be confused about losing the retailer to which they have developed loyalty? Making the change sounds as though it is a good move. However, these two issues will be critical to their success.
Many “retired” brands, even years after their demise, continue to have equity and can be brought back to life successfully and profitably. If executed in a way that is reasonably true to the brand’s original roots and reputation, it can be a winning proposition for new owners and customers alike. If it is just a gimmick to save the marketing expense of rolling out a new brand–and there is no “there” there–customers will know soon enough.
My association with American Stores was highlighted by the energy and enthusiasm of the Lucky Food Stores people. A brand is only as good as those people representing it. Yes, many people in California remember Lucky for what it was–who remembers Alpha Beta–but can Save Mart reproduce this unique culture to the satisfaction of Lucky’s old customer base’s memories? I hope so! We had the marriage commercials, bring on the divorce commercials–give them something to talk about in California!
I’m confused as to what Mr. Spengler’s strategy is with respect to resurrecting the Lucky brand. The brand hasn’t existed for over seven years, yet he points out that people still remember it. Yes, they probably do. But what they recall is the fact that the brand has been gone for a number of years. They don’t necessarily recall for what the brand stood.
He then points out that he wants Lucky to be known as the low-price leader. If that is the case, the brand is meaningless. You can be called Bob’s Foods, and if you are selling your product based on price, and price only, people will find you, at least for awhile. But I also caution Mr. Spengler that this strategy seldom works. There is always someone who can sell product for less money.
Finally he points out the loyalty cards are not necessary because every customer should be treated as if they are special. True. But the cards can provide great consumer information if used properly, and you can then start to market on a one-to-one basis.
Selling on price, not building loyalty, and fooling people to believe that the new “Lucky” has the heritage of a former company, when it doesn’t. I’m not sure this is a viable strategy.
This is such a “feel good” move, that it is nothing but a “win-win” for Save Mart.
Lucky has always had a fond and loyal place in many Bay Area shopper’s hearts. You just couldn’t leave a Lucky store there without a big smile on your face and extra savings in your wallet.
Congratulations and bravo to Save Mart for restoring a fine supermarket name and all of its many fine principles to the Bay area. Aren’t they “lucky” to have Lucky back again?
Bringing back an old brand is always an adventure in marketing. While it makes sense to tap into the equity of the old brand, sometimes it is based on simple nostalgia and does not create a sustainable advantage. Certainly, the use of an old brand can conflict with a more modern, trendy image.
In the case of Lucky, I feel it makes sense. I have done quite a bit of consumer research in this market over the years. The Lucky brand is still strongly regarded by shoppers. In some respects, the Albertsons brand was seen as an interloper and the banner lost significant market share.
That said, the use of the Lucky brand will only give Save Mart a short term boost in the market. It will remain for them to ultimately compete on the value they provide the consumer versus the other alternatives in the marketplace.
This is a no brainer–so many Northern Californians have positive memories of Lucky–Save Mart is smart to utilize the brand equity. It IS true though, that execution is key and of the utmost importance! Like others have already stated–you can’t have a “boomerang” effect where expectations are not met and the effort is seen as a simple empty ploy. It does NOT sound or seem that this is the case and I applaud Save Mart.
It IS true that there are so many brands that, although defunct, STILL carry such goodwill and good thoughts in association with them, and Lucky was one of these. The majority of the others I can think of regionally are, of course, department stores. However, in many places, the grocery store also meant so much to a community but they were taken for granted. Many of the local grocers also still survive in smaller forms while the local department stores are gone. The names that come to my mind besides the afore mentioned Marshall Field’s and I. Magnin, include BONWIT TELLER, John Wanamaker, Garfinkel’s, (and Woodies), Bullock’s Wilshire, Rich’s and Burdines. Ask local people in the respective trade areas of these former concerns, and I predict that you will receive positive thoughts and remarks. Much of this is simply nostalgia and some is a reflection of the good work locally performed by these enterprises. The key is to utilize that customer thought in combination with strong resolve and focus of the execution of the store–in this case Lucky–to answer the expectation of the potential customer.
Lucky must know who they want to be and who their target customer is and they must marry these ideas together and it seems very much that Save Mart already has this figured out. I wish them –all the luck!