March 6, 2007
Supermarket U.
Laval University is going to school, literally, on what it takes to make it in the grocery business with plans to open the first “supermarket school” in North America.
The store, as proposed by the school located in Canada’s Quebec City, is intended, among other things, to enable researchers to conduct studies on a wide variety of issues affecting supermarkets in a working environment.
A number of Canada’s leading grocery chains, including Sobey’s and Loblaw, plan to invest in the school/store.
“This will certainly be something out of the ordinary for a university campus, where people aren’t used to seeing a real-time laboratory,” Jean-Claude Dufour, a marketing professor at Laval, told the Globe and Mail.
“It’s unique,” said Mr. Dufour. “It will be a state-of-the-art facility with the ability to accommodate all the latest electronics, computers, satellites, and do research in everything from high-tech shopping carts and cash registers to consumer psychology and retail-management.”
Paul Paquin, vice-dean of research at Laval’s faculty of agriculture and food sciences, said the new program is a perfect complement to existing programs at the school. “We already have farms, greenhouses and an experimental food-processing plant, so a food distributor is an additional piece that fits in nicely with the platform,” he said.
Discussion Questions: What types of research that could be conducted in Laval University’s supermarket school would be most helpful to actual store operators? Are there universities involved in consumer and/or retail research that have consistently produced studies with real world applications?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
I am certainly biased, but I hope they don’t just focus on overall management and store-level operations, but also include that critical element–the supply chain.
A program like this would really benefit from either finding someone on the faculty that knows supply chain, or bringing in outside talent, to expose students to this aspect of running a grocery store chain.
As a small anecdote, I have recently taken to asking even store managers why a product is out of stock. The answer almost always is: “the truck didn’t come,” or “it wasn’t on the truck.”
While those may be the literally true answers, it masks what’s going on in the supply chain and logistics activities driving the shelf, and as one consumer goods company recently said to me: “who wins the shelf wins the game.”
This step by Laval U. helps show how retail in general is evolving into a more mature business segment. While it may seem strange to describe one of the oldest businesses as just now getting to the mature stage, it is an apt description of retail. Many techniques and processes long-used in other industries are just now making their way into retail. Recognizing that in the current and future competitive environments, it won’t be sufficient to do things in a more “seat of the pants” way, retailers are looking more and more to universities to provide individuals trained in retail management. Laval U. continues the trend with this school, which should be a great way to bring more method to chaos.
This is great! So the next “Supermarketeers” will not have to experience the traditional trial and error. One of the most important things the University could teach is how you become attractive to a diverse consumer group and what are their needs. What does the supermarket of the future look like? How do you blend in technology to prevent shrinkage, damage, and date expiration?
Are today’s consumers looking for fast, home cooked meals, already prepared? Has the art of cooking become a dinosaur? How can your merchandise evolve to meet the changing needs of the consumer?
Just a few beneficial thoughts on what the University Research could offer along with the traditional basics.
Most supermarket practices are driven by lore and the convenience of management. This is largely because of a lack of serious information about how shoppers shop the store. For example, the number of supermarket managers that are aware that the dominant flow of traffic in their center of store aisles is from the back to the front is probably infinitesimally small. And yet, simply counting the direction of shoppers in all aisles can be done in a few minutes. And if there are at least 50 people in the store, I have NEVER seen one with more people moving to the back than moving to the front (they get to the back on the perimeter racetrack.)
Even given this simply verifiable fact, the vast majority of shipper displays are still being neatly faced toward the checkers and management, rather than toward the shoppers. So I would expect any “supermarket university” to simply add onto the accretion of management convenience thinking that has driven the industry to its present state.
I think that moving the industry to a fact based mode begins with the frank recognition that it is NOT so oriented at this time.
The box I ticked was retail management on the basis that it pretty much incorporates everything else, as it should. If that wasn’t the intention, then I wish there was something that was all-inclusive because the opportunities provided by this program are enormous. Fancy being able to teach and assess students who will go on to become consumers (not that they aren’t already but perhaps a whole different type of consumer having seen a store operate from the inside) as well as managers in either the retail industry or something totally different where they can apply what they’ve learned. Sounds good to me. Identifying and examining the relationship between the different aspects of the way a store operates and those who are on both the giving and the receiving end would be invaluable.
Laval’s idea is fabulous. Long overdue. The biggest challenge will be conducting research that is at all relevant to the industry at large since:
– Quebec city isn’t exactly representative;
– The shoppers at this store won’t be representative even of Quebec city;
– The shopping experience will be unlike that which the typical American shopper encounters;
– So many projects will probably be going on at once that resulting data won’t be “clean.”
Nevertheless, testing practicable ideas– both human and technological– with lead retailers and vendors is leaps and bounds above the current 3GR approach to supermarket retailing.
Unless an experienced group takes responsibility for answering your question, it’s very likely that a lot of the research done in the new supermarket school will not help actual supermarket operators.
My recommendation would be that the research focus on a range of different topics in the store with the goal of simply showing operators:
>A benchmark measure they can use to determine how their performances compare with those of others.
>A direction on how they can improve, i.e., one that’s clear and can be executed.
With that focus, the new retail lab will create a lot of new value.
There is not enough hands-on experience at the University level in programs that focus on retail management. Building a successful store involves experimenting with different things and developing what works. I think that this experience will benefit the students.
This concept is so overdue. So many college grads don’t have the experience companies are looking for. They do have a lot of textbook knowledge. I’m in a Consumer Behavior course with students who don’t have a clue about what it takes to start or run a business. There is so much value in offering some real courses that prepare them for life in the business world.
I would love to have my degree in Sales. The nearest degree is Marketing. The two are a good marriage but my love is Sales. I hope Supermarket U. is something the academic world will pay attention to nationwide. Maybe we’ll see some more “real” courses.
I would second the opinion that it needs to be down to earth and practical. I see so much university research into retail issues that only focuses on defining the problem or defining a new approach to analyzing a problem, but never produces any recommendations for how retailers should solve a problem. “Implementable” should be the motto.
I would love to see a study done on how much profit can be made by sticking to the basic principals of customer service and merchandising. Both of the above would have to be managed by real professional managers who actually teach employees what to do and explain to them the reasons and logic behind what he/she is teaching. Study should prohibit any manufacturer from influencing any advertising/promotion/marketing decision with ad/promotion incentives. Only cost discounts could be accepted and at least 100% of all manufacturers/supplier discounts would be applied as direct product price reductions.
I would then like to see the above results compared to any of the less efficient (measure profit or ROI) chain grocers who are so fond of “advertising programs,” diversion, annual supplier contracts, etc.
These results should be PUBLISHED and names should be furnished to all so stockholders can see what is going on.
I would make sure the curriculum includes in-store merch, technology applications, consumer behaviour, HR, and finance.
With the majority of purchase decisions being made in the store, in-store merch has become vital. Too many operators are intimidated by the complexity and perceived costs of new technology. Some knowledge in this area would help them with their purchase decision and make them more open to innovative, beneficial technology. In consumer behaviour I would provide them with the tools to find current, valid, meaningful information on demographics-psychographics changes and how to benefit from them. HR is a forever issue. How to motivate an often-minimum wage employee is something that a university can provide through psychology and sociology. Also how to pick/train people for promotion, bigger responsibilities, for a career is something university’s can do well.
In all of the above, the operating word is practical. The course has to be practical, the teachers should mostly come from our industry. No ivory tower professors allowed.
The supermarket business conducts itself linearly, not conceptually. Maybe Laval can be a positive factor in balancing that situation and bring supermarkets back into the spotlight. Thus I would opt for them to emphasize entrepreneurship too.
Whether the supermarket industry needs more technological sophistication, better supply chains, closer customer service, improved in-store merchandising or lots of something else, the answers always seem to be clearer in the brains of the experts than in the operators. Where are the innovative entrepreneur-types that built the supermarket business? Of course there are some excellent examples in the supermarket sector today, but too many entrepreneurs have left the supermarket industry and gotten involved (and rich) with specialty retailing such Staples and Whole Foods or other businesses such as American Financial. Has that brain-drain dulled the supermarket business?
Not surprisingly, many have gravitated to the tangible learning side of this question, primarily driven by research and data. Nothing wrong with that to be sure. But I’d like to make an appeal to this institution to spend some time on the HUMAN side as well. To wit, learn how managers can maintain a high level of employee involvement in the stores. Teach them how to motivate employees to actually seek out and serve customer’s needs. Teach them how to help employees enjoy their jobs, because when they do it shows and it matters to customers. Help our industry realize and capitalize on the value of making customers feel good.
According to our data, the supermarket industry as a whole suffers from business and management practices that are not quite up to date, and that cost even individual stores significant amounts of money. This seems to surprise many in the industry, because the industry focuses a great deal of resources on new technology and how to apply it. Is it a lack of ideas or information that holds the industry back?
For example, our data-based study on how supermarkets can take back market share from the discounters actually included results of five tests for doing this, four of them not working (which are the four basic strategies the industry uses) and one strategy working very well. The industry as a whole has been somewhat reticent to look at this data.
This shows a phenomenon we have observed and measured numerous times in the industry: some information and ideas are easily accepted and implemented, some are not. The laboratory concept is a great idea (with the understanding that laboratories can produce highly distorted information, which must be recognized and adjusted for), but our own experience with the grocery industry over the last 40 years seems to suggest that there is an underlying resistance within the industry to openly exploring information on fundamental problems. It seems possible that if the laboratory focuses on well-accepted issues, it will not be focusing on fundamental problems, but it will have a great deal of success. The opposite also seems likely to be true. Perhaps one of the most important issues the lab could focus on is where this resistance comes from and how to overcome it.
It’s about time! With increased levels of sophistication in data, technology and the consumer, it’s surprising that a school like this hasn’t been considered before. Category management and data analysis should be intertwined into much of the work at the school. A strong category management foundation at a retailer drives strategy and results long-term.
Many retail firms, supermarkets included, screen out the better educated recruits by insisting they get promoted from within, starting with positions that are clearly inappropriate. It’s important that no organization creates an unworthy privileged class. But it’s also critical to avoid putting high potential candidates through inappropriate delays in their careers.
All the listed subjects would apply, and be of benefit. But, importantly, it is vital that our supermarket industry begin to understand the need to be consumer marketers, vs. simply waiting for shoppers to buy their food and meal needs.
The alternatives available for buying foods, groceries and carry-out meals elsewhere is beating the industry and taking major dollars and GPM away.
Is it not time to believe that if you have a base of shoppers, you can develop them into loyal shoppers through the perishable departments, especially meals, heat and serve, and take home?
There is no longer the opportunity to remain complacent when the shoppers of today are so different than their parents and grandparents…but, few supermarket chains fully understand this.
And, our supermarkets still use only price and merchandising, to await the shopping trip of its neighborhood consumers. Talk about an outdated means to entice consumers!
Absolutely, no magic in this old and worn out methodology; or in thinking the little “Ma and Pa” stores in meals, delis, restaurant carry outs, produce and meat shops are going away!
Might we say they are eating the industry’s lunch?! Or is it meals to go and dinner? Hmmmmmmmmm
More Discussions
Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?Should IKEA Be Flattening Management?
Should IKEA be trimming down its management headcount?Is Legislation the Answer on Visa, Mastercard Swipe Fees as ~$200 Billion Record Is Set?
Is lawmaking the way forward on swipe fees?
I am certainly biased, but I hope they don’t just focus on overall management and store-level operations, but also include that critical element–the supply chain.
A program like this would really benefit from either finding someone on the faculty that knows supply chain, or bringing in outside talent, to expose students to this aspect of running a grocery store chain.
As a small anecdote, I have recently taken to asking even store managers why a product is out of stock. The answer almost always is: “the truck didn’t come,” or “it wasn’t on the truck.”
While those may be the literally true answers, it masks what’s going on in the supply chain and logistics activities driving the shelf, and as one consumer goods company recently said to me: “who wins the shelf wins the game.”
This step by Laval U. helps show how retail in general is evolving into a more mature business segment. While it may seem strange to describe one of the oldest businesses as just now getting to the mature stage, it is an apt description of retail. Many techniques and processes long-used in other industries are just now making their way into retail. Recognizing that in the current and future competitive environments, it won’t be sufficient to do things in a more “seat of the pants” way, retailers are looking more and more to universities to provide individuals trained in retail management. Laval U. continues the trend with this school, which should be a great way to bring more method to chaos.
This is great! So the next “Supermarketeers” will not have to experience the traditional trial and error. One of the most important things the University could teach is how you become attractive to a diverse consumer group and what are their needs. What does the supermarket of the future look like? How do you blend in technology to prevent shrinkage, damage, and date expiration?
Are today’s consumers looking for fast, home cooked meals, already prepared? Has the art of cooking become a dinosaur? How can your merchandise evolve to meet the changing needs of the consumer?
Just a few beneficial thoughts on what the University Research could offer along with the traditional basics.
Most supermarket practices are driven by lore and the convenience of management. This is largely because of a lack of serious information about how shoppers shop the store. For example, the number of supermarket managers that are aware that the dominant flow of traffic in their center of store aisles is from the back to the front is probably infinitesimally small. And yet, simply counting the direction of shoppers in all aisles can be done in a few minutes. And if there are at least 50 people in the store, I have NEVER seen one with more people moving to the back than moving to the front (they get to the back on the perimeter racetrack.)
Even given this simply verifiable fact, the vast majority of shipper displays are still being neatly faced toward the checkers and management, rather than toward the shoppers. So I would expect any “supermarket university” to simply add onto the accretion of management convenience thinking that has driven the industry to its present state.
I think that moving the industry to a fact based mode begins with the frank recognition that it is NOT so oriented at this time.
The box I ticked was retail management on the basis that it pretty much incorporates everything else, as it should. If that wasn’t the intention, then I wish there was something that was all-inclusive because the opportunities provided by this program are enormous. Fancy being able to teach and assess students who will go on to become consumers (not that they aren’t already but perhaps a whole different type of consumer having seen a store operate from the inside) as well as managers in either the retail industry or something totally different where they can apply what they’ve learned. Sounds good to me. Identifying and examining the relationship between the different aspects of the way a store operates and those who are on both the giving and the receiving end would be invaluable.
Laval’s idea is fabulous. Long overdue. The biggest challenge will be conducting research that is at all relevant to the industry at large since:
– Quebec city isn’t exactly representative;
– The shoppers at this store won’t be representative even of Quebec city;
– The shopping experience will be unlike that which the typical American shopper encounters;
– So many projects will probably be going on at once that resulting data won’t be “clean.”
Nevertheless, testing practicable ideas– both human and technological– with lead retailers and vendors is leaps and bounds above the current 3GR approach to supermarket retailing.
Unless an experienced group takes responsibility for answering your question, it’s very likely that a lot of the research done in the new supermarket school will not help actual supermarket operators.
My recommendation would be that the research focus on a range of different topics in the store with the goal of simply showing operators:
>A benchmark measure they can use to determine how their performances compare with those of others.
>A direction on how they can improve, i.e., one that’s clear and can be executed.
With that focus, the new retail lab will create a lot of new value.
There is not enough hands-on experience at the University level in programs that focus on retail management. Building a successful store involves experimenting with different things and developing what works. I think that this experience will benefit the students.
This concept is so overdue. So many college grads don’t have the experience companies are looking for. They do have a lot of textbook knowledge. I’m in a Consumer Behavior course with students who don’t have a clue about what it takes to start or run a business. There is so much value in offering some real courses that prepare them for life in the business world.
I would love to have my degree in Sales. The nearest degree is Marketing. The two are a good marriage but my love is Sales. I hope Supermarket U. is something the academic world will pay attention to nationwide. Maybe we’ll see some more “real” courses.
I would second the opinion that it needs to be down to earth and practical. I see so much university research into retail issues that only focuses on defining the problem or defining a new approach to analyzing a problem, but never produces any recommendations for how retailers should solve a problem. “Implementable” should be the motto.
I would love to see a study done on how much profit can be made by sticking to the basic principals of customer service and merchandising. Both of the above would have to be managed by real professional managers who actually teach employees what to do and explain to them the reasons and logic behind what he/she is teaching. Study should prohibit any manufacturer from influencing any advertising/promotion/marketing decision with ad/promotion incentives. Only cost discounts could be accepted and at least 100% of all manufacturers/supplier discounts would be applied as direct product price reductions.
I would then like to see the above results compared to any of the less efficient (measure profit or ROI) chain grocers who are so fond of “advertising programs,” diversion, annual supplier contracts, etc.
These results should be PUBLISHED and names should be furnished to all so stockholders can see what is going on.
I would make sure the curriculum includes in-store merch, technology applications, consumer behaviour, HR, and finance.
With the majority of purchase decisions being made in the store, in-store merch has become vital. Too many operators are intimidated by the complexity and perceived costs of new technology. Some knowledge in this area would help them with their purchase decision and make them more open to innovative, beneficial technology. In consumer behaviour I would provide them with the tools to find current, valid, meaningful information on demographics-psychographics changes and how to benefit from them. HR is a forever issue. How to motivate an often-minimum wage employee is something that a university can provide through psychology and sociology. Also how to pick/train people for promotion, bigger responsibilities, for a career is something university’s can do well.
In all of the above, the operating word is practical. The course has to be practical, the teachers should mostly come from our industry. No ivory tower professors allowed.
The supermarket business conducts itself linearly, not conceptually. Maybe Laval can be a positive factor in balancing that situation and bring supermarkets back into the spotlight. Thus I would opt for them to emphasize entrepreneurship too.
Whether the supermarket industry needs more technological sophistication, better supply chains, closer customer service, improved in-store merchandising or lots of something else, the answers always seem to be clearer in the brains of the experts than in the operators. Where are the innovative entrepreneur-types that built the supermarket business? Of course there are some excellent examples in the supermarket sector today, but too many entrepreneurs have left the supermarket industry and gotten involved (and rich) with specialty retailing such Staples and Whole Foods or other businesses such as American Financial. Has that brain-drain dulled the supermarket business?
Not surprisingly, many have gravitated to the tangible learning side of this question, primarily driven by research and data. Nothing wrong with that to be sure. But I’d like to make an appeal to this institution to spend some time on the HUMAN side as well. To wit, learn how managers can maintain a high level of employee involvement in the stores. Teach them how to motivate employees to actually seek out and serve customer’s needs. Teach them how to help employees enjoy their jobs, because when they do it shows and it matters to customers. Help our industry realize and capitalize on the value of making customers feel good.
According to our data, the supermarket industry as a whole suffers from business and management practices that are not quite up to date, and that cost even individual stores significant amounts of money. This seems to surprise many in the industry, because the industry focuses a great deal of resources on new technology and how to apply it. Is it a lack of ideas or information that holds the industry back?
For example, our data-based study on how supermarkets can take back market share from the discounters actually included results of five tests for doing this, four of them not working (which are the four basic strategies the industry uses) and one strategy working very well. The industry as a whole has been somewhat reticent to look at this data.
This shows a phenomenon we have observed and measured numerous times in the industry: some information and ideas are easily accepted and implemented, some are not. The laboratory concept is a great idea (with the understanding that laboratories can produce highly distorted information, which must be recognized and adjusted for), but our own experience with the grocery industry over the last 40 years seems to suggest that there is an underlying resistance within the industry to openly exploring information on fundamental problems. It seems possible that if the laboratory focuses on well-accepted issues, it will not be focusing on fundamental problems, but it will have a great deal of success. The opposite also seems likely to be true. Perhaps one of the most important issues the lab could focus on is where this resistance comes from and how to overcome it.
It’s about time! With increased levels of sophistication in data, technology and the consumer, it’s surprising that a school like this hasn’t been considered before. Category management and data analysis should be intertwined into much of the work at the school. A strong category management foundation at a retailer drives strategy and results long-term.
Many retail firms, supermarkets included, screen out the better educated recruits by insisting they get promoted from within, starting with positions that are clearly inappropriate. It’s important that no organization creates an unworthy privileged class. But it’s also critical to avoid putting high potential candidates through inappropriate delays in their careers.
All the listed subjects would apply, and be of benefit. But, importantly, it is vital that our supermarket industry begin to understand the need to be consumer marketers, vs. simply waiting for shoppers to buy their food and meal needs.
The alternatives available for buying foods, groceries and carry-out meals elsewhere is beating the industry and taking major dollars and GPM away.
Is it not time to believe that if you have a base of shoppers, you can develop them into loyal shoppers through the perishable departments, especially meals, heat and serve, and take home?
There is no longer the opportunity to remain complacent when the shoppers of today are so different than their parents and grandparents…but, few supermarket chains fully understand this.
And, our supermarkets still use only price and merchandising, to await the shopping trip of its neighborhood consumers. Talk about an outdated means to entice consumers!
Absolutely, no magic in this old and worn out methodology; or in thinking the little “Ma and Pa” stores in meals, delis, restaurant carry outs, produce and meat shops are going away!
Might we say they are eating the industry’s lunch?! Or is it meals to go and dinner? Hmmmmmmmmm