• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Kroger and Albertsons in talks of a merger

https://www.foodsco.net/stores/search?searchText=94510

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_4_Less

Kroger in Northern California is known as Food 4 Less and Foods Co. However in Northern California Kroger does not do as much advertising here as Safeway, Save Mart, Grocery outlet and Raleys Sacramento and Bay Area. What was odd was that I seen a Ralph's Truck in the Bay Area and Sacramento but at the time I saw it I could not identify a Ralph's facility given in Northern California there are no Ralphs stores or warehouses in the area until I found out that Kroger owns a Foods co and Food 4 Less store in the area. This is probably how a Ralphs Truck ended up in Northern California was via a distribution deal with Food Co. Also I didn't know who Kroger is at the time given that the name isn't well known in the area like Safeway is.
 
In this cases, and certainly in others, consolidation can result in economies of scale. The motivation for the merger is very clearly expressed in the press release: to be able to compete in products and prices with Walmart and Amazon.

Walmart already is larger than the combined Kroger and Albertson's network of stores. Amazon is smaller still, but has been growing in the supermarket product categories at double digit rates in the last few years.

When there are too many outlets for essentials, they system becomes inefficient because everyone from suppliers to the retailers has to duplicate systems multiple times in the same market area. At some point competition can't lower prices when too many entities are doing the same thing in the same area.

A good example, and a case study in quite a few MBA courses, is that of DHL. It iis a dominant package and overnight delivery service in Europe and some parts of Africa and Asia, but its attempts to become competitive in North America failed. There was not much DHL could do to provide lower costs to users of their service, and UPS and FedEx as well as the USPS were well entrenched with not a great degree of dissatisfaction.

DHL could, thus, offer no USP (Unique Selling Proposition) other than being new and, maybe, European. Despite building a good distribution system in the US, they could not gain market share... but they took enough from the other three providers that they cause shipping costs to go up. Eventually, they retracted and simply became a needed service for European customers or US customers shipping to some less frequented location on the Continent. So, the entry of a fourth package carriers caused prices to increase because they made everyone's system less efficient.
While it is true consolidation CAN result in economies of scale, in practice, it rarely does. The press release is likely for
governmental and public consumption, DHL offered nothing that wasn't already in practice at UPS/ FedEx and the USPS.
As you stated, UPS/FedEx have a good degree of customer satisfaction, why would customers change, just for the sake
of change????
 
While it is true consolidation CAN result in economies of scale, in practice, it rarely does. The press release is likely for
governmental and public consumption, DHL offered nothing that wasn't already in practice at UPS/ FedEx and the USPS.
As you stated, UPS/FedEx have a good degree of customer satisfaction, why would customers change, just for the sake
of change????
Believe it or not we receive weekly sales promotion circulars in our snail mail. One from every major supermarket chain in the metro area. Comparing Safeway against Albertsons against Kroger (Fry's) they all seem to have different items on sale with different special pricing. Some items do overlap but not nearly as many as you would think.
 
While it is true consolidation CAN result in economies of scale, in practice, it rarely does. The press release is likely for
governmental and public consumption,
A somewhat relatable example would be the many airline mergers that took place over the past several years. They announced mergers, stating they were to going to expand their global flight networks under 1 brand, that it would allow them to operate more efficiently and thus, lower costs of flights to consumers. What it did in practice was to take about 4 or 5 major airlines from the marketplace, reduce the number of serious competitors in the airline industry and prices of flights for consumers went up.

There's a bit of nervous thinking with the recently announced merger plans for JetBlue and Spirit Airlines, as it may ultimately cause flight costs to rise as well. Though Spirit is/was a no-frills airline and often ranked highest in consumer complaints, the low base fares that airline offered often kept competing airlines' prices at least somewhat in check. Take that away and flight costs may increase.
 

Apparently in some states like Colorado there are concerns that there will be a monopoly in grocery stores in some areas. But if that is the case wouldn't there be orders by the SEC and DOJ to divest some of their stores to unrelated parties? As in companies like SaveMart, Aldi, Stater Brothers, Raleys, Grocery Outlet from there.










Or if its in Los Angeles Stater Brothers, Ranch 99, Vallarta, and others could step in for some of the divested stores.
 
Kroger, Albertsons, and Safeway stores don't exist here in NJ, although we have Acme supermarkets, which are owned by Albertsons.

We also don't have any O'Reilly Auto Parts stores, but that hasn't stopped them from advertising heavily on NY/NJ radio.
 
In this cases, and certainly in others, consolidation can result in economies of scale. The motivation for the merger is very clearly expressed in the press release: to be able to compete in products and prices with Walmart and Amazon.

That's what they always say. What else would you expect from the company issuing the press release?

A good example, and a case study in quite a few MBA courses, is that of DHL. It iis a dominant package and overnight delivery service in Europe and some parts of Africa and Asia, but its attempts to become competitive in North America failed. There was not much DHL could do to provide lower costs to users of their service

I'm pretty sure UPS, FedEx and USPS all raised their rates after DHL left the scene. Less competition never benefits consumers.
 
That's what they always say. What else would you expect from the company issuing the press release?
In this case, the main point was that the much larger Walmart grocery operation was more efficient and they could undersell Kroger based on economies of scale.
I'm pretty sure UPS, FedEx and USPS all raised their rates after DHL left the scene. Less competition never benefits consumers.
At that time, fuel prices were all coming down after the fuel crisis and UPS and FedEx lowered prices.

The USPS has no clue about the market and pricing and competition. FedEx was founded to address the deficiencies in the USPS "Special Delivery" service which was prone to problems and poorly administered.

DHL did not leave the scene, they just refocused on serving their European client base using affiliates for last mile delivery.
 
I'm pretty sure UPS, FedEx and USPS all raised their rates after DHL left the scene. Less competition never benefits consumers.
FedEx bought out DHL's U.S. shipping routes and turned it into FedEx Ground. For quite a while, FedEx Ground was operated as an almost completely separate company from regular FedEx. The drivers were all independent contractors who had to provide their own trucks. It wasn't uncommon to see one pull up in a Ryder rental truck.

And even though they don't get any taxpayer funding, USPS's rates are set by the Postal Regulatory Commission, whose members are confirmed by the Senate. They've had plenty of practice at making it as dysfunctional as the Senate itself.
 

Here is editorial and and how congress responds to the proposed deal if approved. Also Kroger and Albertsons are responding to the places where shoppers are going like Walmart, Costco, Amazon and regional competitors.


We agree with Klobuchar and Lee, who said they have “serious concerns about the proposed transaction. ... The grocery industry is essential, and we must ensure that it remains competitive so that American families can afford to put food on the table.”

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is of the same mind also.

Durbin “believes there needs to be a careful, thorough review of this proposed merger in order to ensure that it is not harmful to consumers, workers, or competition,” a Durbin spokespersontold us Wednesday.



Meanwhile, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) took a harder stand by asking the Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday to block the deal entirely. The FTC is required to review whether the merger would violate federal anti-trust laws.

“More mergers and less competition would mean even higher prices, and layoffs for employees,” Warren said.
 
this merger is gonna be the ultimate test to see if America is pro corporation monopolies or against it, this is one merger that would be bad for all parties, it would cause more food deserts in most places, and would lead to price gouging to control the market, and also with all mergers, jobs will be lost because of consolidation of 2 companies into 1 which means layoffs for underperforming parts of the company that they can afford to remove as part of merger.

in short, if the merger is approved, the clear way to get it approve is to spin off the regional brands of the 2 chains under new companies that aren't run by them as well as sell some stores to other independently owned regional chain to avoid having a monopoly like for an example, in North Texas, HEB and Brookshire's could buy the stores and take a chunk of the North Texas market for grocery stores (HEB is trying to expand into North Texas and Brookshire's tried to expand their market into North Texas being a grocery chain that serves Texas, Louisiana & Arkansas (but briefly in the 2000s expanded to 4 stores in Mississippi only to leave it after failing in that state) and pretty much gave up on the Metroplex stores and got out of there and focuses on areas east of the DFW metro area that are still in the DFW region like in Hunt & Hopkins counties)
 
this merger is gonna be the ultimate test to see if America is pro corporation monopolies or against it, this is one merger that would be bad for all parties, it would cause more food deserts in most places, and would lead to price gouging to control the market, and also with all mergers, jobs will be lost because of consolidation of 2 companies into 1 which means layoffs for underperforming parts of the company that they can afford to remove as part of merger.
That assumption is potentially wrong in two areas.

First, the traditional food chains are being severely impacted by Amazon and Walmart, with the latter now the largest food chain in dollar sales and the price setting. In many cases, the traditional grocers can not get the pricing and shipping economies that Walmart can, and can´t match the model of Amazon.

Second, there is in grocery a rather specific ratio of staff to sales volume. Even if the chains are consolidated, they will hope to retain all the customers and that does not allow for any savings. The big economies of scale are in purchasing, warehousing and distribution. There, two companies are buying separately, shipping and stocking separately and duplicating efforts.

In many areas, warehousing and shipping can be consolidated with more efficient buying, storing and delivery to stores. This is the one area where there may be staff reduction but the benefits of cutting the number of fuel-hungry trucks makes up for this
in short, if the merger is approved, the clear way to get it approve is to spin off the regional brands of the 2 chains under new companies that aren't run by them as well as sell some stores to other independently owned regional chain to avoid having a monopoly like for an example, in North Texas, HEB and Brookshire's could buy the stores and take a chunk of the North Texas market for grocery stores (HEB is trying to expand into North Texas and Brookshire's tried to expand their market into North Texas being a grocery chain that serves Texas, Louisiana & Arkansas (but briefly in the 2000s expanded to 4 stores in Mississippi only to leave it after failing in that state) and pretty much gave up on the Metroplex stores and got out of there and focuses on areas east of the DFW metro area that are still in the DFW region like in Hunt & Hopkins counties)
The consolidation will require that stores from each brand line that are too close to each other... "down the block"... will be eliminated by sale or closure.

The specialty brands, such as Pavillions in some areas like California will remain as that is an "upscale" brand with large specialty sections.

The reason for regional brands remaining under those brands is market equity where the brand is known, its image is positive and the store is well located.

There are multiple tiers in the grocery industry based on assortment and pricing, ranging from primarily basics and family sizes in lower income areas of a market to boutique brands that are bigger and have more premium items and gourmet foods, including huge wine departments, a deli, more prime fresh meats and seafoods, etc.

Further, every store allocates facings (number of shelf inches and shelf height) based on the demand in each location. In ethnic areas, less "meat and potatoes" and more tortillas and rice (or whatever matches the local ethnic population) will get facings.

I can drive just about 3 miles between two Ralph's (a Kroger brand in CA) and find in one a small area of about 6 horizontal feet in width of Mexican items placed where they are next to Chinese and other ethnic specialties. In the nearby Ralph's, in a zone that is over 80% Mexican and Mexican American, there are two aisles of Mexican foods, including multiple areas of both corn and grain tortillas, many kinds of chili sauce, etc. I can even get imported Peñafiel mineral water, and a variety of fresh and packaged Nopal cactus. And the pastry section is half an aisle wide, with fresh pastries being made in dozens of "named" styles like "cuernos" all day long.

So they really can not consolidate or eliminate brands. The store names reflect lots of tradition and strong imaging. The product mix is designed to match the local tastes and in many areas the staff will be bilingual, speaking English and Spanish or Armenian or Farsi or Chinese or Tagalog or Russian or whatever depending on the ethnicity of the service area.

So chains don't serve "areas" specifically... they serve neighborhoods. And they use sophisticated computer models to stock each store differently depending on the local client base.

In Puerto Rico, which one might think of as being a rather unified zone in questions of foodstuffs, there is a wide variety of individual store assortments based on the income levels of each zone with some areas being more like a middle class mainland US store, and others being wildly local in brands and products.
 
In a competitive city like Philadelphia where Albertsons owns Acme and Kroger has no presence I can’t imagine the merger doing any harm and potentially doing good. There weren’t be any less competition. In other markets where more than one chain is owned by Albertsons and Kroger if a successful operator can purchase some stores to ensure continued retail competition i think this is potentially good to ensure Amazon and Walmart don’t drive grocers out of business. The danger will be in markets where no one can successfully operate divested stores resulting in less local competition
 
The unfortunate thing is stores that are generally divested by grocers end up in bad, or well intentioned but overstretched small chains. Here in the southeast we had Bi-Lo who sold stores off to a company called Southern Family Markets who closed after a few years. Bruno’s was also sold off and the company that acquired their stores, Belle Foods at the time, was in massive debt and failed.

The buyers just couldn’t keep prices competitive, or had no marketing and couldn’t invest in the stores generally.
 
The buyers just couldn’t keep prices competitive, or had no marketing and couldn’t invest in the stores generally.
Typical profit margins in supermarkets are 1% or under. It takes huge volume to make any profit. This is why Walmart has been able to successfully become the leading grocer in the US as it is well managed and can best deal with the huge issue of shrinkage today.

In many independent markets and small chains, shrinkage is greater than the profit margin and the only solution is to close markets that suffer the most from that... generally ones in inner cities and lower income areas.
 


Back
Top Bottom