SUPERMARKETS

You are BI consultant. Your customer, Nestlé Middle East wants to better understand the dynamics of the market across the different regional retailers and categories. You have been given a dataset with two years of sales of Nestlé and of its competitors in the region (to run the analysis, type "sell-out Middle East" in the app.).

THE MARKET

Sales variance analysis

See aggregated sales variance or split variance between its components (volume, price, mix, drivers,..).

Overall, the market has remained stable...

and Nestlé's share of the market has remained flat.

Marimekko Plot

See how a metric, here revenue, interacts along a pair of dimensions, here product market and category.

Multi-tier bar chart

See how a dimension - here category - plays out in the two periods on a metric - here amount.

Petfood grew,...

...driven by higher average prices.

Dumbbell Plot

See how a dimension - here product - plays out in the two periods on a set of metrics - here amount and price.

There was a lot of change at the product level.

UAE, Bahrain and KSA lost Sales. The other markets did better.

Among the different Retailers, Carrefour lost ground, and suffered weakening prices.

Promotion sales fell a bit even though average promotion prices were lower.

WHAT CHANGED - TOTAL MARKET

FIRST RESULT COMBINATION

Carrefour lost 10% sales in UAE.

Chocolate Confectionary grew by 5%.

Excluding UAE and Chocolate, Carrefour lost 5%.

The first waterfall first item is the loss of Carrefour in UAE. A significant item both in terms of absolute dimension (larger than total variance) and in terms of % change (-10% vs the market's -1%). Chocolate growth is also noteworthy especially in absolute terms - 900k. The loss of Carrefour in the other markets and categories is "only" -5%.

SECOND RESULT COMBINATION

Petfood did well, up 28%

excluding Petfood, Carrefour lost 5% across the entire market

The second waterfall focuses on the category dimension and draws attention to Petfood that has gained 800k and 30% of sales. The second result is the loss of Carrefour in all markets - a hefty -1.4M falling at -5%.

The third and forth results are interesting: they show how an increase in Lulu culinary regular sales was almost 1 to 1 offset by a loss of all other Lulu sales.

THIRD RESULT COMBINATION

Petfood was up 36% in Carrefour

Excluding Petfood, Regular sales in Carrefour were down 3%

Promotion sales across all retailers were down 12%.

The third waterfall shows how the unfortunate Carrefour is the champion of petfood (+36%), but lost significantly in regular sales of other products.

FORTH RESULT COMBINATION

Carrefour's loss was a matter of price.

The forth waterfall splits variance between volume and price. We learn that the loss of Carrefour is practically all in price, and little in volume.

WHAT CHANGED - NESTLE'

FIFTH RESULT COMBINATION

Nestlé gained about one point of share because of better non promo sales in Oman in Carrefour.

Nestlé lost about one point of share because of worse promo sales in Oman and of worse promo and because of no promo sales in the other markets in Carrefour.

The fifth waterfall shows how Nestle' gained in Oman regular sales more or less as much as it lost everywhere else, and gained in petfood sales in Lulu more or less as much as it lost everywhere else.

SIXTH RESULT COMBINATION

Non promo Confectionery sales went well for Nestlé in Carrefour in Oman.

Other no promo sales at Carrefour were weak.

Petfood was good across the board for Nestlé.

The sixth waterfall points to a significant increase - for Nestlé - in Carrefour Confectionary regular sales in Oman (86%), more or less offset by other regular sales. Petfood grew 43% and was again offset by the fall of the remaining products.

SEVENTH RESULT COMBINATION

Finding patterns in data

'Mparanza uses variable dimension variance to help find patterns in the data that could be missed with a traditional slice and dice approach.

Here are a set of products, retailers and markets that "explain" what changed for Nestlè.

The seventh waterfall shows how much of the change of Nestle' sales can be explained with two combinations of new offerings that did not exist the year before and with three combinations of lost offerings that do not exist in the most recent year.