6 ms·
This is a matter of scale. The more interesting metric would be a per-store figure, where TJ and WF outsell CVS by a factor of 5–7x.[1] I'm surprised that it's
by basseq 7y ago
This is a matter of scale. The more interesting metric would be a per-store figure, where TJ and WF outsell CVS by a factor of 5–7x.[1] I'm surprised that it's not higher.
> The eyebrow-raising figure probably comes down to an issue of scale – last year CVS and Walgreens each had close to 10,000 stores in the US, while Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods each had fewer than 500 locations.
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CzhWggSef2pbRMJam1m2hE202Ia--bGjg0TcQ3QnwcE/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CzhWggSef2pbRMJam1m2...
- colanderman 7y agoNah I think the more interesting metric would be total sales to populations served by both CVS and one or both of TJ and WF. There may be many more CVSes, but, owing to their small size, there are also many more CVSes serving a given population than there are WFs and TJs, such that those populations have the ability to choose one or the other.
- colanderman 7y agoI'm not sure. Each individual TJ's and especially WF store is much larger than the grocery section of an individual CVS. Even the smallest TJ's I've been in (Back Bay) is larger than the largest CVS grocery section I've been in (3 aisles?). I would expect the per-store figure to be obviously in TJ's/WF's favor. I feel like the most appropriate metric would control for total population served (to discount both the fact that WF and TJ's don't exist everywhere CVS does, and that there are more CVSes per capita than the others where two or more of the three exist).
- basseq 7y agoSorry, to clarify, I’m surprised my per-store calculation isn’t higher for WF/TJ. As you point out, the food aisles at CVS are minimal versus an entire store.