On the map, the location was perfect. The question was whether it fit into people’s routine.

The starting point

A large grocery chain had what looked like a sure bet: a site in a high-traffic area, part of a new retail, services and entertainment hub.

But opening a store is expensive and hard to undo. And three questions remained unanswered:

1. Would people make that address part of their shopping routine?
2. Would the new store bring new customers, or just take customers from the chain’s own stores?
3. What kind of store would make sense there?

The company decided to answer these questions before investing, not after.

The site: a high-traffic area in the new hub.

Nearby doesn’t mean near home

The study began with a step that’s often skipped: understanding how people really do their grocery shopping.

In-depth discussions and face-to-face interviews, including in the area under consideration, separated big stock-up trips from smaller everyday purchases. For each, the study looked at where people shop, how much they spend and why they choose one store over another.

That led to the idea that shaped the entire location analysis: for shoppers, a convenient store isn’t always the one near home. Often, it’s the one on the way, along a route they already take every day.

Close to home × on the everyday route.

Consumers don’t choose one store. They choose a store for each mission.

The same person might go to one store for the monthly stock-up, another for beverages and a third for quick top-up trips. So the competition was between shopping missions, not just between chains.

The study also explored how people decide a store is “expensive” or “cheap” and how they actually compare prices. That perception often matters as much as the real price.

A store for each shopping mission.

A new store doesn’t have to be a copy of the others

The location couldn’t be evaluated separately from the brand. So the study asked customers about satisfaction, likelihood to recommend and frustrations at the current stores. It also heard from non-customers, to understand how they saw the chain and its competitors.

That opened up a new possibility: the store in the new hub didn’t have to copy the existing ones. It could be a chance to deliver what shoppers wanted in terms of experience, convenience and technology.

A new format, not a copy of the chain’s stores.

The final test: would a store there make sense?

Only then did the study turn to the new location. Shoppers rated their interest in using a store in that hub and said what it would need to offer to become part of their routine. Answers were compared between customers and non-customers and by where each person came from.

One step was crucial: separating the potential to attract new customers from the risk of cannibalization, meaning the new store simply pulling sales from the chain’s own locations. A busy store that empties the one down the road isn’t growth.

New customers × cannibalization of the chain’s stores.