What is it about Sainsbury's?

Another impressive performance.

As expected Sainsbury’s has notched up another impressive performance across its full financial year, with LFL sales up by 1.8 per cent and profit growth in line with City expectations.  

A key driver of this success has been the development of Sainsbury’s own-label architecture, which has afforded it the ability to flex its offer to fragmenting consumer demand which has seen the simultaneous growth of both the value and premium ends of the food market. Its Basics and Taste the Difference sub-brands address the polar ends of the market well, while the re-launch of its mid-tier By Sainsbury’s sub-brand has appealed to shoppers seeking price competitive alternatives to branded products. 

This balanced positioning has been complemented by targeted discounting, that encourages loyalty without widespread damage to margins. Sainsbury’s has notably achieved this through its Brand Match and leveraging its Nectar card programme for sales promotions. Moreover, while Tesco’s Price Promise offers a functional threat to footfall, "value-for-money" is at the heart of the Sainsbury’s DNA, as part of its Live Well for Less push. This is evident in creative campaigns such as "Feed Your Family For A Fiver", that have served to strengthen value credentials.

Taken together, the well segmented range and the targeted promotional activity is insulating Sainsbury’s in a climate where consumer loyalty is fickle and hard discounters are excelling.

Supporting these brand developments has been a store strategy which is suited to emerging market dynamics.  Sainsbury’s has traditionally had less of a focus on hypermarket formats compared to Asda and Tesco and has thus not been as impacted by the more negative performance of these store types. Instead its convenience-led strategy has paid dividends, with sales growing 17 per cent across this format, following the opening of a further 87 convenience stores during the year.

Wider afield, Sainsbury’s is also reaping the rewards for investments in its supply chain and procurement systems. Its close relationships with farmers, which has included an investment of £40 m in Farmer Development Groups since 2006, has ensured it has traceability and integrity. This helped Sainsbury’s avoid being engulfed in the horsemeat scandal, as many of its competitions were. 

Sainsbury’s also has a compelling growth story to tell in other areas of its business. Annual online grocery sales are now approaching £1billion, growing nearly 20 per cent over the year. Elsewhere, its non-food offer is relatively immature compared to its supermarket competitors; its general merchandise and clothing sales continue to grow at more than twice the rate of food, offering future scope for growth. In addition, with the announcement that the it is acquiring Lloyds Banking Group’s 50 per cent shareholding in Sainsbury’s Bank, Sainsbury’s has further opportunities to further leverage its brand loyalty at a time when consumers still lack confidence in core financial institutions.

On the horizon, Sainsbury’s does face both immediate and longer term challenges. Strong comparatives will undoubtedly provide a challenge, particularly considering the wider economic backdrop. Tesco’s resurgence is also a threat, as its own investment programme in own brand, store strategy and price competitiveness gathers pace. More pertinently, rumours of chief executive Justin King’s departure,  have caused some uncertainty among investors. That said for now at least, its proactive approach to evolving shopping trends leaves it ideally placed to make further market share gains.

Photograph: Getty Images

 Managing Director of Conlumino

Show Hide image

7 problems with the Snooper’s Charter, according to the experts

In short: it was written by people who "do not know how the internet works".

A group of representatives from the UK Internet Service Provider’s Association (ISPA) headed to the Home Office on Tuesday to point out a long list of problems they had with the proposed Investigatory Powers Bill (that’s Snooper’s Charter to you and me). Below are simplified summaries of their main points, taken from the written evidence submitted by Adrian Kennard, of Andrews and Arnold, a small ISP, to the department after the meeting. 

The crucial thing to note is that these people know what they're talking about - the run the providers which would need to completely change their practices to comply with the bill if it passed into law. And their objections aren't based on cost or fiddliness - they're about how unworkable many of the bill's stipulations actually are. 

1. The types of records the government wants collected aren’t that useful

The IP Bill places a lot of emphasis on “Internet Connection Records”; i.e. a list of domains you’ve visited, but not the specific pages visited or messages sent.

But in an age of apps and social media, where we view vast amounts of information through single domains like Twitter or Facebook, this information might not even help investigators much, as connections can last for days, or even months. Kennard gives the example of a missing girl, used as a hypothetical case by the security services to argue for greater powers:

 "If the mobile provider was even able to tell that she had used twitter at all (which is not as easy as it sounds), it would show that the phone had been connected to twitter 24 hours a day, and probably Facebook as well… this emotive example is seriously flawed”

And these connection records are only going to get less relevant over time - an increasing number of websites including Facebook and Google encrypt their website under "https", which would make finding the name of the website visited far more difficult.

2. …but they’re still a massive invasion of privacy

Even though these records may be useless when someone needs to be found or monitored, the retention of Internet Connection Records (IRCs) is still very invasive – and can actually yield more information than call records, which Theresa May has repeatedly claimed are the non-digital equivalent of ICRs. 

Kennard notes: “[These records] can be used to profile them and identify preferences, political views, sexual orientation, spending habits and much more. It is useful to criminals as it would easily confirm the bank used, and the time people leave the house, and so on”. 

This information might not help find a missing girl, but could build a profile of her which could be used by criminals, or for over-invasive state surveillance. 

3. "Internet Connection Records" aren’t actually a thing

The concept of a list of domain names visited by a user referred to in the bill is actually a new term, derived from “Call Data Record”. Compiling them is possible, but won't be an easy or automatic process.

Again, this strongly implies that those writing the bill are using their knowledge of telecommunications surveillance, not internet era-appropriate information. Kennard calls for the term to be removed, or at least its “vague and nondescript nature” made clear in the bill.

4. The surveillance won’t be consistent and could be easy to dodge

In its meeting with the ISPA, the Home Office implied that smaller Internet service providers won't be forced to collect these ICR records, as it would use up a lot of their resources. But this means those seeking to avoid surveillance could simply move over to a smaller provider.

5. Conservative spin is dictating the way we view the bill 

May and the Home Office are keen for us to see the surveillance in the bill as passive: internet service providers must simply log the domains we visit, which will be looked at in the event that we are the subject of an investigation. But as Kennard notes, “I am quite sure the same argument would not work if, for example, the law required a camera in every room in your house”. This is a vast new power the government is asking for – we shouldn’t allow it to play it down.

6. The bill would allow our devices to be bugged

Or, in the jargon, used in the draft bill, subjected to “equipment interference”. This could include surveillance of everything on a phone or laptop, or even turning on its camera or webcam to watch someone. The bill actually calls for “bulk equipment interference” – when surely, as Kennard notes, “this power…should only be targeted at the most serious of criminal suspects" at most.

7. The ability to bug devices would make them less secure

Devices can only be subject to “equipment interference” if they have existing vulnerabilities, which could also be exploited by criminals and hackers. If security services know about these vulnerabilities, they should tell the manufacturer about them. As Kennard writes, allowing equipment interference "encourages the intelligence services to keep vulnerabilities secret” so they don't lose surveillance methods. Meanwhile, though, they're laying the population open to hacks from cyber criminals. 


So there you have it  – a compelling soup of misused and made up terms, and ethically concerning new powers. Great stuff. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.