Grocery Retail Market Analysis Essay Example for Free

Grocery Retail Market Analysis Essay Grocery retailing in the US is a very mature, saturated market. Consumers will, however always need to buy food. The industry is generally a high volume/low margin market, which is made up of over 65,000 supermarkets, hypermarkets, and grocery stores combining for annual revenues of about $938 billion. The necessity of effective supply chain management, keeping costs low, has resulted in an extreme concentration of the market, where the top 20 competitors generate over 67% of the industry annual revenue. Wal-Mart, which is considered to be a hypermarket, leads in grocery retailing with 225. 12 billion sales resulting in 24% value share during 2010. The second and third leading grocery retailers in the US are Kroger and Supervalu with 76.7 billion (7%) and 40.8 billion (4%) 2010 sales (value shares), respectively. (GMID Global Market Information Database) The industry is made up of four types of channels, consisting of supermarkets, hypermarkets, discounters, and convenience stores. Supermarkets are the largest channel and continue to appeal to shoppers because of the proximity to their homes and workplaces. Hypermarkets, which include Wal-Mart, are predicted to be the fastest growing channel and although are often less convenient for consumers than other grocery outlets, many believe it is worth the trip to save some money and are willing to drive a bit further to visit hypermarkets. Discounters offer a low-cost option for consumers by streamlining many operations. Finally, Convenience stores are known for quick shopping trips, but consumers typically do not think of convenience stores as a place to stock up on groceries. Grocery retailing as a whole grew by 2% in 2010, however the discounters experienced the strongest growth of 6%. Retailers in the discounters channel generally hold smaller inventories and tend to carry only a single brand of each item to keep costs low. The uncharacteristically strong growth in 2010 was due in large part to the expansion of Aldi throughout the US. After seeing considerable success in 2009, Aldi decided to expand its presence in the US and reported 68 billion in 2010 sales (Hoovers). Along with the growth in 2010, the number of grocery outlets declined by 1% in the US. During this year the consumer purchasing habits changed, resulting in shoppers making more trips to the grocery store each week and spending slightly more. Shoppers are spending 1.5 percent more weekly on groceries, bring the average to $99.90, but are spending less at their primary grocery store. At these stores the share of total grocery dollars spent fell to 75.4 percent in 2010 from 76.6 percent in 2009 according to the 2010 US Grocery Shopper Trends report by the Food Marketing Institute. The busy and fully scheduled American lifestyle leaves consumers constantly seeking convenient shopping solutions, and grocery retailing is no exception. However, with the recession in 2009, consumers focused more on value and price than on convenience. Consumers have become more willing to go out of their way to drive to and find venues that offer lower prices. This has resulted in intense price-based competition from mass merchandisers and warehouse clubs. In 2010, competition intensified across channels within the grocery retailing sector. As hypermarkets and discounters took share away from supermarkets in 2009, many supermarkets reacted by opening new formats or lowering prices in 2010 to win back consumers. Several national supermarket chains discounted prices and expanded their private label offerings. Coupon use also grew significantly in 2009 and 2010, as consumers became more comfortable looking for and using coupons (GMID Global Market Information Database). Additionally, the channel shifting caused by the economic downturn caused many new trends to help lure customers back and retain loyal customers. Many supermarkets are offering greater incentives through loyalty cards, while others are expanding product selections and focusing on the growing Hispanic population in the US. Primarily supermarkets have begun employing dieticians to be on-site in stores focusing on health and wellness. Consumers can ask dieticians questions about specific conditions and help find the right products. Another factor that will greatly affect this channel is the growth of grocery delivery in the US. Peapod currently operates in several markets, as does Safeway. Sears and Meijer both announced plans to test grocery delivery in certain cities, while Publix is testing curb-side pick-up.

A Stillness at Appomattox Essay -- Bruce Catton American Civil War Ess

A Stillness at Appomattox â€Å"All up and down the lines the men blinked at one another, unable to realize that the hour they had waited for so long was actually at hand. There was a truce†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Bruce Catton’s Pulitzer prize winning book A Stillness at Appomattox chronicles the final year of the American Civil War. This book taught me a lot more about the Civil War than I ever learned through the public school system. Bruce Catton brought to life the real day to day life of the soldiers and the generals who led them into battle. The day to day life for the regular soldier was not glorious. Many times the regiments were low on supplies such as food and clothing. They lived in the elements. Medical conditions were grotesque because of the lack of advanced equipment and anesthesia. â€Å"Discipline was enforced with brutality† as if all the other conditions were not bad enough. The author is graphic in his detail of the people and the places of importance during this time in history. The book is written more from a Northern point of view and so I didn’t get quite the same perspective of the Southern side but still learned more than I knew before. A few chapters into the book the war year of 1864 begins with a changing of the guard again with President Lincoln appointing Ulysses Grant to lead the Army of the Potomac. Grant has an illustrious past. People talked about his being a drunkard but Catton says â€Å"He was simply a man infinitely more complex then most people could realize.† Grant, even though he was a West Point graduate, never wanted to be a soldier or to have a life in the military. He wanted to be a teacher. What Grant did bring to the Army of the Potomac was his ability to relate to the soldiers and made them his army. He completely retrained and re-organized the armies, and re-enlisted troops that were going to go home. They all realized that under Grant the Army of the Potomac changed which meant now that the entire war would change. The Battle of the Wilderness was a very unusual battle because it was fought in the woods. The terrain and the trees wouldn’t allow for the smoke to clear and it was dark anyway because of the trees. The men described it as eerie. Both sides fired blindly because of the smoke. Artillery was abandoned because they could not transport it through the woods. So those soldiers became... ... or ending the war, because it was the only rail junction connecting Richmond to the rest of the Confederacy. Faced with the need to defend a line running continuously from north of Richmond to Petersburg, the Confederates were stretched thinner and thinner. Eventually their line broke. Within a little over a week it was over. The final year of the Civil War was something new in the history of warfare - never before had two large armies remained locked in continuous combat for such a long period of time. In the past the armies would fight, retreat, regroup, and usually meet at some later date and place but in 1864-65 even though they moved around some it was almost one continuous fight to the end. On the final day the Union soldiers were told that â€Å"if they hurried this was the day they could finish everything† although that inspired them, they were also promised that once they reached Appomattox Station rations would be handed out. Many of the men later admitted they did so â€Å"because they figured it was the quickest way to get breakfast.† After a small skirmish near Appomattox Station Lee decided to surrender his army right before the Union carried out their attack.

Ww1 Trench Warfare

Nature of Life in the Trenches The nature of life in the trenches was a dangerous place. It was a place for the dead or for the survivors. Trenches were a front line which was dug metres underground, inside the trenches, were supplies, training areas, stores and mainly headquarters. The trenches were the main area to store arms of artillery and mortars. Life was hell for soldiers. Bearing the pain they went through, the diseases, the infections, the bad conditions living in, having to deal with sickness, all these illnesses became worse in the long run as soldiers ceased from them.The whole idea of the trenches was to gain and to give protection from enemy lines who would want to attack their enemies once seen, so trenches were a good hiding spot hence other various reasons as well. September 1914 was when trench warfare began and ended in August 1918. In the area of the River Somme on the Western Front, the ground is deathly and is easily tunnelled. The trench sides would dissolve e asily after rain so the ideas would have to be changed and wood, sandbags or any other suitable material would have to be a substitute of dirt.Trenches were never built to be straight for a reason, in case an enemy ever jumped into the trench they could have point blank shot of everyone hiding inside it, whereas, trenches were built in a zigzag form to avoid quick target shots from enemies. The living conditions in the trenches were unbearable. In order to minimise the risk of trench foot (a disease on the feet) they would have to build duckboards on the bottom of trenches to clear the mud and faeces at the bottom. The health risk was very severe and was a maximised hazard of death as the unhygienic smell can affect the body.The weather was a big factor in the trenches, temperatures down to less than 10 degrees Celsius was made impossible for soldiers to cope while sleeping or doing any activity. Diseases such as frost bites could occur as well as exposure and trench foot. Uses of s econdary weapons were used in the war as well as fire weaponry. Secondary weapons such as grenades, bombs, gas bombs, and much more were used and it was effective at long and short range targets. Gas masks were used continually due to the gas mixing with the air and making it hard to breathe so gas masks were introduced to protect the face from burnt skin as well as inhaling it.The main diseases caught while in trenches were trench foot, shell shock, blindness from mustard gas, snakes, infected rats, grenades, bombs, colds from low temperatures, frost bite, gangrene, body lice was a main disease maker as it irritated soldiers to itch numerous times of the day and that would cause infectious diseases on skin and could be caught off one another, the insufferable conditions, stench from rotting bodies, self-inflicting punishments and as well as suicide due to the trauma and depression. Body lice were a main factor in the trenches.It brought upon soldiers infections, high fevers, diseas es and probably death. Lice would stay on the body throughout the whole day and eat at the flesh and irritate soldiers, they would have to itch and itch and itch continuously in order to get the irritation feeling away. The aftermath would leave redness, bad smells, trench fever, first symptoms and shooting pains around the body and high illnesses. Many of the other diseases were much similar to lice and the treatment was similar was well but some things did differ, such as the kind of sickness, disease and the way the â€Å"infection† was going to affect the soldier.Mud affected the body as well as their existence, what they ate, what they were wearing and how they breathed. Mud was an enemy and misery to soldiers. Trench foot was a painful swelling of the feet caused by constant absorption in water. Some cases, toes could rot off and that can lead to gangrene and that can be led to amputation. Rats were known as â€Å"trench rats† because they were sizes of small dog s. Rats would consume food that was left on the ground as well as fresh food and take all food supplies which would then be limited for soldiers the next day or so.Rats were also good humour for the soldiers as they would attract it to food and shoot them once they seem them and hang them as a â€Å"trophy†. Gas gangrene was an easy target for many soldiers, the least of their problems were rats. They had to survive and live to continue the war, they couldn’t afford to inhale dangerous gases and die instantly. If the gas was ever inhaled, it would destroy the tissue inside the human body and the body will decay gradually and disintegrate. Gas masks were then produced.The cold fell to temperature of minus Forty degrees Celsius; nevertheless, trenches had temperature of minus Fifteen degrees Celsius. Soldiers had to manage with the cold, hard to believe, it was worse than lice. The cold made it impossible to sleep. Frostbite affected many men and frequently directed to i nfection, decomposition and later on, amputation, along with hypothermia. In addition the infections led to boils, impetigo (a contagious skin disease caused by streptococcal bacteria, forming pustules and yellow sores), ulcers, hypothermia, frostbite, gangrene and amputation.There were many psychological effects that were put onto soldiers such as trauma, shell shock, tics, a feeling of disillusionment and a growing sense of distrust of political leaders. The effects led to long term effects which made them think about the past most of their lives and that caused controversy to war officials. In conclusion, life in the trenches was difficult and distressing. Soldiers sacrificed their life to create peace in the world but it continued unfortunately. As oppose to all the past dramatic effects on soldiers, they had to live with it their whole lives, having to go through long or short term effects.

The Battle of Ayn Jalut, 1260 - Mongols vs. Mamluks

At times in Asian history, circumstances have conspired to bring seemingly unlikely combatants into conflict with one another. One example is the Battle of Talas River (751 A.D.), which pitted the armies of Tang China against the Abbasid Arabs in what is now Kyrgyzstan. Another is the Battle of Ayn Jalut, where in 1260 the seemingly unstoppable Mongol hordes ran up against the Mamluk warrior-slave army of Egypt. In This Corner: The Mongol Empire In 1206, the young Mongol leader Temujin was declared the ruler of all the Mongols; he took the name Genghis Khan (or Chinguz Khan). By the time he died in 1227, Genghis Khan controlled Central Asia from the Pacific coast of Siberia to the Caspian Sea in the west. After Genghis Khans death, his descendants divided the Empire into four separate khanates: the Mongolian homeland, ruled by Tolui Khan; the Empire of the Great Khan (later Yuan China), ruled by Ogedei Khan; the Ilkhanate Khanate of Central Asia and Persia, ruled by Chagatai Khan; and the Khanate of the Golden Horde, which would later include not just Russia but also Hungary and Poland. Each Khan sought to expand his own portion of the empire through further conquests. After all, a prophecy predicted that Genghis Khan and his offspring would one day rule all the people of the felt tents. Of course, they sometimes exceeded this mandate - nobody in Hungary or Poland actually lived a nomadic herding lifestyle. Nominally, at least, the other khans all answered to the Great Khan. In 1251, Ogedei died and his nephew Mongke, Genghiss grandson, became the Great Khan. Mongke Khan appointed his brother Hulagu to head the southwestern horde, the Ilkhanate. He charged Hulagu with the task of conquering the remaining Islamic empires of the Middle East and North Africa. In the Other Corner: The Mamluk Dynasty of Egypt While the Mongols were busy with their ever-expanding empire, the Islamic world was fighting off Christian Crusaders from Europe. The great Muslim general Saladin (Salah al-Din) conquered Egypt in 1169, founding the Ayyubid Dynasty. His descendants used increasing numbers of Mamluk soldiers in their internecine struggles for power. The Mamluks were an elite corps of warrior-slaves, mostly from Turkic or Kurdish Central Asia, but also including some Christians from the Caucasus region of south-eastern Europe. Captured and sold as young boys, they were carefully groomed for life as military men. Being a Mamluk became such an honor that some free-born Egyptians reportedly sold their sons into slavery so that they too could become Mamluks. In the tumultuous times surrounding the Seventh Crusade (which led to the capture of King Louis IX of France by the Egyptians), the Mamluks steadily gained power over their civilian rulers. In 1250, the widow of Ayyubid sultan as-Salih Ayyub married a Mamluk, Emir Aybak, who then became sultan. This was the beginning of the Bahri Mamluk Dynasty, which ruled Egypt until 1517. By 1260, when the Mongols began to threaten Egypt, the Bahri Dynasty was on its third Mamluk sultan, Saif ad-Din Qutuz. Ironically, Qutuz was Turkic (probably a Turkmen), and had become a Mamluk after he was captured and sold into slavery by the Ilkhanate Mongols. Prelude to the Show-down Hulagus campaign to subdue the Islamic lands began with an assault on the infamous Assassins or Hashshashin of Persia. A splinter group of the Ismaili Shia sect, the Hashshashin were based out of a cliff-side fortress called the Alamut, or Eagles Nest. On December 15, 1256, the Mongols captured Alamut and destroyed the power of the Hashshashin. Next, Hulagu Khan and the Ilkhanate army launched their assault on the Islamic heartlands proper with a siege on Baghdad, lasting from January 29 to February 10, 1258. At that time, Baghdad was the capital of the Abbasid caliphate (the same dynasty that had battled the Chinese at Talas River in 751), and the center of the Muslim world. The caliph relied on his belief that the other Islamic powers would come to his aid rather than see Baghdad destroyed. Unfortunately for him, that did not happen. When the city fell, the Mongols sacked and destroyed it, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians and burning down the Grand Library of Baghdad. The victors rolled the caliph inside a rug and trampled him to death with their horses. Baghdad, the flower of Islam, was wrecked. This was the fate of any city that resisted the Mongols, according to Genghis Khans own battle plans. In 1260, the Mongols turned their attention to Syria. After only a seven-day siege, Aleppo fell, and some of the population was massacred. Having seen the destruction of Baghdad and Aleppo, Damascus surrendered to the Mongols without a fight. The center of the Islamic world now drifted south to Cairo. Interestingly enough, during this time the Crusaders controlled several small coastal principalities in the Holy Land. The Mongols approached them, offering an alliance against the Muslims. The Crusaders erstwhile enemies, the Mamluks, also sent emissaries to the Christians offering an alliance against the Mongols. Discerning that the Mongols were a more immediate threat, the Crusader states opted to remain nominally neutral, but agreed to allow the Mamluk armies to pass unhindered through Christian-occupied lands. Hulagu Khan Throws Down the Gauntlet In 1260, Hulagu sent two envoys to Cairo with a threatening letter for the Mamluk sultan. It said, in part: To Qutuz the Mamluk, who fled to escape our swords. You should think of what happened to other countries and submit to us. You have heard how we have conquered a vast empire and have purified the earth of the disorders that tainted it. We have conquered vast areas, massacring all the people. Whither can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. In response, Qutuz had the two ambassadors sliced in half, and set their heads up on the gates of Cairo for all to see. He likely knew that this was the gravest possible insult to the Mongols, who practiced an early form of diplomatic immunity. Fate Intervenes Even as the Mongol emissaries were delivering Hulagus message to Qutuz, Hulagu himself received word that his brother Mongke, the Great Khan, had died. This untimely death set off a succession struggle within the Mongolian royal family. Hulagu had no interest in the Great Khanship himself, but he wanted to see his younger brother  Kublai  installed as the next Great Khan. However, the leader of the Mongol homeland, Toluis son Arik-Boke, called for a quick council (kuriltai) and had himself named Great Khan. As civil strife broke out between the claimants, Hulagu took the bulk of his army north to Azerbaijan, ready to join in the succession fight if necessary. The Mongolian leader left just 20,000 troops under the command of one of his generals, Ketbuqa, to hold the line in Syria and Palestine. Sensing that this was an opportunity not to be lost, Qutuz immediately gathered an army of roughly equal size and marched for Palestine, intent on crushing the Mongol threat. The Battle of Ayn Jalut On September 3, 1260, the two armies met at the  oasis  of Ayn Jalut (meaning The Eye of Goliath or Goliaths Well), in the Jezreel Valley of Palestine. The Mongols had the advantages of self-confidence and hardier horses, but the Mamluks knew the terrain better and had larger (thus faster) steeds. The Mamluks also deployed an early form of firearm, a sort of hand-held cannon, which frightened the Mongol horses. (This tactic cannot have surprised the Mongol riders themselves too greatly, however, since the Chinese had been using  gunpowder weapons  against them for centuries.) Qutuz used a classic Mongol tactic against Ketbuqas troops, and they fell for it. The Mamluks sent out a small portion of their force, which then feigned retreat, drawing the Mongols into an ambush. From the hills, Mamluk warriors poured down on three sides, pinning the Mongols in a withering cross-fire. The Mongols fought back throughout the morning hours, but finally the survivors began to retreat in disorder. Ketbuqa refused to flee in disgrace, and fought on until his horse either stumbled or was shot out from under him. The Mamluks captured the Mongol commander, who warned that they could kill him if they liked, but Be not deceived by this event for one moment, for when the news of my death reaches Hulagu Khan, the ocean of his wrath will boil over, and from Azerbaijan to the gates of Egypt will quake with the hooves of Mongol horses. Qutuz then ordered Ketbuqa beheaded. Sultan Qutuz himself did not survive to return to Cairo in triumph. On the way home, he was assassinated by a group of conspirators led by one of his generals, Baybars. Aftermath of the Battle of Ayn Jalut The Mamluks suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Ayn Jalut, but nearly the entire Mongol contingent was destroyed. This battle was a severe blow to the confidence and reputation of the hordes, which had never suffered such a defeat. Suddenly, they did not seem invincible. Despite the loss, however, the Mongols did not simply fold their tents and go home. Hulagu returned to Syria in 1262, intent on avenging Ketbuqa. However, Berke Khan of the Golden Horde had converted to Islam, and formed an alliance against his uncle Hulagu. He attacked Hulagus forces, promising revenge for the sacking of Baghdad. Although this war among the khanates drew off much of Hulagus strength, he continued to attack the Mamluks, as did his successors. The Ilkhanate Mongols drove towards Cairo in 1281, 1299, 1300, 1303 and 1312. Their only victory was in 1300, but it proved short-lived. Between each attack, the adversaries engaged in espionage, psychological warfare and alliance-building against one another. Finally, in 1323, as the fractious Mongol Empire began to disintegrate, the Khan of the Ilkhanids sued for a peace agreement with the Mamluks. A Turning-Point in History Why were the Mongols never able to defeat the Mamluks, after mowing through most of the known world? Scholars have suggested a number of answers to this puzzle. It may be simply that the internal strife among different branches of the Mongolian Empire prevented them from ever throwing enough riders against the Egyptians. Possibly, the greater professionalism and more advanced weapons of the Mamluks gave them an edge. (However, the Mongols had defeated other well-organized forces, such as the Song Chinese.) The most likely explanation may be that the environment of the Middle East defeated the Mongols. In order to have fresh horses to ride throughout a day-long battle, and also to have horse milk, meat and blood for sustenance, each Mongol fighter had a string of at least six or eight small horses. Multiplied by even the 20,000 troops that Hulagu left behind as a rear guard before Ayn Jalut, that is well over 100,000 horses. Syria and Palestine are famously parched. In order to provide water and fodder for so many horses, the Mongols had to press attacks only in the fall or spring, when the rains brought new grass for their animals to graze on. Even at that, they must have used a lot of energy and time finding grass and water for their ponies. With the bounty of the Nile at their disposal, and much shorter supply-lines, the Mamluks would have been able to bring grain and hay to supplement the sparse pastures of the Holy Land. In the end, it may have been grass, or the lack thereof, combined with internal Mongolian dissension, that saved the last remaining Islamic power from the Mongol hordes. Sources Reuven Amitai-Preiss.  Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Charles J. Halperin. The Kipchack Connection: The Ilkhans, the Mamluks and Ayn Jalut,  Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 63, No. 2 (2000), 229-245. John Joseph Saunders.  The History of the Mongol Conquests, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001). Kenneth M. Setton, Robert Lee Wolff, et al.  A History of the Crusades: The Later Crusades, 1189-1311, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005). John Masson Smith, Jr. Ayn Jalut: Mamluk Success or Mongol Failure?,  Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Dec., 1984), 307-345.