FINAL: IFood stores compete primarily based on differentiation rather than simply on location andprice. Differentiating factors can include such things as low prices, ethnic appeal, qualityprepared foods, expanded variety within a specific category or department, customer service, orperishabledepartments such as meats or produce and Lars, the proprietor, has spent yearscultivating relationships with food suppliers. All the suppliers might not be from the same region alsowhereWhole Foods makes the purchase agreement and it also applies for the perishable products. Lars should make the purchase deal with the small retailers who made no agreement with Whole Foods specially for perishable items because 33% still serves to the People after Whole Foods Complete their purchase deal to serve the market.Soit can definitely challenge the Whole Foods 1st Policy would besucceeded.Demandforthefollowingspecifictypesoforganicproductshasincreaseddramaticallyjustoverthe past five years. Whole Foods average price is 12% higher than the other Competitorsor retailers in the Market though it gives 5% discount on Purchases of $250 in groceries, andthere are a good number of customers who checks the price with the other retailers or Sellers. Customer can easily check with other retailers or other Competitors of Whole Foods with their Price because except 8-10% of Customer there is a huge percentage of Customer and even it can increase because We can see the trend of higher demand increasing day by day of all the products. Setting a Standardized and Lower Price would help Lars to generate higher number of Customers. So,the Challenge to the Second policy will besucceeded.Lars, Super Yurt sells herbal remedies which is a USP for them. This Herbal remedies is the product Which Lars sells since beginning and they are expertise on that. So If They can expand inthis particular brand attributes and can easily provide health and beauty aids for Customers along with more specialized and variant way. So,the Challenge to the Third policy will besucceeded.These three suggestions are with the Antitrust Law as Antitrust Law itself with benefitsof the Customer and overallefficiency. IIAntitrust Law itself with benefits of the Customer and overall efficiency. Sherman Act attemptstoprevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply. It preserves acompetitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses. The non-discriminatory provisions (“NDPs”)are completely with the Sherman Act AntitrustLaw because the “NDPs” not against Sherman act antitrust law and it does not force customer to change decision and even it does not break the Competitive environment between the competitors. AsanemployeeinAntitrustDivisionoftheDepartmentofJusticeIwillgivemyopiniontothe Supervisor that the Divisions should not pursue theCase.IIIAs there C5 has no IP Protection and it came after G then by lowering the price of C by 20% with the combined deal by making it as compulsory product is not a Lawful deal. This deal can force Customer to change their buying decision even though the product is not IP Protected and there is another product G which came before C5. AntitrustLaw itself with benefits of the Customer and overall efficiency and Sherman Act protectconsumers fromabuses and protect competitive Environment.

+13062052269

info@desklib.com

Food Store Competition Strategies

Contribute Materials

Related Documents

Differentiating Factors in Food Stores