Auckland grocery catchments segmented by the shopper mission their household composition implies, overlaid on the public store network. 22 catchments show a format-to-mission mismatch. The sharpest: eight inner-city areas where half of households have no car and a competitor sits closer than any Foodstuffs banner.
Every catchment placed by centroid, shaded by the measure you pick. Stores overlay by banner — shape carries the banner, not colour alone. Hover any mark.
Five hues on one scatter cannot be told apart reliably — by anyone, colour-blind or not. So the segments are faceted instead of stacked on the map above. Each panel shows one archetype against the same outline.
The seven features the segmentation is built on. Household structure separates these groups; income does the least work of any feature.
Read across a row: what each archetype actually has within reach. The inner-city row is the finding — a Woolworths at 0.57 km against a Four Square at 1.05 km, for households that mostly cannot drive.
Thresholds are judgment, set against each archetype's mobility profile: inner-city over 1 km to a convenience format, town-centre over 2 km to any Foodstuffs banner. Stated so they can be challenged and re-run.
$171.6m of annual grocery spend sits in the flagged catchments. Drag the recapture rate to see what it is worth to the co-operative, at the 85% wholesale ratio and the 3.17% EBIT margin derived from FSNI's published FY24 accounts.
Improving the allocation of FSNI's $254m annual capex by 5% is worth about $12.7m — that many times the recapture opportunity at this rate. The catchment gaps are not the prize. They are the evidence the method works.