Does a low-selling product really deserve to be removed from your range?
During an assortment review, the bottom of the sales ranking quickly attracts attention. These products take up time, occupy space in the offer and appear to contribute little to sales. Removing them may seem obvious.
Yet effective foodservice range rationalisation requires an understanding of each product’s role. Low sales may indicate a real problem, but they may also reflect restricted distribution or a specific use. The decision deserves more than a threshold applied without context.
1. Check whether low sales can be meaningfully interpreted
Before judging a product, examine how long it has been on the market, its availability and its distribution scope. A recent launch, a product stocked in only a few depots or one frequently unavailable cannot be assessed like a mature, widely distributed item.
Compare periods relevant to its use. A seasonal offer should be assessed during its active season. A change in product code can also split sales across records and create an artificial impression of decline.
Sometimes the first decision concerns the quality of the diagnosis, not whether to keep the product. If the data is incomplete, make clear what conclusions it actually supports.
2. Identify the customers that give it a role
A product may account for little of total sales while meeting a specific need for some customers. Where the data allows, examine who buys it, how regularly and in which depots it performs well.
The question is not only “How much does it sell?” but also “Whose needs does it meet that the rest of the range does not adequately cover?” A specific use, particular pack size or preparation constraint may explain its place in the assortment.
However, distinguish a demonstrated role from a historical argument. A handful of isolated orders is not enough to establish strategic importance. Look for consistency between observed purchases and field feedback.
3. Examine alternatives in the assortment
If the product is removed, what will you offer the customers affected? A straightforward substitute can make withdrawal relatively easy. By contrast, a replacement that changes pack size, taste or preparation requires support.
Compare uses as well as technical specifications. Two products that look similar in a spreadsheet may not be interchangeable in a kitchen. Validate the main assumptions with sales teams and, where possible, with users.
Our article on common mistakes in assortment tracking complements this analysis. Assessing an individual product is more useful when it remains connected to the overall offer.
4. Include costs using the right data
A product that is useful to a few customers may be costly to maintain. The decision should account for production, storage, handling and service constraints where these are known.
Sell-out figures alone cannot establish overall profitability. Combine them with available internal margin and cost information. Do not treat frequent purchases as automatic evidence of profitability.
Commercial relevance and economic viability must be assessed together. Where information is missing, document that limitation rather than hiding uncertainty behind an overly precise score.
5. Choose between four explicit decisions
Retaining the product makes sense when its role and economic viability are established. Repositioning may be appropriate if it works for a narrower customer group than originally intended.
Testing it again requires a defined scope, an action and a review date. This option should not become a permanent postponement. Finally, withdrawing the product means preparing substitutes, communication and the management of existing commitments.
Assign an owner and a deadline to each decision. For products retained conditionally, specify the expected results. The range review then becomes an action plan that can be monitored.
Discover KaryonFood to understand your assortment’s performance more clearly and inform these decisions with sell-out data.
Comments