Home > Free Essays > Business > Marketing > Retailing in the UK

Retailing in the UK Report

Exclusively available on IvyPanda Available only on IvyPanda
Updated: Jul 3rd, 2020

Executive summary

The purpose of this report was to compare the strategies of two retailers with a UK presence (Lidl and Iceland) that compete in the same sector of the UK retail-market, to evaluate the extent of these strategies’ circumstantial appropriateness, and to assess the effectiveness of their practical implementation.

The findings, obtained during the course of conducting this report’s consequential phases, suggest that, as of today, there are many discursive prerequisites for British retailers to consider adjusting their marketing strategies to be fully consistent with specifically the ‘low pricing’ method of attracting potential buyers.

The report’s conclusions reconfirm the validity of the initially proposed thesis and provide readers with a preliminary insight into what will account for the essence of future-dynamics in the British retail – market.


One of the foremost aspects of a modern living in Britain is the fact that, as time goes on, more and more citizens decide in favor of shopping at supermarkets, associated with the names of world-known wholesale retailers.

The reason for this is apparent – even though that the retailers’ marketing practices do come under much of a criticism, due to what is believed accounted for these practices’ counterproductive effects on the communal integrity of British cities, the availability of supermarkets does serve the people’s shopping agenda rather effectively.

As Randall and Seth (2011, p. 168) noted, “Shoppers have voted with their feet – or rather their cars – patronizing the supermarkets and superstores at the expense of other outlets. The vast, gleaming superstores – open seven days a week, some 24 hours a day – are the clearest possible evidence that consumers are getting what they want”.

Thus, there can very few doubts as to the dialectically predetermined objectiveness of the phenomenon of retail-chains continuing to expand.

Nevertheless, as of today, there remain a number of discursive issues, concerned with the superstores’ continual functioning, which must be taken into consideration by both: ordinary citizens, who strive to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon in question, and economists/managers, who aspire to increase the extent of their professional adequacy.

In my report, I will aim to explore the validity of this suggestion at length, while conducting an analysis of the specifics of marketing strategies/operative philosophy, on the part of two large retailers that currently operate in the UK – namely, Iceland Frozen Foods and Lidl Stiftung & Co.

The retailers’ retail strategy in the light of its competitive environment

Ever since the time of Lidl’s entrance into the British retail-market, this German retailer never ceased taking advantage of its ability to provide British consumers with truly competitive (and often unbeatable) prices.

This, of course, allows us to identify Lidl, as a retailer that relies specifically upon the deployment of a low pricing strategy, as the foremost mean of maintaining its competitive edge (Bridges, Melewar & Otubanjo 2007).

Partially, the Lidl’s choice in favor of this particular retail-strategy can be explained by the specifics of the UK ‘oversaturated’ retail-market, which makes it quite impossible for new market-entrants to go about gaining advantage over their long-established competitors in any other way but by reducing prices for the offered goods down to their all-time-minimum.

The downside of this retail-strategy’s implementation is that it is capable of undermining the extent of the sold goods’ commercial appeal to aesthetically conscious consumers.

Even though that, throughout the course of its presence in the British retail – market, Iceland top-officials had revised their conceptualization of a proper retail-strategy a few times, this particular company continues to be strongly associated with the so-called ‘product positioning’ method of attracting potential customers.

In essence, this method is being concerned with the establishment of objective preconditions for consumers to think of the ‘perceived value’ of the acquired goods and services in a particularly high regard.

A thoroughly illustrative example of how Iceland proceeds with securing its niche in the country’s market of frozen foods is the company’s 1999 decision to switch to selling only organically grown and non-genetically modified fruits/vegetables (Wilson 1999).

Given the fact that, as of today, only a few of the Iceland’s food-retailing competitors offer consumers the option of buying ‘healthy’ foods, the company’s currently deployed niche-based competing strategy appears methodologically appropriate.

The overall sector’s position

As of 2009, the Lidl’s share in the UK grocery-market accounted for 2.4%. Even though that this share appears rather neglectful, it nevertheless continues to increase slowly but steadily (by approximately 0.4% per year). The number of the company’s currently operative stores in the UK is 580 (Randall & Seth 2011).

In its turn, this provides many economists with a rationale to refer to Lidl in terms of a ‘second tier retail chain’ – the company’s sector-positioning implies its marginal influence on the qualitative dynamics within the overall retail-sector of the British economy.

Nevertheless, an ongoing economic recession creates objective prerequisites for the Lidl’s share in the concerned industry to continue increasing, as the company’s currently deployed marketing strategy appears thoroughly consistent with the process of more and more British shoppers preferring to buy ‘no-frills’ grocery-items, as the mean to obtain the best value for their money.

With 810 stores currently operating across the UK, the Iceland’s share in the country’s grocery-retail market is estimated (as of 2010) to account for approximately 8% (Jones 2010).

Nevertheless, even though that the company continues to apply much of an effort into trying to expand this share, there is only so much it can achieve, in this respect.

This is because, as it was mentioned earlier, Iceland targets specifically the ‘perceived value’- conscious consumers, the number of which is likely to be reduced in the near future.

In its turn, this explains why, as of recently, Iceland top-officials have been trying to increase the extent of their company’s commercial competitiveness primarily by the mean of laying off ‘excessive’ employees (Blackhurst 2010).

The retailers’ strategies for dealing with the environment

Nowadays, it is being estimated that close to 50% of non-recyclable materials (primarily packaging items), sent to landfills in Britain on an annual basis, come from supermarkets (Facts and figures 2012).

Therefore, when it comes to assessing the extent of a particular retailer’s environmental friendliness, it is important to do it in regards to what account for the deployed packaging-policies.

Given the fact that Lidl is known for its practice of utilizing as little packaging material, as possible (as one of the methods of maintaining its operative efficacy), one may conclude that this reflects the concerned retail-chain’s adherence to the principles of environmentalism.

This, however, is far from being the case, because Lidl makes a deliberate point in utilizing the most cost-effective packaging. In its turn, this presupposes this packaging being weighty and substantially non-recyclable.

According to the survey, conducted by the British Market Research Bureau in 2009, “Lidl had the lowest proportion of packaging that could be easily recycled, at 58 per cent. Its packaging (of typical 29 goods) weighed 782.5g (1lb 11.5oz), the second highest (after Waitrose)” (Poulter 2009, p. 33).

Another factor, which contributes to the Lidl’s socially constructed image of a somewhat environmentally arrogant company, is the aura of secrecy that surrounds it. For example, Lidl top-executives are not being required to report to the shareholders the qualitative specifics of the company’s currently deployed PR/marketing strategies (Wiesmann 2008).

This, of course, creates a hypothetical possibility for Lidl managers to adopt a light attitude towards the company’s potentially environment-damaging practices. Finally, the Lidl’s practice of selling goods in huge warehouse-like stores is being capable of negatively affecting the environment, as well.

This is because by building these stores across the UK, Lidl inevitably alters the natural landscapes that surround the construction-sites.

An essential part of the Iceland products’ perceptual appeal is that fact that this company never ceased positioning itself as a nature-friendly commercial enterprise. Therefore, there is indeed a strong rationale for the company to continue investing in making its operations thoroughly observant of the WARP’s (Waste and Resources Action Programme) provisions.

The validity of this statement can be well illustrated in regards to the fact that in 2010, Iceland obtained the Carbon Trust Standard, due to having reduced the total amount of its CO2 emissions by 2%, over the course of 3 years. This came as a direct result of the company’s continual commitment towards making its commercial operations ever more energy-efficient.

As it was noted on the company’s web site, “During 2011 Iceland invested in excess of £3 million in energy saving projects including Voltage Optimization and High Efficiency lighting… Our 70 new stores opened during 2009/10… are achieving energy consumption 10-15% below our estate average” (Corporate responsibility 2012, para. 32).

In addition, Iceland is known for its rather aggressive policies, aimed to reduce the amount of packaging-waste it generates. For example, ever since 2011, the company’s stores in Wales started to charge customers 5p for every plastic bag, which immediately resulted in the reduction of these bags’ usage by 77%.

Thus, when compared to what it is being the case with Lidl, Iceland can indeed be referred to as being much more environmentally-friendly.

The retailers’ strategies for dealing with the competition they face

The way in which Lidl deals with competitors in the UK is being concerned with the exploitation of the operational deficiencies of a classical retail-philosophy, associated with the names of UK-based largest retailers.

According to this philosophy’s provisions, the consumers’ purchasing choices are being defined by the sensation of a brand-loyalty, on their part.

Given the fact that the majority of Britons is assumed to do their grocery shopping once per week, most UK-based retailers strive to make sure that, once in their stores, customers are being given an opportunity to choose from at least 10-15 different brands of the same line of a particular product.

Consequently, this drives the price for every offered item up, due to the associated storage-costs. Lidl, however, deploys an entirely different retail-philosophy, while offering severely limited but low-priced lines of the same product, which allows this retailer to maintain a high profitability of its commercial operations.

The competitive strategy, deployed by Lidl, has also been concerned with providing customer with quality-wise incentives to do their grocery shopping on the company’s premises.

This has been achieved by the mean of striking deals with long established brand-name producers to supply Lidl stores with often poorly packaged but still good-quality products, which are being sold under pretentiously sounding but essentially fictitious brand-names, such as Ombra, Del Rivo, Sainte Etienne, etc. (Blythman 2008).

Because, as of today, Lidl continues to expand in the UK, the company’s earlier outlined competitive strategy can indeed be defined thoroughly effective.

The foremost elements of the Iceland’s currently deployed competitive strategy can be outlined as follows:

  1. 1. Providing ‘clear-cut’ prices. In order to attract more buyers, Iceland has implemented a price-setting reform, concerned with ‘rounding’ prices for the offered items, which in turn resulted in increasing the commercial appeal of the products in question.
  2. 2. Advertising its adherence to the principles of a ‘healthy living’. In today’s British grocery-market, Iceland positions itself as the only UK-based retailer that provides consumers with an option to buy non-genetically modified food-items for comparatively low prices. This is expected to result in both: strengthening the measure of the committed buyers’ brand-loyalty and providing potential customers with rationale-based incentives to shop at Iceland.
  3. 3. Offering customers ‘free delivery’ services. As of today, it remains an institutionalized practice in many Iceland stores to qualify customers, who have spent more than £25, for a ‘free delivery’ service. Partially, this explains why Iceland appears to be particularly popular with elderly customers (Finne & Sivonen 2008).

Target market(s), competitive positioning

Given the fact that, as it was mentioned earlier, it is specifically the Lidl’s ability to offer competitive prices on its products in stock, which allows this company to make profits, there can be few doubts as to what kind of customers this particular retail-chain targets.

These customers can be generally identified as ‘price-sensitive’. To be more specific, Lidl is being especially popular with recently arrived immigrants from the Third World and from Eastern European countries, as well as with currently unemployed British native-born citizens (Garvey 2002).

Because, due to an ongoing economic recession and due to the policy of ‘multiculturalism’ continuing to enjoy an official status in Britain, the number of consumers, potentially pre-inclined to prefer shopping at Lidl is going to increase, it provides this Germany-based retail-chain with a strategic advantage over its competitors.

This also explains why, as of today, Lidl is continuing to expand the range of its operations in the UK.

Even though that during the course of recent years, Iceland top-executives have been declaring that the company’s main operative objective is to provide ordinary Britons with an opportunity to buy high-quality foods at low prices, the majority of people who do their grocery-shopping at Iceland are far from being deemed ‘ordinary’.

This is because they overwhelmingly consist of the representatives of an upper middle-class, who can afford leading ‘healthy lifestyles’, in the first place. Hence, their willingness to pay extra for the ‘perceived value’ of ‘chemicals-free’ grocery-items, sold in Iceland.

As O’Sullivan (2000, p.11) noted, “The organic sector is growing, but the differences between organic and conventional prices remain marked – though many consumers seem willing to pay based on perceived quality of product and the ‘production environment’”.

Because the retailer’s marketing strategy proceeds with exploiting the motifs of ‘healthiness’, the actual manner in which this company targets consumers will continue to remain observant of what happened to be the specifics of their class-affiliation.

Evaluation of the retailers’ implementation

There are a number of objective reasons to believe that Lidl did succeed rather splendidly, while implementing its competitive strategy. The validity of this statement can be well illustrated in regards to the fact that, as of today, this retail-chain continues to expand its presence across the UK.

Moreover, Lidl also managed to assure a steady increase of its operational effectiveness, which in turn created prerequisites for the company’s share in the UK grocery-market to continue growing. For example, throughout the three initial months of 2011, “Lidl’s share (in grocery-market) rose from 2.2pc to 2.4pc, up by 9.1pc.” (Hall 2011, p. 4).

Apparently, Lidl managers, in charge of running the business in the UK, were able to adequately identify the economic significance of today’s socio-political and demographic dynamics in this country, and to take a practical advantage of the obtained insight.

Therefore, even though that Lidl continues to be referred to in terms of a ‘marginal retail-operator’, it appears being only the matter of time, before it will begin posing an acute competitive threat to the UK-based largest retailers, such as Tesco, Waitrose and M&S.

Before Iceland initial founder Malcolm Walker took over the company back in 2005, this retail-chain was rapidly losing its competitive edge. Partially, this had to do with the fact that, prior to the economic recession of 2009-2010, more and more Britons deemed the very idea of consuming frozen foods quite unappealing.

To make things worse, through the years 1999-2005, Iceland officials were applying a resource-consuming effort to popularize the practice of ‘online shopping’ among the company’s committed customers, which undermined the extent of this retail-chain’s even further, as the concept of ‘online shopping’ is being discursively inconsistent with the concept of ‘grocery shopping’.

Nevertheless, since the time when Walker started to take an active part in managing the company, Iceland was able to ‘get back on the horse’. According to Best (2012, p. 3), “The future looks bright for Iceland. The retailer… has a record share of the country’s grocery market… with sales increasing at a double-digit rate”.

In part, this can be explained by the fact that, ever since 2005, Iceland PR-specialists were applying a great effort into trying to convince potential customers that, while shopping at Iceland, they would be able to enjoy a number of different ‘price-cut’ deals.

Range of merchandise

As it was mentioned earlier, the very philosophy of Lidl commercial transactions presupposes a limited range of the merchandise it offers. It is now being estimated that the average number of product-lines, found in the company’s stores, rarely over exceeds 1.600 (Butler 2008).

As of today, 80% of products sold at Lidl consist of different grocery-items that can be stored for lengthy periods of time, such as peanut butter, canned fruits and vegetables, frozen pizzas, salad dressings, etc. Most of these items come in large packages, which create a certain inconvenience for those customers that come to Lidl to purchase a limited number of goods.

Given the fact that, as time went on, this Germany-based retailer was becoming increasingly popular with more and more British shoppers, Lidl executives are now planning to expand the retailer’s merchandise-range to include electronics, furniture and homeware accessories.

The very name Iceland Frozen Foods implies that the company that bears it specializes in selling frozen food-items. This, however, does not have much of an effect on the extensive number of product-lines, featured in the company’s stores, which often runs as high as 15.000-20.000 (Wright & McCrea 2008).

Among the most popular food-items, sold by the company, can be named: broiled free-range chickens, frozen meats, fruits, vegetables and fishes. Iceland also provides customers with an extensive variety of frozen meals, ice-creams and ‘roast from frozen’ food-items.

Packages of most of the earlier mentioned products feature ‘GMO-free’ labels. Because, just as it is being the case with Lidl, in recent years Iceland was able to increase the extent of its operational effectiveness, the company’s officials now consider expanding the range of the featured product-lines, so that it would include non-food items.


The foremost feature of how Lidl sets prices for its retailed products is that it strives to encourage customers to think of them in terms of being not simply thoroughly affordable, but rather ridiculously cheap.

In her article, Stacey (2006, p. 1) provides us with an insight into what were the Lidl’s prices for some of its stocked food-items in 2006, “Buy: the pesto, which Good Housekeeping voted the best, 99p olives stuffed with cream cheese, 99p black-olive breadsticks and 69p the hot smoked-salmon fillets”.

In fact, recent years saw a number of public controversies, concerned with what some people consider the counterproductive effects of the Lidl’s low prices on the British society’s overall well-being, because by being offered irresistible deals on the vine and beer, customers are being tempted to indulge in an excessive alcohol-consumption.

Yet, the deployment of a low-pricing policy, on the part of Lidl, is exactly what allows this retailer to continue gaining a competitive advantage over the rest of UK-based retail-chains.

When compared to what it is being the case with the Lidl’s prices for the most popular product-lines, the Iceland’s prices for the same lines of products appear somewhat higher. However, they can still be referred to as being thoroughly competitive.

As it can be seen on the company’s web site, while shopping at Iceland, people can buy 4 100% Beef Quarter Pounders for £2 (£4.40 per kg), 10 Thick Pork Sausages for £1 (£2.00 per kg), 4 Chicken & Mushroom Individual Pies for £1.50 (£2.64 per kg), etc. (Meat 2012, para.1).

Iceland also offers a number of money-saving promotions. For example, one can easily sign up for the £10 Bingo Card, while being consequently qualified to pay with this card for £30 worth of groceries.

Thus, it can be well concluded that Iceland top-managers are being thoroughly aware of the importance of providing customers with ‘cost-cutting’ incentives to shop in the company’s stores.

Given the fact that, in full accordance with Walker’s recommendations, Iceland started to pay a closer attention to the promotion of ‘money-saving deals’, it appears that the percentage of the company’s loyal ‘perceived value’- conscious customers will decrease.

Customer communications

One of the reasons why Lidl is continuing to enjoy a considerable success in the UK retail-market is that its operating costs are being reduced down to a minimum. An integral part of how this retailer is able to ensure this is its deployed policy of limiting the staff as much, as possible.

This, of course, presupposes that the company’s approach towards maintaining good relations with customers cannot be referred thoroughly adequate, by definition. What also adds to the issue is the fact that there have been a number of Media-covered scandals, concerned with Lidl subjecting its employees to an unfair treatment, which negatively affected the company’s overall public image (Chesworth 2008).

Nevertheless, Lidl still applies a fair effort into maintaining the integrity of its PR-policies. For example, for a number of years Lidl has been collaborating with CLIC Sargent, which rise charities to help children with cancer.

Lidl also provides its loyal customers with an opportunity to receive weekly e-newsletters, which is supposed to help them to increase the money-wise effectiveness of their shopping trips even further.

Despite the fact, as it was pointed out earlier, Iceland is now focusing more into providing customers with specifically monetary incentives to shop in the company’s stores; it nevertheless continues to invest a considerable effort into ensuring its speedy responsiveness to the buyers’ wishes, comments and suggestions.

For example, while shopping at Iceland, customers are being encouraged to fill out questionnaires, which contain questions as to what they consider the indications of a particular store’s operative inadequateness.

Iceland also signed a partnership with the Government, while proclaiming to remain committed to the pledges of “Removing artificial trans fats… tackling under-age alcohol sales… promoting physical activity guidelines” (Corporate responsibility 2012, para. 32).

Among other implemented measures towards increasing the strength of the company’s appeal, as a socially-responsible commercial organization, can be named: the establishment of the Iceland Foods Charitable Foundation in 2010 and the company’s 2011 pledge to provide financial contributions to the Walking With The Wounded Foundation, which is supposed to improve the living standards of former British soldiers, who sustained physical injuries, while on the line of duty.

Service offering

As of today, Lidl provide customers with three services, worthy of being mentioned. The first one is the so-called ‘money-back guarantee’ service.

According to the information, available on the company’s web site, Lidle guarantees customers that they will be fully reimbursed for purchasing faulty non-food items within the matter of 28 days, after the concerned purchase took place.

Second – customers are being promised that the staff-members will never refuse to provide them with the full information, regarding a particular food or non-food product, sold on the company’s premises.

Moreover, customers are being also promised that, in case they fail to locate a particular sought-for product, while in one of the Lidl’s stores, the concerned store will promptly restock its shelves with this product. Third – the company’s web site now features informational videos about the Lidl’s most popular products.

This is expected to help customers to make proper purchasing-choices. Even though that the earlier mentioned services, provided by Lidl, can indeed be deemed rather helpful, it can hardly escape just about anyone’s attention that they (with the probable exception of the second one) require very little ‘human involvement’, on the staff-members’ part.

In light of what appears to be the scope of customer-oriented services, provided by Lidl, the scope of the same services, offered by Iceland, can be best referred to as being rather extensive.

It is not only that the most enthusiastic buyers are being offered to take advantage of a free-delivery service, mentioned earlier, but they also qualify for a number of ‘secondary’ in-store services. For example, customers are being welcomed to discuss their intended approaches to dieting with nutritionists, hired by Iceland on a full-time basis.

Customers are being also guaranteed to be given full nutritional information about the product of their interest, upon request. Just as it is being the case with Lidl, Iceland long ago enacted the policy of reimbursing customers for the purchased products, in case these products fail to meet their buyers’ quality-expectations.

It is needless to mention, of course, that the availability of these services in the superstores, operated by Iceland, does contribute rather immensely to the upholding of the company’s customer-friendly image.


After having entered the British retail-market in 1994, Lidl pursued with the aggressive expansion-policy, which explains why, as of today, the company’s stores can be found in just about every part of Britain. The largest ones are located in Livingston, Middleborough, Leeds, Nuneaton, Coventry, Bletchley, Slough, Dorchester and London.

As a general rule, the geographic location of Lidl stores is being referred to as such that reflects the mangers’ awareness of the fact that it is specifically the representatives of Britain’s socially underprivileged populations, who would be naturally inclined to shop at Lidl more than the representatives of this country’s other social groups.

Hence, the company’s tendency to locate its stores, as close to what are being commonly referred to as poverty-stricken multicultural ‘ghettoes’, as possible (Kirkup et al. 2004).

In the geographical sense of this word, the locations of Iceland stores appear to be spatially resembling those of Lidl. That is, these stores can be found all over the country. The largest of them are located in Inverness, Dumfries, Newcastle, Huddersfield, Manchester, Sheffield, Leicester and London.

Even though that, during the course of the eighties and nineties, the majority of the Iceland’s customers were assumed to have been the representatives of a middle-class, it nowadays represents a rather challenging task to positively identify the particulars of the Iceland-loyal shoppers’ class-affiliation.

Partially, this can be explained by the fact that, even though Iceland continues to take pride in its commitment to selling ‘healthy’ foods, the prices it charges nevertheless remain thoroughly competitive. As Hall (2008, p. 4) noted, “Iceland sells cheap, frozen food to working mothers from uncluttered shops.

There are no bells, whistles, or whizzy marketing campaigns”. Therefore, there can be very little sense in assigning any discursive significance to the specifics of the company stores’ spatial distribution on the map.

Store ambience, layout and communication

The foremost aesthetic characteristic of Lidl stores, the average size of which ranges from 830 sq m to 1,700 sq m (Rhodes 2012), is that there is very little aesthetic appeal to them. In essence, most Lidl stores resemble huge cardboard boxes – this impression is being strengthened even further by the fact that these ‘boxes’ feature very few windows.

Apparently, the very appearance of Lidl outlets emanates the ‘no frills’ marketing philosophy, deployed by this Germany-based retailer. Unfortunately, the internal layout of Lidl stores matches an essentially tasteless design of many of the company’s newly built shopping centers.

In his article, Jamieson (2007, p. 26) provides us with a rather humorous account of his experience of visiting one of Lidl hypermarkets in Edinburgh, “Merchandising (at Lidl)… appears to be the work of a tortured genius on an absinthe binge.

The first aisle contains giant crates, each of which is a tombola of unexpected items including child car seats… Between the doormats, lampshades and cheap running shoes is a stack of Carlsberg lager… Giant fluorescent signs divide everything into two broad categories: ‘CHEAP!’ and ‘CHEAPER!’”.

Moreover, it appears a commonplace practice in many Lidl stores to have a person periodically yelling out commands to the staff-members (over the loudspeakers) with a heavy Pakistani accent, which makes one’s shopping experience at Lidl even uncannier.

As compared to what it is being the case with the architectural design of Lidl stores, the architectural design of Iceland retail-outlets appears much more aesthetically pleasing.

The validity of this suggestion can be well illustrated in regards to the fact that the majority of the company’s stores feature a plenty of wide enough windows, which eliminates even a slight possibility for some shoppers to grow claustrophobic, while inside (Hare, Kirk & Lang 2001).

This alone suggests that, unlike what it happened to be the case with many Lidl stores (which should be referred to as the de facto warehouses), Iceland stores do live up to the title. These stores’ internal layout also appears to be well thought-through, as the spatial locations of every isle, dedicated to a particular line of product, do make a perfectly logical sense.

The system of in-store communication deserves to be praised, as well, because it does enable both: customers and employees, to have a good mental grasp on what is going on in the store.


Given the discursive implications of the data, obtained during the course of conducting this study’s consequential phases, we can come up with the following set of conclusions, as to what this data actually signifies:

  1. The euro-centric notion of a ‘customer loyalty’ can no longer serve as a conceptual premise for designing different retail-strategies. The apparent success of the Lidl retail-chain in Britain substantiates the legitimacy of this suggestion.
  2. There are a number of objective preconditions for more and more British retailers to choose in favor of implementing the specifically ‘low pricing’ marketing strategy.
  3. The qualitative essence of today’s socio-economic and demographic dynamics within the British society, implies that the people’s purchasing choices can no longer be discussed outside of what happened to be the particulars of their ethno-cultural/class affiliation.
  4. An ongoing economic recession increases the extent of the large retail-chains’ operative effectiveness, as it naturally provides them with the additional inflows of customers.

I believe that these conclusions are being thoroughly consistent with the report’s initial thesis.


Best, D 2012, ‘Best bits: Iceland Foods seals week of headlines for UK retail’, Just – Food Global News, 12 March, p. 3.

Blackhurst, C 2010, ‘One saga from Iceland that hasn’t ended in failure’, Evening Standard, 26 May, p. 38.

Blythman, J 2008, ‘The rise and rise of Lidl Britain: as supermarkets are accused of above-inflation price hikes, shoppers flock to downmarket rivals with upmarket pretensions’, The Daily Telegraph, 10 September, p. 23.

Bridges, K, Melewar, T, Otubanjo, O 2007,‘”Geiz-ist-geil” strategy: a three-company study’, Management Decision, vol. 45 no. 6, pp. 1023-1037.

Butler, S 2008, ‘Discount chain confident that its moment has arrived’, The Times, 22 December, p. 46.

Chesworth, N 2008, ‘Thrift: the way the coping classes cope when times are tight’, The Daily Telegraph, 17 May, p. 1.

2012. Web.

Facts and figures 2012. Web.

Finne, S & Sivonen, H 2008, Retail value chain: how to gain competitive advantage through efficient consumer response (ECR) strategies, Kogan Page Ltd., London.

Garvey, A 2002, ‘Lidl by Lidl’, Grocer, vol. 225 no. 7542, p. 36.

Hall, J 2008, ‘Malcolm Walker Chief Executive Iceland: how Iceland beat the big freeze’, The Daily Telegraph, 24 March, p. 4.

Hall, J 2011, ‘Aldi and Lidl thrive as shoppers seek value’, The Daily Telegraph, 02 February, p. 4.

Hare, C, Kirk, D & Lang, T 2001, ‘The food shopping experience of older consumers in Scotland: critical incidents’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, vol. 29 no. 1, p. 25.

Jamieson, A 2007, ‘Waitrose or Lidl, who would you rather invite to dinner? The Scotsman, 29 June, p. 26.

Jones, D 2010, ‘Profits surge at Iceland on back of new store openings’, Daily Post, 08 June, p. 7.

Kirkup, M et al. 2004, ‘Inequalities in retail choice: exploring consumer experiences in suburban neighbourhoods’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, vol. 32 no. 11/12, pp. 511-522.

2012. Web.

O’Sullivan, K 2000, ‘The greening of Iceland: is organic food poised for a massive leap in popularity?’, Irish Times, 17 June, p. 11.

Poulter, S 2009, ‘Waitrose is worst for using excess packaging’, Daily Mail, 17 February, p. 33.

Randall, G & Seth, A 2011, Grocers: the rise and rise of supermarket chains, Kogan Page Ltd., London.

Rhodes, E 2012, ‘Lidl and large as store moves to bigger premises’, Derby Evening Telegraph, 07 September, p. 10.

Stacey, C 2006, ‘Where the gourmets went next: We’re all foodies now, obsessed with farmers’ markets and fashionable delis’, The Independent, 20 July, p. 1.

Wiesmann, G 2008, ‘Cautious times help German chains’, Financial Times, 13 December, p. 18.

Wilson, B 1999, ‘Frozen pleas’, New Statesman, vol. 128 no. 4460, pp. 50-51.

Wright, S & McCrea, D 2008, Handbook of organic and fair trade food marketing, Wiley, Chichester.

This report on Retailing in the UK was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.
Removal Request
If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda.
Request the removal

Need a custom Report sample written from scratch by
professional specifically for you?

Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar

certified writers online

Cite This paper
Select a referencing style:


IvyPanda. (2020, July 3). Retailing in the UK. https://ivypanda.com/essays/retailing-in-the-uk-case-study-report/


IvyPanda. (2020, July 3). Retailing in the UK. Retrieved from https://ivypanda.com/essays/retailing-in-the-uk-case-study-report/

Work Cited

"Retailing in the UK." IvyPanda, 3 July 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/retailing-in-the-uk-case-study-report/.

1. IvyPanda. "Retailing in the UK." July 3, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/retailing-in-the-uk-case-study-report/.


IvyPanda. "Retailing in the UK." July 3, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/retailing-in-the-uk-case-study-report/.


IvyPanda. 2020. "Retailing in the UK." July 3, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/retailing-in-the-uk-case-study-report/.


IvyPanda. (2020) 'Retailing in the UK'. 3 July.

Powered by CiteTotal, easy bibliography generator
More related papers