THE QUESTION
The sales leader was not the execution leader.
A field audit of 84 stores across seven retailers compared execution with available sales data in the Beer category, Q1 to Q2 2026. Brands and retailers are anonymized.
METHODOLOGY
One score. Three defined pillars.
40%Shelf share
35%SKU availability
25%Placement share
Inputs normalized to a 0–100 scale. Execution score = Shelf Share × 0.40 + Availability × 0.35 + Placement Share × 0.25.
COMPARISON
Sales versus execution, brand by brand.
| Brand | Sales rank | Sales share | Execution score | Execution rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1 | 28.4% | 68 | 3 |
| B | 2 | 21.7% | 74 | 2 |
| C | 3 | 15.2% | 79 | 1 |
| D | 4 | 12.1% | 61 | 4 |
| E | 5 | 9.8% | 42 | 7 |
| F | 6 | 6.9% | 55 | 5 |
| G | 7 | 3.8% | 38 | 8 |
| H | 8 | 2.1% | 51 | 6 |
FINDINGS
Where the commercial gaps appeared.
Availability
Three of the top five SKUs by sales were below 65% availability, against an 81% category average.
Secondary placements
A smaller brand held 14% of shelf share and 28% of secondary placements.
Execution and sales
Brands scoring above 70 recorded average sales 18% above the prediction based on shelf share alone. This is an observed association, not a measured uplift caused by an intervention.
ACTION PLAN
Close the gaps. Re-audit the panel.
- Improve availability of high-velocity SKUs in the weakest formats.
- Negotiate shelf space for the under-represented sales leader.
- Activate secondary placements in hypermarkets.
- Review conversion where strong visibility is not matched by sales.
LET’S TALK