← All case studies
FUEL RETAIL · FOOD & BEVERAGE (GASTRO)

Rebuilding a Food Portfolio on Data, Not Opinion

Commercial analytics and eye-tracking diagnostics for a fuel-retail gastro network

94%
Category sales from 22 core SKUs
≈70%
Fast-food SKUs with marginal contribution
29–48%
Customer attention score range
8
Deliverables in the accepted scope

The Client

Multi-site fuel station network operating an in-house food & beverage (“gastro”) business — hot beverages, pastry, fresh items, and made-to-order or packaged sandwiches — across several station clusters nationwide.

Confidential case study — anonymized. Full details available under NDA upon request.

The Situation

The Intersect Approach

01

Discovery

Internal commercial records combined with field visits to own and competitor stations, plus eye-tracking of customers and staff.

02

Analysis

SKU-level sales/margin/Pareto analysis, supplier concentration review, and eye-tracking attention mapping benchmarked against a competitor.

03

Go-to-Market & Pilot

Scored product portfolio, costed planograms, promo calendar, buying KPI framework, and operational manual — piloted at select stations.

What We Measured — Evidence, Not Opinions

Sales concentration in the two largest gastro categories — a small share of SKUs drives nearly all category revenue.
Objective FindingMeasured Value
Share of sales held by the higher-margin, on-site-production station cluster (2023 vs. 2025)56% → 54%, with the pre-packaged-sandwich cluster rising from 37% to 39%
SKUs with marginal contribution to fast-food category sales/margin in the production cluster≈ 70% of SKUs each contributed under 15% of combined category sales and margin
Sales concentration in the pre-packaged-sandwich cluster22 SKUs (36% of items) generated 94% of category sales
Pastry category SKU concentrationTop 5 products generated over 62% of total pastry sales; half of SKUs generated 99%
Customer visual-attention scores at pilot stations (eye-tracking, 15 sessions)≈ 29%–48% range, pointing to unclear product structure and layout
New product scoring for the seasonal/permanent portfolio (weighted scoring model)Majority of tested products scored 86–100%; lowest-performing item scored 71%
← scroll to see the full table →

Recommendations — Prioritized by Measured Impact

RecommendationRationale / Expected Impact
Portfolio rationalization: retain top-performing SKUs, consolidate marginal-contribution itemsRemoves the ≈70% of low-contribution SKUs while protecting concentrated sales/margin
Supplier consolidation for top-selling categoriesTargets the fragmented supplier structure limiting purchasing leverage
Standardized, fully costed planograms (chilled & ambient), piloted at select stationsReplaces station-by-station “working by feel” with one repeatable standard
New seasonal/permanent portfolio, selected via a weighted scoring modelBuilt from measured SKU-level sales and margin data, not opinion
In-store layout changes based on eye-tracking findingsTargets zones measured at only 29–48% customer attention
Quarterly promo calendar tied to defined commercial objectivesReplaces ad hoc promotions with a plan mapped to measured gaps
Buying-team KPI framework (weighted, 4 indicators)Provides the performance-measurement system that did not exist before
← scroll to see the full table →

Why This Approach Works

The difference from a standard category-management project was combining two lenses on the same problem that are usually kept separate: back-office commercial data (SKU-level sales, margin, and supplier analysis) and front-of-house behavioral data (eye-tracking of customers and staff, benchmarked against a competitor). Portfolio decisions were not based on which products management assumed were performing, but on measured sales and margin concentration — and every recommendation delivered was traceable back to a specific, quantified finding from the discovery phase.

Want results like these for your operations?

Book a Pilot Audit →