Gulf Coast Fuel Stops

i

Affected stations cut prices by 5 cents over the period, at unchanged unit costs; MegaMart remains about 10 cents cheaper today. Figures, including the grocery margin, are stylized case assumptions.

Basic observations (expected from every candidate)

• The problem is concentrated, not general. The 140 stations without a MegaMart nearby earn the same USD 1,500 per day they earned two years ago. The 60 affected stations have swung from USD 1,500 profit to a USD 150 daily loss, a deterioration of USD 1,650 per station per day.
• Two things went wrong at once at the affected stations: daily fuel customers fell from 1,200 to 900 (down 25%), and the fuel margin fell from 30 to 25 cents as Gulf Coast partly matched prices.
• The competitor facts are lopsided: MegaMart’s average basket is USD 150; Gulf Coast’s average shop purchase is USD 12, and only one customer in four enters the shop at all.

Advanced observations (distinguish outstanding candidates)

• The comparison group points to the cause. Flat profits at the 140 untouched stations make market-wide explanations (remote work, efficient cars) unlikely. This is most plausibly a local, competitor-driven problem, which customer research could confirm.
• MegaMart’s cheap fuel works as marketing. Its fuel stops typically happen as part of a grocery trip, and at the assumed 20% gross margin a USD 150 basket carries about USD 30 of gross profit, so MegaMart can accept little or no fuel margin on these customers. Its price is not a promotion Gulf Coast can wait out.
• The shop is the underused engine. The entry rate of one in four versus one in two at best-in-class chains suggests real headroom, and the shop is the profit source least exposed to MegaMart’s fuel price.

Sample verbal answer

“The decline is concentrated in the 60 stations near MegaMart. Their traffic fell by 25% and their fuel margin by 5 cents, while other stations are stable. That supports a local competitive explanation. I would next quantify fuel and shop contribution and check costs.”

Step 1 - The affected station today

• Fuel: 900 customers x 10 gallons x USD 0.25 = USD 2,250 per day.
• Shop: 1 in 4 of 900 = 225 visits x USD 4 = USD 900 per day.
• Gross profit USD 3,150 - USD 3,300 fixed costs = a loss of USD 150 per day.

Step 2 - The healthy station (and every station two years ago)

• Fuel: 1,200 x 10 x USD 0.30 = USD 3,600; shop: 300 x USD 4 = USD 1,200.
• Gross USD 4,800 - USD 3,300 = USD 1,500 profit per day.

Step 3 - The chain bridge

• Two years ago: 200 stations x USD 1,500 x 360 days = USD 108M.
• Today: 140 x 1,500 + 60 x (-150) = USD 201,000 per day x 360 = USD 72.4M, matching the roughly USD 72M in the prompt.
• The 60 affected stations account for the entire decline of about USD 36M.

Business implication: affected stations are below break-even, and the rest of the chain is subsidizing them. Note the role of fixed costs: a 25% traffic drop plus 5 cents of margin flipped a solidly profitable station into a loss-maker. This is less a management failure than a structural effect: with a fixed cost base, station economics are simply that sensitive to traffic and margin.

Common Mistakes: Candidates may forget the shop entirely in the station P&L, apply the one-in-four shop rate to the old 1,200 customers instead of today’s 900, or stop at the station result without building the bridge to the chain numbers given in the prompt.

Sample verbal answer

“An affected station today: 900 customers, 10 gallons each, at 25 cents, is USD 2,250 of fuel profit. One customer in four walks into the shop, so 225 visits at USD 4 is USD 900. That is USD 3,150 gross against USD 3,300 of fixed costs, so the station loses USD 150 a day. A healthy station still earns USD 1,500. Scale it up: two years ago all 200 stations at USD 1,500 a day over 360 days is USD 108M. Today, 140 at USD 1,500 and 60 losing USD 150 gives about USD 72M. So the 60 stations near a MegaMart explain the entire USD 36M decline.”

Guidance: No new exhibit; all inputs are in Exhibit 2. This is the conceptual heart of the case. Let the candidate set up the comparison themselves; the candidate should accept the COO’s best case and test whether the plan works even then.

Solution

Step 1 - Take the plan at its word

• New fuel profit: 1,200 customers x 10 gallons x USD 0.15 = USD 1,800 per day.
• Shop: 1 in 4 of 1,200 = 300 visits x USD 4 = USD 1,200 per day.
• Gross USD 3,000 - USD 3,300 fixed costs = a loss of USD 300 per day, twice today’s loss, even with every lost customer back. Across 60 stations, that is another 60 x USD 150 x 360 = about USD 3.2M of annual profit destroyed.

Step 2 - See why it fails

• The giveaway view: cutting 10 cents hands USD 900 per day to the 900 customers who were already coming (9,000 gallons x USD 0.10). The 300 returning customers bring only USD 2.50 each at the new margin (USD 1.50 fuel + USD 1.00 blended shop) = USD 750. USD 750 in, USD 900 out: the cut costs more than the customers it buys.

Step 3 - The conceptual heart

• MegaMart and Gulf Coast earn very different amounts per customer. For MegaMart customers whose fuel stop is part of a grocery trip, the discounted gallon is attached to a USD 150 basket worth about USD 30 of gross profit under the case assumptions; Gulf Coast’s discounted gallon is attached to a USD 12 shop purchase worth USD 4, and only for one customer in four. In a price auction for these customers, MegaMart can bid far more per customer than Gulf Coast.

Step 4 - The judgment flip

• Price is not off the table; blanket posted price is. A discount delivered through a loyalty app and tied to a shop purchase is far better targeted than a posted price cut, because it is only paid to customers who make a shop purchase, and it does not appear on the price sign, which reduces, though does not eliminate, the risk of a competitor response. A pilot must still measure incremental profit, because some discounts will go to customers who would have shopped anyway. Meanwhile Gulf Coast should compete where its model is stronger: a roughly three-minute stop on the customer’s route versus a fuel stop that requires a full hypermarket trip.

Common Mistakes: Candidates may evaluate the plan only on whether customers return, without pricing what the discount gives away to existing customers, or conclude “never compete on price” instead of “not this price move”, missing the targeted alternative.

Sample verbal answer

“At 1,200 customers, fuel contributes USD 1,800 and the shop USD 1,200. Against USD 3,300 of fixed costs, the station loses USD 300 daily, twice today’s loss. The discount costs USD 900 on existing customers while returning customers contribute USD 750. I would reject this proposal. Any loyalty offer should be tested separately on incremental profit after discounts.”

The 40% purchase rate is a testable estimate based on best-in-class benchmarks, not a guaranteed result. Figures are steady-state daily operating figures, before upfront investment. No loyalty discount is included in this scenario; any promotional offer is evaluated separately.

Step 1 - The uplift

• Extra shop visits: 900 x (40% - 25%) = 135 per day.
• Extra shop profit: 135 x USD 4 = USD 540 per day.
• Net of additional operating costs: USD 540 - USD 100 = USD 440 per day.
• New affected-station result: -150 + 440 = USD 290 profit per day. The upgrade alone flips the average affected station back above break-even, without touching the fuel price.

Step 2 - Perspective at chain level

• Across the 60 affected stations: 60 x USD 440 x 360 = about USD 9.5M per year, taking chain profit from about USD 72M to about USD 82M. Meaningful, but not yet back at USD 108M, which is why the pilot should also test the upgrade at healthy stations.

Step 3 - What the pilot must establish

• Does the entry rate really reach 40%, sustained, against comparable control stations?
• Does the USD 4 profit per visit hold after product mix, waste and discounts, and do the extra running costs stay near USD 100 per day?
• What upfront investment is needed, how fast does it pay back, and can the shop upgrade run without slowing fuel service?

Common Mistakes: Candidates may forget the additional operating costs and report USD 540 instead of USD 440, or treat the 40% entry rate as a fact rather than a hypothesis the pilot has to prove.

Sample verbal answer

“135 extra shop visits a day, at USD 4 each, is USD 540, minus USD 100 of extra running costs leaves USD 440. That takes an affected station from a USD 150 daily loss to about USD 290 of profit, without touching the fuel price. Across the 60 affected stations that is roughly USD 9.5M a year, which is meaningful but not the whole USD 36M, so I would also test the upgrade at healthy stations, where the same entry-rate gap exists. Before rolling out, the pilot has to prove three things: that the entry rate actually reaches 40% against control stations, that the USD 4 per visit and the USD 100 of extra costs hold, and that the upfront investment pays back fast enough.”

Clear recommendation

Do not match MegaMart at the pump. Make the shop the profit engine instead: pilot the shop upgrade at 10 of the 60 affected stations with control stations, and review the worst 5 to 10 locations for closure or conversion after checking leases, exit costs and traffic transfer. As a separate experiment, test loyalty app fuel discounts tied to shop purchases, measured on incremental contribution net of discounts to existing shoppers. Target: restore the USD 108M profit level within two years.

Key supporting evidence

• The diagnosis is precise: 60 stations near a MegaMart explain the entire USD 36M decline; the other 140 stations are healthy.
• Price matching fails even in the best case: winning back all 300 customers at a 15-cent margin produces a USD 300 daily loss, twice today’s.
• The competitive logic favors avoidance: for customers whose fuel stop is part of a grocery trip, MegaMart earns about USD 30 of gross profit per trip under the case assumptions, versus USD 4 per shop visit for Gulf Coast, so MegaMart can bid far more per customer in a price auction. What it cannot offer is a roughly three-minute stop on the customer’s route.
• The shop upgrade flips an affected station from USD -150 to about USD +290 per day under the pilot assumptions, and the same entry-rate gap exists at all 200 stations.

Key risks

• Competitor response: an app offer may still trigger a response. Limit pilot exposure and evaluate profit after any response.
• The pilot assumptions disappoint: the pilot with control stations and pre-agreed success thresholds tests them cheaply before roll-out.
• Execution across 200 sites: sequence the roll-out and monitor service speed and staffing.

Sample verbal answer

“I recommend focusing on the 60 affected stations and rejecting the proposed price match, which doubles their daily loss even if traffic recovers. The shop upgrade is more promising: it raises daily profit from minus USD 150 to plus USD 290 after extra running costs. Pilot it against control stations and test healthy sites before assuming a network-wide opportunity. Improving only the affected sites adds about USD 9.5M annually, so it does not recover the full decline. Measure incremental profit, service speed and investment payback before rollout.”

At today’s margins a station earns about USD 3.50 per customer (USD 2.50 on fuel + USD 1.00 blended shop, since one in four customers spends USD 4 in the shop). Break-even = USD 3,300 / USD 3.50 = about 943 customers per day. The affected stations, at 900, are only about 43 customers short of daylight, which is encouraging: the turnaround does not require winning back all 300 lost customers.

If healthy stations also lift shop entry from 25% to 40% at an extra USD 100 per day, each gains 1,200 x 15% x USD 4 - USD 100 = USD 620 per day. Chain-wide: 60 x 440 + 140 x 620 = about USD 113,000 per day, roughly USD 41M a year, taking chain profit to about USD 113M, above the former USD 108M before upfront investment. This requires successful implementation at all 200 sites, which is exactly what the pilot sequence has to de-risk.

At a 5-cent fuel margin and 1,200 customers, daily fuel contribution is USD 600 and shop contribution USD 1,200. Less USD 3,300 fixed costs, the daily loss is USD 1,500. This shows Gulf Coast’s exposure; the case does not quantify MegaMart’s ability to sustain further discounts.