Statistics Unit

A Third Supermarket operator

in Jersey?

Survey Report

1
 A Third Supermarket operator in Jersey?

Introduction
This report presents the findings from a survey commissioned by the Economic Development
Department, which has been run, analysed and published independently by the
Statistics Unit.

The survey aims to provide a picture of the attitudes and opinions of Jersey residents
towards food shopping in the Island. The postal survey was sent to over 2,000 households at
random, and received an extremely high response rate of 60%.

Given the size of the dataset, and using weighting to ensure all subgroups of the population
are suitably represented in the analysis, we can be confident that the inferences drawn in
this report robustly represent the views of Island residents.

This report is divided into three sections:

Section 1: Attitudes to food shopping in general
This section describes how important different aspects of food shopping are to
Islanders – aspects such as “Value for money”, “Quality of products” and
“Availability of locally produced food”. Respondents were also asked to prioritise
the list of factors into which are the most important to them.

Section 2: Opinions of current food shopping in Jersey

Section 2 focuses on residents’ opinions of the current situation in Jersey (at the
time of the survey – Autumn 2008) with regards to food shopping. The same
factors included in Section 1, for example “Value for money” were explored, with
Jersey residents being asked to rate them from “Very good” through to “Very poor”.

Section 3: Attitudes towards having a third supermarket operator in Jersey

The final section analyses whether people agree or disagree (or remain neutral)
with regards to a number of statements describing potential consequences of
Jersey having a third supermarket operator - for example “If Jersey has a third
supermarket operator, I am concerned that smaller shops might close” and “If
Jersey has a third supermarket operator, I think quality of products in the Island
might improve”. Section 3 reports the proportion of Islanders who are in favour of
having a third supermarket, and, if they are in favour, which type they would like.

Within each section, the data is analysed for Jersey residents as a whole, but also, where it
is appropriate, by the age-group of the respondent, and the respondent’s household income.
Differences between these subgroups, if they are significant, help to illustrate how, for
example, older age-groups, or households with lower incomes, might have different attitudes
and opinions.

2
Section 1: Attitudes to food shopping in general
The first section of the survey questionnaire explored people’s attitudes to food shopping in
general, asking the importance of a number of factors when shopping for food in the Island.
Figure 1.1 illustrates the pattern of responses for each factor, with the majority being
considered “Very” or “Fairly important”.

Two factors were considered “Very important” by over four-fifths of residents: “Quality of
products” (by 84%) and “Value for money” (by 83%). “Choice of products” was considered to
be “Very important” by nearly three-quarters (71%) of people.

In contrast, only half felt that having “Smaller shops near their home for convenience” was
important, whilst nearly a fifth (19%) thought that “Availability of locally produced food” was
not important.

Figure 1.1 How important to you are the following with regards to food shopping in the
Island?

Very important Fairly important Not very important Not at all important

Quality of products 84% 16%

Value for money 83% 16%

Choice of products 71% 28%

11%
Range of supermarket operators
55% 29%
to choose from
6%

Customer service 51% 42%

Availability of locally produced food 45% 36% 17%

Smaller shops near my home

20% 34% 38% 8%
for convenience

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The results were similar across the age-groups, although a trend was noted for “Customer
service” and “Availability of locally produced food”, whereby these factors were considered
more important by older age groups than by the younger age-groups. Almost two-thirds of
those aged 65 years and over considered “Customer service” (65%) and “Availability of
locally produced food” (61%) as “Very important” compared to one-third of those aged 16 to
24 years old (34% and 29% respectively).

Looking into the results by equivilised household income 1 shows that for those in the lowest
income quintile 2 , 93% considered “Value for money” as “Very important”, compared to 68%
of those in the highest income quintile.

1
In order that analysis by income could be conducted on a standardised basis, total household
income (earned and unearned) was adjusted according to the number of adults and children living in
the household. The resulting ‘equivilised income’ is used throughout this report. See Appendix for
more details.
2
The equivilised income distribution was divided into fifths (“quintiles”), with the lowest 20% of
households in the first income quintile and so on, up to the highest, or top, income quintile.
3
From the above set of results, it can be difficult to prioritise the factors which people consider
to be important with regards to food shopping, as understandably many people consider a
number of the aspects to be “Very important”. However, the subsequent question in the
survey sought to prioritise the list of factors into the top three most important ones, by asking
respondents which is the most important to them, followed by the second- and third-most
important factors.

Table 1.1 gives the percentages of people who chose each factor as one of their top three
choices.

Table 1.1 Percentage who choose each factor as one of their top three most important
factors with regards to food shopping in Jersey
Percentage
Value for money 81
Quality of products 67
Choice of products 55
Range of supermarket operators to choose from 35
Availability of locally produced food 23
Customer service 13
Smaller shops near home for convenience 7
Other 2

Four-fifths (81%) of people chose “Value for money” as one of their top three most important
factors. “Quality of products” was the next most frequently chosen factor, with two-thirds
(67%) of people considering this as one of their top three most important factors.

The responses to this question were also analysed by scoring each response, giving a score
of three for the factor chosen as the most important, a score of two for the second-most
important factor and a score of one for the third-most important factor. Those factors not
chosen received a score of zero. By summing the scores for each factor, across each
respondent, the factors could be ranked in order of the highest score (this will be the factor
which has been chosen most often, and with greater importance) down to the lowest score
(the factor chosen least often, and with least importance).

Table 1.2 shows the ranking results derived from this scoring method. The order is the same
as in Table 1.1, showing how this order of importance is consistent across both methods of
analysis.

4
Table 1.2 Which factor is the most, second-most and third-most important to you? (Scored
rank, as described in the text above)
Scored Rank
(1 = most important factor)
Value for money 1
Quality of products 2
Choice of products 3
Range of supermarket operators to choose from 4
Availability of locally produced food 5
Customer service 6
Smaller shops near home for convenience 7
Other 8

Using this scoring technique and cross-analysing by equivilised household income, it was
seen that the top three factors ranked as most important did not change across the income
distribution, as shown in Table 1.3. The 4th and 5th most important factor for those in the
upper quintile were the same as the 5th and 4th most important factors for those in the other
income quintiles.

Table 1.3 Order of importance of factors when food shopping in Jersey, by equivilised
income quintile (1 = most important factor, within that income group)

Equivilised household income quintile

Lowest Highest
(1st) 2nd 3rd 4th (5th)
Value for money 1 1 1 1 1
Quality of products 2 2 2 2 2
Choice of products 3 3 3 3 3
Range of supermarket operators to choose
4 4 4 4 5
from
Availability of locally produced food 5 5 5 5 4
Customer service 6.5 6 6 6 7
Smaller shops near home for convenience 6.5 7 7 7 6
Other 8 8 8 8 8

Repeating the analysis by age, showed that again for all age-groups, the top three most
important factors were “Value for money, “Quality of products”, and “Choice of products”, in
that order. “Value for money” was given as the top most important factor by all age-groups,
and this was particularly true for those aged 65 years and over of whom nearly
three-quarters (71%) identified this as the top most important factor for them.

The importance of “Smaller shops near home for convenience” was ranked 7th or 8th overall
by age-groups under 55 years, but for those aged 55 or over this factor was the 6th most
important aspect of food shopping.

A number of people added other factors which were important to them in this section. The
most frequently identified additional factors were parking facilities, supporting local farmers
and products, and availability of organic and free-range food.

5
Section 2: Opinions of current food shopping in Jersey

The second section of the questionnaire asked respondents for their opinions on current food
shopping in Jersey, with regards to the same factors as in Section 1. Figure 2.1 summarises
the results of this section.

People were most positive about the “Quality of products”, “Availability of locally produced
food” and “Smaller shops near my home for convenience” in Jersey at the time of the survey.

However, even for these factors only around half of residents rated them as “Good” or better,
whilst a further two-fifths considered them to be “Adequate”.

“Value for money” and “Range of supermarket operators” were the two factors with the
highest negative ratings. About half of people considered “Value for money” currently to be
“Poor” or “Very poor”, and three-fifths considered the current “Range of supermarket
operators to choose from” to be “Poor” or worse, with almost a quarter rating it to be “Very
poor”.

Figure 2.1 How do you rate the current food shopping in the Island?

Very good Good Adequate Poor Very poor

6%

Quality of products 46% 38% 8%

8%

Availability of local products 38% 40% 13%

Smaller shops near home

11%

35% 41% 11%

for convenience
6%

Customer service 33% 42% 12%7%

5%

Choice of products 27% 48% 16%

2%

Value for money 12% 39% 38% 9%

Range of supermarket operators

4%

11% 23% 39% 22%

to choose from

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Looking at only the positive scores (i.e. focussing on the “Very good” and “Good”), and
analysing by equivilised income quintile, showed some trends in people’s opinions, as
shown in Figure 2.2:
• those in the highest and lowest income quintiles were most positive about “Value for
money” in the Island compared to those in the middle income quintiles, although only

6
one-fifth (19%) of the highest and lowest income groups rated value for money as “Good” or
better.
• those in the highest and lowest income quintiles were most positive about the “Range of
supermarket operators to choose from”, although again only one-fifth of the top and bottom
income quintiles responded positively.
• People in higher income households were more positive about “Smaller shops near their
home for convenience” in the Island compared with those in lower income households.

Figure 2.2 How do you rate current food shopping in Jersey? (Percentage of people who
rated each aspect as “Good” or “Very good”, by income quintile)
75%
1st (lowest)
2nd quintile
60% 3rd quintile
4th quintile
5th (highest)
45%

30%

15%

0%
home for convenience
Value for money

Quality of products

local products
Choice of products

Customer service

operators to choose from

Availability of

Smaller shops near

Range of supermarket

Trends in opinions were also noted when the data was analysed by age (see Figure 2.3):
• as age-group increased, people tended to be more positive about “Value for money” in
Jersey, about a quarter (27%) of those aged 65 years and over rating it as “Good” or better,
compared with around one in ten or less of those aged under 55 years.
• younger age-groups were more positive about “Smaller shops near home for
convenience”, with nearly two-thirds (63%) of those under 25 years, compared to around a
third (35%) of those aged 55 years and over, rating this aspect of food shopping as “Good” or
better in the Island.

7
Figure 2.3 How do you rate current food shopping in Jersey? (Percentage of people who
rated each aspect as “Good” or “Very good”, by age)

75%
16-24yrs
25-34yrs
60% 35-44yrs
45-54yrs
55-64yrs
45% 65+yrs

30%

15%

0%

home for convenience

Value for money

Quality of products

local products
Choice of products

Customer service

operators to choose from

Availability of

Smaller shops near

Range of supermarket

8
Section 3: Attitudes towards having a third supermarket operator in
Jersey

Jersey currently has two supermarket operators in the Island. Having explored people’s
opinions on what factors are important in their food shopping, and on the current status of
these factors in Jersey, the survey questionnaire went on to ascertain respondents’ attitudes
to having a third supermarket operator, both in terms of concerns that this might raise as well
as improvements it might bring. The results to these questions are shown in Figures 3.1 and
3.2.

About seven out of ten people (69%) said that they were not happy with the current range of
supermarket operators. A fifth (21%) said that they were happy with the current range of
supermarket operators, whilst the remaining 10% were neutral on this topic.

Around a third were concerned that smaller shops might close (34%) or that less locally
produced food might be available (29%) if Jersey has a third supermarket operator.

Nearly three-quarters of Islanders (71%) were not concerned that a supermarket they
currently use might close if Jersey has a third supermarket operator, and around one in six
(15%) were concerned that a supermarket they currently use might close.

Figure 3.1 Do you agree or disagree with the following statements about food shopping in
Jersey, if Jersey has a third supermarket operator?

Agree Neither Disagree

I am concerned that supermarkets

15% 14% 71%
that I currently use might close

I am concerned that less locally produced

29% 14% 57%
food might be available

I am concerned that smaller shops

34% 16% 50%
might close

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

As Figure 3.2 shows four-fifths of people (81%) believe that value for money in the Island
might improve if Jersey has a third supermarket operator. Only one in twenty (6%) were
neutral on this point. A similar proportion (79%) think that choice of products in the Island
might improve, whilst nearly two-thirds (64%) think that quality of products might improve if
Jersey has a third supermarket operator. A quarter (25%) did not think that a third
supermarket operator would improve customer service on the Island.

9
Figure 3.2 Do you agree or disagree with the following statements about food shopping in
Jersey, if Jersey has a third supermarket operator?

Agree Neither Disagree

I think customer service in the Island

47% 28% 25%
might improve

I think quality of products in the Island

64% 18% 18%
might improve

I think choice of products in the Island

79% 9% 12%
might improve

13%
I think value for money in the Island

6%
81%
might improve

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

When asked if they were in favour of having a third supermarket operator in Jersey, overall,
more than eight out of ten people (84%) responded that they were in favour. There is no
significant difference in the proportion being in favour between men and women, or between
different tenure categories (for example owner-occupiers compared with States, Parish or
housing trust rent, or non-qualified accommodation).

By age, the only age-group with a significantly different proportion is for those aged 65 years
and over, of whom 72% are in favour of having a third supermarket operator in Jersey. For
other age-groups, the proportion in favour ranged from 77% (55–64 year olds) to 93% (25–
34 year olds).

By income, those in the highest income bracket (top quintile) were the least likely to be in
favour, with three-quarters (74%) of those with the highest equivilised income being in favour
of having a third supermarket operator in Jersey, compared with around 90% of those in the
middle income quintiles.

10
It is interesting to investigate the difference in responses to the earlier questions in the
survey, according to whether the respondent was in favour or not of having a third
supermarket. Both those people who were and those who weren’t in favour considered
“Value for money” and “Quality of products” as the top two most important factors with
regards to food shopping in the Island.

However, those who were in favour chose “Choice of products” and “Range of supermarket
operators to choose from” to be the third and fourth most important factors, for those who
were not in favour, “Availability of locally produced food” and “Choice of products” were the
third and fourth most important factors respectively.

Table 3.1 illustrates the different rankings of factors according to whether or not the
respondent was in favour of having a third supermarket operator in Jersey.

Table 3.1 Order of importance of factors when food shopping in Jersey, by whether or not the
respondent was in favour of having a third supermarket operator in Jersey (1 = most
important factor, across people in that category)
Are you in favour of having a third
supermarket operator in Jersey?
Yes No
Value for money 1 2
Quality of products 2 1
Choice of products 3 4
Range of supermarket operators to choose from 4 8
Availability of locally produced food 5 3
Customer service 6 6
Smaller shops near home for convenience 7 5
Other 8 7

With regards to opinions on current food shopping in Jersey, it was found that those who
were not in favour of having a third supermarket operator in Jersey tended to be more
positive about each aspect of food shopping in Jersey than those who were in favour.
Table 3.2 illustrates this.

Whilst just under half (47%) of those not in favour of having a third supermarket operator felt
that “Value for money” was currently “Good” or better in Jersey, fewer than one in ten (8%) of
those in favour felt the same. Two-thirds (63%) of those not in favour of having a third
supermarket operator were positive about the current range of supermarket operators in the
Island, whilst the remaining third (36%) felt that this was “Adequate”.

11
Table 3.2 Percentage of people who rate aspects of current food shopping in the Island as
“Good” or better, cross-analysed by whether or not the respondent was in favour of having a
third supermarket operator in the Island.
Percentage who responded the
following aspects of food shopping
are “Good” or better in Jersey
currently

In favour Not in favour

Range of supermarket operators to choose from 7 63
Value for money 8 47
Choice of products 26 71
Customer service 35 59
Availability of locally produced food 44 56
Smaller shops near home for convenience 45 53
Quality of products 47 82

As Table 3.3 shows, those not in favour of having a third supermarket operator are more
likely to be concerned that supermarkets which they currently use might close. More than
half (56%) of those not in favour are concerned that this might happen, compared with fewer
than one in ten (8%) of those who are in favour.

Higher proportions - four-fifths (82%) - of those who are not in favour of having a third
supermarket are worried that less locally produced food might be available, and 89% that
smaller shops might close if Jersey has a third supermarket operator.

Whilst nine out of ten of those in favour of Jersey having a third supermarket operator think
that value for money (93%) and choice of products (90%) in the Island might improve, around
one in five of those not in favour believe this might be the case (16% and 21% respectively).
However, a significant number of those not in favour decided to remain neutral on these
points, with around a quarter choosing to neither agree nor disagree (24% and 26%
respectively).

There was a similarly high proportion of people not in favour of a third supermarket operator
who chose to remain neutral when asked if they thought quality of products or customer
service might improve with a third supermarket operator (28% and 31% respectively chose
“neither” disagree or agree on these statements).

Finally, three-quarters (75%) of those in favour of a third supermarket thought that the quality
of products in the Island might improve with a third operator, whilst fewer than one in ten
(8%) of those not in favour agreed. Around half (55%) of those in favour felt that customer
service would improve, compared to fewer than one in ten (7%) of those not in favour.
Table 3.3 summarises the responses to this question, by whether or not the respondent was
in favour of a third supermarket operator in Jersey.

12
Table 3.3 Do you agree or disagree with the following statements about food shopping in
Jersey – by whether or not respondent is in favour of having a third supermarket operator
A third supermarket
Agree Disagree Neither
operator in Jersey?
I am happy with the current range of In favour 8 82 10
supermarket operators Not in favour 92 1 7

I am concerned that supermarkets In favour 8 79 13

that I currently use might close
Not in favour 56 27 17

I am concerned that less locally In favour 20 65 15

produced food might be available Not in favour 82 12 6

I am concerned that smaller shops In favour 24 58 18

might close Not in favour 89 7 4

I think value for money in the Island In favour 93 4 3

might improve
Not in favour 16 60 24

I think choice of products in the In favour 90 5 5

Island might improve
Not in favour 21 52 26

I think quality of products in the In favour 75 9 16

Island might improve
Not in favour 8 65 28

I think customer service in the Island In favour 55 17 28

might improve
Not in favour 7 62 31

Which supermarket?
For those respondents who were in favour of having a third supermarket operator in Jersey,
a final question asked which type of operator they would prefer. Respondents were able to
tick more than one choice, and were given the options of:
• a premium operator (such as Waitrose)
• a general British operator (such as Asda, Morrison’s, Sainsbury’s or Tesco)
• a general French operator (such as Carrefour or Super U)
• a discount operator (such as Aldi, Lidl or Netto).

Figure 3.3 shows the proportion of those people in favour of a third supermarket who would
like each type of operator.

13
Figure 3.3 (For those in favour of a third supermarket) Proportion of people who would like
each type of operator
(Respondents were able to tick more than one option, so these do not sum to 100%)

80%
76%

60%

40%
36%
32%
20%
19%

0%
General British General French Discount operator Premium operator
operator operator

As can be seen in Figure 3.3, twice as many of the respondents to this question would like a
general British operator (76%) compared with the proportions who would like a general
French operator (36%) or a discount operator (33%). One in five (19%) would like a premium
operator.

A general British operator was the most frequently chosen preferred type of supermarket for
all age-groups.

Analysing the responses to this question by equivilised income quintile showed that again a
general British operator was the most preferred type for every income band.

There was a trend towards discount operators being more frequently chosen as a preferred
type of supermarket as equivilised income reduced. However, whilst just under half (45%) of
responses from the lowest income quintile were for a discount operator, four-fifths (80%)
would like a general British operator. Having a premium operator was the least preferred
choice for all income bands (see Figure 3.4).

14
Figure 3.4 What additional type of supermarket operator would you like to have in Jersey (by
equivilised income quintile)
(For those in favour of a third supermarket operator in Jersey)
General British operator General French operator
Discount operator Premium operator
100%
80% 80% 81%
80% 72%
70%

60%
45%

44%
41%

38%
37%
37%

31%
30%

40%

25%

25%
24%

22%

21%
15%

20%
9%

0%
Lowest (1st) 2nd 3rd 4th Highest (5th)
Equivlised income quintile

Additional comments
Additional comments were invited in the survey in an open response section, and about
two-fifths of respondents took this opportunity. Comments were analysed and grouped
according to their theme. A quarter of those writing additional comments (24%) commented
positively about adding more competition to the Island, whilst a fifth (20%) re-iterated their
opinion Jersey needs a third supermarket. About one in eight (13%) expressed that a third
supermarket should be introduced soon. A sixth (16%) expressed concern over current
prices in the supermarkets.

There were fewer comments added in this section regarding concerns, with 3% of those
choosing to write extra comments expressing concern over where in the Island the
supermarket would operate from. One in ten (9%) re-iterated that Jersey does not need a
third supermarket, or that they were concerned about local shops (4%).

15
Summary
The survey aimed to provide a robust measure of the attitudes and opinions of Jersey
residents towards food shopping in the Island. The large random postal survey received an
extremely high response rate of 60%. The results and inferences drawn can be considered to
be representative of the full Island adult population.

GENERAL ATTITUDES TO FOOD SHOPPING:

• The majority of Islanders feel that “Value for money”, followed by “Quality of products”
followed by “Choice of products” are, in that order, the three most important factors with
regards to food shopping in the Island;
• This was true for all age-groups and equivilised income groups.

OPINIONS ON CURRENT SITUATION IN JERSEY:

• Nearly half of residents (47%) felt that “Value for money” in the Island was “Poor” or
“Very poor”;
• Nearly two-thirds (62%) thought the “Range of supermarket operators” was “Poor” or
“Very poor”;
• Nine out of ten (90%) felt that the current “Quality of products” was adequate or better,
with half (52%) considering quality to be “Good” or “Very good”;
• Half of people (48%) feel that “Choice of products” is “Adequate” in Jersey, a quarter
(27%) that it was “Good”, and 5% that it was “Very good”.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS HAVING A THIRD SUPERMARKET OPERATOR:

• One-fifth of Islanders (21%) are happy with the current range of supermarket operators,
whilst 69% indicated they were not;
• Four-fifths think that having a third supermarket operator might improve value for money
(81%) and choice of products (79%) in the Island; two-thirds (64%) think that a third
supermarket operator might improve the quality of products in the Island;
• A third of people (34%) expressed concern that smaller shops might close with the arrival
of a third supermarket operator – half (50%) said they were not concerned about this issue;
• A similar proportion (29%) were concerned that less locally produced food might be
available in these circumstances, whilst over half (57%) were not concerned about this issue;
• Seven out of ten Islanders (71%) were not concerned that current supermarkets might
close if a third supermarket were to operate in Jersey, whilst a sixth (15%) were concerned.

Overall, more than four-fifths (84%) of residents were in favour of Jersey having a third
supermarket operator.

By far the most preferred type was a general British operator. This type was the preferred
choice for all age-groups and equivilised income bands.

16
 Appendix I

Survey Methodology & Response Rates

Over two thousand households were sampled at random. These randomly selected
households received a survey form through the post and were asked that the person in the
household who had the next birthday (and who was aged 16 years or over), fill it in and post
it back to the Statistics Unit. A reminder form was sent out after two weeks to those
households who had not yet responded, to ensure all those who wanted to take part were
able to. The questionnaire is reproduced on pages 19 and 20 of this report.

This method of sampling ensured that the survey randomly sampled the adult population of
Jersey 3 .

The survey achieved an extremely high response rate, with 60% of sampled households
filling in and returning the survey form. Such a high response rate, together with the method
of sampling, ensures the sample results are both accurate and representative of the full adult
Island population.

Weighting
Even with an extremely high response rate of 60%, statistical theory can be applied to further
improve the representativeness and accuracy of the survey. Comparing the characteristics of
respondents (such as age, gender and tenure) with those of the full Island adult population
showed a slight under-representation of certain sub-groups, as there are particular
sub-groups who were more or less responsive, as is normally found in postal surveys of this
kind.

Table A1 compares the proportion of respondents with that of the Census data, and shows
that there is an under-representation particularly of the younger age-groups. From this
comparison and also comparing the proportions of respondents with regards to their gender
and tenure, it is possible to assign each respondent a weight. For example, those in the
younger age-groups would be given a slightly higher weight than those in older age-groups,
to compensate for their slight under-representation in the responses received. In fact, the
data was weighted across a three-dimensional tabulation of age, gender and tenure to
produce an extremely representative dataset.

Table A1 Age profile (percentages) of unweighted survey respondents with Census data
Unweighted survey
Age respondents Census 2001
16 – 24 yrs 2 13
25 – 34 yrs 10 19
35 – 44 yrs 22 21
45 – 54 yrs 21 17
55 – 64 yrs 20 13
65+ years 25 17

Table A2 provides the weighted responses by age, gender and tenure, and shows how these
are now much closer to the Census proportions, illustrating how the weighting procedure

3
NB the survey and this report focuses on residents aged 16 years and over
17
ensures that the respondent data appropriately represents sub-groups of the population with
respect to age, gender and tenure, such that no group is under-represented in the results.

Table A2 Profiles of weighted survey respondents (percentages) compared with Census data
Weighted survey
Age respondents Census 2001
16 – 24 yrs 12 13
25 – 34 yrs 19 19
35 – 44 yrs 21 21
45 – 54 yrs 18 17
55 – 64 yrs 13 13
65+ years 17 17
Gender
Men 49 48
Women 51 52
Tenure
Owner-occupied 58 51
States / Parish / Housing trust rent 13 14
Qualified Private rent 19 22
Non-qualified accommodation 11 13

Comparison of weighted and unweighted analysis results shows that the weighting
procedure, whilst improving the representativeness of the data itself, does not
significantly alter the key findings of the analysis in this report, which can therefore be
considered to be robust.

Equivilisation
The survey asked respondents for their total annual household income, so that the findings
of the survey could be analysed by income to see, for example, if those with lower incomes
had different views to those with higher incomes.

Comparing simply by household income without taking into account the size of the household
would not be appropriate, as a household with a single adult earning £45k to £55k cannot be
described as having an equivalent income to a household with two adults and three children
having a total income of £45k to £55k.

Equivilisation is the process by which household incomes are standardised to account for the
size and make-up of the household. The modified OECD equivilisation scales were used to
transform household income into equivilised household income values. The ordered
equivilised income distribution was then divided into five bands of 20%, and each
respondent’s data could then be attributed to the 1st (lowest) equivilised income quintile, 2nd,
3rd, 4th or the 5th (highest) equivilised income quintile, as appropriate according to their
household income and household size and make-up.

18
Sampling errors
The survey was designed as a large random sample of Jersey residents. This sampling
methodology enables us to calculate confidence intervals for the results (proportions) of the
analysis, and presented in this report.

Using sampling theory, and under the sampling design implemented (simple random
sampling without replacement 4 ) the standard error on the estimate of a population proportion
p is:

p(1 − p)(1 − f )
s.e.( p) =
(n −1)
Where:

n is the total number of respondents.

n
f is the sampling fraction, equal to , where N is the number of households in the
N
Island.

The 95 percent confidence interval on any proportion p is then given by:

p ± 1.96 s.e( p ) and attains a maximum for p = 0.5 , i.e. 50%.

Using these formulae, the statistical uncertainty on results in this report which refer to the full
population is ± 2.7 percentage points.

This means that for a question which gives a result of 50%, the 95 percent confidence
interval is 47.3% to 52.7%. Rounding to zero decimal places, the result can be more simply
considered as 50 ± 3%. This reduces to ± 2% for proportions of 80%.

Put another way, we can be 95% confident that a result published for the overall
population is within ± 3% of the true population figure.

For sub-samples of the population, e.g. by age-band, the sampling fractions within each sub-
category will vary. The above formula still applies, and gives the following maximum
confidence intervals for proportions (expressed as a range of percentage points) to be
assigned to published results:
• Age-band: between ±5% (age 65+ years) and ±20% (age 16– 24yrs).
• Gender: ± 3% (females); ± 5% (males)
• Income: ± 6% for each quintile

4
Strictly speaking the sampling design incorporated stratification by Parish, with proportional
allocation to the strata. The full estimated variance calculation under this design produces confidence
intervals which are the same as those reported in this appendix (derived using the simpler formalism)
within the accuracy of percentage point ranges quoted to zero decimal places.
19
 A Third Supermarket Operator in Jersey?
1. How important to you are the following with regards to food shopping in the Island?
Very Fairly Not very Not at all
Please tick one circle on each row important important important important
A. Value for money 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 {
B. Choice of products 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 {
C. Quality of products 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 {
D. Customer service 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 {
E. Availability of locally produced food 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 {
F. Smaller shops near my home for convenience 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 {
G. Range of supermarket operators to choose from 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 {
H. Other (please specify)____________ 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 {
1b. Which three of the above are the most important to you?
Please write your choice of letters (A to H) from the table above: = Most important to me
= Second most important to me
= Third most important to me

2. How do you rate current food shopping in the Island in terms of:
Very Very
Please tick one circle on each row Good Good Adequate Poor Poor
a) Value for money 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 { 05 {
b) Choice of products 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 { 05 {
c) Quality of products 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 { 05 {
d) Customer service 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 { 05 {
e) Availability of locally produced food 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 { 05 {
f) Smaller shops near your home for convenience 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 { 05 {
g) Range of supermarket operators to choose from 01 { 02 { 03 { 04 { 05 {
Jersey currently has two supermarket operators.
3. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements about food shopping in Jersey?
Please tick one circle on each row Agree Disagree Neither
I am happy with the current range of supermarket operators 01 { 02 { 03 {
If Jersey has a third supermarket operator… Agree Disagree Neither
…I am concerned that smaller shops might close 01 { 02 { 03 {
…I am concerned that supermarkets that I currently use might close 01 { 02 { 03 {
…I am concerned that less locally produced food might be available 01 { 02 { 03 {
... I think value for money in the Island might improve 01 { 02 { 03 {
…I think choice of products in the Island might improve 01 { 02 { 03 {
…I think quality of products in the Island might improve 01 { 02 { 03 {
…I think customer service in the Island might improve 01 { 02 { 03 {
4. Are you in favour of having a third supermarket operator in Jersey?
01 { Yes
02 { No
4b. If you answered YES, what additional type of supermarket operator would you like
to have in Jersey? (Please tick all that apply)
Premium operator (e.g.Waitrose)
General operator (British - e.g. Asda, Morrison’s, Sainsbury’s, Tesco)
General operator (French - e.g. Carrefour or Super U)
Discount operator (e.g. Aldi, Lidl, Netto)

The following questions will enable us to make sure that our survey represents the views of all
Jersey residents.
5. Are you? (Please tick one circle only)
01 { Male 02 { Female
6. What age group are you? (Please tick one circle only)
01 { 16 – 24 years 04 { 45 – 54 years
02 { 25 – 34 years 05 { 55 – 64 years
03 { 35 – 44 years 06 { 65 years and above
7. Including yourself, how many people live in your household (excluding any lodgers)?
Adults (18 years and older)
Young adults (aged 16 or 17 years)
Children (aged 14 or 15 years)
Younger children (aged 13 years or younger)

8. What type of accommodation do you live in? (Please tick one circle only)
01 { Owner-occupied 06 { Staff or service accommodation
02 { States or Parish rent 07 { Lodger in private household
03 { Housing Trust rent 08 { Registered lodging house
04 { Qualified Private rent 09 { Other Non-qualified accommodation
05 { Sheltered or disabled housing
9. Approximately, what is your HOUSEHOLD’S TOTAL annual income?
01 { less than £15,000 06 { £55,000 - £64,999
02 { £15,000 - £24,999 07 { £65,000 - £74,999
03 { £25,000 - £34,999 08 { £75,000 - £84,999
04 { £35,000 - £44,999 09 { £85,000 - £94,999
05 { £45,000 - £54,999 10 { £95,000 or more
10. Do you have any lodgers in your household? YES / NO
11. Do you have any other comments about Jersey having a third supermarket operator?

Thank-you for taking the time to complete this survey - every response is important to us.
Please post this form back in the enclosed pre-paid envelope, or freepost to: Business Reply
Service, Licence No JE65, Statistics Unit, PO Box 140, St. Helier, JE1 1AE.
This reference number is ONLY used for our filing system, and not in any analysis: X000X