There's nothing to analyze: "Tesco's" is just wrong. It's not the name of the business.
Oh yes they do!
There's nothing to analyze: "Tesco's" is just wrong.
It’s kind of funny that there are prescriptivists on both sides here, all convinced that they’re right.
Or it might be about imaginary hierarchy. There could only be one actual duly-anointed king of burgers, but if one were to use the definite article to mark this, saying "I am going to the Burger King's", it would imply firstly that the king of burgers does actually exist, and possibly also secondly that he has but one solitary burger outlet.
A grammatical construction not quite so jarring when used with (say) "Tesco".
I agree it's not consistent, but who ever accused English of being that?! My point isn't that all business names are treated that way, just that the ones that are the reason is grammatical tradition not (for the most part) people who incorrectly think the shop is called "Tesco's" or whatever.
(But as others have replied to you, it's also more common than just Tesco, definitely including "Costa's" for lots of people.)
My point isn't that all business names are treated that way, just that the ones that are the reason is grammatical tradition not (for the most part) people who incorrectly think the shop is called "Tesco's" or whatever.
There's been an historical transition from small chains owned by individuals (e.g. the Victorian Mr John Sainsbury) to big brands (e.g. Superdrug), hasn't there.
The possessive apostrophe was appropriate for the former but surely less so nowadays. I would guess "Sainsbury's" was a rebrand intended to reflect tradition.
