Understanding Consumer Reactions to Assortment Unavailability

More documents

Recommendations

Info

were selected for further analyses. Compared with general information about the background of regular Dutch shoppers, our sample of 749 cases is in line with the profile of regular shoppers (see Table 2.3). Table 2.3: Sociodemographic characteristics of sample Demographic Variable Regular Dutch Shoppers (CBL 2000) Our Sample Sample size Sex n = 2045 n = 749 Female 78% 77% Male Age 22% 23% 34 or below 28% 32% 35 till 54 45% 40% 55 or older Household size 27% 28% 1–2 persons 54% 59% 3–4 persons 37% 32% 5 or more persons Education (based on Dutch system) 9% 9% Lower 23% 27% Middle 51% 42% Higher 24% 30% Doesn’t say 2% 2% 2.4.2 Dependent variable On the basis of prior literature, we define six types of OOS responses: store switch, item switch, postponement, cancel, category switch, and brand switch. To measure the dependent variable, we used the following procedure: After selecting the item of interest, the interviewer asked the consumer what he or she probably would have done if the selected item had been OOS during the shopping trip. Consumers could choose between the following responses: (1) buy a substitute item in this store, (2) go to another store today to buy the preferred item, (3) postpone the purchase until the next shopping trip, (4) cancel the purchase, or (5) don’t know/other. Respondents who reported that they would buy a substitute were asked if this substitute item would be of the same or a different product group. If the respondents claimed they would buy a 41
substitute item of the same product group, they were asked if they would buy an item of the same brand or switch to another brand. In the studied product groups, the brand switch OOS response was the most common among the respondents (34%), followed by postponement (23%), store switch (19%), and item switch (18%). Respondents mentioned the specific OOS reactions of canceling the purchase (3%) and switching categories (2%) less frequently. These results are roughly in line with the results of a field experiment conducted by Emmelhainz, Stock, and Emmelhainz (1991), who created OOS situations in five different product groups by removing the top-selling item of the market leader in each group. The OOS reactions they reported were as follows: item switch (41%), brand switch (32%), store switch (14%), and postponement or cancellation of purchase (13%). Note that the relatively high percentage of item switch behavior in their study may be due to the relatively high variety of alternatives often offered by market leader brands 2.4.3 Main independent variables In our main model, we distinguish two main antecedents for OOS responses: brand equity and the hedonic level of a product. These variables were measured independently by food experts. A group of 17 senior managers participating in a senior food executive program of the Erasmus University evaluated all researched brands (n = 124) on three brand equity indicators: perceived price level, perceived quality, and perceived consumer preference (see Chandon, Wansink, and Laurent 2000). The managers used a seven-point Likert scale to rate each brand on each of the three brand equity indicators (1 = low, 7 = high). The alpha score of this three-item brand equity scale was 0.85. To check the external validity of the brand equity scale, we calculated the average level of brand equity for the market leader brands, the market challenger brands (ranked 2–4 in the category), and the market follower brands (ranked 5 or lower). Market leaders scored an average of 6.1 on the brand equity scale, market challenger brands scored 5.1, and market follower brands scored an average of 4.4 (F = 221.8, p < 0.01). Thus, our brand equity measure seems valid. The product groups involved in the OOS study were, prior to the survey, classified as utilitarian or hedonic using the judgments of 40 food experts (practitioners and academics), who evaluated each preselected product group on two seven-point scales (hedonic level: 1 = not hedonic, 7 = very hedonic; utilitarian level: 1 = not utilitarian, 7 = very utilitarian). In the survey, utilitarian and hedonic benefits were explained using Batra and Ahtola’s (1991) definitions. For 42
Page 1 and 2: LAURENS SLOOT Understanding Consume
Page 4 and 5: UNDERSTANDING CONSUMER REACTIONS TO
Page 6 and 7: PREFACE (IN DUTCH) Begin 2001 schre
Page 8 and 9: TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface (in Dutch
Page 10 and 11: 3.7 Study 2 74 3.8 Hypotheses 74 3.
Page 12 and 13: CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIE
Page 14 and 15: Most supply chain-oriented reductio
Page 16 and 17: 400 square meters) are disappearing
Page 18 and 19: more. However, Aldi is known to be
Page 20 and 21: antecedents, such as the brand equi
Page 22 and 23: of assortment reduction responses a
Page 24 and 25: assortment benefits and assortment
Page 26 and 27: 2.1 Introduction Out-of-stock (OOS)
Page 28 and 29: other explanatory studies, we study
Page 30 and 31: Studies that apply exploratory desi
Page 32 and 33: Table 2.2: Methodological overview
Page 34 and 35: Situation-related variables. Situat
Page 36 and 37: As noted, consumers generally prefe
Page 38 and 39: 2.3.3 The interaction of hedonic le
Page 40 and 41: For example, supermarkets are usual
Page 44 and 45: example, a key utilitarian benefit
Page 46 and 47: The mathematical formulation of the
Page 48 and 49: Table 2.6: Correlation matrix depen
Page 50 and 51: correlation between the hedonic lev
Page 52 and 53: 2.6 Discussion In this study, we in
Page 54 and 55: Following the literature on promoti
Page 56 and 57: consider this finding when they att
Page 58 and 59: Appendix 2A: Overview and definitio
Page 60 and 61: CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT
Page 62 and 63: the Dutch food retailer Edah delist
Page 64 and 65: FMI (1993) conducts natural experim
Page 66 and 67: customers no longer or less frequen
Page 68 and 69: extent, comparable to the tendency
Page 70 and 71: Figure 3.1: Graphical display of as
Page 72 and 73: consumers evaluate assortments that
Page 74 and 75: Figure 3.3: Interaction effect of a
Page 76 and 77: SSI (H1). We expect that the brand
Page 78 and 79: 3.8.4 Store-related antecedents Fin
Page 80 and 81: among the 10 specified product grou
Page 82 and 83: Retail assortment-related anteceden
Page 84 and 85: Table 3.4: Average, standard deviat
Page 86 and 87: 3.10.2 Store switching intentions W
Page 88 and 89: effects indicated in Study 1 (β =
Page 90 and 91: 3.12 Managerial implications Retail
Page 92 and 93:
Appendix 3A: Overview and definitio
Page 94 and 95:
4.1 Introduction Since the early 19
Page 96 and 97:
changes in assortment perceptions (
Page 98 and 99:
Negative sales effects may occur be
Page 100 and 101:
therefore might question the existe
Page 102 and 103:
Table 4.2: Overview of separate ana
Page 104 and 105:
analogously. The resulting complete
Page 106 and 107:
changes in the price level do not i
Page 108 and 109:
Table 4.4: Estimated parameters for
Page 110 and 111:
Table 4.5: Estimated parameters for
Page 112 and 113:
infrequently in the sample stores a
Page 114 and 115:
Measurement. Following Hoch, Bradlo
Page 116 and 117:
4.7 Discussion In this collaborativ
Page 118 and 119:
into consequences at the customer l
Page 120 and 121:
eduction occurs, and the type of st
Page 122 and 123:
Manufacturers in hedonic product gr
Page 124 and 125:
2. When retailers set priorities fo
Page 126 and 127:
References Aaker, David A. (1991),
Page 128 and 129:
Broniarczyk, Susan M. and Wayne D.
Page 130 and 131:
Franses, Philip Hans and Richard Pa
Page 132 and 133:
Narasimhan, Chakravartthi, Scott A.
Page 134 and 135:
Van Trijp, Hans C.M., Wayne D. Hoye
Page 136 and 137:
de rol van het assortiment bij het
Page 138 and 139:
die het out-of-stock niveau binnen
Page 140 and 141:
Campbell, R.A.J., Rethinking Risk i
Page 142 and 143:
Langen, P.W. de, The Performance of
Page 144 and 145:
Slager, A.M.H., Banking across Bord
show all

Understanding Consumer Reactions to Assortment Unavailability

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?