Brand-Pack Size Cannibalization Arising from Temporary Price Promotions

被引:18
作者
Dawes, John G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ S Australia, Ehrenberg Bass Inst, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
关键词
Price promotions; Cannibalization; Pack sizes; LONG-TERM IMPACT; POSTPROMOTION DIPS; EMPIRICAL-ANALYSIS; SALES; CONSUMER; DETERMINANTS; CHOICE; ELASTICITIES; PERFORMANCE; MODELS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jretai.2012.01.004
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This study investigates how price promotions for one pack-size of a brand steal sales from the other pack-sizes of the same brand. To do so, the study examines twelve grocery product categories (seven US, three UK, two Australian). The analysis finds heavy cross-pack cannibalization. On average, 22 percent of the sales uplift for a promoted brand-pack size comes from other pack sizes of the same brand. Cross-pack cannibalization most typically occurs in the week of the promotion, but also transfers future week's sales away from the non-promoted pack size in 31 percent of cases. The study finds higher cannibalization is associated with packs that sell for a higher dollar value than others sold under the same brand; whereas higher price-per-weight, a packaging difference, and the item having a larger relative share of sales in the brand portfolio, are linked to lower cannibalization. Also examined is the impact of pack-size cannibalization on promotion profitability for retailer PLs. That analysis finds PL price promotions have generally negative impacts on PL profits, and that pack-size cannibalization exacerbates this negative outcome. The results suggest both retailers and manufacturers should carefully consider pack-size cannibalization when evaluating the outcome of temporary price promotions. The study also provides some evidence-based recommendations from which managers can attempt to minimize such cannibalization. (C) 2012 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:343 / 355
页数:13
相关论文
共 56 条
[1]   An empirical analysis of the determinants of retail margins: The role of store-brand share [J].
Ailawadi, KL ;
Harlam, B .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 2004, 68 (01) :147-165
[2]   The retail power-performance conundrum: What have we learned? [J].
Ailawadi, KL .
JOURNAL OF RETAILING, 2001, 77 (03) :299-318
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1983, MARKET SCI, DOI DOI 10.1287/MKSC.2.3.203
[4]   The decomposition of promotional response: An empirical generalization [J].
Bell, DR ;
Chiang, JW ;
Padmanabhan, V .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 1999, 18 (04) :504-526
[5]   MEASURING THE SHORT-TERM EFFECT OF IN-STORE PROMOTION AND RETAIL ADVERTISING ON BRAND SALES - A FACTORIAL EXPERIMENT [J].
BEMMAOR, AC ;
MOUCHOUX, D .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 1991, 28 (02) :202-214
[6]   New empirical generalizations on the determinants of price elasticity [J].
Bijmolt, THA ;
Van Heerde, HJ ;
Pieters, RGM .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 2005, 42 (02) :141-156
[7]   HOW PROMOTIONS WORK [J].
BLATTBERG, RC ;
BRIESCH, R ;
FOX, EJ .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 1995, 14 (03) :G122-G132
[8]   THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARKET CHARACTERISTICS AND PROMOTIONAL PRICE ELASTICITIES [J].
BOLTON, RN .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 1989, 8 (02) :153-169
[9]   Determining segmentation in sales response across consumer purchase behaviors [J].
Bucklin, RE ;
Gupta, S ;
Siddarth, S .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 1998, 35 (02) :189-197
[10]  
Danaher P.J., 2000, Journal of Marketing Management, V16, P917, DOI DOI 10.1362/026725700784683726