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
[41]   The long-term effects of price promotions on category incidence brand choice, and purchase quantity [J].
Pauwels, K ;
Hanssens, DM ;
Siddarth, S .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 2002, 39 (04) :421-439
[42]   How retailer and competitor decisions drive the long-term effectiveness of manufacturer promotions for fast moving consumer goods [J].
Pauwels, Koen .
JOURNAL OF RETAILING, 2007, 83 (03) :297-308
[43]   Asymmetric and neighborhood cross-price effects: Some empirical generalizations [J].
Sethuraman, R ;
Srinivasan, V ;
Kim, D .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 1999, 18 (01) :23-41
[44]   The asymmetric share effect: An empirical generalization on cross-price effects [J].
Sethuraman, R ;
Srinivasan, V .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 2002, 39 (03) :379-386
[45]  
Sethuraman R., 1995, Marketing letters, V6, n, P275
[46]   How Well Does Advertising Work? Generalizations from Meta-Analysis of Brand Advertising Elasticities [J].
Sethuraman, Raj ;
Tellis, Gerard J. ;
Briesch, Richard A. .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 2011, 48 (03) :457-471
[47]   Consumer and Retailer Promotions: Who is Better Off? [J].
Sigue, Simon Pierre .
JOURNAL OF RETAILING, 2008, 84 (04) :449-460
[48]   Do promotions benefit manufacturers, retailers, or both? [J].
Srinivasan, S ;
Pauwels, K ;
Hanssens, DM ;
Dekimpe, MG .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2004, 50 (05) :617-629
[49]   Competitive reactions to advertising and promotion attacks [J].
Steenkamp, JBEM ;
Nijs, VR ;
Hanssens, DM ;
Dekimpe, MG .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 2005, 24 (01) :35-54
[50]  
TNS, 2008, SUP