IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/canjec/v56y2023i1p87-113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

One for all or all for one: Does the category captain play favourites

Author

Listed:
  • Myongjin Kim
  • Leilei Shen
  • Suman Basuroy
  • Sri Beldona

Abstract

In the consumer packaged goods industry, category captain is the company (e.g., Pepsi) that retailers (e.g., Kroger) designate as the leader of an entire product category (e.g., carbonated beverages) and collaborate with to manage the product category through the process of category management. Much uncertainty exists about the consequences of category management. We use a unique data set on the ready‐to‐eat cereals category in which the retailer designated a category captain. In this paper, we find that category captain does not have more to gain in terms of market shares than other products within the ready‐to‐eat cereals category, alleviating antitrust concerns related to category management. In addition, we find that category captain increases the market share of products that are more price competitive, not necessarily that of its own products, which points to a category captain focusing on growing the category's market as it is incentivized to do so. Un pour tous, tous pour un : le capitaine de catégorie est‐il privilégié? Dans l'industrie des biens de consommation emballés, les capitaines de catégorie sont les entreprises (p. ex. Pepsi) que les magasins de détail (p. ex. Kroger) désignent comme étant les chefs de file de toute une catégorie de produits (p. ex. boissons gazéifiées) et qui collaborent avec eux pour gérer la catégorie de produits tout au long du processus de gestion par catégorie. Il y a beaucoup d'incertitudes quant aux conséquences de la gestion par catégorie. Nous utilisons un ensemble de données unique sur la catégorie des céréales prêtes à manger dans laquelle le magasin de détail a désigné un capitaine de catégorie. Dans cet article, nous constatons que le capitaine de catégorie n'est pas plus gagnant que les autres joueurs de la catégorie des céréales prêtes à manger en ce qui concerne les parts de marché, ce qui atténue les préoccupations en matière de pratiques antitrust associées à la gestion par catégorie. En outre, nous observons que le capitaine de catégorie augmente sa part de marché des produits qui sont plus concurrentiels du côté du prix, ce qui indique qu'un capitaine de catégorie se concentre sur la croissance du marché de la catégorie, car il y est encouragé.

Suggested Citation

  • Myongjin Kim & Leilei Shen & Suman Basuroy & Sri Beldona, 2023. "One for all or all for one: Does the category captain play favourites," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(1), pages 87-113, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:canjec:v:56:y:2023:i:1:p:87-113
    DOI: 10.1111/caje.12636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12636
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/caje.12636?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas W. Gilligan, 1986. "The Competitive Effects of Resale Price Maintenance," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(4), pages 544-556, Winter.
    2. Upender Subramanian & Jagmohan S. Raju & Sanjay K. Dhar & Yusong Wang, 2010. "Competitive Consequences of Using a Category Captain," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1739-1765, October.
    3. Esther Duflo, 2001. "Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of School Construction in Indonesia: Evidence from an Unusual Policy Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 795-813, September.
    4. Jaffe, Adam B, 1986. "Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 984-1001, December.
    5. Nicholas Bloom & Mark Schankerman & John Van Reenen, 2013. "Identifying Technology Spillovers and Product Market Rivalry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(4), pages 1347-1393, July.
    6. Mümin Kurtuluc{s} & Alper Nakkas, 2011. "Retail Assortment Planning Under Category Captainship," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 124-142, March.
    7. Sharad Borle & Peter Boatwright & Joseph B. Kadane & Joseph C. Nunes & Shmueli Galit, 2005. "The Effect of Product Assortment Changes on Customer Retention," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 616-622, July.
    8. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    9. Vincent R. Nijs & Kanishka Misra & Karsten Hansen, 2014. "Outsourcing Retail Pricing to a Category Captain: The Role of Information Firewalls," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 66-81, January.
    10. Yunzeng Wang & Yigal Gerchak, 2003. "Capacity Games in Assembly Systems with Uncertain Demand," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 252-267, January.
    11. Li, Jia & Moul, Charles C., 2015. "Who should handle retail? Vertical contracts, customer service, and social welfare in a Chinese mobile phone market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 29-43.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. He, Siyi & Liu, Jinsong & Ying, Qianwei, 2023. "Externalities of government-oriented support for innovation: Evidence from the national innovative city pilot policy in China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    2. Crespi, Gustavo & Figal Garone, Lucas & Maffioli, Alessandro & Stein, Ernesto, 2020. "Public support to R&D, productivity, and spillover effects: Firm-level evidence from Chile," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    3. Kyriakos Drivas, 2021. "Which travels farther? Knowledge or rivalry?," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 67(2), pages 299-333, October.
    4. Alper Nakkas & Yasin Alan & Mümin Kurtuluş, 2020. "Category Captainship in the Presence of Retail Competition," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(2), pages 263-280, February.
    5. Isaksson, Olov H.D. & Simeth, Markus & Seifert, Ralf W., 2016. "Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain: Evidence from the high tech sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 699-706.
    6. TANAKA Mari & NARITA Yusuke & MORIGUCHI Chiaki, 2020. "Meritocracy and Its Discontent: Long-run Effects of Repeated School Admission Reforms," Discussion papers 20002, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    7. Michael Noel & Mark Schankerman, 2013. "Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 481-520, September.
    8. Cristiano Antonelli, 2017. "The derived demand for knowledge," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 183-194, February.
    9. Berlinski, Samuel & Galiani, Sebastian & Gertler, Paul, 2009. "The effect of pre-primary education on primary school performance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1-2), pages 219-234, February.
    10. Heejung Byun & Joseph Raffiee & Martin Ganco, 2019. "Discontinuities in the Value of Relational Capital: The Effects on Employee Entrepreneurship and Mobility," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1368-1393, November.
    11. Sergey Lychagin & Joris Pinkse & Margaret E. Slade & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Spillovers in Space: Does Geography Matter?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 295-335, June.
    12. John Van Reenen, 2022. "Innovation and Human Capital Policy," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation and Public Policy, pages 61-83, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Joel Peress & jim goldman, 2016. "Firm Innovation and Financial Analysis: How Do They Interact?," 2016 Meeting Papers 531, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    14. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen & Heidi Williams, 2019. "A toolkit of policies to promote innovation," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 10.
    15. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    16. Hötte, Kerstin, 2023. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    17. Tseng, Kevin, 2022. "Learning from the Joneses: Technology spillover, innovation externality, and stock returns," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2).
    18. Koki Oikawa & Minoru Kitahara, 2017. "Technology Polarization," Working Papers e113, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    19. Tania Babina & Sabrina T. Howell, 2018. "Entrepreneurial Spillovers from Corporate R&D," NBER Working Papers 25360, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Steffen Runge & Christian Schwens & Matthias Schulz, 2022. "The invention performance implications of coopetition: How technological, geographical, and product market overlaps shape learning and competitive tension in R&D alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 266-294, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:canjec:v:56:y:2023:i:1:p:87-113. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5982 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.