IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2010.09227.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Influencing Competition Through Shelf Design

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco Cisternas
  • Wee Chaimanowong
  • Alan Montgomery
  • Timothy Derdenger

Abstract

Shelf design decisions strongly influence product demand. In particular, placing products in desirable locations increases demand. This primary effect on shelf position is clear, but there is a secondary effect based on the relative positioning of nearby products. Intuitively, products located next to each other are more likely to be compared having positive and negative effects. On the one hand, locations closer to relatively strong products will be undesirable, as these strong products will draw demand from others -- an effect that is stronger for those in close proximity. On the other hand, because strong products tend to attract more traffic, locations closer to them elicit high consumer attention by increased visibility. Modifying the GEV class of models to allow demand to be moderated by competitors' proximity, these two effects emerge naturally. We found that although the competition effect is usually stronger, it is not always the dominating effect. Shelf displays can achieve higher profits by exploiting the relative influence on competition from shelf design to shift demand to higher profitability products. In the paper towel category, we found profitability differences of up to 7\% and displays with 3\% higher gross profits over the best shelf design present in our data.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco Cisternas & Wee Chaimanowong & Alan Montgomery & Timothy Derdenger, 2020. "Influencing Competition Through Shelf Design," Papers 2010.09227, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2010.09227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.09227
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Small, Kenneth A, 1987. "A Discrete Choice Model for Ordered Alternatives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 409-424, March.
    2. Koppelman, Frank S. & Wen, Chieh-Hua, 2000. "The paired combinatorial logit model: properties, estimation and application," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 75-89, February.
    3. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    4. Turley, L. W. & Milliman, Ronald E., 2000. "Atmospheric Effects on Shopping Behavior: A Review of the Experimental Evidence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 193-211, August.
    5. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Scott Stern & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1995. "Market Segmentation and the Sources of Rents from Innovation: Personal Computers in the Late 1980s," Working Papers 95001, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
    6. Bhat, Chandra R., 1998. "Analysis of travel mode and departure time choice for urban shopping trips," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 361-371, August.
    7. Sener, Ipek N. & Pendyala, Ram M. & Bhat, Chandra R., 2011. "Accommodating spatial correlation across choice alternatives in discrete choice models: an application to modeling residential location choice behavior," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 294-303.
    8. Bhat, Chandra R. & Guo, Jessica, 2004. "A mixed spatially correlated logit model: formulation and application to residential choice modeling," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 147-168, February.
    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. José-Benito Pérez-López & Margarita Novales & Francisco-Alberto Varela-García & Alfonso Orro, 2020. "Residential Location Econometric Choice Modeling with Irregular Zoning: Common Border Spatial Correlation Metric," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 785-802, September.
    2. Perez-Lopez, Jose-Benito & Novales, Margarita & Orro, Alfonso, 2022. "Spatially correlated nested logit model for spatial location choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Peter Davis & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2014. "The flexible coefficient multinomial logit (FC-MNL) model of demand for differentiated products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 32-63, March.
    4. Laura Grigolon, 2021. "Blurred boundaries: A flexible approach for segmentation applied to the car market," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(4), pages 1273-1305, November.
    5. Mogens Fosgerau & Julien Monardo & André de Palma, 2019. "The Inverse Product Differentiation Logit Model," Working Papers hal-02183411, HAL.
    6. Tinessa, Fiore & Marzano, Vittorio & Papola, Andrea, 2020. "Mixing distributions of tastes with a Combination of Nested Logit (CoNL) kernel: Formulation and performance analysis," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-23.
    7. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    8. Bhat, Chandra R. & Guo, Jessica, 2004. "A mixed spatially correlated logit model: formulation and application to residential choice modeling," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 147-168, February.
    9. Daly, Andrew & Bierlaire, Michel, 2006. "A general and operational representation of Generalised Extreme Value models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 285-305, May.
    10. Bekhor, Shlomo & Prashker, Joseph N., 2008. "GEV-based destination choice models that account for unobserved similarities among alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 243-262, March.
    11. Ke Wang & Chandra R. Bhat & Xin Ye, 2023. "A multinomial probit analysis of shanghai commute mode choice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1471-1495, August.
    12. Ibeas, Ángel & Cordera, Ruben & dell’Olio, Luigi & Coppola, Pierluigi, 2013. "Modelling the spatial interactions between workplace and residential location," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 110-122.
    13. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    14. Peer, Stefanie & Knockaert, Jasper & Koster, Paul & Tseng, Yin-Yen & Verhoef, Erik T., 2013. "Door-to-door travel times in RP departure time choice models: An approximation method using GPS data," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 134-150.
    15. Weiss, Adam & Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2017. "Examining the difference between park and ride and kiss and ride station choices using a spatially weighted error correlation (SWEC) discrete choice model," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 111-119.
    16. Gopalakrishnan, Raja & Guevara, C. Angelo & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2020. "Combining multiple imputation and control function methods to deal with missing data and endogeneity in discrete-choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 45-57.
    17. Dam, Tien Thanh & Ta, Thuy Anh & Mai, Tien, 2022. "Submodularity and local search approaches for maximum capture problems under generalized extreme value models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(3), pages 953-965.
    18. Breitmoser, Yves, 2016. "Stochastic choice, systematic mistakes and preference estimation," MPRA Paper 72779, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Marzano, Vittorio & Papola, Andrea, 2008. "On the covariance structure of the Cross-Nested Logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 83-98, February.
    20. Kai-Lung Hui, 2004. "Product Variety Under Brand Influence: An Empirical Investigation of Personal Computer Demand," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 686-700, May.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2010.09227. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.