IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v35y2019i4p556-573.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bottle size matters: Heterogeneity in the German carbonated soft drink market

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Hoffmann
  • Julia Bronnmann

Abstract

Germany is Europe's largest market for carbonated soft drinks. In 2015, the average per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks reached 119 L. Furthermore, the market is highly differentiated. This study uses a unique household panel data set of carbonated soft drink consumption in Germany to determine the effect of product and household characteristics on purchase decisions. Characteristics of special interests were product brands, bottle sizes, and households’ brand loyalty. A random parameter logit model is estimated to account explicitly for consumer heterogeneity. The results clearly show that The Coca‐Cola Company is still the market leader on the German market, but private label brands from Aldi and Lidl also have a strong influence. The results further indicate that 63% of households are brand loyal regarding their preferred soft drink brand and prefer small bottle sizes (≤1,500 ml) over large bottle sizes (>1,500 ml).

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Hoffmann & Julia Bronnmann, 2019. "Bottle size matters: Heterogeneity in the German carbonated soft drink market," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(4), pages 556-573, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:35:y:2019:i:4:p:556-573
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21599
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21599
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Allender, William J. & Richards, Timothy J., 2012. "Brand Loyalty and Price Promotion Strategies: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 323-342.
    2. Waseem Ahmad & Sven Anders, 2012. "The Value of Brand and Convenience Attributes in Highly Processed Food Products," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 60(1), pages 113-133, March.
    3. Staudigel, Matthias & Anders, Sven, 2016. "Does taste trump health? Effects of nutritional characteristics on brand-level demand for chips in the U.S," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235755, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Rigoberto A. Lopez & Yizao Liu & Chen Zhu, 2015. "TV advertising spillovers and demand for private labels: the case of carbonated soft drinks," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(25), pages 2563-2576, May.
    5. Deepak Agrawal, 1996. "Effect of Brand Loyalty on Advertising and Trade Promotions: A Game Theoretic Analysis with Empirical Evidence," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 86-108.
    6. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 2008. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 29-48, 01-02.
    7. Stefan Hirsch & Giulia Tiboldo & Rigoberto A. Lopez, 2018. "A tale of two Italian cities: brand-level milk demand and price competition," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(49), pages 5239-5252, October.
    8. Julia Bronnmann & Julia Hoffmann, 2018. "Product differentiation in the German soft drink market: which attributes matter?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(14), pages 968-971, August.
    9. Sanatan Shreay & Hayley H. Chouinard & Jill J. McCluskey, 2016. "Product Differentiation by Package Size," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 3-15, January.
    10. Jagmohan S. Raju & V. Srinivasan & Rajiv Lal, 1990. "The Effects of Brand Loyalty on Competitive Price Promotional Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 276-304, March.
    11. repec:zwi:journl:v:44:y:2012:i:22:p:2859-2865 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Elena Lopez & Rigoberto A. Lopez, 2009. "Demand for differentiated milk products: implications for price competition," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 453-465.
    13. Grebitus, Carola & Jensen, Helen H. & Roosen, Jutta, 2013. "US and German consumer preferences for ground beef packaged under a modified atmosphere – Different regulations, different behaviour?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 109-118.
    14. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    15. Céline Bonnet, 2001. "Assessing consumer response to Protected Designation of Origin labelling: a mixed multinomial logit approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 433-450, December.
    16. Rigoberto A. Lopez & Kristen L. Fantuzzi, 2012. "Demand for carbonated soft drinks: implications for obesity policy," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(22), pages 2859-2865, August.
    17. J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2004. "Consumer Learning, Brand Loyalty, and Competition," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 134-145, December.
    18. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    19. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    20. Julia Bronnmann & Frank Asche, 2016. "The Value of Product Attributes, Brands and Private Labels: An Analysis of Frozen Seafood in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 231-244, February.
    21. Stracke, Stefan & Homann, Birte, 2017. "Branchenanalyse Getränkeindustrie: Marktentwicklung und Beschäftigung in der Brauwirtschaft, Erfrischungsgetränke- und Mineralbrunnenindustrie," Study / edition der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf, volume 127, number 368.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:agribz:v:35:y:2019:i:4:p:556-573. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.