IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joreco/v19y2012i1p1-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining customers' switching patterns to brand delisting

Author

Listed:
  • Wiebach, Nicole
  • Hildebrandt, Lutz

Abstract

Delisting is frequently used by retailers to strengthen their negotiating position against manufacturers. However, both parties have to consider the risk of potential reactions when customers are faced with a reduced or modified assortment and thus, different choice. This research investigates customers' switching behavior if a brand is delisted by taking into account context theory. The results of two real-life quasi-experiments reveal that customer responses depend significantly on the context and that manufacturers may encounter substantially larger losses than retailers. Two further online experiments support the hypotheses on the existence of negative context effects for brand removals. Managerial implications can be derived and recommendations for further research are developed.

Suggested Citation

  • Wiebach, Nicole & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 2012. "Explaining customers' switching patterns to brand delisting," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 1-10.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joreco:v:19:y:2012:i:1:p:1-10
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.08.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698911000865
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.08.001?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Wiseman, David B. & Levin, Irwin P., 1996. "Comparing Risky Decision Making Under Conditions of Real and Hypothetical Consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 241-250, June.
    3. Cohen, Joel B & Basu, Kunal, 1987. "Alternative Models of Categorization: Toward a Contingent Processing Framework," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(4), pages 455-472, March.
    4. John T. Gourville & Dilip Soman, 2005. "Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and Why Variety Backfires," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 382-395, July.
    5. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 2002. "Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1162-1175, November.
    6. Sloot, Laurens M. & Verhoef, Peter C., 2008. "The Impact of Brand Delisting on Store Switching and Brand Switching Intentions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 281-296.
    7. Bettman, James R & Park, C Whan, 1980. "Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 7(3), pages 234-248, December.
    8. Dhar, Ravi & Glazer, Rashi, 1996. "Similarity in Context: Cognitive Representation and Violation of Preference and Perceptual Invariance in Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 280-293, September.
    9. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    10. John R. Hauser & Steven M. Shugan, 1980. "Intensity Measures of Consumer Preference," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 278-320, April.
    11. Huber, Joel & Puto, Christopher, 1983. "Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(1), pages 31-44, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Hildebrandt, Lutz & Kalweit, Lea, 2008. "Measuring changes in preferences and perception due to the entry of a new brand with choice data," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2008-057, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    14. Paul R. Messinger & Chakravarthi Narasimhan, 1997. "A Model of Retail Formats Based on Consumers' Economizing on Shopping Time," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23.
    15. BREUGELMANS, Els & CAMPO, Katia & GIJSBRECHTS, Els, 2005. "Opportunities for active stock-out management in online stores: The impact of the stock-out policy on online stock-out reactions," Working Papers 2005005, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    16. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    17. Pan, Yigang & Lehmann, Donald R, 1993. "The Influence of New Brand Entry on Subjective Brand Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(1), pages 76-86, June.
    18. Stephen J. Hoch & Eric T. Bradlow & Brian Wansink, 1999. "The Variety of an Assortment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 527-546.
    19. Chernev, Alexander, 2003. "When More Is Less and Less Is More: The Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(2), pages 170-183, September.
    20. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gázquez-Abad, Juan Carlos & Martínez-López, Francisco J. & Esteban-Millat, Irene, 2017. "The role of consumers' attitude towards economic climate in their reaction to ‘PL-only’ assortments: Evidence from the United States and Spain," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 340-348.
    2. Tserenjigmid, Gerelt, 2019. "Choosing with the worst in mind: A reference-dependent model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 631-652.
    3. Gázquez-Abad, Juan Carlos & Martínez-López, Francisco J. & Sethuraman, Raj, 2021. "What factors moderate the effect of assortment reduction on store switching? Insights and implications for grocery brands," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 98-115.
    4. Naeem Gul Gilal & Jing Zhang & Faheem Gul Gilal & Rukhsana Gul Gilal, 2020. "Bygone days and memories: the effects of nostalgic ads on consumer brand resurrection movements," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(2), pages 160-180, March.
    5. Mortimer, Gary & Weeks, Clinton S., 2019. "How unit price awareness and usage encourages grocery brand switching and expenditure," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 346-356.
    6. Diels, Jana Luisa & Wiebach, Nicole & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 2013. "The impact of promotions on consumer choices and preferences in out-of-stock situations," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 587-598.

    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. Davies, Antony & Cline, Thomas W., 2005. "A consumer behavior approach to modeling monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 797-826, December.
    2. Mehran Spitmaan & Oihane Horno & Emily Chu & Alireza Soltani, 2019. "Combinations of low-level and high-level neural processes account for distinct patterns of context-dependent choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-31, October.
    3. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2010-056 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Wiebach, Nicole & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 2010. "Context effects as customer reaction on delisting of brands," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2010-056, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    5. Scholten, Marc, 2002. "Conflict-mediated choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 683-718, July.
    6. Mortimer, Gary & Weeks, Clinton S., 2019. "How unit price awareness and usage encourages grocery brand switching and expenditure," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 346-356.
    7. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    8. J-J Huang, 2009. "Revised behavioural models for riskless consumer choice," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1237-1243, September.
    9. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    10. A. Ye(scedilla)im Orhun, 2009. "Optimal Product Line Design When Consumers Exhibit Choice Set-Dependent Preferences," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 868-886, 09-10.
    11. Kumar Padamwar, Pravesh & Kumar Kalakbandi, Vinay & Dawra, Jagrook, 2023. "Deliberation does not make the attraction effect disappear: The role of induced cognitive reflection," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    12. Holger Müller & Eike Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2012. "Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 73-92, March.
    13. Hildebrandt, Lutz & Kalweit, Lea, 2008. "Measuring changes in preferences and perception due to the entry of a new brand with choice data," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2008-057, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    14. Liang Guo, 2022. "Testing the Role of Contextual Deliberation in the Compromise Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4326-4355, June.
    15. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2011-050 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2008-057 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Basu, Shankha & Savani, Krishna, 2017. "Choosing one at a time? Presenting options simultaneously helps people make more optimal decisions than presenting options sequentially," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 76-91.
    18. Wiebach, Nicole & Diels, Jana L., 2011. "The impact of context and promotion on consumer responses and preferences in out-of-stock situations," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2011-050, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Nasim Mousavi & Panagiotis Adamopoulos & Jesse Bockstedt, 2023. "The Decoy Effect and Recommendation Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1533-1553, December.
    21. Anocha Aribarg & Neeraj Arora, 2008. "—Interbrand Variant Overlap: Impact on Brand Preference and Portfolio Profit," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 474-491, 05-06.
    22. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2022. "The Attraction and Compromise Effects in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2987-3007, April.
    23. Jonah Berger & Michaela Draganska & Itamar Simonson, 2007. "The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 460-472, 07-08.
    24. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.

    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:eee:joreco:v:19:y:2012:i:1:p:1-10. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-retailing-and-consumer-services .

    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.