IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v17y1998i1p66-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shopping Behavior and Consumer Preference for Store Price Format: Why “Large Basket” Shoppers Prefer EDLP

Author

Listed:
  • David R. Bell

    (Anderson School of Management, University of California-Los Angeles, 110 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, California 90095)

  • James M. Lattin

    (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 93405)

Abstract

In recent years, the supermarket industry has become increasingly competitive. One outcome has been the proliferation of a variety of pricing formats, and considerable debate among academics and practitioners about how these formats affect consumers' store choice behavior. This paper advances the idea that consumer shopping behavior (as defined by average size of the shopping basket and the frequency of store visits) is an important determinant of the store choice decision when stores offer different price formats. A recent article that summarized the result of Bruno's management switching the chain from EDLP to HILO illustrates the importance of this issue: “The company's price-conscious customers, used to shopping for a fixed basket of goods, stayed away in droves.” Thus, the audience for this paper includes practitioners and academics who wish to understand store choices or predict how a change in price format might affect store profitability and the mix of clientele that shop there. This paper attempts to understand the relationship between grocery shopping behavior, retail price format, and store choice by posing and answering the following questions. First, after controlling for other factors (e.g., distance to the store, prior experience in the store, advertised specials), do consumer expectations about prices for a basket of grocery products (“expected basket attractiveness”) influence the store choice decision? This is a fairly straightforward test of the effect of price expectations on store choice. Second, are different pricing formats (EDLP or HILO) more or less attractive to different types of shoppers? To adequately answer the second question, we must link consumers' category purchase decisions, which collectively define the market basket, and the store choice decision. We study the research questions using two complementary approaches. First, we develop a stylized theory of consumer shopping behavior under price uncertainty. The principal features and results from the stylized model can be summarized as follows. Shoppers are defined (in a relative sense) as either large or small basket shoppers. Thus, we abstract from the vicissitudes of individual shopping trips and focus on meaningful differences across shoppers in terms of the expected basket size per trip. The shoppers make category purchase incidence decisions and can choose to shop in either an EDLP or a HILO store. Large basket shoppers are shoppers who have a relatively high probability of purchase for any given category, and as such they are more captive to prices across many different categories. The first two propositions summarize the price responsiveness of shoppers. In particular, the large basket shoppers are responsive to price in their individual category purchase incidence decisions; this makes them responsive to the expected basket price in their store choice decisions. This key structural implication of the model highlights an asymmetry between response at the category level and response at the store level. The result is quite intuitive; a (large basket) shopper with less ability to respond to prices in individual product categories will be more sensitive to the expected cost of the overall portfolio (the market basket) when choosing a store. The final proposition derives the price at which a given shopper will be indifferent between an EDLP and a HILO store. The key insight is that as a shopper increases his or her tendency to become a large basket shopper, the EDLP store can increase its (constant) price closer and closer to the price in the HILO store. Conversely, as the shopper becomes more of small basket shopper, the EDLP store must lower its price closer to the deal price in the HILO store. Thus, we have the interesting result that small basket shoppers prefer HILO stores, . The empirical testing mirrors the development of the consumer theory. We test the implications of the propositions using a market basket scanner panel database. The database includes two years of shopping data for 1,042 households in two separate market areas. We first use household-level grocery expenditures to model the probability that a household is a large or small basket shopper. Subsequently, we estimate purchase incidence and store choice models. We find that after controlling for important factors such as household distance to the store, previous experience in the store, and advertised specials, price expectations for the basket influence store choice. Furthermore, EDLP stores get a greater than expected share of business from large basket shoppers; HILO stores get a greater than expected share from small basket shoppers. Consistent with the implications of the propositions, large basket shoppers are relatively price inelastic in their category purchase incidence decisions and price elastic in their store choice decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • David R. Bell & James M. Lattin, 1998. "Shopping Behavior and Consumer Preference for Store Price Format: Why “Large Basket” Shoppers Prefer EDLP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 66-88.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:17:y:1998:i:1:p:66-88
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.17.1.66
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.17.1.66
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.17.1.66?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. Alba, Joseph W, et al, 1994. "The Influence of Prior Beliefs, Frequency Cues, and Magnitude Cues on Consumers' Perceptions of Comparative Price Data," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(2), pages 219-235, September.
    2. Mulhern, Francis J. & Leone, Robert P., 1990. "Retail promotional advertising : Do the number of deal items and size of deal discounts affect store performance?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 179-194, November.
    3. Gilles Laurent & Scott Neslin & Greg Allenby & Andrew Ehrenberg & Steve Hoch & Robert Leone & John Little & Leonard Lodish & Robert Shoemaker & Dick Wittink, 1994. "A Research Agenda for Making Scanner Data More Useful to Managers," Post-Print hal-00819509, HAL.
    4. David D. Jones, 1995. "Response," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(3), pages 51-53, May.
    5. Randolph E. Bucklin & James M. Lattin, 1991. "A Two-State Model of Purchase Incidence and Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 24-39.
    6. Lakshman Krishnamurthi & S. P. Raj, 1991. "An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship Between Brand Loyalty and Consumer Price Elasticity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 172-183.
    7. Rajiv Lal & Ram Rao, 1997. "Supermarket Competition: The Case of Every Day Low Pricing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 60-80.
    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. Teck-Hua Ho & Christopher S. Tang & David R. Bell, 1998. "Rational Shopping Behavior and the Option Value of Variable Pricing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(12-Part-2), pages 145-160, December.
    2. Kim, Hyunchul & Kim, Kyoo il, 2017. "Estimating store choices with endogenous shopping bundles and price uncertainty," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-36.
    3. Richards, Timothy J. & Patterson, Paul M., 1999. "The Impact Of Promotion And Advertising On Choice Of Fruit Category And Apple Variety: A Latent-Class Approach," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21627, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Gázquez-Abad, Juan Carlos & Martínez-López, Francisco J., 2016. "Understanding the impact of store flyers on purchase behaviour: An empirical analysis in the context of Spanish households," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 263-273.
    5. Jagrook Dawra & Kanupriya Katyal, 2023. "Decoding price promotions: a moderated mediation model of fairness, trust, and deal proneness," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(4), pages 248-265, August.
    6. Scheidegger, Gianluca & Linzmajer, Marc & Rudolph, Thomas, 2020. "Price discount strategies in times of increasing price transparency: How price consciousness and price comparison moderate the effect of discount strategy on store price image," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 74(4), pages 384-402.
    7. Chen, Yun Chu & Fang, Shu-Cherng & Wen, Ue-Pyng, 2013. "Pricing policies for substitutable products in a supply chain with Internet and traditional channels," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(3), pages 542-551.
    8. J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2004. "Consumer Learning, Brand Loyalty, and Competition," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 134-145, December.
    9. Ashutosh Prasad & Brian T. Ratchford & Sonika Singh, 2021. "Consumer Choice and Multi-Store Shopping: an Empirical Investigation," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 7(3), pages 74-89, October.
    10. Ashutosh Prasad & Brian T. Ratchford & Sonika Singh, 2020. "Consumer Choice and Multi-Store Shopping: an Empirical Investigation," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 7(3), pages 74-89, October.
    11. Bailey, Ainsworth Anthony, 2008. "Evaluating consumer response to EDLPs," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 211-223.
    12. Jones, Eugene, 2004. "Supermarket Pricing And Game Theory: The Presence Of Wal-Mart," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20108, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Richards, Timothy J. & Patterson, Paul M., 1998. "The Impact of Advertising on Product Choice, Purchase frequency and Purchase Quantity: Washington Apples," Working Papers 28543, Arizona State University, Morrison School of Agribusiness and Resource Management.
    14. Jones, Eugene, 2003. "An Application Of Game Theory To Supermarket Pricing," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(1), pages 1-7, March.
    15. Goddard, E.W., 1994. "Nec-63 Conference On Promotion In The Marketing Mix: What Works Where And Why," Promotion in the Marketing Mix: What Works, Where and Why, April 28-29, 1994, Toronto, Canada 279588, Regional Research Projects > NECC-63: Research Committee on Commodity Promotion.
    16. Richards, Timothy J., 2000. "The Impact Of Promotion And Advertising: A Latent Class Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1-17, December.
    17. David R. Bell & Jeongwen Chiang & V. Padmanabhan, 1999. "The Decomposition of Promotional Response: An Empirical Generalization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 504-526.
    18. Gauri, Dinesh Kumar & Trivedi, Minakshi & Grewal, Dhruv, 2008. "Understanding the Determinants of Retail Strategy: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 256-267.
    19. Bellini, Silvia & Cardinali, Maria Grazia & Grandi, Benedetta, 2017. "A structural equation model of impulse buying behaviour in grocery retailing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 164-171.
    20. Jones, Eugene, 2014. "An Empirical Assessment of Consumers’ Preferences for Coffee," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 45(2), pages 1-26, July.

    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:inm:ormksc:v:17:y:1998:i:1:p:66-88. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.