Content uploaded by Rainer Lademann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rainer Lademann on Jan 04, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Waldemar Toporowski is Pro-
fessor of Retailing at Georg-
August-University of Göttingen,
Platz der Göttinger Sieben 3,
37073 Göttingen, Germany,
Phone +49 (0)551 39-4447,
Fax +49 (0)551 39-4446
E-Mail: wtoporo@uni-goettin-
gen.de, corresponding author.
Rainer Lademann is Honorary
Professor at Georg-August-Uni-
versity of Göttingen and Execu-
tive Partner of Lademann & As-
sociates GmbH, Friedrich-Ebert-
Damm 311, 22159 Hamburg,
Phone: +49 (0)40 64557710,
Fax: +49 (0)40 64557733,
E-Mail: lademann@lademann-
associates.com.
The Importance of Assortment, Pricing, and Retail Site
Location for Competition in Food Retailing – Results
from Marketing Research
By Waldemar Toporowski and Rainer Lademann
This paper investigates the role and contribu-
tion of marketing-mix elements in the compet-
itive landscape of the food retailing industry. A
literature review focusing on the effects of as-
sortment, price, and location is presented in
order to explore the impact of these factors on
competition. The review clearly demonstrates
that current marketing research focuses pri-
marily on analyzing the effects of operational
decisions. However, further analysis reveals
several levels at which competition takes
place. The close relationship between mar-
keting-mix elements and store format or re-
tailer brand suggests that more attention
should be paid to aggregated levels of com-
petition. The competition between the two
main retail formats, discounter and full-range
retailer which is observed in business prac-
tice, can be characterized by the trade-off be-
tween the benefits of price and time on the
one hand and selection and service on the
other. However, retailers’ ability to provide
these benefits depends on additional factors
which need to be integrated in marketing re-
search.
1. Introduction
Food retailing is differentiated from other branches of
commerce by its hyper-competitive environment. Recent
structural changes in food retailing are illustrated in the
following developments:
)
The food retailing industry has historically been char-
acterized by a continuous concentration and selection
process at both the company and store levels. While
average store size and consequent selling space have
grown, the concentration of companies has also in-
creased considerably across all levels of trade due to
organizational developments such as chaining, forma-
tion of cooperative groups, mergers and acquisitions
(Lademann 2012, p. 147–151, 173–176). These devel-
opments have resulted in a major decrease in the num-
ber of food retailing stores, from over 153,000 food
retailing stores in former West Germany in the mid-
1960s to only 39,000 in Germany by 2012 (ISB 1980,
p. 40–41; EHI 2013, p. 92). Food retailing continues
to follow this trend of concentration, contributing to
the industry’s characteristically changing landscape.
)
In recent decades, significant changes in market share
distribution have occurred between retail formats. Spe-
cifically, traditional retail formats such as full-range su-
permarkets have experienced declining market share
while discount retailers have strengthened their market
position by opening more outlets throughout the coun-
try. The fight between full-range supermarkets with
various services and discounters with limited variety
and cheap prices is a reflection of inter-format competi-
tion. On the other hand, intra-format competition oc-
curs, which involves rivalry between two identical for-
mats, e.g., two discounter chains (Rudolph/Klein-
schrodt 2006; Fox/Sethuraman 2010).
)
Food retailing is characterized by a large variety of
products, including approximately 150,000 product
lines with over 500,000 stock keeping units (SKUs).
Every year more than 100,000 new SKUs are intro-
duced (Lademann 2012, p. 6–8). Fast-Moving Con-
sumer Goods (FMCG) have a high inventory turnover
with a weighted average of approximately 20 times
per anno (EHI 2009, p. 299), requiring corresponding-
ly intensive and frequent use of marketing-mix ele-
ments for attracting consumers.
)
Given that the mail order and e-commerce market
share comprises less than one percent of the demand,
MARKETING · ZFP · 36. Jg. · 2/2014 · S. 131 –140 131
competition for customer acquisition and retention
primarily occurs in the store trade area (BHV 2012).
Consequently, retail format preferences are overshad-
owed by retailers’ location decisions, which influence
the time required for customers to travel the distance
to the store. Therefore, location development and sell-
ing-space expansion are critical elements of competi-
tion among stores and retail formats in food retailing
(Lademann 2013).
The structural change in Germany’s food retailing indus-
try is influenced by numerous macro- and micro-envi-
ronment market forces (Zentes/Rittinger 2009). At the
same time, structural changes reflect the market success
of particular retail chains or retail formats. Market suc-
cess depends on various important decision parameters,
including the marketing-mix factors which influence
consumer behavior. The marketing-mix elements of par-
ticular concern include assortment, price, and retail site
location, specifically regarding the following questions:
1. What assortment/price/location decisions are subject
of current research?
2. What are the findings about the decisions’ impact?
3. What decisions generate long term effects and influ-
ence the competition persistently?
In order to answer these questions, a literature review is
presented in three sections, focusing individually on each
of the aforementioned three marketing-mix parameters.
The literature review encompasses major business jour-
nals specializing in marketing and retailing. The analysis
covers the time period from 2000 to2014 and focuses on
store-based food retailing.
The goal of this paper is to clarify whether current mar-
keting research, particularly consumer behavior research,
facilitates an improved understanding and prediction of
the competitive landscape of the food retailing industry.
Thus, section five of this study intends to provide an-
swers to the preceding questions regarding assortment,
price, and retail site location and their importance in as-
sessing competitive relationships in retailing. Therefore,
their scope and levels are examined in regard to their
ability to characterize competition in the market. All
findings are summarized in the last section, discussing
potential consequences and implications for marketing
research.
2. Assortment
Product assortment determines the rivals with which a
retailer must compete. It is usually characterized by as-
sortment width, defined as the number of product cate-
gories offered, and assortment depth, defined as the
variation in products serving a single consumer need.
Retailers must also decide upon the number of private
label brands (PLBs), to introduce in individual catego-
ries.
Studies researching the assortment policy can be grouped
according to the investigated decisions and their corre-
sponding impacts. Assortment decisions of depth and
width can be further categorized by the policy options of
reduction or extension.
As Table 1 illustrates, although many studies confirm the
assumption that an assortment reduction has no negative
effects, the results are not unified. It is evident that these
results depend on several framework conditions and on
whether the effects are measured on an individual cate-
gory level or the entire store level. Framework condi-
tions analyzed in the studies demonstrate that identifying
and eliminating less-preferred products matters for retail-
ers. The following must be noted in this regard. First, the
potential options for assortment width reduction differ by
retail format (Lademann 2007). Second, the effect of as-
sortment width reduction depends on the initially per-
ceived assortment width. Early studies (Broniarczyk et
al. 1998) already indicate that consumer perceptions of
assortment variety do not depend solely on the number of
alternatives, meaning that retailers have other instru-
ments at their disposal for influencing consumer percep-
tions.
Great attention in marketing literature is paid to the im-
pact of assortment depth. In part, this interest is driven by
the management concepts of efficient consumer response
and category management. When analyzing the advan-
tages of changing the assortment depth, not only impacts
on sales but also cost effects should be considered.
PLBs play a multifaceted role in competition and consti-
tute an important assortment-policy parameter. They can
influence a retailer’s success in two ways: by yielding
higher unit margins for the PLB itself, and by producing
higher unit margins for national brands. Increases in na-
tional brand unit margins can be traced back to a
strengthening of the bargaining position vis-`a-vis the na-
tional brand manufacturer. Several studies draw attention
to the complex interdependencies between the use of
PLBs and national brands, demonstrating that a balance
between PLBs and national brands is superior to a substi-
tution strategy between the two. In addition, some stud-
ies warn of inflated expectations for PLBs regarding
their impact on customer loyalty.
Nonetheless, the entire assortment’s PLB share has a sig-
nificant impact on the retailer’s price level as perceived
by consumers. The expansion of PLB portfolios by full-
range retailers can be interpreted as a response to the suc-
cessful expansion of discounters. However, an expansion
of PLB share in the assortment should be viewed critical-
ly. For increasing returns from PLB portfolio introduc-
tion, higher margins of PLBs must compensate for losses
in national brand sales as well as national brand margins.
However, it is still questionable whether the expansion of
PLB share will lead to increased customer loyalty, damp-
ening their willingness to switch retailers.
It is worth noting that academic research has hardly ana-
lyzed certain developments in business practice. For ex-
Toporowski/Lademann, Importance of Assortment, Pricing, Retail Site Location for Competition in Food Retailing
132 MARKETING·ZFP·Heft2·2.Quartal2014
Author Independent Variables Effects Context
Ailawadi/Harlam
(2004)
store brand share high store-brand share leads to higher
percentage margins on national brands;
balance between private label brands (PLBs)
and national brands superior to a substitution
strategy
light and heavy store-brand users
Ailawadi et al. (2008) private label (PL) share inverted U-shaped relationship between PL
share and store loyalty (household’s share of
wallet)
light and heavy PL buyers
Boatwright/Nunes
(2001)
cuts in the number of SKUs category sales tend to increase availability of key product and
category attributes (brand,
flavor)
Bonfrer/Chintagunta
(2004)
introduction of a store brand in a
certain category
retailers sell higher margin store brands to
loyal customers and on average raise national
brand prices
store loyal customers and store
switchers.
Borle et al. (2005) assortment reduction reduction in assortment reduces overall store
sales (negative effect on both shopping
frequency and purchase quantity)
kind of category
Briesch et al. (2009) number of brands offered;
presence of private labels
assortment more important than prices in
store choice decision; positive (negative)
effect of the number of brands (presence of
private labels) on store choice
particular preferences of a
retailer's shoppers for assortment
versus convenience
Chernev (2003) smaller versus larger assortment ideal point availability tends to strengthen
(weaken) preferences in choices from large
(small) assortments
consumers with and without an
ideal point
Corstjens/Lal (2000) introduction of a quality store
brand
increased store profitability quality of the store brand
Dawes/Nenycz-Thiel
(2013)
private label policy competition between PLs and national
brands (NBs) occurs across multiple stores
the shopper buys from in a one-year period;
PL growth may sometimes hurt other PLs
more than NBs
category characteristics; link
between a PL and its retailer
Fox et al. (2004) formats with greater assortments
versus formats with lower
assortments
patronage and spending are sensitive to
differences in retailer assortments
retail formats
Geyskens et al. (2010) introduction of economy and
premium PBs
affection on customer choice;
cannibalization effects on incumbent PBs
quality variation through PL line
extensions (downscale or
upscale)
Hamilton/Chernev
(2010)
product line extension perception of a retailer’s price image Consumers’ intention of
browsing or buying
Mantrala et al. (2009) product assortment planning
(PAP): variety, depth, service
level
huge impact of the assortment’s composition
on the retailer’s sales and profits
strategic (long-term)
versus tactical (short-term)
planning steps
Meza/Sudhir (2010) introduction of store brands retailer gains bargaining power mass market versus niche
markets
Morales et al. (2005) congruency between consumers’
internal and retailers’ external
organization
perceptions of assortment variety and
satisfaction do not depend solely on the
number of alternatives
shopping goals; consumer
familiarity with a category
Pauwels/Srinivasan
(2004)
introduction of store brands higher unit margins for the store brand itself
and higher unit margins for national brands;
no beneficial effects on store traffic or
revenue
product category
Sloot et al. (2006) assortment reduction substantive short-term category sales losses;
weak long-term category sales losses;
increase in perceived search efficiency;
decrease in actual search time
former versus new category
buyers
Table 1: Literature review on the impact of product assortment
ample, the effect of temporary assortments, especially in
non-food segments, which form a strategic differentia-
tion of discounters against full-range supermarkets, has
not been investigated fully. The same applies to research
in regard to offering telecommunication services or tour-
ism services as complimentary products. Furthermore,
the introduction of “ready-to-eat” products to the stan-
dard assortment of retailers, e.g., sushi, sandwiches, or
pre-processed salads, has been observed in recent years.
When transferring the implications of the previously pre-
sented studies from foreign markets onto the German
FMCG market, it is important to consider international
market differences. For instance, the largest share of re-
tailer turnover in Germany is generated by particular cat-
egories. Because the assortments are very similar be-
tween competitors at the FMCG level due to ubiquitous
national brands, it is to be expected that different PLB
portfolios, regional products, and specialties affect the
consumer’s retailer choice more persistently.
Toporowski/Lademann, Importance of Assortment, Pricing, Retail Site Location for Competition in Food Retailing
MARKETING · ZFP · Heft 2 · 2. Quartal 2014 133
Author Independent Variables Effects Context
Ailawadi et al. (2006) promotion on average, the net profit impact of
promotions is negative
role of promotion, brand,
category, store characteristics
Carver/Padgett (2012) 99-ending pricing price attractiveness judgment 99- versus 00-ending pricing for
the highest and lowest prices
Cotterill/Putsis (2000) promotion national brand (NB) promotions have a
greater effect on NB share than that of
private label (PL) promotions on PL share
NB versus PL
Chatterjee et al. (2000) promotions by straight- and
cross-coupons
asymmetric switching between national and
store brand
coupon characteristics
Dawes (2012) price promotions for one pack-
size
heavy cross-pack cannibalization (sales from
the other pack-sizes of the same brand)
packaging difference
DelVecchio et al. (2009) discount location (proximate
versus distal from regular price
info);
discount framing (cents-off
versus percentage-off discounts)
immediate value and persistence of
consumers’ price estimates
the manner in which the discount
is communicated
Fox et al. (2004) frequency and depth of
promotions;
variation in market-basket prices
store patronage and spending are highly
responsive to differences in retailers’
promotional intensity;
spending is insensitive to variation in
market-basket prices
differences in retailer
assortments
Kim (2006) different rebate ad formats impact on purchase intentions;
consumers’ responses entail both emotional
responses and rational evaluations
rebate amount, consumers’ price
knowledge, and rebate
processing time
Kopalle et al. (2012) pricing policy category profit household level heterogeneity in
reference price
Kumar/Rao (2006) pricing strategy determined by
data-analytics programs
supermarket profit size, and customer’s basket
composition
Macé (2012) nine-ending prices loss of sales in certain conditions SKU, store, category, clientele
Manning/Sprott (2007) multiple unit price promotions purchase intentions quantity specified in the offer,
rate of product consumption
Nijs et al.(2001) price promotions short run and long run category demand competitive structure, product
categories
Park/Gupta (2011) price reduction increases in sales cyclicality in buying (high versus
low purchasing tendency period)
Richards et al. (2012) temporary price reductions, price
promotions,
product sales nature of fresh product
Schindler (2006) 99-ending prices correlation to presence of low-price appeal types of ad
Table 2: Literature review on the impact of pricing
3. Pricing
Price differences between shops and retail formats can be
postulated by a twofold explanation. On the one hand, re-
tailers of various retail formats offer different service
levels, which in turn affect the costs that need to be cov-
ered by mark-ups. On the other hand, different prices and
the consumer’s willingness to pay them reflect his or her
service appreciation. In business practice, service appre-
ciation becomes evident in the consumer’s choice of re-
tail format, which can be understood as a bundle of ser-
vices. However, quantifying consumer’s appreciation of
a retail format is reasonably difficult, as every consumer
only buys a small portion of a retailer’s assortment.
Thus, consumers are likely to have differently composed
shopping baskets, for which the price level perception of
the retailer also differs (Kopalle et al. 2009).
In order to analyze the effects of pricing policy, the asso-
ciated instruments must be identified. In an empirical
study, Bolton/Shankar (2003) developed a taxonomy of
retailer pricing and price-promotion strategies. They fur-
ther demonstrate that a characterization of retailer pric-
ing strategies at retail format level or store level is far too
vague.
Table 2 compiles an overview of current academic stud-
ies in which the effects of specific price instruments are
investigated.
Despite the fact that it is a significant simplification of
the reality, a distinction is often drawn between two
types of pricing strategies in retailing: the everyday-low-
pricing (EDLP) policy and the high-low-pricing (HiLo)
policy. Their effects have already been analyzed in nu-
merous earlier studies (Hoch et al. 1994; Lal/Rao 1997).
Additionally, recent studies compare EDLP and HiLo
pricing policies. EDLP tends to offer the customer lower
prices compared to a retailer with a HiLo policy. With re-
tailers following a HiLo policy, consumers can possess
price benefits only if they search for price promotions,
shop more often, purchase certain products, and are will-
ing to switch brands in a category according to the cur-
rently offered price promotions. Consequently, when as-
sessing consumer preferences for either one of the two
forms of pricing strategy, factors such as opportunity
costs, household size, shopping-basket size, and brand
loyalty are taken into consideration.
Bhatnagar/Ratchford (2004) opt for a cost-oriented per-
spective to assessing pricing policies. The basic idea is
Toporowski/Lademann, Importance of Assortment, Pricing, Retail Site Location for Competition in Food Retailing
134 MARKETING·ZFP·Heft2·2.Quartal2014
similar to the model proposed by Bell et al. (1998), who
differentiate between fixed and variable shopping costs.
Depending on customer characteristics, the two pricing
policies influence variable and fixed costs to different
extents. As a result, HiLo and EDLP policies attract dif-
ferent customer segments. Despite the plausibility of
such behavior, it is evident that customers switch be-
tween retailers applying different pricing policies. Con-
sequently, this behavior seems to be influenced by addi-
tional factors. In this regard, one should consider the pur-
pose of the shopping trip and the store density in the spe-
cific consumer’s neighborhood. The dense store network
of food retailers in Germany explains the preference for a
HiLo policy. A HiLo policy enables retailers to attract
new customers in highly competitive markets. These re-
sults may explain why even discounters are turning away
from a pure EDLP policy (Lademann 2012, p. 40–41).
Today, promotions continue to receive great attention in
marketing literature as they have historically (e.g., Ku-
mar/Leone 1988). A number of studies analyze selected
aspects of price promotions (e.g., temporary price reduc-
tions, the use of coupons or multi-item promotions).
Even though the number of promoted products on a re-
tailer’s whole assortment is fairly small, the intention of
promoted products is of greater importance. First, pro-
moted products should enhance the switching willing-
ness of consumers. Second, they should influence posi-
tively the retailer’s price image. Third, they should en-
rich the total retailer brand image of the promoting retail
chain. However, it should also be noted that the custom-
ers’ shopping baskets can differ greatly in case the retail-
er has a wide assortment. Consequently, different prod-
ucts are responsible for the formation of a retailer-specif-
ic price image, which could heavily influence the market
success of the retailer. In this context, specific reference
is made to the panel-based survey by Fox et al. (2004),
which determines the price level by calculating a price
index per household and store based on a long-term
shopping basket. The basis of a household-related shop-
ping basket has the advantage that the price index created
is based on the actual spending behavior of the house-
holds included in the panel.
Nevertheless, previous research has already raised
doubts about the advantage of sales promotions for re-
tailers, particularly price promotions (Walters/MacKen-
zie 1988; Blattberg et al. 1995). For this, among other
reasons, a large number of academic studies have out-
lined the basic conditions that should be used to deter-
mine the impact of price promotions (Bolton 1989), with
product choice due to price promotion as one basic con-
dition. The topic is not a new one, as it has already been
examined in previous studies (Sethuraman 1995; Nara-
simhan et al. 1996; Bronnenberg/Wathieu 1996). Al-
though PLBs are not currently suitable for price promo-
tions (Lademann 2012, p. 228–230), there is a clear need
for research of PLB price promotions, given a continual
increase in PLB market share (Ailawadi et al. 2009). Fur-
thermore, the effect of retail format is mentioned, even
though retail formats have been assimilating more and
more. For instance, the German food-retailing sector ap-
plies similarly appealing price promotions, regardless of
retail format. It seems that price promotions are used to
maintain the status quo rather than to generate competi-
tive advantages.
The literature review demonstrates that studies address-
ing the strategic importance of pricing policy are rather
rare. Most studies analyze the operational activities of
pricing policy. They provide no definite answer about the
price instruments’ long-term effects (e.g., customer loy-
alty) and whether these are able to generate competitive
advantage after all. This lack of explanation gives rise to
the question of how far it can be accounted for by the in-
tensive use of price promotions by all retailers in the
market (effect neutralization), as well as by the custom-
er’s objective and subjective switching costs.
Relatively little research has been conducted investigat-
ing the impact of consumers’ price perceptions of retail
format or the overall store price image on the competi-
tive advantages of a retailer. The majority of research on
price image focuses on factors affecting the image of the
retailer (e.g., Cox/Cox 1990).
4. Retail site location
There is a long standing tradition of analyzing the com-
petitive impact of a retailer’s location. The classic works
of Reilly (1931) and Huff (1964) have long ago discussed
the importance of travel distance and attractiveness,
mostly ascertained by the size of the sales area or the
scope of the assortment, for the choice of a shopping lo-
cation. For the single retailer, however, the choice of the
individual store is of greater interest (Brown 1978; Hub-
bard 1978). The lawful in nature understanding of con-
sumer behavior steered the traditional research stream to-
ward more psychologically oriented research ap-
proaches. With an increasing convenience orientation
among customers, travel distance (store’s accessibility)
has become more important for store choice (Messinger/
Narasimhan 1997).
Table 3 shows current academic studies in which the ef-
fects of retail site location are investigated.
Current research concerning retail site location can be di-
vided into two streams. Some studies focus on identify-
ing the impact of retail location accessibility on retailer
success, while other research focuses on identifying the
impact of retail agglomeration on site location attractive-
ness. With regard to accessibility, the strength of the im-
pact depends on the store size. Customers react more
sensitively to an increase in distance (e.g., travel time) to
a smaller retailer. This effect can be explained by the fact
that customers of large-scale retail formats hold a greater
willingness to travel further for reaching the retailer.
Nevertheless, the retail formats differ in terms of their
spatial density. The distance between two large-scale re-
Toporowski/Lademann, Importance of Assortment, Pricing, Retail Site Location for Competition in Food Retailing
MARKETING · ZFP · Heft 2 · 2. Quartal 2014 135
Author Independent Variables Effects Context
Fox et al. (2004) accessibility (increase in
distance)
customers react more sensitively to an
increase in distance from a smaller retailer
retail formats
Popkowski Leszczyc et
al. (2004)
store location near other stores beneficial location strategy depends on
pricing strategy, store size and location of
other stores
multi-purpose shopping trips,
segments of shoppers
González-Benito et al.
(2005)
spatial accessibility spatial accessibility of a store differently
affects the demand for its competitors
according to the store format
store formats
Singh et al. (2006) competitor’s market entry lost sales of incumbent store (store visits and
in-store expenditures)
majority of losses due to fewer store visits
store formats
Table 3: Literature review on the impact of site location
tailers with a wide assortment tends to be greater than be-
tween two smaller ones, such as supermarkets or dis-
counters. As the distance for customers grows, the proba-
bility that they will find an alternative retailer of smaller
size but closer to their neighborhood increases.
The retail site location does not just affect purchasing be-
havior regarding the store’s distance to the customer. The
store’s embedding in an agglomeration of retailers and
other service-providers also impacts consumers’ retailer
choice. Such clustering with other retailers enables a cus-
tomer to make multi-purpose shopping trips, which miti-
gates the negative effect of the travel distance to the
store.
The analyses also reveal that location strategy decisions
do not only involve individual retailer site location, but
also their coordination with the already existent site loca-
tions of a chained retailer. The opening of a new store
can be interpreted as an increase in the consumer’s
choice alternatives and thus increasing competition on
the local market while potentially cannibalizing other re-
tail chain locations.
The different aspects of retail site location policies, ex-
amined by the previously presented studies, highlight the
importance of retail site location for retailing in general.
This importance is further underlined by the major im-
pact that the location expansion of particular retail for-
mats or retail chains has on competition. This raises the
question of which factors enable a retail format or retail-
er to push expansion further (Grewal et al. 2009). While
large-scale formats with a wide assortment require large
neighborhoods with a great number of potential custom-
ers for operating efficiently, smaller retail formats such
as discounters need considerably smaller neighborhoods
to attract consumers and operate efficiently. Nonetheless,
smaller retail formats face two drawbacks. First, due to a
smaller assortment width, customers have fewer product
alternatives. Second, smaller retail formats have less po-
tential for economies of scale. Moreover, smaller retail
formats are affected more strongly by small-scale
changes in demand conditions. This might require a
greater conceptual and locational adaptation to dynamics
than for large retail formats with a wider assortment and
larger neighborhood. With respect to logistics efficiency,
there are no definite disadvantages that smaller formats
face over larger ones. The greater density of smaller for-
mats does not significantly influence costs or time to
market. The comparative ease with which smaller retail
formats can find and open up new retail sites positively
influences expansion and adaptation possibilities. Fur-
thermore, smaller retail formats with a higher store den-
sity address the consumer’s preference for local shop-
ping needs. Due to differences in the willingness to pay
for travel-time savings, formats with a higher price level
can succeed (Lademann 2012, p. 152–155).
5. Scope and Levels of Competition
The literature review demonstrates a diversity of instru-
ments used to achieve competitive advantages. It also
shows that the competition effects refer to different target
variables and various levels at which competition takes
place (product, category, store, retail format).
Brand switching and category switching are the subjects
of studies, especially at the product or category level. As
in previous studies at the individual-store level (e.g.,
Hoch et al. 1994; Sirohi et al. 1998), the economic target
variables, sales, and profit are often considered. In the
case of non-economic variables, store choice, preference,
patronage, and loyalty are most commonly mentioned.
While product- and category-related effects are suitable
for assessing operative actions, the store-related effects
demonstrate the strategic importance of marketing-mix
elements. Preferably, these effects should not be investi-
gated on a singular shop basis, but rather at the aggregate
retail level.
The perception of retail format is based on a variety of
different aspects, with particular importance attached to
the assortment (Inman et al. 2004). Consequently, the
main distinction in food retailing is drawn between dis-
counters and full-range retailers. This perspective gives
the impression that the competition takes place between
two groups of retailers, traditional store formats of food
retailing, especially supermarkets, and discounters. It can
be characterized by the trade-off between price and time
on the one hand and selection and service on the other
(Lademann 2012, p. 180–188; Lademann 2013). This
notion is supported by studies on German food retailing,
which find that almost all consumers cover around two-
thirds of their FMCG needs at one retailer (Lademann
2007, p. 153). This phenomenon might be weakened by
Toporowski/Lademann, Importance of Assortment, Pricing, Retail Site Location for Competition in Food Retailing
136 MARKETING·ZFP·Heft2·2.Quartal2014
assortment expansions and more elaborate store design,
which result in a blurring of the differences between for-
mats, particularly between discounters and supermarkets.
On the other hand, a different interpretation is suggested
by the fact that consumers explore up to six retail outlets,
including specialty stores (e.g., bakers and butchers), for
covering their complete FMCG needs. Given the require-
ment of locally available shopping alternatives, there is
reason to believe that customers only regard different
formats as alternatives with regard to one part of their
shopping baskets. In this case, competition would also
shift to the category level (Bucklin/Lattin 1992). It is
conceivable that the customer is more likely to regard
other retailers as alternatives when buying fruit and veg-
etables, for instance, than when buying dairy products.
Gijsbrechts et al. (2008) distinguish between “share-of-
customer” and “share-of-wallet” competition: the type of
competitive relationship depends on whether retailers
tend to offer substitutive or complementary assortments.
Moreover, it is apparent that neither traditional retail for-
mats nor discounters form homogenous groups. Conse-
quently, inter-format competition exists between them.
In addition to the influence of category on the creation of
store choice alternatives, it is conceivable that competi-
tive relationships are caused by specific shopping pat-
terns. Depending on whether the customer is taking a
major trip to the store or just a fill-in trip, different retail-
ers compete against one another. Therefore, it is impor-
tant for retailers to discern what distinguishes the shop-
ping behavior of customers, e.g., how large their shop-
ping baskets are and how often they shop (Bell/Lattin
1998; Bell et al. 1998). Many analyses reveal the influ-
ence of selected socio-demographic characteristics on
consumer behavior patterns, which makes it easier for re-
tailers to identify their competitors.
Because customers frequent several shops for satisfying
their needs and combine shopping trips with other activi-
ties, as studies on multi-purpose shopping demonstrate
(Popkowski Leszczyc et al. 2004; Dellaert et al. 1998),
competition also takes place at the retail-agglomeration
level. Accordingly, a shopping center in the open coun-
tryside is in direct competition with one in the town cen-
ter or pedestrian area. At the same time, however, this
behavior makes it clear that individual store formats or
shops do not fight for the customer’s entire demand, but
rather for customer patronage and expenditures (size of
the shopping basket) per trip (Singh et al. 2006).
Meanwhile, retailers are also attempting to apply the
concept of branding to their sales outlets and to generate
a retailer brand in order to stand out from competitors
(Grewal et al. 2004; Morschett 2012). The mounting
strategic importance of retailer brands is confirmed in
empirical studies, which demonstrate their greater influ-
ence on store loyalty than store accessibility does (Swo-
boda et al. 2013). Retailers use several marketing-mix
elements in order to create retailer brands, particularly
assortment and pricing policy. Here, the issue of the im-
age transfer between the retailer brand and the PLB is of
particular interest.
6. Conclusions
This paper started with a brief characterization of the
current competitive situation in food retailing. It raised
the questions of the role and the contribution of the mar-
keting-mix in explaining this situation. In order to an-
swer these questions, a literature review was conducted.
The aim of this literature review was to describe and
evaluate academic insights about the importance of re-
tailers’ marketing-mix elements for attracting customers.
Three elements were analyzed in more detail: assort-
ment, price, and retail site location.
Regarding the role of the aforementioned instruments for
consumer behavior, several conclusions can be drawn
from the literature review. The relative importance of
certain marketing-mix elements has been examined in
previous studies, in which considerable importance was
ascribed to the location (accessibility) and to prices (Ar-
nold et al. 1978; Arnold et al. 1981; Arnold et al. 1983).
In location models, store choice is influenced by the dis-
tance to and attractiveness of the store. The latter is often
modeled as being dependent on the product assortment
or selling space. While this suggests a positive influence
of assortment on category turnover, recent studies pro-
vide mixed results. Some studies observe that travel dis-
tance has a greater influence upon store choice than ei-
ther price or assortment.
Consumers’ aforementioned tendencies to satisfy the
majority of their FMCG needs at a main shopping source
suggests that consumers accept the extant price differ-
ences on the market in regard to the different retail ser-
vices. Thus, price differences only constitute a reason to
switch retailers in case existing price gaps change signif-
icantly for a given retail service. The importance of the
retail site location and the resulting travel distance for
customers becomes apparent when a new store enters the
market and the costs of switching change for customers.
Insofar, it is surprising that limited attention has been
paid to retail site location issues in marketing research.
The analysis of assortment policy focuses on two as-
pects: the modification of assortment depth and width,
and the inclusion of PLB in the assortment. By focusing
on these two aspects, it becomes clear that direct effects
on category-basis are of primary concern. In business
practice, assortments of different retail formats are be-
coming increasingly similar. Therefore, it is of great in-
terest to identify how this development affects the consu-
mers’ retailer choice. The analysis of pricing decisions in
the retail market concentrates on the operational level.
However, market shifts between retail formats can hardly
be explained in this way. It is most likely that retail loca-
tion strategies and decisions provide an explanation for
structural changes in food retailing over time. Further-
more, the importance of retail site location has increased
Toporowski/Lademann, Importance of Assortment, Pricing, Retail Site Location for Competition in Food Retailing
MARKETING · ZFP · Heft 2 · 2. Quartal 2014 137
due to the following two reasons. First, the store sizes
and assortment width become assimilated through the
market consolidation and market adjustments, hardening
competition. Second, the price differences between retail
formats, as a consequence of PLB portfolio expansion,
assimilate more intensely throughout the various retail
formats. Consequently, new locations face the task of re-
structuring a previously entrenched market (Lademann
2013, p. 23).
The studies presented demonstrate clearly that marketing
research focuses primarily on analyzing the effects of in-
dividual marketing-mix elements. The variables applied
in the studies are suitable for measuring the direct effects
of the marketing-mix elements on a store, category, prod-
uct, or household level. However, observable phenomena
in business reality are far more complex. Therefore, fu-
ture research should focus more deeply on this issue.
Furthermore, the majority of studies fail to integrate the
versatile and complex reaction patterns of competitors.
An assessment of the effect with regard to an overall
market does not take place, which illustrates the limita-
tions of existing conclusions about the competitive situa-
tion.
This paper considers the impact of selected marketing-
mix elements on competition in food retailing. However,
the question of the relative importance of marketing, in
comparison to other factors, has not been explicitly ad-
dressed. These factors include external influences as well
as corporate decisions outside of marketing, particularly
with regard to decisions concerning procurement, logis-
tics and human resource management. These decisions
have a strong cumulative impact on company’s competi-
tive situation. Therefore, the question arises whether
these factors influence the competition in food retailing
to a greater extent than marketing.
The driving force behind structural change in the market
is the quest for competitive advantages, which should be
considered on both the sales and procurement sides.
Concentration on the procurement side presents itself as
a battle for terms and conditions or, vertically, as a shift
in bargaining power. In terms of sales, advantages on the
procurement side are used to increase market shares by
lowering prices. As purchasing conditions have an inher-
ent impact on prices charged to consumers and on retail-
ers’ margins, structural changes at the procurement level
influence the strategic options of retailers (Lademann
2012, p. 30–37).
In recent years, market-share shifts in favor of price-ori-
ented retail formats have become evident. However, the
drivers of this phenomenon have not yet been fully iden-
tified. It can be assumed that the market-share shift is not
exclusively attributed to specific marketing-mix compo-
nents. Rather, the consequent orientation towards the
needs of growing consumer segments can be seen as the
reason for market-share shifts. Consumers with a limited
budget are more likely to be attracted to price-oriented
retail formats, which allow the typical shopping basket to
be cheaper in comparison to competitors. Nonetheless,
this advantage is not rooted exclusively in price benefits.
A simple and efficient product-choice process affects the
benefit of retail formats to a similar extent.
The previously described studies indicate that the type
and strength of the competitive relationships could de-
pend greatly on the customers’ motives. This means, for
instance, that other retailers compete for customers who
prefer one-stop shopping due to their convenience orien-
tation or larger needs, rather than for customers who
shop in a price- or cost-oriented manner. For retailers,
this might mean that they have to consider expanding
their distribution channels and store formats in order to
attract new customer groups and respond flexibly to local
market conditions. This concept can be seen empirically
at Walmart in the U.S. or at REWE and EDEKA in Ger-
many. For instance, Walmart operates an expanded retail
format portfolio that includes Walmart Supercenter, Dis-
count Store, Neighborhood Market, and Express as well
as Sam’s Club. In Germany, REWE and EDEKA have
begun to open up “To Go” or “Express” stores. This ex-
pansion raises the question of the extent to which retail-
ers that focus their activities on only one format will ex-
perience disadvantages in the long run in terms of gain-
ing new customers. This is clearly an important topic for
future research.
Moreover, the literature examined here originates almost
exclusively from the Anglo-Saxon sphere, which raises
the additional question of whether and how far the find-
ings are applicable to market conditions in Germany. In
this regard, doubts are justified, as the retail and settle-
ment structures in the U.S. are not comparable with those
in Germany. Unlike the British outlet network, German
food retailing exhibits far greater size differences among
the market players. Furthermore, it is evident that the re-
sults of most studies were obtained within the scope of
static models. However, the dynamics with which frame-
work conditions and the configuration of the marketing-
mix in retail change make it important to research the ef-
fects over time (Kopalle et al. 1999).
References
Ailawadi, K. L./Beauchamp, J. P./Donthu, N./Gauri, D. K./Shan-
kar, V. (2009): Communication and Promotion Decisions in Re-
tailing: A Review and Directions for Future Research, in: Jour-
nal of Retailing, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 42–55.
Ailawadi, K. L./Harlam, B. (2004): An Empirical Analysis of the
Determinants of Retail Margins:TheRoleofStore-Brand
Share, in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 147–165.
Ailawadi,K.L./Harlam,B.A./C´esar, J./Trounce, D. (2006): Pro-
motion Profitability for a Retailer: The Role of Promotion,
Brand, Category, and Store Characteristics, in: Journal of Mar-
keting Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 518–535.
Ailawadi, K. L./Pauwels, K./Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2008): Pri-
vate-Label Use and Store Loyalty, in: Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 72, No. 6, pp. 19–30.
Arnold,S.J./Ma,S./Tigert,D.J.(1978): A Comparative Analysis
of Determinant Attributes in Retail Store Selection, in: Ad-
vances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 663–667.
Toporowski/Lademann, Importance of Assortment, Pricing, Retail Site Location for Competition in Food Retailing
138 MARKETING·ZFP·Heft2·2.Quartal2014
Arnold, S. J./Oum, T. H./Tigert, D. J. (1983): Determinant Attribu-
tes in Retail Patronage: Seasonal, Temporal, Regional, and In-
ternational Comparisons, in: Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 149–157.
Arnold,S.J./Roth,V./Tigert,D.J.(1981): Conditional Logit ver-
sus MDA in the Prediction of Store Choice, in: Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 665–670.
Bell, D. R./Ho, T.-H./Tang, C. S. (1998): Determining Where to
Shop: Fixed and Variable Costs of Shopping, in: Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 352–369.
Bell, D. R./Lattin, J. M. (1998): Shopping Behavior and Consumer
Preference for Store Price Format: Why “Large Basket” Shop-
pers Prefer EDLP, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 17, No. 1,
pp. 66–88.
Bhatnagar, A./Ratchford, B. T. (2004): A Model of Retail Format
Competition for Non-Durable Goods, in: International Journal
of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 39–59.
BHV (2012): Aktuelle Zahlen zum Interaktiven Handel, retrieved
March 20, 2013 from http://www.bvh.info/zahlen-und-fakten/
allgemeines/.
Blattberg, R. C./Briesch, R./Fox, E. J. (1995): How Promotions
Work, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 14. No. 3, Part 2 of 2,
pp. 122–132.
Boatwright, P./Nunes, J. C. (2001): Reducing Assortment: An At-
tribute-Based Approach, in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65,
No. 3, pp. 50–63.
Bolton, R. N. (1989): The Relationship Between Market Charac-
teristics and Promotional Price Elasticities, in: Marketing Sci-
ence, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 153–169.
Bolton, R. N./Shankar, V. (2003): An Empirically Derived Taxono-
my of Retailer Pricing and Promotion Strategies, in: Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 79, No. 4, pp. 213–224.
Bonfrer, A./Chintagunta, P. K. (2004): Store Brands: Who Buys
Them and What Happens to Retail Prices When They Are In-
troduced?, in: Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 24,
No. 2, pp. 195–218.
Borle, S./Boatwright, P./Kadane, J. B./Nunes, J. C./Shmueli, G.
(2005): The Effect of Product Assortment Changes on Custom-
er Retention, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 616–
622.
Briesch, R. A./Chintagunta, P. K./Fox, E. J. (2009): How Does As-
sortment Affect Grocery Store Choice?, in: Journal of Market-
ing Research, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 176–189.
Broniarczyk, S. M./Hoyer, W. D./McAlister, L. (1998): Consumers’
Perceptions of the Assortment Offered in a Grocery Category:
The Impact of Item Reduction, in: Journal of Marketing Re-
search, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 166–176.
Bronnenberg, B. J./Wathieu, L. (1996): Asymmetric Promotion
Effects and Brand Positioning, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 15,
No. 4, pp. 379–394.
Brown, D. J. (1978): An Examination of Consumer Grocery Store
Choice: Considering the Attraction and the Friction of Travel
Time, in: Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, No. 1,
pp. 243–246.
Bucklin,R.E./Lattin,J.M.(1992): A Model of Product Category
Competition Among Grocery Retailers, in: Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 68, No. 3, pp. 271–293.
Carver, J. R./Padgett, D. T. (2012): Product Category Pricing and
Future Price Attractiveness: 99-Ending Pricing in a Memory-
Based Context, in: Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88, No. 4, pp. 497–
511.
Chatterjee, S./Heath, T. B./Basuroy, S. (2000): Cross-Coupons and
Their Effect on Asymmetric Price Competition Between Na-
tional and Store Brands, in: Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 27, pp. 24–29.
Chernev, A. (2003): When More Is Less and Less Is More: The
Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Consumer
Choice, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, No. 2,
pp. 170–183.
Corstjens, M./Lal, R. (2000): Building Store Loyalty through
Store Brands, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, No. 3,
pp. 281–291.
Cotterill, R. W./Putsis Jr., W. P. (2000): Market Share and Price
Setting Behavior for Private Labels and National Brands, in:
Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 17–39.
Cox, A. D./Cox, D. (1990): Competing on Price: The Role of Re-
tail Price Advertisements in Shaping Store-Price Image, in:
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 428–445.
Dawes, J. G. (2012): Brand-Pack Size Cannibalization Arising
from Temporary Price Promotions, in: Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 88, No. 3, pp. 343–355.
Dawes, J./Nenycz-Thiel, M. (2013): Analyzing the Intensity of
Private Label Competition Across Retailers, in: Journal of Busi-
ness Research, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 60–66.
Dellaert, B. G. C./Arentze, T. A./Bierlaire, M./Borgers, A. W. J./
Timmermans, H. J. P. (1998): Investigating Consumers’ Ten-
dency to Combine Multiple Shopping Purposes and Destina-
tions, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35, No. 2,
pp. 177–188.
DelVecchio, D./Lakshmanan, A./Krishnan, H. S. (2009): The Ef-
fects of Discount Location and Frame on Consumers’ Price Es-
timates, in: Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85, No. 3, pp. 336–346.
EHI (2009): Handel aktuell, Ausgabe 2009/2010, Köln, EHI Re-
tail Institute GmbH.
EHI (2013): Handelsdaten aktuell 2013, Köln, EHI Retail Institute
GmbH.
Fox, E. J./Montgomery, A. L./Lodish, L. M. (2004): Consumer
Shopping and Spending across Retail Formats, in: Journal of
Business, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 25–60.
Fox, E. J./Sethuraman, R. (2010): Retail Competition, in: Krafft,
M./Mantrala, M. K. (Eds.): Retailing in the 21st Century, 2nd
Edition, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer, pp. 239–254.
Geyskens, I./Gielens, K./Gijsbrechts, E. (2010): Proliferating Pri-
vate-Label Portfolios: How Introducing Economy and Premium
Private Labels Influences Brand Choice, in: Journal of Market-
ing Research, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 791–807.
Gijsbrechts, E./Campo, K./Nisol, P. (2008): Beyond Promotion-
based Store Switching: Antecedents and Patterns of Systematic
Multiple-store Shopping, in: International Journal of Research
in Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 5–21.
Gonz´alez-Benito, O./Mu˜noz-Gallego, P. A./Kopalle, P. K. (2005):
Asymmetric Competition in Retail Store Formats: Evaluating
Inter- and Intra-Format Spatial Effects, in: Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 81, No. 1, pp. 59–73.
Grewal, D./Levy, M./Kumar, V. (2009): Customer Experience
Management in Retailing: An Organizing Framework, in: Jour-
nal of Retailing, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 1–14.
Grewal, D./Levy, M./Lehmann, D. R. (2004): Retail Branding and
Customer Loyalty: An Overview, in: Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 80, No. 4, pp. ix-xii.
Hamilton, R, Chernev, A. (2010): The Impact of Product Line Ex-
tensions and Consumer Goals on the Formation of Price Image,
in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47, No.1, pp. 51–62.
Hoch,S.J./Dr`eze, X./Purk, M. E. (1994): EDLP, Hi-Lo, and Mar-
gin Arithmetic, in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 16–
27.
Hubbard, R. (1978): A Review of Selected Factors Conditioning
Consumer Travel Behavior, in: Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1–21.
Huff, D. L. (1964): Defining and Estimating a Trading Area, in:
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 34–38.
Inman, J. J./Shankar, V./Ferraro, R. (2004): The Roles of Chan-
nel-Category Associations and Geodemographics in Channel
Patronage, in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 51–71.
ISB (1980): SB in Zahlen, Köln, Gesellschaft für Selbstbedienung.
Kim, H. M. (2006): Consumers’ Responses to Price Presentation
Formats in Rebate Advertisements, in: Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 309–317.
Kopalle, P./Biswas, D./Chintagunta, P. K./Fan, J./Pauwels, K./
Ratchford, B. T./Sills, J. A. (2009): Retailer Pricing and Com-
Toporowski/Lademann, Importance of Assortment, Pricing, Retail Site Location for Competition in Food Retailing
MARKETING · ZFP · Heft 2 · 2. Quartal 2014 139
petitive Effects, in: Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 56–
70.
Kopalle,P.K./Kannan,P.K./Boldt,L.B./Arora,N.(2012): The
Impact of Household Level Heterogeneity in Reference Price
Effects on Optimal Retailer Pricing Policies, in: Journal of Re-
tailing, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 102–114.
Kopalle,P.K./Mela,C.F./Marsh,L.(1999): The Dynamic Effect
of Discounting on Sales: Empirical Analysis and Normative
Pricing Implications, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 18, No. 3,
pp. 317–332.
Kumar, N./Rao, R. (2006): Using Basket Composition Data for In-
telligent Supermarket Pricing, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 25,
No. 2, pp. 188–199.
Kumar,V./Leone,R.P.(1988): Measuring the Effect of Retail
Store Promotions on Brand and Store Substitution, in: Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 178–185.
Lademann, R. (2007): Zum Einfluss von Verkaufsfläche und
Standort auf die Einkaufswahr-scheinlichkeit, in: Schuckel, M./
Toporowski, W. (Hrsg.): Theoretische Fundierung und prakti-
sche Relevanz der Handelsforschung, Wiesbaden, DUV – Deut-
scher Universitäts-Verlag, S. 143–162.
Lademann, R. (2012): Marktstrategien und Wettbewerb im Le-
bensmittelhandel – Wettbewerbsökonomische Analysen von
Marktstrukturen, Marktverhalten und Marktergebnissen, Göt-
tingen, GHS – Göttinger Handelswissenschaftliche Schriften.
Lademann, R. (2013): Wettbewerbsökonomische Grundlagen des
Betriebsformenwettbewerbs im Lebensmitteleinzelhandel, in:
Riekhof, H.-C. (Hrsg.): Retail Business – Perspektiven, Strate-
gien, Erfolgsmuster, 3. erweiterte Auflage, Wiesbaden, Spring-
er Gabler, S. 3–30.
Lal, R./Rao, R. (1997): Supermarket Competition: The Case of
Every Day Low Pricing, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1,
pp. 60–80.
Mac´e, S. (2012): The Impact and Determinants of Nine-Ending
Pricing in Grocery Retailing, in: Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88,
No. 1, pp. 115–130.
Manning, K. C./Sprott, D. E. (2007): Multiple Unit Price Promo-
tions and Their Effects on Quantity Purchase Intentions, in:
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83, No. 4, pp. 411–421.
Mantrala,M.K./Levy,M./Kahn,B.E./Fox,E.J./Gaidarev,P./
Dankworth, B./Shah, D. (2009): Why is Assortment Planning
so Difficult for Retailers? A Framework and Research Agenda,
in: Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 71–83.
Messinger, P. R./Narasimhan, C. (1997): A Model of Retail For-
mats Based on Consumers’ Economizing on Shopping Time,
in: Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1–23.
Meza, S./Sudhir, K. (2010): Do Private Labels Increase Retailer
Bargaining Power?, in: Quantitative Marketing and Economics,
Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 333–363.
Morales, A./Kahn, B. E./McAlister, L./Broniarczyk, S. M. (2005):
Perceptions of Assortment Variety: The Effects of Congruency
Between Consumers’ Internal and Retailers’ External Organiza-
tion, in: Journal of Retailing, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 159–169.
Morschett, D. (2012): Retail Branding – Strategischer Rahmen für
das Handelsmarketing, in: Zentes, J./Swoboda, B./Morschett,
D./Schramm-Klein, H. (Hrsg.): Handbuch Handel: Strategien –
Perspektiven – Internationaler Wettbewerb, 2. Auflage, Wiesba-
den, Springer Gabler, S. 441–461.
Narasimhan,C./Neslin,S.A./Senn,S.K.(1996): Promotional
Elasticities and Category Characteristics, in: Journal of Market-
ing, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 17–30.
Nijs, V. R./Dekimpe, M. G./Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M/Hanssens, D. M.
(2001): The Category-Demand Effect of Price Promotions, in:
Marketing Science, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 1–22.
Park, S./Gupta, S. (2011): A Regime-Switching Model of Cyclical
Category Buying, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 3,
pp. 469–480.
Pauwels, K./Srinivasan, S. (2004): Who Benefits from Store
Brand Entry?, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 364–
390.
Popkowski Leszczyc, P. T. L./Sinha, A./Sahgal, A. (2004): The Ef-
fect of Multi-purpose Shopping on Pricing and Location Strate-
gy for Grocery Stores, in: Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80, No. 2,
pp. 85–99.
Reilly, W. J. (1931): The Law of Retail Gravitation, New York.
Richards, T. J./G ´omez,M.I./Pofahl,G.(2012): A Multiple-Dis-
crete/Continuous Model of Price Promotion, in: Journal of Re-
tailing, Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 206–225.
Rudolph, T./Kleinschrodt, A. (2006): Geschäftsmodelle im Dis-
countzeitalter, in: Burmann, C./Freiling, J./Hülsmann, M. (Hrsg.):
Neue Perspektiven des Strategischen Kompetenz-Managements,
Wiesbaden, Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, S. 505–527.
Schindler, R. M. (2006): The 99 Price Ending as a Signal of a
Low-Price Appeal, in: Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82, No. 1,
pp. 71–77.
Sethuraman, R. (1995): A Meta-Analysis of National Brand and
Store Brand Cross-Promotional Price Elasticities, in: Marketing
Letters, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 275–286.
Singh, V. P./Hansen, K. T./Blattberg, R. C. (2006): Market Entry
and Consumer Behavior: An Investigation of a Wal-Mart Su-
percenter, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 457–476.
Sirohi, N./McLaughlin, E. W./Wittink, D. R. (1998): A Model of
Consumer Perceptions and Store Loyalty Intentions for a Super-
market Retailer, in: Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74, No. 2,
pp. 223–245.
Sloot, L. M./Fok, D./Verhoef, P. C. (2006): The Short- and Long-
Term Impact of an Assortment Reduction on Category Sales, in:
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 536–548.
Swoboda, B./Berg, B./Schramm-Klein, H./Foscht, T. (2013): The
Importance of Retail Brand Equity and Store Accessibility for
Store Loyalty in Local Competition, in: Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 251–262.
Walters, R. G./MacKenzie, S. B. (1988): A Structural Equations
Analysis of the Impact of Price Promotions on Store Perfor-
mance, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, No. 1,
pp. 51–63.
Zentes, J./Rittinger, S. (2009): Retailing in Germany: Current
Landscape and Future Trends, in: European Retail Research,
Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 153–182.
Keywords
food retailing, assortment, pricing, site loca-
tion, competition
Toporowski/Lademann, Importance of Assortment, Pricing, Retail Site Location for Competition in Food Retailing
140 MARKETING·ZFP·Heft2·2.Quartal2014