Ma Ailawadi Gauri Grewal - An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Gasoline Prices on Grocery Shopping Behavior_R1.docx

8/9/2019 Ma Ailawadi Gauri Grewal - An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Gasoline Prices on Grocery Shopping Behavi

1/38


2/38

fator dan sentimen onsumen berdampa pen"ualan barang tahan lama arenapembelian produ tersebut adalah disresi dan bisa ditunda etia emauanuntu membeli rendah sedangan produ tida tahan lama( seperti bahanmaanan( tida begitu terpengaruh arena merea tida dapat ditunda01eleersnyder et al+ $%%:3 5amey et al+ $%%;7+

4ous dari penelitian saat ini adalah pada maroeonomi fator yang secaraualitatif berbeda dengan bisnis silus dan sentimen onsumen dan telahmenon"ol dalam tahun-yaitu terahir( harga bensin+ Se"a tahun $%%&( harga satugalon bensin biasa telah bervariasi secara luas( dari terendah lebih dari ? $+%% etertinggi lebih dari ? :(%%+ Bensin permintaan cuup inelastis 0Brons et al $%%'3+Greening et al+ 92267( sehingga pengeluaran gas nai sesuai dengan harga+#umah tangga AS mendapatan penghasilan rata-rata menghabisan 99(6@ daripendapatan gas pada bulan 8uli $%%'( nai dari :(&@ pada tahun $%%* 0,he allStreet 8ournal $%%'7+ etia harga gas meningat ta"am

consumers have less disposableincome( feel signi


3/38

overall grocery eFpenditures+,he ob"ective of our research is to provide a comprehensiveanalysis of the impact of gas prices on consumersgrocery shopping behavior+ onsumers can alter how muchthey purchase( how often they purchase( and how much they

spend on their purchases( which in turn is a function ofwhat they buy and where they buy it+ e not only uantifythe impact on households shopping freuency( total purchasevolume( and spending but also eFamine the avenuesthey use to save money on grocery shopping( such as shiftingfrom one retail format to another( from national brandsto private labels( from regular-priced products to promotionalpurchases( and from higher-priced national brands tolower-priced ones+ Such an analysis is important not onlyfor researchers and policy maers but also for manufacturersand retailers( which must determine the best way torespond to and perhaps preempt changes in shopping

behavior in an era of Jpea oilK and sustained volatility inenergy prices+ As we discuss in the neFt section( theanswers are not obvious+e conduct our analysis using a household panel dataset from Information #esources Inc+ ,he data set capturesEmpirical Investigation on Grocery Shopping Behavior / 19grocery shopping information across multiple retail formatsof approFimately 9%%% panelists from a ma"or D+S+ metropolitanarea+ ,he data are from 8anuary $%%& to >ctober$%%' and span panelists purchases of almost *%% productcategories+ e supplement these data with gas prices in thesame metropolitan area obtained from the 1epartment ofEnergy Information Administration eb site+ Some uniuefeatures of these data mae them especially useful for ourresearch+ 4irst( we cover not "ust a few product categoriesbut rather the vast ma"ority of consumer pacaged goodsproducts purchased by consumers+ Second( we cover boththe traditional grocery store and drugstore channels and theregular and supercenter stores of mass merchants 0includingal-Mart7 and warehouse clubs+ ,hird( substantial variationin gas prices occurred during the period of our data+ 4ourth(we control for general economic conditions to isolate andcontrast the impact of gas prices+

e organiLe the remainder of this article as follows. Inthe neFt section( we present the conceptual framewor forour model and analysis( drawing on relevant literaturewhenever possible+ ,hen( we discuss our data and methodology+4ollowing this( we present our empirical results anddiscuss the implications of our


4/38

reuires consumers to reduce their total spending+,hey can do this by lowering their purchase volume 0consumption7andor by reducing the cost of their purchases+ost can be reduced by shifting to less eFpensive retail formats(private label products or national brands on promotion(

andor lower-price-tier national brands 0GriNth et al+$%%27+ In addition( consumers can ad"ust the number ofshopping trips they mae+!owever( consumers shopping utility is not "ust a functionof the uantity of products purchased and their monetarycost+ Although the monetary cost may be most salientin the face of gas priceOinduced budget constraints( consumersalso eFperience other costs and bene


5/38

Promotional =B 0O7#egular =B( P5 0Q7Mass( supercenter 0O71rugstore( grocery( club0Q7

#egular =B( P5 0O7Promotional =B 0Q7Monetary CostPriceTravel CostDistanceFrequencyQuality CostDowngradeSearch CostAssortmentDeals

Decision CostBrand choiceolding CostStoc!"ilingPsychosocial Cost#ariety$ntertainmentPurchase olume0O7Budget onstraint0Q7Gasoline Price

,otal EFpenditure0O7

,rips0O7

,rips0O7

,rips0O7

,rips0Q7

,rips

0Q7$IG%&E 1Gui'ing $rame(or")venues or &e'ucing Cost o *urchasesShopping Costs +um,er o -rips $ormat Share Bran'/*romo Share +B-ier Share=otes. =B R national brand( and P5 R private label+Independent variable onstructs providing conceptual basis for our eFpectations1ependent variablescosts must be traded oC against possible increases in othercosts+ ,ravel costs refer to the distance and how freuentlythe consumer must travel for shopping( uality costs are driven

by whether the consumer downgrades to a less preferredbrand( search costs are driven by how easy it is to


6/38


7/38

household+Avenues or Reducing Shopping Expenditure$%ect o& gas "rices on retail &ormat choice+ Averageprice levels are lower in mass stores( supercenters( andwarehouse clubs than in drugstores and grocery stores( and

there is considerable( though not complete( overlap in theproduct categories carried by diCerent formats( maing itfeasible for consumers to shift their spending from one formatto another 05uchs( Inman( and Shanar $%%;7+ ,herefore(monetary costs should drive consumers to shift fromdrugstores and grocery stores to the former formats+ !owever(consumers must trade oC this bene


8/38

because they are conveniently located( often together with a gasstation+ !owever( we do not include this format in our analysis(because it accounts for less than 9@ of total spending in our data+to private labels an easy way for households to save moneyon their grocery shopping+ alue-conscious consumers can

also save money by searching for promotions( and both privatelabels and promotions reduce decision costs by maingit easy for consumers to decide what to buy 0Ailawadi( =eslin(and Geden $%%93 handon( ansin( and 5aurent$%%%7+!owever( the temporal and spatial search for promotionsand the pressure to stoc up on deals increase travel(search( and inventory holding costs+ 0Private labels do notincrease these costs because of their everyday low prices+7!owever( despite the emergence of JpremiumK privatelabels( in general D+S+ consumers perceive a uality cost indowngrading to private labels( whereas they may be able to

buy preferred brands on promotion+ In addition( promotionsoCer psychosocial beneverall( therefore( we eFpect a negative eCect of gas priceson regular-priced national brand share and a positive eCecton private label and promotional purchases of nationalbrands+ An empirical uestion( however( is whether thepositive impact is greater for promotions or private labels+$%ect o& gas "rices on national 'rand "rice tier share+1espite private labels price advantage( national brands stillhave a unit maret share of more than ;6@ across consumerpacaged goods categories 0Private 5abel ManufacturersAssociation $%%27( in support of Sethuramans 0$%%%7


9/38

it is reasonable to eFpect heterogeneity in how consumersmae trade-oCs among the various costs in 4igure 9+

,wo overarching consumer characteristics that determinethese costs and conseuent shopping behaviors are


10/38

vastly diCerent units across categories 0e+g+( pounds( gallons(suare feet7 cannot be aggregated in a meaningfulway+ e use an average category price per unit volume toaggregate purchase volume( so the resultant variable is indollar units+ !owever( variations in this variable occur only

because of volume changes( not price changes( so we can:,hese demographics are also related to other characteristics+4or eFample( households with children have greater needs( andthose who do not wor outside the home are more liely to beolder and retired+assess the impact of gas prices on purchase volume by modelingvariation in this variable+ ,able 9 also summariLesmareting-miF diCerences across formats and how householdsallocate their purchases across formats( brands( andpromotions+!etho'In line with 4igure 9( we specify and estimate models for

four sets of shopping decisions+ ,he


11/38

=evo $%%97+!otal !rips" Purchase Volume" and DollarSpendinge provide the model speci


12/38

Inch h th

2$9%$99$U lnT lnGPrice

9$$9*$9:$96At!omeids G1P 1isthh t h

U ln$9&$9;$ln lnln=Priceht ht

hAssrtSiLePctP5

t $ht ( and0 7 ln ln0 7 ln 9 99$9% *

=umtrps =umtrps 9 Inc ht h h


13/38

:9

69&9;9'9At!ome ids IncAt!h h T ln home ids

Inch h th

299%9999U lnT lnGPrice

9$99*9

9:9969At!omeids G1P 1isthh t h

U lnln lnln

=Priceht htht


14/38

AssrtSiLePctP5

9&99;9 ht9 (0*7 ln 9 ln0 7 ln*$ *% ** Purvolht Purvolh Inch

: *6 *& *;*'*At!ome ids IncAt!omh h T ln he idsInch h th

2 *9%

*99*9U lnT lnGPrice$*9**9:

*96


15/38

*At!omeids G1P 1isthh t h

U lnln lnln=Priceht hthtAssrtSiLePctP5

9&*9;* ht* (2 / Journal o !ar"eting# !arch 2011where=umtrpsht R number of shopping trips made byhousehold h in month t(1olspndht R total grocery spending in dollars byhousehold h in month t(Purvolht R total purchase volume by household h inmonth t measured in constant dollars(=umtrpsh% R average number of trips per month byhousehold h in initialiLation period(Purvolh% R average purchase volume per month byhousehold h in initialiLation period(1olspndh% R average dollar spending per month byhousehold h in initialiLation period(Inch R annual income of household h(At!omeh R 9 if at least one household head is at

home 0not woring7 and % if otherwise(idsh R 9 if household h has children less than 9'years of age at home and % if otherwise(GPricet R average price per gallon of regular gas inmonth t(G1Pt R annualiLed real G1P growth rate in theuarter of month t(1isth R distance traveled by household h forshopping(=Priceht R net price facing household h in month t(AssrtSiLeht R assortment siLe facing household h inmonth t( and

PctP5 R percentage of assortment siLe facinghousehold h in month t that is private


16/38

label+-)BlE 1Descriptive Statistics!eanGrocery !assaria,le verall Drugstore Store Store Supercenter Clu,Price indeF 9+%% 9+%9 9+96 +22 +2& +'2Assortment indeF 9+%% +6: $+;$ +2; +&% +9;Private label @ of assortment 92+26 $%+6' $9+;; 9:+'6 9&+%& 9$+':

,op-tier @ of national brand assortment $%+9% $%+9$ $%+$' 9'+&2 9;+*' 9'+**Midtier @ of national brand assortment *&+*' *&+;& *&+*& *&+62 *&+99 *&+69Bottom-tier @ of national brand assortment :*+6$ :*+9$ :*+*& ::+;$ :&+69 :6+9egular-priced national brand share 0@7 6;+;% :'+*: 69+;' ;*+9& ;*+:: ;2+&&Promoted national brand share 0@7 9'+;& $$+2' $*+'& ;+6& &+;2 9+''Private label share 0@7 $*+6: $'+&2 $:+*& 92+$'Share Allocation #odels

,he share models are of the following form.

where subscript " refers to the "th alternative within each set0one of


17/38

mareting-miF variables in all the models( using the instrumentalvariables noted previously+ ,he


18/38

U ln0#el1ist 796 9&9

""ht

"ln0#el=Price 7 ln0#elAssrtSiLe "ht 7

;""ht htln0#elPctP5 7 " (Empirical Investigation on Grocery Shopping Behavior / 2we can interpret the coeNcients of the gas price and G1Pgrowth variables as their respective eCects on the dependentvariable for households with no head at home( no children(

and average income+ ,hird( we checed for multicollinearityand did not


19/38

be directly interpreted as eCects on visit probability( weuse them to compute the change in predicted visit probabilitywhen gas price increases by 9%%@ from ?$+%% to ?:+%%per gallon3 all other model variables are held at their means+e


20/38

means+ ,he product of the two provides the predictedunconditional share at a gas price of ?$+%%+ By doing thesame thing at a gas price of ?:+%%( we can compute thechange in predicted unconditional share of each formatwhen gas price increases by 9%%@ from ?$+%% to ?:+%%+ As

a percentage of the average share of the format 0,able 97(these changes are O*+&@( Q9%@( Q6@( and Q$:+2@ for grocerystore( drugstore( mass store( and supercenter formats(respectively+;Brand and "romotion shares+ ,he


21/38

groups+ hen there is a diCerence( it is generally due to thepresence of children and household income+ ,he eCect ofchildren is largely consistent with the notion that suchhouseholds have higher reuirements but are more constrainedby time+ ,herefore( the negative eCect of gas price

on shopping trips is more pronounced for these households+,hese households also switch more than others to supercentersbecause they are attracted by one-stop shopping+

,he eCect of income is largely consistent with fewer


22/38

2: / Journal o !ar"eting# !arch 2011-)BlE $ormat Share !o'elGrocery Store Drugstore !ass Store Supercenter Clu,aria,le log Share *ro,it log Share *ro,it log Share *ro,it log Share*ro,it log ShareIntercept O+92$XXX 9+:*$XXX O+2'6XXX 9+**:XXX O9+%62XXX +29'XXX O+2;*XXX9+9;%XXX O+9'6XX0O*$+';7 096+;67 0O99+%:7 0:*+967 0O*6+**7 0$%+6*7 0O9*+627 09:+$*7 0O$+:*75og gas price 0GPrice7 O+%9% O+9;*XX +*'$XXX O+$%2XXX +$9'XXX +9;'XX +9;' O+%%% +%%*0O+*&7 0O$+*:7 06+927 0O$+';7 0$+;97 0$+%:7 09+9;7 0%7 0+%:7G1P growth +%%6XXX O+%%6 O+%9%XX +%%: O+%%'XX O+%9:XXX O+%$&XXX +%%' O+%96XXX0*+*'7 0O9+9'7 0O$+$27 09+%:7 0O9+2&7 0O$+';7 0O*+%27 09+6%7 0O$+;*75og relative distance O+%%& O+%$9XX +%&%XXX O+%''XXX +%69XXX O+92:XXX O+9%;XXXO+%;;XXX +%$*0O+2%7 0O$+:$7 0&+$67 0O2+%&7 0:+&$7 0O$%+&:7 0O&+:'7 0O&+6;7 09+&*7

5og relative net price O9+%$*XXX O+*9* O+66:XX O+*6$X 9+$9:XXX +69$XX 9+&$'XXXO+9** +$%&0O:+;;7 0O9+697 0O$+6*7 0O9+2$7 06+'%7 0$+:;7 06+9;7 0O9+9;7 09+6%75og relative assortment +9$2XXX O+%$' +:9:XXX +%:' O+9;9XX +%%: +%9; +%66 +:26XXX0*+*&7 0O+:97 06+'67 0+;67 0O$+*%7 0+%;7 0+9*7 0+'$7 0;+9'75og relative @ private label O$+9&2XXX O+:$9 O9+2*9XXX +*9' 9+%$2XXX +%*$ +:$' +*6* O+6%;X0O9*+%$7 0O9+:27 0O&+'97 09+$*7 0*+697 0+9:7 0+2%7 09+::7 0O9+';75og income O+%%* O+9:%XXX O+%&2XXX O+%$:X O+%*'XXX +%*'XXX O+%6%XX +$6:XXX +9;&XXX0O+667 0O99+$*7 0O6+*27 0O9+267 0O$+'&7 0$+&:7 0O$+%%7 09&+&27 02+297At home O+%*;XXX +%9' +%:;XXX +%%& O+%';XXX O+%9: O+%:; +%;*XXX +%%%0O6+2'7 09+9:7 0$+&*7 0+*&7 0O6+%&7 0O+;'7 0O9+:27 0:+%%7 0+%$7ids +%**XXX O+%2&XXX O+9;*XXX +%6$XXX +%%2 +%&6XXX +%6'X O+%22XXX +%%20:+;67 0O6+:;7 0O'+$*7 0$+2'7 0+:27 0*+$:7 09+;*7 0O6+%%7 0+:675og GPrice W log income O+%%% O+962XX +%9: O+%%9 +$6$XX0O+%97 0O$+*:7 0+927 0O+%97 09+'675og GPrice W at home O+%:: +%6; O+%$9 +%:9 +9**0O9+$;7 0+&:7 0O+$$7 0+*27 0+;;75og GPrice W ids O+%';XX +%$$ +9%% +$&%XX +6%9XXX0O$+**7 0+$*7 0+2&7 0$+*27 0$+;675og heterogeneity variable +9&:XXX +:92XXX +$'&XXX +*:2XXX +$&9XXX +*$&XXX +

92'XXX +:%*XXX +9:9XXX09*+&$7 06&+;97 0*$+9;7 062+&'7 0*&+&27 0:6+''7 09'+$27 0&:+6%7 092+&97= *9($'& *$(9;' 9&($;: *$(9;' 9;(;$6 *$(9;' &$'; *$(9;' '&6;Ad"usted #$ +$%2 +*%& +9;: +$&: +9:& +$:2 +9:' +:%: +96'X" Y +9%+XX" Y +%6+XXX" Y +%9+=otes. All shares are shares of total purchase volume+ oeNcient estimates arereported with t-statistics in parentheses+advantage of promotions on these top brands to reduce theircost+'Efects o Other Variales on Shopping $ehavior

+DP growth rate+ ,he overall shopping results in ,able* show that the G1P growth coeNcient is not signi


23/38

for shopping freuency and is negative for eFpenditure andpurchase volume+ ,he negative sign is surprising but mayreHect a small substitution eCect as consumers travel andeat out more when economic conditions are good and thereforebuy less for home consumption+ #ecall that this

variable is not in log form( so the coeNcient is the percentagechange in the dependent variable for a unit increase inG1P growth+ 4or a one percentage point increase in G1Pgrowth( the decreases in eFpenditure and purchase volumeare small 0+2@ and +6@( respectively7+ In elasticity terms( a9%%@ increase in G1P growth from its average of 9+$2@0see ,able 97 is associated with 9+9@ and +&6@ decreases ineFpenditure and volume( respectively+Empirical Investigation on Grocery Shopping Behavior / 29In line with our eFpectations( the impact of this variableis substantially smaller than the impact of gas price acrossall the other models+ Indeed( there are only a few signi


24/38

0O&+$97 06+''7 0O+''7 0O'+'%7 0*+:'7 0+6:7G1P growth +%%*XX O+%%9 O+%%9 +%%% O+%%9 +%%&X0$+;;7 0O+*;7 0O+&:7 0+%$7 0+6$7 0$+&:75og distance O+%%6X +%&$XX O+%$$XX +%9*XX O+%%2XX O+%$'XX0O$+%97 09%+9&7 0O6+%27 0&+*27 0O*+%:7 0O:+2;7

5og relative net price +:$*XX +*6& +92'XX +*&6XX O+69*XX +%:;0$+';7 0+2%7 0:+9:7 09;+&%7 0O9*+%*7 09+*:75og relative assortment siLe O+6;:XX O+6%;X +*;%XX +9'*XX O+9%: $+$;$XX0O&+&*7 0O$+$:7 0'+:*7 0$+;'7 0O9+9:7 0$$+6975og income +%:&XX O+%*$XX O+%'6XX O+%$'XX +%:&XX +9%9XX09:+9'7 0O*+'67 0O9:+*67 0O9%+$&7 099+:$7 09*+:&7At home O+%96XX O+%%2 +%66XX +%%: O+%%6 O+%%90O*+6$7 0O+':7 0;+927 09+$%7 0O+227 0O+9%7ids +%%% O+%;9XX +%:2XX +%$2XX O+%$*XX O+%&$XX0%7 0O6+267 06+'97 0;+*67 0O:+%27 0O6+;$75og GPrice W log income O+%*&X +92;XX +%:90O$+%97 0:+$'7 09+$*7

5og GPrice W at home O+%%2 O+%;% +9$'XX0O+*'7 0O9+967 0$+2*75og GPrice W ids +%$& O+%2& O+%;*09+%$7 0O9+:67 0O9+6&75og heterogeneity variable +:$:XX +:%9XX +:;;XX +:%$XX +$&6XX +$'9XX06*+;'7 0;$+'&7 06:+9%7 0:%+%97 0:9+*27 0*$+;27= *$(9*; $2(2*; *9(66* *$(%2$ *$(%9: *%(;:'Ad"usted #$ +$6$ +9;& +$;; +$%& +996 +9:'X" Y +%6+XX" Y +%9+=otes. All shares are shares of purchase volume+ oeNcient estimates arereported with t-statistics in parentheses+eCect of distance on private label share and a positive eCecton promotional national brand share+ onsumers alsoreduce mid- and top-tier brand shares and increase bottomtierbrand shares when they must travel farther to shop+ ,hismay be to oCset driving cost( but it could also be becausethe retail formats that are farthest away 0warehouse clubs7have a lower-than-average top-tier assortment and a higherthan-average bottom-tier assortment 0,able 97+

,he eCect of net price is not always negative+ =et pricehas the eFpected negative eCect on shopping trips( purchasevolume( and eFpenditure+ ith a couple of eFceptions( it

also has the eFpected negative eCect in the format sharemodels( though it is not always signi


25/38

with the variety of choices oCered by a bigger assortment+In addition( we


26/38

their fewer time constraints+ ,his


27/38

pacaged goods products are considered more habitual andnecessary( less conducive to purchase postponement( and(therefore( less vulnerable 01eleersnyder et al+ $%%:3 atona92;67+ Second( evidence shows that consumers travel lessand eat at home more as gas prices rise( so there is a positive

substitution eCect that should increase food purchases+Indeed( Gicheva( !astings( and illas-Boas 0$%9%7 report apositive eCect of gas price on eFpenditure in four food categories+1espite these phenomena( we document a substantialreduction especially in overall purchase volume whenwe include a comprehensive array of grocery products andcontrol for other variables+ Apart from the general decreasein purchase volume( which hurts both manufacturers andretailers( manufacturers of impulse products may be especiallyhurt by lower shopping freuency as impulse purchaseopportunities decrease+ In addition( consumers willstocpile( so manufacturers and retailers should oCer fre-

Empirical Investigation on Grocery Shopping Behavior / .1uent promotions to generate shopping trips and increasethe opportunities for consumers to select their oCering+In general( the impact of gas prices on where consumersshop is intuitive. ,hey consolidate their shopping+ 1rivenlargely by households with children( supercenters( the uintessentialone-stop shopping format( bene


28/38

share is larger than the $:+2@ increase in supercenter share( given the muchlarger average share of the grocery format+$ormat Shares*+&@ decrease in grocery format share( driven by householdswith children

9%@ increase in drugstore format share( despite lower visitprobability6@ increase in mass format share( despite lower visit probability$:+2@ increase in supercenter format share( driven especiallyby households with children=o signi


29/38

and may end up hurting their overall brand euity+ Itwould be worthwhile to monitor the performance of JbasicKversions of national brands that companies such as ProcterZ Gamble have begun introducing 0Bryon $%%27+In summary( the most direct way consumers can oCset

higher gas prices is by using less gas( but the economics literaturehas convincingly shown that gasoline demand isfairly inelastic+ >ur results show that travel cost plays a rolein consumer shopping shifts( but it is far from the sole determinant+>n the one hand( shopping freuency decreasessubstantially as gas prices increase+ 1istance is an importantcontrol variable in our models and shows the eFpectednegative sign+ 4urthermore( the one-stop shopping supercenterformat increases share as gas prices rise+ >n the otherhand( supercenters are generally farther away( and consumersbuy more on promotion as gas prices increase(despite the need to search at diCerent times and in diCerent

stores+ In addition( sensitivity to distance does not becomestronger with gas price increases( eFcept in the shoppingtrip model+ >verall( therefore( our results underscore theimportance of considering not "ust monetary cost but alsothe full spectrum of other economic costs and( to a lessereFtent( the psychosocial aspects of shopping in understandingconsumer shopping response to macroeconomic factorssuch as gas price+%imitationse note some limitations of our wor that we hoperesearchers can address+ 4irst( we estimate the impact of gasprice on each component of shopping behavior separately+!owever( it is liely that consumers shopping decisions areinterdependent or follow a hierarchical structure 0e+g+( they


30/38

we control for them through the heterogeneity variable+!owever( further research should eFamine whether theinHuence of these factors changes with the macroeconomicenvironment+&onclusion

,he signi


31/38

AssrtSi-eh,t+ Assortment siLe of format " for household hin month t is calculated aswhere AssrtSiLe"tc is the number of distinct stoceeping unitsof category c in the uarter of month t in retail format "+)elAssrtSi-eh,t+ Assortment siLe of format " for household

h relative to weighted average assortment siLe of allformats is calculated asPctP.h,t+ Percentage private label in assortment of format

" for household h in uarter of month t is calculated as1istance1istanceh"h" h"t

"ts %96

(=Price=Price

"tcc t ccsht c9 %%

(=Price=Priceh"th"t h"t

"ts %96

+AssrtSiLe "tccs

cht c

9% (AssrtSiLeAssrtSiLe tsh"th"t h"t

"%

96


32/38

+d h"ntsh"ntn=

ist %9 (P5Pct "tccscht c

9% (Empirical Investigation on Grocery Shopping Behavior / ..where P5Pct"tc is the percentage of the total assortment that

is private label in category c of format " in the uarter ofmonth t+)elPctP.h,t+ Percentage private label in assortment siLeof format " for household h relative to weighted averagepercentage private label in all formats is calculated asVariales or $rand(Promotion Share #odelsDistanceh+ Average distance to stores for household h iscalculated aswhere 1istanceh" is as de


33/38


34/38

h"th"t

"h"tts

ts an

96%96%(

( d. / Journal o !ar"eting# !arch 2011where =Priceh"t( AssrtSiLeh"t( PctP5h"t( and tsh"t% are as de


35/38

hintagunta( Pradeep +( rinda adiyali( and =aufel 8+ ilcassim0$%%&7( JEndogeneity and Simultaneity in ompetitive Pricingand Advertising. A 5ogit 1emand Analysis(K0ournal o& Business(;2 0&7( $;&9O';+1eleersnyder( Barbara( Marni G+ 1eimpe( Milos Sarvary( and

Philip M+ Parer 0$%%:7( Jeathering ,ight Economic ,imes.,he Sales Evolution of onsumer 1urables >ver the Businessycle(K Quantitative Mar!eting 1 $conomics( $ 0:7( *:;O'*+( ( 8an-Benedict E+M+ Steenamp( and Peter S+!+5eeHang 0$%%27( J,he #ole of =ational ulture in AdvertisingsSensitivity to Business ycles. An Investigation Acrossontinents(K0ournal o& Mar!eting )esearch( :& 0>ctober7(&$*O*&+1u( #eF ]+ and agner A+ amaura 0$%%'7( Jhere 1id All ,hatMoney Go^ Dnderstanding !ow onsumers Allocate ,heironsumption Budget(K0ournal o& Mar!eting( ;$ 0=ovember7(9%2O9*9+

4oF( Edward 8+( Alan 5+ Montgomery( and 5eonard M+ 5odish0$%%:7( Jonsumer Shopping and Spending Across #etail 4ormats(K

0ournal o& Business( ;; 0$7( S$6OS&%+ and #a" Sethuraman 0$%%&7( J#etail ompetition(K in)etailing in the 23st Century4 Current and $merging Trends(Manfred raCt and Murali + Mantrala( eds+ Berlin. Springer-erlag( 92*O$9%+4ranenberger( ristina and #oger Graham 0$%%*7( JShould 4irmsIncrease Advertising EFpenditures 1uring #ecessions^K #eport=o+ %*-996( Mareting Science Institute+Gauri( 1inesh +( + Sudhir( and 1ebabrata ,aludar 0$%%'7( J,he

,emporal and Spatial 1imensions of Price Search. Insightsfrom Matching !ousehold Survey and Purchase 1ata(K0ournalo& Mar!eting )esearch( :6 0April7( $$&O:%+&E$E&E+CESAilawadi( usum 5+ and Bari !arlam 0$%%:7( JAn EmpiricalAnalysis of the 1eterminants of #etail Margins. ,he #ole ofStore-Brand Share(K0ournal o& Mar!eting( &' 08anuary7(9:;O&6+ and 0$%%27( J#etailer Promotion Pass-,hrough. AMeasure( Its Magnitude( and Its 1eterminants(K Mar!eting Science($' 0:7( ;'$O29+ and evin eller 0$%%:7( JDnderstanding #etail Branding.

onceptual Insights and #esearch Priorities(K0ournal o&)etailing( '% 0:7( **9O:$+( Scott A+ =eslin( and aren Geden 0$%%97( JPursuing thealue-onscious onsumer. Store Brands ersus =ationalBrand Promotions(K0ournal o& Mar!eting( &6 08anuary7(;9O'2+( oen Pauwels( and 8an-Benedict E+M+ Steenamp 0$%%'7(JPrivate-5abel Dse and Store 5oyalty(K0ournal o& Mar!eting(;$ 0=ovember7( 92O*%+Allenby( Gregory( 5+ 8en( and #obert 5eone 0922&7( JEconomic

,rends and Being ,rendy. ,he InHuence of onsumer on


36/38

J1etermining here to Shop. 4iFed and ariable osts ofShopping(K0ournal o& Mar!eting )esearch( *6 0August7(*6$O&2+Berry( 5eonard 5+( athleen Seiders( and 1hruv Grewal 0$%%$7(JDnderstanding Service onvenience(K0ournal o& Mar!eting(

&& 08uly7( 9O9;+Bhatnagar( Amit and Brian ,+ #atchford 0$%%:7( JA Model of#etail 4ormat ompetition for =on-1urable Goods(K 5nternational

0ournal o& )esearch in Mar!eting( $9 097( *2O62+Blattberg( #obert( ,homas Buesing( Peter Peacoc( and SubrataSen 092;'7( JIdentifying 1eal Prone Segment(K0ournal o&Mar!eting )esearch( 96 0August7( *&2O;;+ and enneth 8+ isniewsi 092'27( JPrice-Induced Patternsof ompetition(K Mar!eting Science( ' 0:7( $29O*%2+Briesch( #ichard A+( Pradeep + hintagunta( and Edward 8+ 4oF0$%%27( J!ow 1oes Assortment ACect Grocery Store hoice^K

0ournal o& Mar!eting )esearch( :& 0April7( 9;&O'2+

BroniarcLy( Susan M+( ayne 1+ !oyer( and 5eigh McAlister0922'7( Jonsumers Perceptions of the Assortment >Cered ina Grocery ategory. ,he Impact of Item #eduction(K0ournalo& Mar!eting )esearch( *6 0May7( 9&&O;&+Brons( Mart"in( Peter =i"amp( Eric Pels( and Piet #ietveld0$%%'7( JA Meta-Analysis of the Price Elasticity of Gasoline( Minashi ,rivedi( and 1hruv Grewal 0$%%'7( JDnderstandingthe 1eterminants of #etail Strategy(K0ournal o&)etailing( ': 0*7( $6&O&;+Geysens( Inga( atri"n Gielens( and Marni 1eimpe 0$%%$7(J,he Maret aluation of Internet hannel Additions(K0ournalo& Mar!eting( && 0April7( 9%$O992+( ( and Els Gi"sbrecht 0$%9%7( JProliferating Private-5abel Portfolios. !ow Introducing Economy and Premium Private5abels InHuences Brand hoice(K0ournal o& Mar!eting)esearch( :; 0>ctober7( ;29O'%;+Gicheva( 1ora( 8ustine !astings( and SorganiLing 4ramewor(K0ournal o& )etailing( '6 097( 9O9:+GriNth( #achel( Ephraim 5eibtag( Andrew 5eicester( and Aviv=evo 0$%%27( Jonsumer Shopping Behavior. !ow Much 1oonsumers Save^K0ournal o& $conomic Pers"ectives( $* 0$7(22O9$%+!amilton( 8ames 1 0$%%'7( J>il and the Macroeconomy(K in *ewPalgrave Dictionary o& $conomics( $d ed+( Steven 1urlauf and5awrence Blume( eds+ =ew ]or. Palgrave McMillan+!och( Stephen 8+ and Shumeet Baner"i 0922*7( Jhen 1o Private5abels Succeed^K Sloan Management )eview( *: 0:7( 6;O&;+

8acobe( 1ennis 0$%%&7( J!igh Gas Prices ausing onsumerSpending uts(K Gallup =ews Service( 0May $:7( 0accessed


37/38

=ovember $$( $%9%7( Tavailable at http.www+gallup+compoll$$29'high-gas-prices-causing-consumer-spendingcuts+aspFU+atona( George 092;67( Psychological $conomics+ =ew ]or.Elsevier Scienti


38/38

)esearch in Mar!eting( $$ 0$7( 9%2O9$6+Drbany( 8oel E+( Peter #+ 1icson( and #osemary alapuraal0922&7( JPrice Search in the #etail Grocery Maret(K0ournal o&Mar!eting( &% 0April7( 29O9%:+The 7all Street 0ournal 0$%%'7( JIncome vs+ Gas Prices( an

Dpdate(K 0August :7( 0accessed =ovember $$( $%9%7( Tavailableat http.blogs+ws"+comeconomics$%%'%'%: income-vs-gasprices-an-updateU+ooldridge( 8eCrey M+ 0$%%$7( $conometric Analysis o& CrossSection and Panel Data+ ambridge( MA. MI, Press+opyright of 8ournal of Mareting is the property of American MaretingAssociation and its content may notbe copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without thecopyright holder)s eFpress writtenpermission+ !owever( users may print( download( or email articles for individualuse+

Documents

Ma Ailawadi Gauri Grewal - An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Gasoline Prices on Grocery Shopping Behavior_R1.docx