MSc Thesis Defence
Steven van Middendorp
July 8, 2020
Improving promotion image
&
Gaining share-of-wallet
AGENDA
Introduction
conceptual framework
Hypotheses &
Methodology
1
2
3
04
Results
Conclusion & discussion
Limitations
INTRODUCTION
Share-of-wallet
Promoting private label brands is generally less effective Promotional pressure: • NB: 24% (2016) • PL: 13% (2016) Done by offering sales
Promotional pressure (2016): • EU: 28.1%
• UK: 51.5% • NL: 25.5%
Perishable vs
non-perishable Promotion Image
NB vs PL Promotional
pressure
Promotions only affect short-term sales due to
cherry picking For retailers to sustain success in marketplace, it is
therefore key to have a positive promotion image as this is related to purchase
attention Non-perishable product more
sensitive to promotions and have lower threshold effects &
higher saturation effects Less limited in stockpiling
non-perishable products And it leads to a reduction of
inventory cost Multiple-store shopping behavior Share-of-wallet competition Retailer improves performance, goal:
larger share of the consumers’ budget
Literature gap Promotion image mostly
studied as part of store image
H1A: promotion intensity for national brands has a
positive relationship with promotion image
H1B: promotion intensity for private labels has a
positive relationship with promotion image
H2A: promotion intensity for national brands has a
positive relationship with SOW
H2B: promotion intensity for private labels has a
positive relationship with SOW
Hypotheses:
H3A: promotion depth of non-perishable food-products has
a positive effect on promotion image
H3B: promotion depth of non-food products has a positive
effect on promotion image
H3C: promotion depth of perishable food-products has a
negative effect on promotion image
H4A: promotion depth of non-perishable food-products has
a positive effect on SOW
H4B: promotion depth of non-food products has a positive
effect on SOW
H4C: promotion depth of perishable food-products has a
negative effect on SOW
Hypotheses:
H5: promotions of national brands are positively
related to promotion image
H6: promotions of national brands are positively
related to SOW.
H7: absolute promotion value has a positive
relationship with promotion image.
H8: absolute promotion value has a positive
relationship with SOW.
Hypotheses:
H9A: deal-proneness positively influences the
relationship between promotion intensity and
promotional image
H9B: deal-proneness positively influences the
relationship between promotion depth and
promotional image
H9C: deal-proneness positively influences the
relationship between type of brand promotions and
promotional image
H9D: deal-proneness positively influences the
relationship between absolute promotion value and
promotional image
Hypotheses:
H10A: deal-proneness positively influences the
relationship between promotion intensity and SOW
H10B: deal-proneness positively influences the
relationship between promotion depth and SOW
H10C: deal-proneness positively influences the
relationship between type of brand promotions and
SOW
H10D: deal-proneness positively influences the
relationship between absolute promotion value and
SOW
Hypotheses:
METHODOLOGY
EFMI Shopper Monitor
Promotion Image
Share-of-wallet
Control variables
Superscanner.nl
Promotion intensity
Promotion depth
Type of brand promotions
Absolute promotion value
KMO: 0.86 (KMO > 0.5)
Bartlett’s test significant (P < 0.05)
Eigen values: 1 factor
Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.88 (α > 0.7)
Number of NB & PL products for AH: replaced Number of NB for Dirk: replaced
All variables for Hoogvliet: deleted Other variables for Dirk: deleted In general: week 15 & 28 removed due to crawling mistake
RESULTS | Multicollinearity & Model assumptions
Multicollinearity
Heteroskedasticity
Autocorrelation
Non-normality
• Promotion intensity & absolute promotion value
• Solved by summing up PI for NB & PL • Promotion intensity overall
• Autocorrelation for PI: Plus & Hoogvliet • All other models: no
autocorrelation
• No heteroskedasticity for Hoogvliet (PI & SOW) • All other models:
heteroskedasticity
RESULTS | Pooled models
Positive effect on SOW Positive effect:
• Non-perishable food-products on promotion image
• Non-food products on promotion image
Positive effect on promotion image & SOW
Positive effect:
• Non-perishable food-products on promotion image
• Positive effect of absolute promotion value on promotion image & share-of-wallet
Negative effect:
• Perishable food-products on SOW
Promotion intensity
Promotion Depth
Share of national
brands
Absolute
promotion value
deal-proneness
Moderation:
No main effects
• Contradicting expectations: negative effect of promotion intensity on promotion image (also with moderation) • R² - promotion Image: 0.213
RESULTS | Unpooled models
No effects No effects Positive effects:
• Non-perishable food-products on promotion image • Share-of-NB on share-of-wallet Positive effect: • Non-perishable food-products on share-of-wallet Negative effect: • Perishable food-products on share-of-wallet Positive effect: • Perishable food-products on share-of-wallet when moderated by deal-proneness
• Additional analyses: adding promotion image as an explanatory variable to the model predicting SOW does not improve the model as such that more effects are revealed
R² - promotion image: 0.217
CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION
Formally no conclusions due lack of significant variables across unit-by-unit models. However,…
SATURN
Unpooled models
Pooled models
Chow-test or
more data
• Chow-test assumes homoskedasticity • Heteroskedasticity in the unpooled models • Therefore, outcome Chow-test unreliable
• Which means that conclusions of pooled models could be allowed for hypotheses testing
• Deeper promotions for non-perishableand non-food products leads to a higher promotion image • For deal-prone consumer, the effect of promotions for non-perishableproducts is even higher
• Promoting more national brands and less private label brands is effective in gaining a higher promotion image & more share-of-wallet • For deal-prone consumers, deeper promotions of non-perishableproducts leads to a higher promotion image
• For deal-prone consumers, deeper promotions of perishableproducts leads to a lower promotions image
