The name is absent



This leads to a topic issue. Consider a retailer who decides to introduce (or increase
the share of) its private labels. The question we seek to address regards the
implications of this decision for retailer’ s assortment. Retailers face a complicated
choice in this regard. To make room for their store brands at the point of sale, they
have to readjust their assortments delisting some manufacturer brands. Retailers have
to choose which brands to delist. Retailers typically offer an heterogeneous
assortment of manufacturer brands, with brand of different strength and degree of
brand loyalty and equity. Strong brands enjoy higher perceived quality, brand
preference, and brand awareness than do weak brands. That enables retailers to
charge higher prices for stronger brands (Keller 2002; Aillawadi, Lehman, and Neslin
2003, Sloot and Verhoef (2004).

But the strength of a brand not only affect retailer’ s pricing policy but also does
matter for delisting decisions. Consumers react differently to a delisting of a high-
equity brand than they do to a delisting of a low- equity brand. Consumers of high-
equity brands tend to be more committed to their brand which makes a negative
reaction to a brand delisting more likely (Sloot and Verhoef, 2004).

3.3 The Framework

In the following analysis, we incorporate retailers’ delisting decisions into a two- stage
model. We consider a two- stage framework where a common retailer sells multiple
brands produced by different manufacturers. There are N manufacturers and each one
offers one or more brands so that the total number of brands is M > N. It is assumed
that advertising as well as R&D expenditures have a positive impact on brand equity
and loyalty. Brands are asymmetric and there is a metric allowing a ranking of brands
by brand loyalty. This brand rank is shown on the horizontal axis. To keep the
analysis as simple as possible, we assume that manufacturers do not compete in
prices in the retail stage. Each manufacturer is assumed to decide advertising and R&D
level while wholesale price for its brand is negotiated with the retailer. The retailer sets
the retail prices.

issue is still absolutely underresearched. For a first attempt to modelling a retailer’ s
delisting decisions, see Scott Morton and Zettelmeyer (2004).

13



More intriguing information

1. THE CO-EVOLUTION OF MATTER AND CONSCIOUSNESS1
2. Stillbirth in a Tertiary Care Referral Hospital in North Bengal - A Review of Causes, Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies
3. Momentum in Australian Stock Returns: An Update
4. The name is absent
5. Sex-gender-sexuality: how sex, gender, and sexuality constellations are constituted in secondary schools
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. CGE modelling of the resources boom in Indonesia and Australia using TERM
9. Placentophagia in Nonpregnant Nulliparous Mice: A Genetic Investigation1
10. KNOWLEDGE EVOLUTION
11. CROSS-COMMODITY PERSPECTIVE ON CONTRACTING: EVIDENCE FROM MISSISSIPPI
12. AN IMPROVED 2D OPTICAL FLOW SENSOR FOR MOTION SEGMENTATION
13. Optimal Taxation of Capital Income in Models with Endogenous Fertility
14. Regional dynamics in mountain areas and the need for integrated policies
15. Internationalization of Universities as Internationalization of Bildung
16. Manufacturing Earnings and Cycles: New Evidence
17. Visual Artists Between Cultural Demand and Economic Subsistence. Empirical Findings From Berlin.
18. How Low Business Tax Rates Attract Multinational Headquarters: Municipality-Level Evidence from Germany
19. The name is absent
20. THE CHANGING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS