Assessing the sales effectiveness of differently located endcaps in a supermarket

Pei Jie Tan; Armando Corsi; Justin Cohen; Anne Sharp; Larry Lockshin; William Caruso; Svetlana Bogomolova

doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.015

Assessing the sales effectiveness of differently located endcaps in a supermarket

Pei Jie Tan, Armando Corsi, Justin Cohen, Anne Sharp, Larry Lockshin, William Caruso, Svetlana Bogomolova

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper compares the sales effectiveness of front versus back located end-of-aisle promotional displays (endcaps) in a supermarket, through measuring sales from the endcaps alone, as well as total brand sales, across three experiments. This paper reveals that rear endcaps generate a higher total brand sales uplift than front endcaps, acting like “billboards” to draw shoppers into the main aisle. On average, rear endcaps generated 416% sales uplift, while front endcaps generated 346% sales uplift. However, front endcaps deliver higher endcap-only sales uplift. These findings challenge industry assumptions about one of the most commonly used promotional tools.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	200-208
Number of pages	9
Journal	Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
Volume	43
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.015
Publication status	Published - Jul 2018
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Endcaps
In-store experiments
Sales uplift
Supermarket
sales effectiveness
industry assumptions

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.015Licence: In Copyright

Cite this

@article{33db368cf0a5427e8f783f3df94d8e22,

title = "Assessing the sales effectiveness of differently located endcaps in a supermarket",

abstract = "This paper compares the sales effectiveness of front versus back located end-of-aisle promotional displays (endcaps) in a supermarket, through measuring sales from the endcaps alone, as well as total brand sales, across three experiments. This paper reveals that rear endcaps generate a higher total brand sales uplift than front endcaps, acting like “billboards” to draw shoppers into the main aisle. On average, rear endcaps generated 416% sales uplift, while front endcaps generated 346% sales uplift. However, front endcaps deliver higher endcap-only sales uplift. These findings challenge industry assumptions about one of the most commonly used promotional tools.",

keywords = "Endcaps, In-store experiments, Sales uplift, Supermarket, sales effectiveness, industry assumptions",

author = "Tan, {Pei Jie} and Armando Corsi and Justin Cohen and Anne Sharp and Larry Lockshin and William Caruso and Svetlana Bogomolova",

year = "2018",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.015",

language = "English",

volume = "43",

pages = "200--208",

journal = "Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services",

issn = "0969-6989",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the sales effectiveness of differently located endcaps in a supermarket

AU - Tan, Pei Jie

AU - Corsi, Armando

AU - Cohen, Justin

AU - Sharp, Anne

AU - Lockshin, Larry

AU - Caruso, William

AU - Bogomolova, Svetlana

PY - 2018/7

Y1 - 2018/7

N2 - This paper compares the sales effectiveness of front versus back located end-of-aisle promotional displays (endcaps) in a supermarket, through measuring sales from the endcaps alone, as well as total brand sales, across three experiments. This paper reveals that rear endcaps generate a higher total brand sales uplift than front endcaps, acting like “billboards” to draw shoppers into the main aisle. On average, rear endcaps generated 416% sales uplift, while front endcaps generated 346% sales uplift. However, front endcaps deliver higher endcap-only sales uplift. These findings challenge industry assumptions about one of the most commonly used promotional tools.

AB - This paper compares the sales effectiveness of front versus back located end-of-aisle promotional displays (endcaps) in a supermarket, through measuring sales from the endcaps alone, as well as total brand sales, across three experiments. This paper reveals that rear endcaps generate a higher total brand sales uplift than front endcaps, acting like “billboards” to draw shoppers into the main aisle. On average, rear endcaps generated 416% sales uplift, while front endcaps generated 346% sales uplift. However, front endcaps deliver higher endcap-only sales uplift. These findings challenge industry assumptions about one of the most commonly used promotional tools.

KW - Endcaps

KW - In-store experiments

KW - Sales uplift

KW - Supermarket

KW - sales effectiveness

KW - industry assumptions

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045113919&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.015

DO - 10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.015

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85045113919

SN - 0969-6989

VL - 43

SP - 200

EP - 208

JO - Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

JF - Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

ER -

Assessing the sales effectiveness of differently located endcaps in a supermarket

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this