Top Banner
Variation in own brand penetration: the role of advertising Rachel Griffith 12 , Michal Krol 2 and Kate Smith 1 1 Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2 University of Manchester August 2013
22

Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Aug 27, 2018

Download

Documents

doandung
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Variation in own brand penetration:the role of advertising

Rachel Griffith1 2, Michal Krol2 and Kate Smith1

1Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2University of Manchester

August 2013

Page 2: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Introduction

• Interested in retailers’ provision of own brand products: own brandmakes up around 60% of total sales in large supermarket chains

• The share of own brand is stable over time, but variesconsiderably across product category

• Develop a model that relates retailers’ and manufacturers’incentives to advertise their products with how advertising affectsconsumer choices

• Explore how we can take the theory to data

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 2 / 17

Page 3: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Introduction

• Consider how advertising can affect demand:

1. Predatory effect of advertising: the extent to which advertising aproduct captures market share from its rivals

2. Expansionary effect of advertising: the extent to which totaladvertising increases demand for all products in a category

• Show that a bigger predatory effect of advertising is associatedwith lower own brand penetration

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 3 / 17

Page 4: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Theory

• Hotelling framework; two goods, each produced by a differentmanufacturer

• A monopolistic retailer who is responsible for advertising good 2as an own brand, with good 1 advertised by its manufacturer as anational brand

• Timing:

1. The retailer and national brand manufacturer simultaneously exertadvertising efforts, ei , at a cost, e2

i2. The manufacturers set wholesale prices3. The retailer sets retail prices, pr

1 and pr2

• Assume the market is covered, and some of each good is bought

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 4 / 17

Page 5: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Theory

• Unit mass of consumers, with valuation, Vi of each good i :

Vi = V0 + ap(ei − e−i) + ac(e1 + e2)

• where V0 is the baseline attractiveness of the category, and ap,ac

represent the predatory and expansionary effects:

V1 − V2 = 2ap(e1 − e2)

V1 + V2 = 2V0 + 2ac(e1 + e2)

• How do the incentives to advertise depend on V1 and V2?

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 5 / 17

Page 6: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Equilibrium

• Solve for the equilibrium profit of the retailer and the manufacturer,and the market share of i :

Retailer’s profit: ΠR =(V1 + V2)

2+

(V1 − V2)2

72− 5

2

Manufacturer i ’s profit: ΠMi =

(6 + Vi − V−i)2

36

Market share of i: si =12+

(Vi − V−i)

12

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 6 / 17

Page 7: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

How does advertising affect the equilibrium?

• Advertising of product 1 (undertaken before the two pricingstages) affects the values of V1 and V2:

1. by increasing V1 − V2: i.e. the relative attractiveness of 1

2. by increasing V1 + V2: i.e. the overall attractiveness of the productcategory

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 7 / 17

Page 8: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

How does advertising affect the equilibrium?

• Equilibrium profits:

ΠR =(V1 + V2)

2+

(V1 − V2)2

72− 5

2

ΠM1 =

(6 + (V1 − V2))2

36

1. by increasing V1 − V2:• manufacturer 1 benefits from an increase of V1 − V2• the retailer is interested in |V1 − V2| - having one brand more

attractive than the other allows fore more efficient price discrimination• If this effect is strong, then the NB advertiser will want to advertise a

lot, making its brand very attractive

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 7 / 17

Page 9: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

How does advertising affect the equilibrium?

• Equilibrium profits:

ΠR =(V1 + V2)

2+

(V1 − V2)2

72− 5

2

ΠM1 =

(6 + (V1 − V2))2

36

2. by increasing V1 + V2:• An increase in this is beneficial to the retailer, but not the

manufacturers, who still compete in wholesale prices with equalintensity

• This would suggest retailers have stronger incentives to advertisethan manufacturers: OB penetration is likely to be substantial

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 7 / 17

Page 10: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Predictions from the theory

• Key prediction:

OB penetration should be smallest when the predatoryeffect of advertising is large

• How can we look at this in the data?

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 8 / 17

Page 11: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Data

1. Brand shares:

• Kantar Worldpanel: records data on grocery purchases in the UKe.g. food in the home, alcohol, toiletries, household products

• Collected for a rolling panel of around 25,000 households; daily2002-2012

• Products identified as branded, standard own brand and budgetown brand (aggregate the own brand types)

2. Advertising expenditure:

• A.C. Nielsen Digest of Advertising• all advertising expenditure in the UK• includes adverts on TV, radio, in the press, on billboards and online• monthly 2002-2012; by brand

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 9 / 17

Page 12: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Own brand penetration across category

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 10 / 17

Page 13: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Own brand penetration across category

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 10 / 17

Page 14: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Own brand penetration across supermarket

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 11 / 17

Page 15: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Empirical approach

• Interested in the ap parameter: the extent to which advertising bya rival affects own market share

• Estimate:

sit = βs1pit + βs

2pjt + γs1a1/2

it + γs2a1/2

jt + ηsi + τs

t + esit

from share and advertising data for different product categories

• Calculate the following elasticity:

εapij =

aj

si

∂si

∂aj

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 12 / 17

Page 16: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Preliminary results

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 13 / 17

Page 17: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Extensions

• The primary variation in own brand penetration is across productlines, but also observe different types of retailers followingdifferent strategies

Standard BudgetBranded Own-Brand Own-Brand

Large supermarketsAsda 0.372 0.465 0.163Morrisons 0.431 0.475 0.094Sainsbury 0.398 0.503 0.100Tesco 0.375 0.450 0.175

Small supermarketsMarks + Spencer 0.008 0.991 0.001Aldi 0.111 0.017 0.872Lidl 0.141 0.007 0.852

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 14 / 17

Page 18: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Extensions

• The primary variation in own brand penetration is across productlines, but also observe different types of retailers followingdifferent strategies

Standard BudgetBranded Own-Brand Own-Brand

Large supermarketsAsda 0.372 0.465 0.163Morrisons 0.431 0.475 0.094Sainsbury 0.398 0.503 0.100Tesco 0.375 0.450 0.175

Small supermarketsMarks + Spencer 0.008 0.991 0.001Aldi 0.111 0.017 0.872Lidl 0.141 0.007 0.852

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 14 / 17

Page 19: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Extensions

• The primary variation in own brand penetration is across productlines, but also observe different types of retailers followingdifferent strategies

Standard BudgetBranded Own-Brand Own-Brand

Large supermarketsAsda 0.372 0.465 0.163Morrisons 0.431 0.475 0.094Sainsbury 0.398 0.503 0.100Tesco 0.375 0.450 0.175

Small supermarketsMarks + Spencer 0.008 0.991 0.001Aldi 0.111 0.017 0.872Lidl 0.141 0.007 0.852

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 14 / 17

Page 20: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Extensions

• Some own brand products are designed to look very similar totheir national brand equivalents?

• How can we think about this in the context of the model?

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 15 / 17

Page 21: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Extensions

• Extend the model to incorporate variation in other parameters ofinterest

• In a more general form of the model, relax the assumption ofhaving only one monopolistic retailer:

• Advertising allows retailers to ‘capture’ consumers from otherstores

• Allow retailer size to enter the model• The baseline attractiveness of a category, V0, is allowed to vary

across stores

• Consider the difference between standard versus budget ownbrand

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 16 / 17

Page 22: Variation in own brand penetration - IFS · considerably across product category ... i.e. the overall attractiveness of the product category ... The primary variation in own brand

Summary

• Develop a model that seeks to explain variation in own brandpenetration by the nature of advertising

• Find that a bigger predatory effect of advertising is associatedwith lower own brand penetration

• Further work:

• theory• link between theory and empirics: what to estimate, do for more

categories, econometrics issues

Griffith, Krol and Smith (IFS & UoM) EEA Congress 2013 August 2013 17 / 17