Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Point-of-purchase displays, product organization, and brand purchase likelihoods

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Can point-of-purchase (POP) displays cause a decrease in sales of the featured brand? In an actual test-market promotion, the use of special POP displays led to a decrease in sales of featured wines from a specific U.S. region. Moreover, sales of regularly shelved wines from competitive regions actually increased. The results of a laboratory experiment supported the explanation that the POP displays essentially reorganized the wines into region categories within the stores, making it easier for consumers to compare alternatives by region. As a result, sales of wines from preferred regions increased and sales of wines from disliked regions decreased relative to when the wines were displayed by variety categories on regular shelf space. Further evidence indicated that reorganizing products by levels of a given attribute influences purchase likelihoods mainly when the attribute is otherwise low rather than high in salience and when brands have normally high rather than low purchase likelihoods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, David A. 1991.Managing Brand Equity. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Rueben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, James R. 1979.An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and C. Whan Park. 1980. “Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis.”Journal of Consumer Research 7:234–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronnenberg, Bart J. and Luc Wathieu. 1996. “Asymmetric Promotion Effects and Brand Positioning.”Marketing Science 15:379–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chevalier, Michel. 1975-76. “Substitution Patterns as a Result of Display in the Product Category.”Journal of Retailing 51:65–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christy, Richard and Joe Penn. 1994. “Marketing in the Face of Increasing Competition and Falling Demand: A Study of Responses of Wine Producers in Sainte-Foy, Bordeaux.”International Journal of Wine Marketing 6:20–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Thomas D. and Donald T. Campbell. 1979.Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, Martin. 1995. “Top of the Pop.”Marketing Week, May, 12, 37–41.

  • Curhan, Ronald C. 1974. “The Effects of Merchandising and Temporary Promotional Activities on the Sales of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in Supermarkets.”Journal of Marketing Research 11:286–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, Sanjay K. and Stephen J. Hoch. 1996. “Price Discrimination Using In-Store Merchandising.”Journal of Marketing 60:17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd, Tim H. and A. William Gustafson. 1997. “Product, Environmental, and Service Attributes that Influence Consumer Attitudes and Purchases at Wineries.”Journal of Food Products Marketing, forthcoming.

  • —, Bruce E Pinkleton and A. William Gustafson. 1996. “External Information Sources of Product Enthusiasts: Differences Between Variety Seekers, Variety Neutrals, and Variety Avoiders.”Psychology & Marketing 13:291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folwell, Raymond J. 1980. “Marketing to the Wine Consumer—An Overview.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Ed. Jerry C. Olson. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 89–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, Jean Paul and Jane T. Osterhaus. 1985. “Research Note: Effectiveness of Floor Displays on the Sales of Retail Products.”Journal of Retailing 61:104–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, Arnold Lewis and Keith James Holyoak. 1986.Cognition. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluckman, Robert L. 1986. “A Consumer Approach to Branded Wines.”European Journal of Marketing 20:21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gofton, Ken. 1997. “POP Moves Up the Charts.” Marketing, April 17 (POP & Field Marketing Supplement), XI.

  • Green, Paul E. and Abba M. Krieger. 1995. “Attribute Importance Weights Modification in Assessing a Brand’s Competitive Potential.”Marketing Science 14:253–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, Rajiv and V. Srinivasan. 1992. “Evaluating the Multiple Effects of Retail Promotions on Brand Loyal and Brand Switching Segments.”Journal of Marketing Research 29:76–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, Morris B., William L. Moore, Gary N. Dodgen, and William J. Havlena. 1985. “Nonisomorphism, Shadow Features, and Imputed Preferences.” Marketing Science 4:215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Joel and Noreen M. Klein. 1991. “Adapting Cutoffs to the Choice Environment: The Effects of Attribute Correlation and Reliability.”Journal of Consumer Research 18:346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, J. Wesley and Joseph W. Alba. 1991. “Ignoring Irrelevant Information: Situational Determinants of Consumer Learning.”Journal of Consumer Research 18:325–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inman, J. Jeffrey and Leigh McAlister. 1993. “A Retailer Promotion Policy Model Considering Promotional Signal Sensitivity.”Marketing Science 12:339–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——, and Wayne D. Hoyer. 1990. “Promotion Signal: Proxy for a Price Cut?”Journal of Consumer Research 17:74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, Owain P. 1992. “Developing a Marketing Strategy for English Wine in Relation to European Regulations.”International Journal of Wine Marketing 4:26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Kevin Lane. 1993. “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.”Journal of Marketing 57:1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V. and Robert P. Leone. 1988. “Measuring the Effect of Retail Store Promotions on Brand and Store Substitution.”Journal of Marketing Research 25:178–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipstein, Benjamin. 1981. “A Review of Retail Store Experiments.” InTheory in Retailing: Traditional and Nontraditional Sources. Eds. Ronald W. Stampfl and Elizabeth C. Hirschman. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 95–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, Scott B. 1986. “The Role of Attention in Mediating the Effect of Advertising on Attribute Importance.”Journal of Consumer Research 13:174–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, Gary F., J. Patrick Kelly, and E. Doyle Robison. 1981. “Sales Effects of Point-of-Purchase In-Store Signing.”Journal of Retailing 57:49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, Kenneth H., Judith E. Paul, and Kay B. Moorman. 1995.Applied Visual Merchandising. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penn, Joe and Richard Christy. 1994. “Marketing by Smaller Wine Producers and the Penetration of New Distribution Channels.”International Journal of Wine Marketing 6:20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Ben. 1992. “A Regional Approach to Wine Marketing: A Case Study.”International Journal of Wine Marketing 4:4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe. 1988. “The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluation.”Journal of Consumer Research 15:253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1989. “The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store, Name on Buyers’ Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review.”Journal of Marketing Research 26:351–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Paul S., Alan S. Dick, and Arun K. Jain. 1994. “Extrinsic and Intrinsic Cue Effects on Perceptions of Store Brand Quality.”Journal of Marketing 58:28–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J Edward. 1977. “The Value of Unit Price Information.”Journal of Marketing Research 14:193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethuraman, Raj, Catherine Cole, and Dipak Jain. 1994. “Analyzing the Effect of Information Format and Task on Cutoff Search Strategies.”Journal of Consumer Psychology 3:103–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, Itamar, Stephen Nowlis, and Katherine Lemon. 1993. “The Effect of Local Consideration Sets on Global Choice Between Lower Price and Higher Quality.”Marketing Science 12:357–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Russell S. Winer. 1992. “The Influence of Purchase Quantity and Display Format on Consumer Preference for Variety.”Journal of Consumer Research 19:133–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommelier Executive Council 1992.Vintage Wine Book: A Practical Guide to the History of Wine, Winemaking, Classification, and Selection. New York: Food Products Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonkin, Ed. 1997. “Appearances Count.”Discount Merchandiser 37:104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos. 1969. “Intransitivity of Preferences.”Psychological Review 76:31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1972. “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice.”Psychological Review 79:281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilcassim, Naufel J. and Dipak C. Jain. 1991. “Modeling Purchase-Timing and Brand-Switching Behavior Incorporating Explanatory Variables and Unobserved Heterogeneity.”Journal of Marketing Research 28:29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voight, Joan. 1995. “Vintners Eye Campaign to Stimulate Imbibing.”Adweek (Western Edition), September 25, 3.

  • Wilkinson, J. B., J. Barry Mason, and Christie H. Paksoy. 1982. “Assessing the Impact of Short-Term Supermarket Strategy Variables.”Journal of Marketing Research 19:72–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —, Christie H. Paksoy, and J. Barry Mason. 1982. “A Demand Analysis of Newspaper Advertising and Changes in Space Allocation.”Journal of Retailing 57:30–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Richenda. 1995. “Display and Demand.”Marketing Week 18:43–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodside, Arch G. and Gerald L. Waddle. 1975. “Sales Effects of In-Store Advertising.”Journal of Advertising Research 15:29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter. 1975. “Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying vs. Optimizing.”Journal of Marketing Research 12:60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and Fredrick Barbour. 1977. “Phased Decision Strategies: Sequels to an Initial Screening.”TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences 6:91–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaichkowsky, Judith L. 1988. “Involvement and the Price Cue.” InAdvances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15 Ed. Michael J. Houston. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 323–327.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Charles S. Areni is a senior lecturer in marketing in the Faculty of Economics at the University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Dale F. Duhan is an associate professor of marketing in the College of Business Administration at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

Pamela Kiecker is a professor and chair of the Department of Marketing and Business Law in the School of Business at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Areni, C.S., Duhan, D.F. & Kiecker, P. Point-of-purchase displays, product organization, and brand purchase likelihoods. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 27, 428–441 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399274003

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399274003

Keywords

Navigation