Bryan Caplan notices that during a blizzard the name brand items sell out ten times faster than the same item from a generic brand. This puzzles him:
Of course the most popular stuff sells out first.” But that’s a feeble explanation. After all, if X is ten times more popular than Y, then you’d expect stores to simply carry ten times as much X as Y. Why would X sell out faster in a blizzard if stores have already taken its greater popularity into account?
The underlying question seems to be, why doesn’t shelf allocation better reflect actual demand? I can think of a couple reasons that this is the case.
The driving factor here is that the amount of shelf space devoted to a product has an impact on it’s sales. In marketing science they refer to this influence as space elasticity. One reason this occurs is because of exactly what Bryan observed: the more space you have, the less likely a product is not going to be there when you want it. More important than this though, is that more product space gets peoples’ attention, and probably signals something about the demand for that product. If there’s a lot of space devoted to a product that means a lot of people buy it, which influences people via social proof. There’s an interesting behavioral story here about why space influences demand, but for now suffice it to say that it does.
This explains why shelf space matters to sales of individual products, but why would a grocery store, who is concerned with overall sales, care about relative sales of name brand vs generic products? One reason is that many grocery stores have their own generic brands that they want to sell. Another reason is that manufacturers care about how their products are on the shelf, and often make explicit agreements about such things, including paying the grocery store for better shelf space allocation. In some sections of some stores, I am told they let the manufacturers determine how their products will be displayed on the shelf, so that manufacturers are essentially leasing shelf space.
The overall reason why demand alone does not determine shelf space is that shelf space influences demand, so that manufacturers have incentive to bargain to influence shelf space.

7 comments
Comments feed for this article
Saturday ~ February 6th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Morten Josefsen
I think we have a much simpler explanation. Popular stuff need to get reshelved more frequently. It is not efficient to stock each product in the same proportion as sales. Think of salt and sugar. In a given store 100kg of sugar (say) is sold per 1kg of salt, but it is not efficient to stock 100 times as much sugar as salt. During a blizzard, sugar will run out first. Even so there is no fancy space elasticity or whatever.
Saturday ~ February 6th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Funky J
@ Morten
I thought Adam was talking about popular brands, not so much product. So why does the “popular” brand sugar sell out before the generic brand sugar, when they’re both the same product?
Saturday ~ February 6th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Katy
I used to work selling wine into supermarkets for big brand name Gallo wines. They are masters at manipulating this concept. Consumers buy more of wine x when there is more space allocated to it because it gives them confidence amidst the bewildering array of wines to choose from. If a wine has more space it is obviously popular and therefore good, right? But stores may prefer to try to get them to buy more expensive wines, wines that support them with additional promotional spend, wines that have not been selling and which they want to get rid of, or own brand wines with higher margins. Also, the selection of wines available says something about the credibility of the store and means high spending connoisseurs are more likely to visit.
Sunday ~ February 7th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Scott
The best response i’ve seen so far was here
I think there are multiple factors at work here: In times of stress our brains turn towards familiarity (Bias from stress-influence encourage us towards the availability bias). If we’ve had a good experience with Kraft Dinner in the past and we know a storm is coming we don’t want to take a chance on a store-brand (uncertainty avoidance). We are also creatures of habit– if we normally buy Kraft Dinner and it sells out, we do what we normally do which likely doesn’t lead to buying the store brand (we substitute with something else). There is also an element of scarcity — subconsciously we know national brands will be more desirable to others so we desire them more. And then there is signaling. After the national brands noticeably start selling more there is also an element of social proof that comes into play (KD is selling quick, everyone is buying it, i need to buy it…).
http://bit.ly/cXakRy
Sunday ~ February 7th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Adam Ozimek
Thanks for that heads up Scott, their explanation is very interesting.
Monday ~ February 8th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
zbicyclist
Inventory carrying cost [minimize]
Delivery time [external]
Case pack [external; "they come 12 to a box"]
Safety stock [minimize consistent with service level]
All these factors mean the shelf space for an item is not, and should not, be proportional to its sales.
Sunday ~ August 21st, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Brand Power? : Farnam Street
[...] modeled behavior blog offers something sensible but I don’t think it fully explains what’s happening: The [...]