Advances in Theory and Practice in Store Brand Operations - Jiazhen Huo
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Jiazhen Huo Advances in Theory and Practice in Store Brand Operations
Advances in Theory and Practice in Store Brand Operations
Jiazhen Huo Advances in Theory and Practice in Store Brand Operations
Jiazhen Huo School of Economics and Management Tongji University Shanghai, China ISBN 978-981-15-9876-0 ISBN 978-981-15-9877-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9877-7 Jointly published with Tongji University Press The print edition is not for sale in China (Mainland). Customers from China (Mainland) please order the print book from: Tongji University Press. © Tongji University Press 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publishers, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remain neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore
Preface
Private brand (PB), also known as private label (PL) or store brand (SB), refers to
a brand created and controlled by a retailer. In the 1960s and 1970s, private labels
began to emerge in France and England. Although private labels have grown rapidly
worldwide, their market share varies greatly from region to region. According to
Nielsen’s 2018 Global Private Label Report, the largest markets for private-label
products are found primarily in the more mature European retail markets. With the
growth of e-commerce, some online retailers have also launched private-label goods,
but the market share for China’s private labels is only 1–3%, which represents a
significant gap in comparison with Europe and America.
This research monograph project considers: (1) product strategy for private
branding; (2) pricing strategy for private brands; (3) channel strategy for private
brand introduction; and (4) supply chain coordination for private brand introduction.
We focus on the main challenges for Chinese retail companies in developing their
private brands and use the practices of the Chinese Lianhua supermarket’s private
brand management as a case study.
This research includes the results of both empirical and theoretical insights. The
empirical study aspect is focused on factors that influence purchasing intentions
related to retailer’s private branding. We identify the main factors that influence
consumers’ purchasing intentions for private brand products, including the psycho-
logical characteristics of consumers; the attributes of private brand products; retailer
image; the perceived quality of private brand products; the influence of information
value and the influence of manufacturers upon PB decisions. The theoretical study
largely relates to introduction strategies for store brands when considering product
cost and shelf space opportunity cost and other technical parameters.
In relation to the pricing of private brand products we find that the stable price
and stable reference price will increase with memory factor, perceived quality of PB
and the sharing rate of NB’s revenue, but decrease with the reference effect param-
eter and the weight coefficient of PB’s history price. Our study of the dynamic
assortment planning problem in the presence of heterogeneous brands indicates
that ignoring brand heterogeneity will overestimate the retailer’s expected revenues
significantly, and that the potential revenue overestimation will depend on initial
vvi Preface inventories and prices. We note that the theory behind introducing store brands to combat showrooming is effective. Using game theory, we examine strategic coordination mechanism design and competition and cooperation between retailers and manufacturers by focusing on advertising decisions that consider the competition of retailer and manufacturer, and the Competition of National and Store Brands with advertisement intervention. Our results show that for both manufacturer and retailer, Stackelberg’s leader-follower game strategy is more effective than the Nash non-cooperative proposal. Our findings are able to optimize the supply chain and indicate the best pricing and advertising investment decisions. This manuscript is funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (71532015). As the leader of this key project, I acknowledge the financial support from the National Science Foundation of China. I extend my thanks to the members of my research team for their excellent contributions and hard work. Acknowledgments This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71532015). I sincerely thank the members of my research team for their contributions. Shanghai, China Jiazhen Huo August 2020
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 The Development of Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 The Market for Store Brands in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1 The Development of Store Brands in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2 Reasons for the Low Market Share of China Store
Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.3 Challenges for China Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.4 Lianhua’s Practice in Respect of Store Branding . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 The Outline of This Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 Product Strategy for Store Branding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1 Factors That Affect the Success of Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.1 Retailers Profit(s) from Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.2 Manufacturers Profit from Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.3 National Brands Profit from Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.4 Customers Benefit from Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.5 Strategies in Times of Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2 Motivation for Introducing Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.1 Increasing Market Share Through Additional Product
Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.2 Improve Bargaining Power to Compete with National
Brand Manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.3 Strengthen Consumers’ Loyalty and Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.4 Control of Product Positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2.5 Other Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3 Factors That Affect Consumers’ Choice of Store Brands . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.1 Price and Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.2 Customers’ Perception of Risk in Buying Store Brands . . . . 26
2.3.3 Customers’ Store Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3.4 Familiarity of Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
viiviii Contents
2.3.5 Customers’ Perceived Quality of Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.3.6 Customers’ Perception of Value for Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.3.7 Customers’ Brand-Loyalty Towards Store Brands . . . . . . . . . 32
2.3.8 Other Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4 Strategy for Introducing Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.4.1 The Strategy of Product Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.4.2 Strategies for Product Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.4.3 Strategies Related to Target Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.4.4 The Strategy for Product Positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.4.5 Strategies for Retailer Advertising of Store Brands . . . . . . . . 42
2.5 Empirical Study of the Factors Influencing Purchasing
Intention for Retailer Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.5.1 Research Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.5.2 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.5.3 Empirical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.5.4 Research Conclusions and Management Significance . . . . . . 57
2.5.5 Deficiencies in the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.6 Introduction of store brands considering product cost
and shelf space opportunity cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.6.2 The Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.6.3 Stackelberg Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.6.4 Numerical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
2.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3 Pricing Strategy for Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.1 Pricing Strategy Based on Marketing Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.1.1 Multi-brand Pricing Strategy Based on Advertising . . . . . . . 102
3.1.2 Multi-brand Pricing Strategy Based on Sales Channel . . . . . 105
3.1.3 Multi-brand Pricing Strategy Based on Brand
Positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
3.1.4 Multi-brand Pricing Strategy Based on Layout . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3.2 Pricing Strategy for Competitive Brands Considering
Consumer Consciousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.2.1 Pricing Strategy for Competitive Brands Considering
Value Consciousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.2.2 Pricing Strategy for Competitive Brands Considering
Price Consciousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
3.2.3 Pricing Strategy for Store Brands Considering
Discount Consciousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.3 Pricing Strategy Considering Different Sales Structures . . . . . . . . . . 121
3.4 Pricing Strategy Under Different Classifications of Store
Brand Manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124Contents ix
3.5 Dynamic Pricing of Store Brands with Reference Effect . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.5.1 Problem Description and Model Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.5.2 Fixed Pricing Strategy Without Reference Effect . . . . . . . . . 130
3.5.3 Dynamic Pricing Strategy Considering Reference
Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
3.5.4 Numerical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.5.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.6 Dynamic Assortment in the Presence of Brand Heterogeneity . . . . . 140
3.6.1 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
3.6.2 Problem Statement and Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
3.6.3 Parameter Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
3.6.4 Empirical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
3.6.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
3.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
4 Channel Strategy and Conflict Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.1 Channel Competition Between Traditional Manufacturers
and Retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.1.1 The Competition Between Brick-and-Mortar
and Online Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
4.1.2 The Impact of Channel Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
4.1.3 Multi-channel Competition and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
4.2 Channel Competition When Considering the Introduction
of a Store Brand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
4.2.1 The Impact of Introducing a Retailer’s Store Brand . . . . . . . 172
4.2.2 Channel Competition After the Adaptation
of a Retailer’s Store Brand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
4.2.3 A Win-Win Situation for Both Retailers
and Manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
4.3 Channel Coordination Between Traditional Retailer
and Manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
4.3.1 Price Discounts in Traditional Channel Coordination . . . . . . 174
4.3.2 Revenue Sharing in Traditional Channel Coordination . . . . . 175
4.3.3 Cooperative Advertising in Traditional Channel
Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
4.3.4 Inventory Transfer in Traditional Channel
Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
4.3.5 Channel Coordination Through Other Methods . . . . . . . . . . . 178
4.4 Channel Coordination Between Retailers and Manufacturers
When Store Brands Are Introduced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
4.4.1 Channel Coordination Through Revenue Sharing . . . . . . . . . 179
4.4.2 Channel Coordination Through Cooperative
Advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181x Contents
4.4.3 Channel Coordination Through Positioning of Store
Brand Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
4.4.4 Other Methods of Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.5 Pricing Strategy for Bricks & Mortar (B&M) Stores
in a Dual-Channel Supply Chain Based on the Hotelling Model . . . 184
4.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.5.2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.5.3 Model Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4.5.4 Showrooming When the B&M Retailer Implements
no Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
4.5.5 Showrooming When the B&M Retailer Implements
a Store-Brand Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
4.5.6 Considering Store-Brand Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
4.5.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
5 Supply Chain Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
5.1 Supply Chain Coordination Based on Game Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
5.1.1 Pricing and Profitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
5.1.2 Strategic Interaction Between Manufacturer
and Retailer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
5.1.3 Supply Chain Coordination Based on Positioning
of Store Brand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
5.2 Supply Chain Coordination Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
5.2.1 Advertising Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
5.2.2 Channel Coordination Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
5.2.3 Promotion and Rebate Strategies Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
5.2.4 Shelf Allocation Strategy Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
5.2.5 Contracts Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
5.2.6 Rest of the Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
5.3 Supply Chain Competition and Cooperation Between
Retailers and Manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
5.3.1 Supply Chain Competition and Cooperation Based
on Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
5.3.2 Supply Chain Competition and Cooperation
with the Introduction of Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.4 Supply Chain Advertising Decisions with Competition
between National and Store Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
5.4.1 Model and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
5.4.2 Differential Game Models Based on Stackelberg
Game Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
5.4.3 Comparison with Nash Non-cooperative Game . . . . . . . . . . . 238
5.4.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240Contents xi
5.5 Competition Games for National and Store Brands
with Advertisement Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
5.5.1 Models and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
5.5.2 Stackelberg Games with Shared or Secret Information
of Manufacturer’s Advertising Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
5.5.3 Analysis of the Property of the Optimal Solution
of the Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
5.5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249About the Author
Jiazhen Huo, PhD, Chair Professor (Supported by
BOSCH) of School of Economics and Management,
Tongji University, China. His research interests are
Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Service
Operations Management. In the past decades, he has
published more than 30 papers on such as OR, JOM,
IJPE, EJOR, IJPR and other high quality journals and
presided 7 research projects funded by the National
Nature Science Foundation and a number of consulting
projects.
xiiiList of Figures
Fig. 1.1 Store brands of Lianhua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fig. 2.1 Research model framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Fig. 2.2 Theoretical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Fig. 2.3 Standardized model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Fig. 2.4 Standardized cylindrical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Fig. 2.5 Variable results for different values of c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Fig. 2.6 Retailer’s total profit for different values of c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Fig. 2.7 Manufacturer’s total profit for different values of c . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Fig. 2.8 Variable results for different values of k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Fig. 2.9 Retailer’s total profit for different values of k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Fig. 2.10 Manufacturer’s total profit for different values of k . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Fig. 2.11 Variable results for different values of αs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Fig. 2.12 Price for different values of αs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Fig. 2.13 Retailer’s total profit for different values of αs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Fig. 2.14 Comparison between the periods
before and after the introduction of the SB
in αs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Fig. 2.15 Comparison between the periods
before and after the introduction of the SB
in αs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Fig. 2.16 Demand and shelf space proportion for the SB for different
values of αs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Fig. 3.1 Effect of memory coefficient on price and reference price . . . . . . 135
Fig. 3.2 The effect of reference effect coefficient on price
and reference price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Fig. 3.3 The effect of weight coefficient on price and reference price . . . 136
Fig. 3.4 The effect of store brand perceived quality on price
and reference price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Fig. 3.5 The impact of retailers’ share of NB on price and reference
price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Fig. 3.6 Two-stage consumer choice model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Fig. 3.7 Effect of inventory levels on revenue overestimation . . . . . . . . . . 155
xvxvi List of Figures
Fig. 3.8 Effect of price on revenue overestimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Fig. 4.1 The model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Fig. 4.2 Customer’s decision-making process under a store-brand
strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Fig. 4.3 Consumers’ decision-making process considering
store-brand awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200List of Tables
Table 2.1 Judgment principles for internal consistency
and reliability coefficient index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 2.2 Scale reliability analysis results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 2.3 Model fitting index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 2.4 Standardized parameter inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 2.5 Correlation Test Between Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 2.6 Correlation Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 2.7 Hypothesis test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 3.1 Comparison of profits with reference effects being positive . . . 138
Table 3.2 Comparison of profits with reference effects being
negative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Table 3.3 Data for estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Table 3.4 Uniform prior distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Table 3.5 Estimated parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Table 3.6 Expected revenues under two consumer choice models . . . . . . 154
Table 3.7 Impact of initial inventory on dynamic assortment . . . . . . . . . . 156
Table 3.8 Impact of increasing one unit inventory on revenue
improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Table 3.9 Impact of full price discount on dynamic assortment . . . . . . . . 158
Table 3.10 Impact of partial price discount on dynamic assortment . . . . . . 159
Table 4.1 Notations used in the paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Table 4.2 The equilibrium solutions of the three models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
xviiChapter 1 Introduction Store brand (SB), also known as private label (PL) or private brand (PB), refers to a brand created and controlled by a retailer. According to the definition from the Private Label Manufacturers’ Association (PLMA), private brand products include all the products sold under a retailer’s brand name, where the retailer controls part of or all the process from design to the sale of products. Although usually produced by third party manufacturers, private brand products are designed by the retailers and sold in their own stores. Private brands stand in contrast to supplier or manufacturer brands, which are also known as national brands (NB). In the main however, for simplicity and consistency we will now prefer the term “store brand” and “store label” over the other “private brand or label” terminology. In the 1960s and 1970s, store labels began to emerge in France and England. Initially, retailers mainly offered low-quality, cheap store label products as an alterna- tive to supplier brands (Steenkamp and Geyskens 2014). Through the 1980s, retailers began to improve the quality of their store brands, with some store label products matching the quality of national brand products, with store label pricing often being lower than the equivalent national brand product (Steenkamp and Geyskens 2014). Retailers are motivated to develop store brands for the following four main reasons: 1. Increasing market share and profits. Retailers expand the variety of product offerings by introducing private brands to meet niche market needs and thereby increase their market share (Amrouche and Zaccour 2008; Kotler 1999; Mills 1999). Retailers can make significant additional profits by selling store brand products, because the profit margin of them is usually much larger than the profits from selling other-brand products (Dimitrieska et al. 2017). 2. Improving the bargaining power of retailers. The introduction of store brands can reduce retailers’ reliance on national brands and increase their bargaining power over manufacturers by lessening their dependency on NBs (Groznik and Heese 2010). At the same time, since retailers control the assortment and positioning of all brands on their shelving, the introduction of store brands can also significantly improve their bargaining power (Morton and Zettelmeyer 2004). © Tongji University Press 2021 1 J. Huo, Advances in Theory and Practice in Store Brand Operations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9877-7_1
2 1 Introduction
3. Increasing brand loyalty. Since store labels have the characteristic of being sold
only through specific retail channels, the development of store labels by retailers
can differentiate themselves from other retailers and increase consumer loyalty
(Bontems et al. 1999; Hoch and Banerji 1993). Seenivasan et al. (2016) found that
store brands increase brand loyalty by enhancing store differentiation. Lombart
and Louis (2016) studied the impact of consumer perceptions of store brands
and retailer personality traits on consumer loyalty and found that if consumers
believe that the retailer is credible, honest and considerate, then store brands
can enhance the retailer’s standing. Consumers’ attitudes toward store brands
will affect their loyalty to retailers, so it is of strategic importance and value for
retailers to manage store brands effectively.
4. Controlling the positioning of the product. By introducing store label products,
retailers can control product positioning, especially when it is difficult for retailers
to find products from manufacturer brands that exactly match their requirements
(Amrouche and Yan 2012; Morton and Zettelmeyer 2004).
1.1 The Development of Store Brands
Early research abroad mainly focused on the significance of store brands for the
development of retail enterprises. The store brands that were developed overseas
early on had three main characteristics: (1) higher frequency of purchase, often daily
consumables, the purpose being to enable them to quickly gain wide attention and
interest from customers once launched; (2) obvious differentiation among products
with strong selectivity, so that retailers could easily highlight the characteristics
of products to meet the needs of subdivided customer groups; (3) moderate price
presenting low risk: it was easier to attract consumers to try, and thus increase the
possibility of accepting store branded goods.
From the initial low-price stage to the modern high-quality stage, the develop-
ment of store brands can be divided into four types, namely unknown brands, quasi-
brands, family brands and image brands. Consumers’ attention gradually shifted
from price to quality, and retailers store brand product categories also expanded,
from low prices and low quality to high quality and low price. The image brand
stage was more concerned with attracting consumers through product innovation,
enhancing the value of products thus improving their store image (Zhang 2017). In
early research, it was clear that consumers’ perception of store brands was of low
quality and low prices, but with the development of store brands and their promo-
tion by advertising, more consumers began to perceive that there were no significant
differences in the quality of store brand products and national brand products, and
that high-quality store label products existed (Xie and Luo 2011). This was due to the
retailers increasing investment in product quality, design, style, and packaging, which
attracted consumer attention. Over the past ten years, the quality of store brands has1.1 The Development of Store Brands 3
been greatly improved, although national brands still dominate the market for high-
end products, including jewelry, household appliances, computers, automobiles and
furniture (Dimitrieska et al. 2017).
Although store labels have grown rapidly worldwide, market share varies greatly
from region to region. According to Nielsen’s 2018 Global Private Label Report,1
the largest markets for store-label products are still found primarily in the more
mature European retail markets. Comparatively, store labels still have much room
for growth, especially in North America, where penetration is still relatively low.
Store labels have the largest market share in Spain at 42% and in Germany the store
label share is about 35%. In the Asia Pacific market, store label share is generally
low, and only accounts for 4.2% of the market. Europe has the largest store label
share because significant numbers of customers hold positive perceptions about store
labels. The growth of the store brand market share in various countries is not linear, but
when it reaches 5–10%, it appears to have an accelerated effect. The market share
of store label products represents diversity among the various product categories,
with statistics showing that the market share of store label products in 38 countries
averages 32% in refrigerated foods, 5% in personal care products and 2% in infant
products (ACNielsen 2005). Overall, the average price of store label products is
31% lower than the NB manufacturer’s price, but there are significant differences
depending on the category. For example, the prices of personal care products are 46%
lower on average, and the prices of refrigerated foods are 16% lower (Caprice 2017).
There are also many examples showing that store label product prices are higher than
NB manufacturer brands because these store labels have taken a superior position to
some high-end brands. In the past, store brand positioning was mostly as a low-cost
alternative to national manufacturer brands, but this situation has changed. Retailers
recognized that high-quality store brands were more competitive and profitable, and
easily triggered vicious competition with manufacturers.
With the development and differentiation of store brands, more and more scholars
began to study customers’ purchase preference behavior for store brands. Cho (2019)
analyzed the purchasing data of a large Korean supermarket and found that people
who are over 50 years old and people with lower incomes preferred store brand
products, as opposed to those who are under 30 years old and have higher incomes.
In addition, customers who shopped frequently at the store tended to choose store
brand products more than customers who purchased larger amounts of goods less
frequently. The new e-commerce retail companies have become an indispensable part
of the store brand development era, and are showing an enhanced results trend, even
as latecomers. This phenomenon results from the intrinsic reliance of e-commerce
on data and its better understanding, influence and control of customer purchasing
behavior. According to Nielsen’s 2018 Global Private Label Report, e-commerce
will be another disrupter to national brand status. Amazon, for example, is not just
disrupting the consumer product space; it is fragmenting the path to purchasing goods
1 See the Nielsen’s Global Private Label Report (2018) available at https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/
insights/report/2018/the-rise-and-rise-again-of-private-label/.4 1 Introduction and opening new opportunities for store labels. We have entered an age in which store labelers also have strong opportunities to compete by using e-commerce platforms. Store brands usually benefit from online channels, Nenycz-Thiel et al. (2016) surveyed five types of packaged products in the UK and found that in most cases, store label products had a higher market share in online channels than offline channels, and online customers have higher loyalty. Moreover, this difference is more significant in high-end store brand products. Online e-commerce retail companies have a wide range of store brand products, which account for a relatively high proportion, because e-commerce retail enterprises can maximize the variety of their store brands by taking advantage of the visibility and convenience of their online platforms, without considering space factors such as venues. Traditional department store’s own brand development is slow, still in its infancy with slow product replacement (Qin 2017). Research have found that the relative intrinsic loyalty and the conquering power of store brand products differ in different categories or channels, that means some categories of store label products may sell better online. Therefore, different strategies can be formulated according to the category’s competitiveness in different channels (Arce-Urriza and Cebollada 2018). Both traditional retailers and online retailers have gradually realized the importance of understanding their store brand products and formulating reasonable operating strategies. Traditional retailers must especially recognize their shortcomings and take corrective action, or they will struggle in the development of their store brands. In this era of a growing e-commerce economy, retailers have tried online to offline (O2O) operations in pursuit of the combination of online and offline advantages. However, where retailers are not the owners of a brand, it is difficult to achieve uniform prices online and offline. The development of store brands to obtain pricing power for retailers helps the development of O2O operations (Zhang and Zan 2016). This has prompted e-commerce retailers to vigorously develop their store brands. 1.2 The Market for Store Brands in China In this section, we will focus on the market of store brands in China. The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows: we first introduce the development of store brands in China. We then examine the reasons for the low market share of China’s store brands and the challenges for China store brands are analyzed, and the development of the Lianhua store brand model is introduced as a case study. 1.2.1 The Development of Store Brands in China In developed economies, store labelling is a strategic point in the development of retailing, whilst in emerging economies store label market penetration is often not high, and the role of the store label is not so important. It may be that retailers in
1.2 The Market for Store Brands in China 5 emerging economies have insufficient knowledge of their own rights and powers, affecting their understanding and management of the potential for store brands; in addition, retailers in emerging or developing countries may lack sufficient skills to fully utilize the real opportunities of store branding (Herstein et al. 2017). In recent years, many large domestic retail enterprises have launched their own brand products, such as Lianhua’s store brands “Better Living”, “Lianhua Jiahui”, “Youpin Life”; Wal-Mart’s store brand “Yekee”, “Great Value”, and so on. China Resources Vanguard also launched “Simple Life”, “Home Run”, “VICTOR” and other store brands. With the growth of e-commerce, some online retailers have also launched store-label goods. JD started to introduce its store brands in 2010, and has developed a number, mainly “dostyle”, “Hommy”, “Truewow”, and “INTERIGHT”, with annual sales of its store brand products reaching several hundred million yuan (Liu 2016). However, at present, the market share for China’s store labels is only 1–3%, which still represents a significant gap compared with Europe and America. At present, there are two main ways to promote store brands: one is to use store- banner branding, and the other is to use stand-alone branding. For the first method, retailers use their own store’s brand name to part-name their store brands, such as “Dangdang Youpin”. The advantages of this method are obvious, but the disadvan- tage is when the quality of a product is in question, it can easily affect the reputation of the entire store’s name as a brand, which makes for higher management require- ments. Geyskens et al. (2018) believe that when brand value is high, store-banner branding is suitable, otherwise stand-alone branding is the best choice. They found that store-banner branding can bring higher sales and profits because customers often cannot distinguish the relationship between store-banner and store brands, so retailers’ clear use of store-banner branding provides support for this. Many large retail companies have begun to adopt their store brand chain operation strategy. Pan (2018) explored how China’s retail companies should develop their store brand chain operations through research on “MINISO”, which is a retail company founded by a Chinese entrepreneur and Japanese designer. As Pan concluded from his research, retail companies should pay attention to the following points during the development of their store brand chains: (1) Establish a market-oriented development concept for store brands, so that products can better meet consumer needs; (2) Optimize products and in-store design in a thematic way, gaining advantages in terms of price, promo- tional activities, in-store experience and product quality; (3) Accurate positioning of store brand products and clear target markets also help customers to effectively identify the brand. Large supermarkets are the main force for implementing their store brand strategy. The target market for large supermarkets is mainly commu- nity residents near certain business districts; the target market for online retailers is young people aged 18–35. Li and Wang (2019) believe that in the process of store brand development, store brand product development and product portfolio manage- ment are two issues that require special attention. In the development process, they suggest using the advantages of data to strengthen the analysis of market demand; in the process of portfolio management, they advocate handling the relationship between category (width) and variety (depth), and expanding a portfolio of store brand products gradually.
6 1 Introduction
By analyzing data from more than 60 retail companies and more than 60 supplier
companies distributed throughout the country, the report “2019 China Private Brand
Market Research”, found that the proportion of average single product store brand
items in the current retail market, the sales of store brands and categories of store
brands all show an increasing trend (Li et al. 2019) and the overall strength of
China’s retail industry has gradually grown. In 2015, 14 Chinese retailers entered
the global retail top 250, such as Suning, Gome, JD, Shanghai Friendship Group and
Dashang Group. Compared with foreign-funded retail enterprises however, local
retail companies have greater deficiencies in terms of core competitiveness and the
capacity for sustainable development (Zhang and Zan 2016).
The implementation of local (Chinese) retail companies’ store brand strategy
is still in its infancy, and their competitiveness and profitability are insufficient.
Compared with foreign-funded enterprises such as Wal-Mart and Auchan, local
retailers’ store brand sales and inventory accounts for a significantly smaller propor-
tion. Traditional retailer’s store brand development is struggling, but with the rapid
development of online sales, online retailers have become a new force in the devel-
opment of store brands. Traditional retailer’s store brand product development often
adopts the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) model, or imitation develop-
ment model. In contrast, online retailers mostly adopt the joint development model,
which is highly related because of their advantage in valuing the use of data and can
quickly react to market demand information. Apart from a few companies such as
“China Resources Vanguard” and “Century Lianhua”, traditional retailers have not
established an independent operational department for their store brands. Most large
online retailers have not only established independent store brand operations depart-
ments, but also established independent store brand product development teams (Liu
2016). Li and Wang (2019) summarized the factors that restrict local retail companies
from implementing their store brand strategy: these are divided into two aspects, the
first being industry factors. When many domestic and foreign retail enterprises enter
the market, it leads to fierce competition in the retail market and low profit margins.
This limits the enthusiasm of local companies to develop their store brands. The
second is the enterprise factor, which includes the lack of comprehensive talents, the
difficulty in quality control for commodities, the difficulty of achieving scale effects
because of the small scales involved, and weak product development capabilities.
1.2.2 Reasons for the Low Market Share of China Store
Brands
As an independent director of Lianhua Supermarkets Limited, the largest supermarket
chain in China and a listed company on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, I have been
engaged in retail consulting for nearly 20 years and is very familiar with the operation
and management practices of the retail industry in China. Based on my understanding
of Chinese retail practices and issues over the past 20 years and the team’s research1.2 The Market for Store Brands in China 7
and analysis of several large retail enterprises, including Lianhua Supermarket, the
reasons for the low market share of China’s retail store label industry are mainly as
follows:
1. Store brand recognition is not high. Store brands are still a relatively new thing
for Chinese consumers, and their awareness and brand recognition are not high
enough. Consumers also lack trust in store label products, preferring to choose
products that they are familiar with. In countries with a long time to build their
store brands, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, the
rate of consumers who trust in their store brands has reached 75, 56, and 38%,
respectively (Xu 2016).
2. Unstable quality of store brands. At present, the development of China’s retail
enterprise store branding is still in the following stage, where some enterprises
are able to reduce store brand OEM costs, and although the advantages, which
are the low prices of store brands, are ensured, the quality is difficult to guar-
antee, affecting customer satisfaction and brand image. Retail companies have
inadequate control over the production quality of their store brands and loopholes
in the supervision of retail company store brands have also caused store brand
products with low quality entering the market (Xu 2016).
3. Inadequate supply chain systems. The development of a retailer’s store brand
requires the integration of a complete supply chain system, including category
selection, product development, production, quality control, marketing, logistics
and sales of the product.
4. Promotion methods are not reached to a certain level. Although some large super-
markets have developed their store brands, enterprises may still use a single
promotional method for these types of goods, and discounts, coupons and other
promotional methods are less used.
5. Risk aversion affects motivation for new product introduction. For retailers, there
is more pressure to sell their store brand than to sell other goods. If there is a
problem with the store brand, it may immediately affect the brand image of the
entire company. Retailers have therefore reduced their own incentive to introduce
their store brands from a risk prevention perspective.
In the fiercely competitive market environment, Chinese retail enterprises, in
order to be robust in facing the competition, urgently need new theories and methods
to guide practice, develop their store brands in a scientific and orderly manner, and
improve the differentiated competitiveness of their enterprises. Therefore, it is essen-
tial to conduct research on the relevant theories as well as key techniques and methods
for developing retail store branding. At the same time, given China’s large popula-
tion and thus a high demand for goods, store label goods still have huge potential
for development. This provides a good practical background for the study of retail
development for store label theories and methods.8 1 Introduction 1.2.3 Challenges for China Store Brands In China, traditional store brands often mean low prices and serious product homo- geneity. Not only is it difficult to persuade people from the premium brands, but it is also extremely difficult to attract new consumers. Although the awareness of Chinese retail companies’ store brands has increased in recent years, the proportion of store brands in most large-scale retail companies are still below 10%, and even in China’s largest supermarket chain, Lianhua Supermarket, it is only 5%. The average level of store brands in the entire Chinese retail industry is only 1–3%. How to develop store label products with high quality and low price like the foreign retail industry and increase the market share of store labels are the practical problems that Chinese retail companies are facing today. For Chinese retail companies to develop their store brands, the following problems need to be solved: 1. Select the correct product. There are between 1 and 2 million kinds of Stock Keeping Units (SKUs) in China’s large physical supermarkets (hypermarkets), and there are more types of products in online retail companies. Which are the most suitable and competitive to choose for the development of store brands in which categories is the first problem to be solved. An important reason for the slow development of store brands in China is that consumers have insuffi- cient confidence in store brands. Therefore, it is necessary to deeply analyze the main factors affecting the introduction of store brands from the perspective of consumers. Although there are some international studies in this area, there are few systematic studies based on the characteristics of the Chinese market. 2. Fixed price. According to LSA/Fournier’s survey of the French market, the impor- tance of retailers’ motivations to introduce their store brands is ranked from high to low: reducing prices (33%), increasing profits (25%), improving their posi- tioning (18%) and increasing consumer loyalty (16%). We can see price is an important factor that affects the introduction of store brands. Before the introduc- tion of store brands, consumers had known expectations about the performance and price of existing products, and price is one of the ways to reflect quality. Lower prices may lead to lower quality expectations, and if the price is too high, it will be difficult to achieve the low-price strategic benefit of store brands. There- fore, how to set prices effectively is also a problem that retail companies must solve when introducing store brands. 3. Restructure channels. After the introduction of store brands, the retailer’s original supply and sales channels will undergo structural changes. To deal with the impact of retailers introducing their store brands, many suppliers have expanded various direct sales channels, so planned channel reconstruction is imperative. At the same time, many retailers have also introduced online sales channels, and changes in the supply network will inevitably bring channel conflicts. How to design a reasonable mechanism to coordinate the “relationship” between channel members and resolve channel conflicts is also a problem that needs to be resolved.
1.2 The Market for Store Brands in China 9
4. Coordinate the supply chain. After the introduction of store brands, retailers and
suppliers have seen increases in the horizontal competitive relationship on the
basis of the traditional upstream and downstream flows, and as the supply and
sales channels have become more complex, the relationship between retailers
and suppliers has become intricate. Under the traditional model, suppliers and
retailers usually improve the efficiency of decentralized decision-making and
the performance of the supply chain through various established coordination
methods. But are these strategies effective after the introduction of store brands
and how effective are they? How to optimize the efficiency of the supply chain
so that both suppliers and retailers can benefit from it is a key consideration.
The “Analysis Report on the Operating Status of China’s Chain Retail Enterprises
2013–2014” shows that although the sales of the top 100 retail companies exceeded 2
trillion in 2013, factors such as slow growth in the macroeconomic environment, weak
consumption, e-commerce channel diversion, consumption upgrades, and continued
high costs and other factors, together led to a decline in the growth rate of the
traditional retail industry. The growth rate has turned into a single digit for the first
time at only 9.9%, and the sales of the top 100 retail companies decreased from
10.8% in 2009 to 8.7% of total retail sales of social consumer goods. Regardless of
whether it is an online or offline retail enterprise, the high homogeneity of products
has shackled market development. Only product differentiation can attract passenger
flow, and differentiation that depends on the development of store brands is potentially
a good strategy.
1.2.4 Lianhua’s Practice in Respect of Store Branding
Lianhua Supermarket introduced its store brand “Lianhua” (LH for short) in the
early 90s. With this development at Lianhua Supermarket, they also differentiated
the Jiahui (food category) and Youpin Life (nonfood category). Later, Jiahui targeted
its product positioning as low-priced consumer goods, and Youpin Life turned to the
high-end market. Nowadays (2018) Lianhua has found its store brand department is
responsible for the design, development, and management of the store brand products.
It has now developed six store brands: Better Living, UPSF (Youpin Life), Youxiang,
Youshi (consumer goods), Tasy (high-end market) and Yours. Figure 1.1 shows the
store brands of Lianhua. The sales volume of Lianhua store brands accounts for 5.3%
of total sales, with ambient temperature products accounting for 3.1% of the total
sales volume. Lianhua chooses its manufacturers according to a series of quality
process control systems. The store brands of Lianhua are different in various areas
of the business. For example, Lianhua has independent store brands in convenience
stores, while in supermarkets and online stores, the store brands are uniform.
The reasons why Lianhua introduced its store brand products were mainly to
increase its market share and profits. The profit margin for store brands is 10%
higher compared to similar products. Normally, the price index for general store brand10 1 Introduction
Fig. 1.1 Store brands of Lianhua
products is 90% and for high-end products, it is 110%. Lianhua aims to cover different
categories of products using their store brands strategy. Currently, Lianhua’s store
brands have covered daily purchasing allocations, for example: fermented rice wine,
cereals, oil and groceries, water and beverages, snack foods, home cleaning, personal
care, household goods, and home textiles. Home appliances and baby supplies are
not covered yet. In Lianhua, grain and oil products have better competitive advantage
compared with other categories of store brand products.
Lianhua sets the price of its store brands based on costs and profit margin, while
the profit margin of store brands is 10% higher than other products within the same
category, Lianhua also conducts promotions for a batch of store brand products every
two weeks, and it responsible for the cost of this promotion. In terms of national
brand products, manufacturers are responsible for the promotions. In the early stage
of introducing store brands, the promotion frequency is often higher, to acquire more
customers’ cognition of the store brand.
The introduction of store branding impacts both the manufacturers and Lianhua.
For example, Lianhua displays its goods in a different way after the introduction of
store brands. Lianhua has display policies for store brands: store brands have specific
exclusive counters, and they are usually located near best-seller goods. From what
we see, the conflict between manufacturers and Lianhua is not apparent, as Lianhua
cooperates with a lot of manufacturers, the competition between manufacturers exists
all the time, and they are usually small manufacturers without the power to affect
Lianhua.
There exist challenges, though, for Lianhua to develop its store brands. Store brand
development differs in different locations, which leads to unbalanced development
paths. Compared to Metro, Germany’s largest retail group, the different categories of1.2 The Market for Store Brands in China 11 Lianhua store brands are more numerous, which affects brand cognition. The brand image of Lianhua store brands need to be strengthened. 1.3 The Outline of This Work This study is based on the problems that need to be solved to promote the development of store branding as a strategy in China’s retail industry. It is focused on four topics, namely: (1) retail brand product strategy; (2) pricing strategy; (3) channel strategy and (4) supply chain coordination. These key issues are described as follows: 1. The characteristics of consumers who purchase store brand products in the Chinese market and the key factors that affect the success of store brands; the strategic design of the introduction of store brands under different business formats; the distribution and layout of stock shelves after the introduction of store brands 2. Pricing strategies for store brands that consider consumer behavior and compe- tition among the channel members 3. Channel selection and conflict resolution mechanism design in a multi-channel environment after the introduction of store brands 4. Design of supply chain coordination strategy and supply chain optimization after the introduction of store brands. These research results can be applied to the practice of offline and online retail companies to develop their store brands. 1.4 Summary In this chapter, we first discuss the development of store brands. There are four main reasons that motivate retailers to develop store brands: (1) Increasing market share and profits; (2) Improving the bargaining power of retailers; (3) Increasing brand loyalty; (4) Controlling the positioning of the products. The evolution of store brands is often observed in four stages, from unknown brands, to quasi-brands, family brands and finally, image brands. We discuss the characteristics of these store brand evolutionary stages. In the second part, we discussed the market for store brands based on the Chinese experience. We found that the sales of store brands and brand categories of in China are an increasing trend. Many large domestic retail enterprises have launched their own brand products in recent years. The reasons for the low market share of private brands in China are discussed. Using a real-life case study, we illustrated the issues using the practice and challenges experienced by Lianhua supermarket in terms of store brand management. In the final part, we presented our outline for the remaining parts of this work, pointing to the four key topics of retail brand product strategy, pricing strategy, channel strategy and supply chain coordination.
12 1 Introduction References ACNielsen, N. (2005). The power of private label: A review of growth trends around the world. Amrouche, N., & Yan, R. (2012). Implementing online store for national brand competing against private label. Journal of Business Research, 65, 325–332. Amrouche, N., & Zaccour, G. (2008). A shelf-space-dependent wholesale price when manufacturer and retailer brands compete. OR Spectrum, 31, 361–383. Arce-Urriza, M., & Cebollada, J. (2018). Assesing the success of private labels online: Differences across categories in the grocery industry. Electronic Commerce Research, 18, 719–753. Bontems, P., Monier-Dilhan, S., & Requillart, V. (1999). Strategic effects of private labels. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 26, 147–165. Caprice, S. (2017). Private label positioning and product line. Frontiers of Economics in China, 12, 480–513. Cho, J.-W. (2019). Characteristics of private label users of low involvement products: Scanner data analysis. Journal of Distribution Science, 17, 95–102 (In Korean with English abstract). Dimitrieska, S., Koneska, L., Kozareva, K. G., & Teofilovska, J. (2017). The power of private brands. In P. Hajek, O. Vit, P. Basova, M. KRIJT, H. Paszekova, O. Souckova, & R. Mudrik (Eds.), Cbu International Conference Proceedings 2017: Innovations in Science and Education. Prague 8: Central Bohemia Univ. Geyskens, I., Keller, K. O., Dekimpe, M. G., & de Jong, K. (2018). How to brand your private labels. Business Horizons, 61, 487–496. Groznik, A., & Heese, H. S. (2010). Supply chain conflict due to store brands: The value of wholesale price commitment in a retail supply chain. Decision Sciences, 41, 203–230. Herstein, R., Drori, N., Berger, R., & Barnes, B. R. (2017). Exploring the gap between policy and practice in private branding strategy management in an emerging market. International Marketing Review, 34, 559–578. Hoch, S. J., & Banerji, S. (1993). When do private labels succeed. Sloan Management Review, 34, 57–67. Kotler, P. (1999). Marketing management: The millennium edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Li, G., Zhang, X. F., Chiu, S. M., Liu, M. Q., & Sethi, S. P. (2019). Online market entry and channel sharing strategy with direct selling diseconomies in the sharing economy era. International Journal of Production Economics, 218, 135–147. Li, W. G., & Wang, M. K. (2019). A study on the implementation of private brand strategy of retail enterprises—Taking Beijing as an example. Journal of Commercial Economics, 80–82 (in Chinese with English abstract). Liu, W. G. (2016). A comparative study of private brand strategy and growth path of online retailers and traditional retailers. Journal of Business Economics, 12–20 (in Chinese with English abstract). Lombart, C., & Louis, D. (2016). Sources of retailer personality: Private brand perceptions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, 117–125. Mills, D. E. (1999). Private labels and manufacturer counterstrategies. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 26, 125–145. Morton, F. S., & Zettelmeyer, F. (2004). The strategic positioning of store brands in retailer- manufacturer negotiations. Review of Industrial Organization, 24, 161–194. Nenycz-Thiel, M., Romaniuk, J. & Dawes, J. (2016). Is being private better or worse online? Private labels performance in online grocery channel. In F. J. Martinezlopez, J. C. Gazquezabad, & E. Gijsbrecht (Eds.), Advances in national brand and private label marketing. Cham: Springer Int Publishing Ag. Pan, Y. (2018). Exploration on the development of private brand chain in retail enterprises— Enlightenment from Japan. Journal of Commercial Economics, 102–104 (in Chinese with English abstract).
You can also read
