Strategic responses to the pandemic: a case study of the US department store industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The study focuses on (1) the success of three strategies employed during the pandemic – two “persevering” strategies, curbside pickup and return window extension and one innovative strategy, virtual try-on technology and (2) whether the strategies are likely to be successful in the post-pandemic world. Design/methodology/approach The authors utilize a panel dataset containing 17 department store chains in the US The panel includes weekly sales by the retailers at the city level from 2018 to 2021, encompassing both a pre-COVID-19 period and a period during the pandemic. A two-way fixed effects model, including retailer-city fixed effects and year-week fixed effects, is used to estimate department store sales. Findings The authors find that the two persevering strategies offset the negative impact of government-imposed containment and health measures on sales performance. On the other hand, the innovative strategy is more effective with a low level of containment and health measures, leading to our observation that virtual try-on may be more sustainable than the other two strategies in a post-pandemic environment. Originality/value This paper makes the following contributions: First, the authors contribute to the literature on strategies that may be used to respond to crises. Second, the authors contribute to the retail management literature, assessing the impact of the three retail strategies on department store sales. Finally, the authors compare the impact on sales of the two persevering strategies to the innovative strategy and conclude that a mix of these types of strategies may be most effective at generating short-term sales during a crisis and longer-term sales post crisis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".