MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385312781 · doi:10.1177/00222429231193371

Assessing the Multichannel Impact of Brand Store Entry by a Digital-Native Grocery Brand

2023· article· en· W4385312781 on OpenAlexaff
Michiel Van Crombrugge, Els Breugelmans, Florian Breiner, Christian W. Scheiner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsBusinessAdvertisingBrand managementBrand awarenessBrand extensionBrand equityMarketingProfit (economics)Economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For digital-native fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) manufacturers that sell through their own online channel and have made headway into supermarkets, brand stores can represent the next step in a multichannel distribution strategy. In this research, the authors investigate the impact of introducing a brand store on a digital-native FMCG brand's sales in its existing company-owned online channel and in independent supermarkets, as well as on the brand's supermarket distribution. By incorporating brand store sales and operational costs, this research also specifies the entry effects on the brand's top-line total brand sales and bottom-line operating profit. Based on before-and-after-with-control-group analyses of the entry of ten brand stores by a digital-native FMCG brand, the authors show that brand store entry boosts supermarket sales, partially driven by a brand store's positive effect on the number of supermarkets listing the brand. Although they cannibalize company-owned online sales, brand store entries generate an influx of own brand store sales that offset online channel losses. Still, accounting for brand stores’ operational costs reveals that top-line growth is not always enough to preserve the bottom line.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MarketingSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207