The authors examine the viability of an “everyday low price” (EDLP) strategy in the supermarket grocery industry. In two series of field experiments in 26 product categories conducted in an 86-store grocery chain, they find that a 10% EDLP category price decrease led to a 3% sales volume increase, whereas a 10% Hi-Lo price increase led to a 3% sales decrease. Because consumer demand did not respond much to changes in everyday price, they found large differences in profitability. An EDLP policy reduced profits by 18%, and Hi-Lo pricing increased profits by 15%. In a third study, the authors increase the frequency of shallow price deals in the context of higher everyday prices and find a 3% increase in unit volume and a 4% increase in profit. Finally, they draw a conceptual distinction between “value pricing” at the back door and EDLP pricing at the front door.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArnoldStephen J., OumTae H., and TigertDouglas J. (1983), “Determinant Attributes in Retail Patronage: Seasonal, Temporal, Regional, and International Comparisons,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20(May), 149–57.
2.
BlattbergRobert C., EppenGary D., and LiebermanJoshua (1981), “A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Price Deals for Consumer Nondurables,”Journal of Marketing, 45(Winter), 116–29.
3.
BlattbergRobert C., and NeslinScott A. (1990), Sales Promotion.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
4.
BuzzellRobert D., QuelchJohn A., and SalmonWalter J. (1990). “The Costly Bargain of Trade Promotion,”Harvard Business Review, (March/April), 141–49.
5.
DavisScott J., InmanJeffrey, and McAlisterLeigh (1992), “Promotion Has a Negative Effect on Brand Evaluation—Or Does It? Additional Discontinuing Evidence,”Journal of Marketing Research, 29(February), 143–48.
6.
DicksonPeter R., and SawyerAlan G. (1990), “The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers,”Journal of Marketing, 54(July), 42–53.
EhrenbergAndrew S.C. (1988), Repeat-Buying: Theory and Applications, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
HochStephen J., and DeightonJohn A. (1989), “Managing What Consumers Learn From Experience,”Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 1–20.
10.
HochStephen J., KimByung-Do, MontgomeryAlan L., and RossiPeter E. (1995), “Determinants of Store-Level Price Elasticity,”Journal of Marketing Research, 32(February), in press.
11.
Information Resources, Inc. (1993), Managing Your Business in an EDLP Environment.Chicago: IRI.
12.
JeulandAbel P., and NarasimhanChakravarthi (1985), “Dealing—Temporary Price Cuts—by Seller as a Buyer Discrimination Mechanism,”Journal of Business, 58(3), 295–308.
13.
LaiRajiv, and RaoRam (1993), “Supermarket Competition: The Case of Every Day Low Pricing,” working paper, School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas.
14.
LattinJames M., and OrtmeyerGwen (1991), “A Theoretical Rationale for Everyday Low Pricing by Grocery Retailers,” working paper, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
15.
MandelStephen F. (1991), “How Supermarkets Can Get into the Productivity Loop,”Supermarket Business (December), 27.
16.
NarasimhanChakravarthi (1988), “Competitive Promotional Strategies,”Journal of Business, 61(4), 427–49.
17.
NeslinScott A., and ShoemakerRobert W. (1989), “An Alternative Explanation for Lower Repeat Rates After Promotion Purchases,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26(May), 205–13.
18.
O'BrienBridget (1993), “Continental Plans Test of Low-Fare, No-Frills Flights,”Wall Street Journal (September 10), Bl.
