Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 200–208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Assessing the sales effectiveness of differently located endcaps in a T

supermarket☆
⁎
Pei Jie Tan , Armando Corsi, Justin Cohen, Anne Sharp, Larry Lockshin, William Caruso,
Svetlana Bogomolova
Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide 5001, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper compares the sales effectiveness of front versus back located end-of-aisle promotional displays
Endcaps (endcaps) in a supermarket, through measuring sales from the endcaps alone, as well as total brand sales, across
Sales uplift three experiments. This paper reveals that rear endcaps generate a higher total brand sales uplift than front
In-store experiments endcaps, acting like “billboards” to draw shoppers into the main aisle. On average, rear endcaps generated 416%
sales uplift, while front endcaps generated 346% sales uplift. However, front endcaps deliver higher endcap-only
sales uplift. These findings challenge industry assumptions about one of the most commonly used promotional
tools.

1. Introduction approximately 2% of the total items in the supermarket are being

Supermarkets play an important role in the daily lives of consumers,
accounting for almost two-thirds of all groceries being purchased in
developed countries (Cameron, 2014; Roy Morgan Research, 2014;
Cohen and Babey, 2012). Supermarkets and brand manufacturers adopt
promotions of various natures (i.e., price discounts, special displays,
and signage) to attract shoppers’ attention in the cluttered store en-
vironment and thereby increase purchase likelihood (Bogomolova
et al., 2017; Egol and Vollmer, 2008; Sorensen, 2008; Turley and
Milliman, 2000). Across the world, consumer packaged goods compa-
nies spend approximately USD 1 trillion annually on promotions
(Nielsen, 2015), and consumers seem to appreciate them. A recent
study by Bogomolova et al. (2015), showed that almost 50% of grocery
items in the United States and the United Kingdom were sold under
promotion. In particular, retailers and manufacturers divert a large
portion of their marketing budget towards in-store or point-of-sale
promotions, rather than out-of-store promotions, such as advertise-
ments (Bolton et al., 2010; Egol and Vollmer, 2008). Nielsen (2015)
claims that approximately 19% of retailers’ and manufacturers’ revenue
is spent on in-store promotions, while only about 7% is dedicated to
advertising.
One of the most commonly used forms of in-store promotion is
endcaps. Endcaps (or end-of-aisle displays) are special displays located
at the end (usually front and back) of a shelf row (Buttle, 1993;
Chevalier, 1975) (Fig. 1). In a typical supermarket, at any one time,
promoted on endcaps or other off-location displays (Sorensen, 2009).
Yet this small percentage of items is estimated to constitute around 30%
of the total supermarket sales (Sorensen, 2009).
Since only 2% of the total store items can be displayed on endcaps
(Sorensen, 2009), retailers are able to charge manufacturers hefty fees
(i.e., slotting allowances/fees) to obtain such shelf space (Marx and
Shaffer, 2004). The amount of slotting fees still remains an undisclosed
industry metric because it is subjective and based on an unknown in-
ternal reference point (Federal Trade Commission, 2003; Wilkie et al.,
2002) and the negotiation skills of the parties involved (Bogomolova
et al., 2017). There is anecdotal evidence that slotting fees in the United
States range between $6 billion to $18 billion a year (O'Dwyer, 2015).
Despite such claimed high marketing expenditure, it is a matter of
concern that many retailers and manufacturers still plan their promo-
tional activities based on “gut-feel”, assumptions, and beliefs
(Bogomolova et al., 2017). There have only been a few studies that
specifically examined the effectiveness of endcap sales uplift (Chevalier,
1975; Nakamura et al., 2014; Wilkinson et al., 1982). These studies
established that endcaps are able to increase sales levels from 23% to an
impressive 1197%. This variability could, at least in part, be due to
different locations of endcaps and the variations in foot traffic within a
store, as shoppers navigate the store in a predictable manner (Larson
et al., 2005; Sorensen, 2010). However, none of these studies have at-
tempted to understand how different locations of endcaps affect sales
uplift. Furthermore, none of the prior studies have isolated and

☆
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: peijie.tan@marketingscience.info (P.J. Tan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.015
Received 27 November 2017; Received in revised form 9 March 2018; Accepted 23 March 2018
Available online 10 April 2018
0969-6989/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.J. Tan et al.
Fig. 1. Endcaps (or end-of-aisle displays).
identified whether the sales uplifts were generated from the endcap
shelf itself, or from the main in-aisle shelf (as a result of an endcap
promotion), or a combination of the two. The endcap promotion could
lead to two possible scenarios: 1) shoppers can purchase the item from
the endcap shelf right away, or 2) shoppers could enter the main aisle
(usually located adjacent to the endcap where the same product is being
promoted), in search of a better bargain or a wider range, which
eventually could lead to a purchase from the main in-aisle shelf.
The need for more evidence-based knowledge about the effective-
ness of in-store promotions is crucial to help managers make well-in-
formed decisions. The purpose of this paper is to determine how sales
effectiveness of endcaps varies by different in-store locations. First, the
study identifies which endcap locations generate the highest sales up-
lift. This provides practitioners with evidence-based knowledge as to
which endcap location is the most effective. Secondly, the paper es-
tablishes the relative proportion of total sales coming from each of the
locations – that is, the sales composition coming from the endcap dis-
play versus in-aisle shelves. This establishes better understanding of the
role of endcaps, i.e., endcaps acting as advertising, or as additional shelf
space, or both. Findings from these two research objectives offer im-
portant insights into how endcap promotions affect shopper behaviour,
thus expanding researchers’ and practitioners’ knowledge of the effec-
tiveness of such a common and important marketing tool.
2. Background
Only a small number of past studies have examined the effectiveness
of endcaps (Buttle, 1993; Chevalier, 1975; Kennedy, 1970; Nakamura
et al., 2014; Wilkinson et al., 1982). However, the majority of these
studies were conducted 30 years ago and the retail environment has
changed significantly in the duration. Furthermore, it has not been
possible to make generalisations about the sales effect of endcaps, as
not all studies have attempted to disentangle the effects of price, price
promotions, and endcap location.
Chevalier's (1975) study assessed the increase in sales due to endcap
displays at two different price points: 6% discount and 12% discount.
The author found that there was no endcap performance distinction
between the two price levels. The limitation of this study is that the
endcap sales uplift was not separated from the main aisle sales as the
result was reported at the aggregate level. Wilkinson et al.’s (1982)
study examined the impact of price discounts, alternative displays
(expanded display or endcaps or special within-aisle display), and
newspaper advertising on the unit sales of supermarket products. The
authors did not focus on external validity, as all of the special displays
had to be purposely built for the study, making the shopping environ-
ment highly artificial. Moreover, similar to Chevalier's (1975) study,
sales results were reported at the aggregate level. Other potential
201
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 200–208
confounding factors were price discounts, newspaper advertising, and
different brand share size. Nakamura et al.’s (2014) study assessed the
effect of endcaps on product sales. The price and price promotions were
controlled for in the study, but the authors did not examine the sales
effectiveness of endcaps located in different areas of the supermarket.
Interestingly, Nakamura et al.’s results are lower than others, so further
research is needed in order to understand the causes of variability.
The results of this previous research on the topic are summarised in
Table 1.
2.1. Why are endcaps effective?
One of the explanations for why endcaps produce such high sales
uplift is provided by the theory of classical conditioning. Classical
conditioning is a learning process whereby a behaviour is learnt by a
repetitive association between the response and the stimulus (Pavlov
and Anrep, 2003). The same principle and process applies to shopper
behaviour. Over the years, shoppers have been conditioned to associate
price discounts with special signage and displays. Even if the item does
not offer any monetary discount, shoppers still assume an item with a
promotional signage offers a good deal (Anderson and Simester, 2003;
Inman et al., 1990). As shoppers notice endcap displays along their
shopping path, they might make a purchase from the endcap shelves
(items at different levels of discount and even items without any dis-
count), because their prior experience has shown them that good value
can be obtained from the endcap shelves. This reasoning suggests that
endcap promotions should deliver high sales uplifts.
Another explanation for the effectiveness of endcaps lies in their
structure and visual composition. In everyday life, people make many
decisions based on vision and perceptions, such as estimating the dis-
tance from a car when crossing the road, or discerning colours, patterns,
numbers, and information. If the visual scene is too complex and/or
disorganised, it can lead to a degradation of a person's judgement and
performance (Rosenholtz et al., 2007). Visual clutter not only affects
the quality of perceptual decisions, but also increases errors (Baldassi
et al., 2006). Unfortunately, visual clutter is common within the su-
permarket environment due to the huge number of products, brands,
signage, and promotional displays in store. Conversely, when a shopper
encounters an endcap display, it usually has only one brand on it, or a
few variants of the same brand (Caruso et al., in press). This is a si-
tuation of reduced visual clutter. The endcap itself has empty space
(walkways) surrounding it, making the whole display easier to see.
Furthermore, fewer options presented on an endcap could simplify
choice and help the shopper avoid confusion associated with too much
choice (Schwartz, 2004). Therefore, picking a product from an endcap
may be easier for a shopper because of less visual clutter and fewer
options to choose from. In addition, shoppers would have to slow down
near the endcap displays as they are turning into the aisles (Sorensen,
2016). The endcap displays have longer exposure to the shoppers, thus
increasing the purchase propensity. This would lead us to expect that
products on endcaps will experience sales uplift.
2.2. Shopper in-store traffic
Due to the commonality of supermarket store layouts, there is es-
tablished knowledge of how shoppers navigate a physical store. They
do so in a predictable manner, and this pattern has been found to hold,
even if there is slight variation in store layout (Levy and Weitz, 2009;
Sommer and Aitkens, 1982; Sorensen, 2009, 2016; Sorensen et al.,
2017). The shopper's path is generally a U-turn or a racetrack (Fig. 2).
The typical shopper's path, such as the racetrack, results in busy and
quiet areas (i.e., hot and cold spots) within the store, with some areas at
the back of the store clearly having more foot traffic and potentially
visual attention than some areas at the front of the store. The variation
in the number of people and visual attention across store areas could
impact the effectiveness of the endcap display, with sales effectiveness
 P.J. Tan et al.
Table 1
Summary of past research.
Study Country Year of data collection Number of Product Result Type of data Discount depth Number of items Number of Location of endcaps
supermarket category displays
stores

Kennedy Canada Not specified (3 4-week 6 Carton Endcap versus Gross margin return Not specified Not specified Not specified At the checkout
(1970) time periods) cigvarettes Regular based on 3.6% pilferage
shelving: $50/ rate. Endcaps versus
week Regular shelf
Chevalier United January to April 1973 4 Semi-moist dog 312% Average sales in 12%6% (author's note: no Not specified (16 test 8 displays Not examined
(1975) States food percentage. Weekly distinction is made items per week: 8 per week
Light duty 1197% unit sales. Aggregated between two price cuts) product categories
liquid detergent × 2 brands)
Cooking and 902%
salad oil
Facial tissues 321%
Food storage 248%
202

bags
Bleach 331%
Mayonnaise 683%
Fabric softener 580%

Wilkinson United Not specified (80 weeks) 1 Pie shells 185% Percentage increase in The halfway point Not specified Not specified Not examined
et al. States Apple juice 77% unit sales. Aggregated between recommended
(1982) retail price and cost to the
supermarket

As cited in United N/A 12 drugstores N/A 142–217% Percentage increase in N/A N/A N/A N/A
Buttle States sales. Aggregated

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 200–208

(1993)
Nakamura United March 2010 to February 1 Beer 23% Percentage increase in No discount 1639 products from 4 display Most aisle ends were
et al. Kingdom 2011 (13 weekly slices Wine 34% sales. Product-level the six categories in locations located along the main
(2014) (first weeks following 4- Spirits 46% weekly sales. Endcaps total thoroughfare that skirted
weekly verification)) Carbonated 52% versus Main aisle the edge of the store
drinks
Coffee 74%
Tea 114%
P.J. Tan et al.
Fig. 2. Typical paths of shoppers (Larson et al., 2005).
likely to differ depending on its location in store.
3. Research questions
The overarching research objective of this study is to understand
how the location of an endcap within a supermarket influences endcap
sales effectiveness.
Sorensen (2008) tracked over 20,000 shoppers, producing a “snap
shot” of in-store “media” exposures, specifically endcaps, located at
different areas within a supermarket. The author stated that there is a
difference between displays receiving low exposure and displays re-
ceiving high exposure, according to location.
Caruso et al. (2015) showed how differently located displays receive
different levels of exposure through analysis of 132 eye-tracking re-
cordings of shopping trips across two supermarkets. The results showed
that endcaps at the rear of the store had, on average, 27% higher foot-
traffic past the endcaps compared to the endcaps located at the front of
203
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 200–208
the store. Moreover, the results showed that endcaps located at the rear
of the store received twice as much visual reach as endcaps located at
the front of the store. The difference between front and rear endcaps
was greater in visual reach versus foot traffic because of shopper or-
ientation. Shoppers are more likely to be at the front of the store at the
end of the shopping trip, when they are looking towards checkouts
(with their backs to endcaps) and preparing to leave the store. This
means that despite being in the vicinity of the front endcaps, shoppers
are actually facing the opposite way, which could reduce endcap ef-
fectiveness. The study did not go further though to test the actual sales
effectiveness.
Caruso et al.'s (in press) study also fits with the “butt-brush” theory
(Underhill, 1999), which states that shoppers will not linger and browse
in areas that are crowded. Most consumers will walk away from the
area where another shopper could bump into them, as it is invading
their personal space and feels uncomfortable. This means that shoppers
are less inclined to shop in crowded areas. The rear of the store is more
spacious than the crowded front of the store with the checkout area. As
a result, shoppers might spend more time and pay more attention to the
endcaps at the rear of the store (also being in a “shopping” mode),
rather than the front-of-store endcaps (when they are in the “getting
out” mode).
Foot traffic and footfall density often define the economic viability
of any trading location (Timmermans, 2004). For example, malls gen-
erally have an anchor store to draw in as many shoppers as possible
(Carter and Vandell, 2005), because higher foot traffic creates greater
sales opportunities. Depending on the foot traffic, mall management is
able to charge different rentals for tenants. The same situation and
principle applies within supermarkets. Due to store size and limited
shelf space, supermarket managers often put price tags on their shelf
space, similar to real estate. Prime locations within the store (i.e.
endcaps) are put up for bid, and the manufacturer who offers the best
deal obtains that shelf space (Wilkie et al., 2002). Hence the real estate
value of endcaps varies across different locations within the store.
Given the above considerations, the first research question is:
RQ1: How do the total brand sales differ for the endcaps located at
the front versus at the rear of the supermarket?
A major limitation of prior studies (Buttle, 1993; Chevalier, 1975;
Kennedy, 1970; Levy and Weitz, 2009; Nakamura et al., 2014; Nordfält,
2011; Wilkinson et al., 1982) is that sales uplift was calculated as the
total brand sales in the week of the endcap promotion. It is not possible
to separate endcap sales from those made from the category aisle. The
present study overcomes this limitation by showing the role played by
an endcap promotion as either a secondary display (i.e., simply extra
shelf space), or a potential ‘billboard’ to advertise a promotion and
drive traffic into the category aisle (particularly in situations when the
endcap promotion is located on the same aisle as the category).
Therefore, the following additional research question is formulated:
RQ2: How much of the total brand sales uplift comes from the
endcap itself versus the category aisle?
Extant literature suggests that endcaps could increase sales by: 1)
acting as additional and more conveniently located shelf space
(meaning that most of the sales uplifts should come from the endcap
itself), or 2) acting as an advertisement for the discounted brand by
attracting shoppers into the main aisle (when sales uplifts are expected
to be generated from the main aisle) in line with previous studies
(Caruso et al., 2015; Nakamura et al., 2014). The following additional
research question will clarify the role.
RQ2a: How, if at all, does the sales uplift ratio differ for front versus
rear endcap promotions?
P.J. Tan et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 200–208

Fig. 3. Store layout map.

4. Method any law-like patterns, replication and extension into different product
categories is carried out in Experiment 2 (soft drinks) and Experiment 3
To analyse the sales effectiveness of endcaps, we used the transac- (biscuits). The large brands and chosen product categories are ideal for
tion sales data of a suburban Australian supermarket that was part of a the quasi-experiment due to their high penetration and high purchase
large retail chain. According to the store manager, the supermarket frequency. High penetration categories are relevant to all shoppers,
stocks approximately 25,000 unique stock keeping units (SKU), which giving equal chances for all shoppers to purchase the second largest
is similar to a typical supermarket that stocks approximately 30,000 brand within them. High purchase frequency categories have short
SKU (Sharp, 2010). The socio-demographics of the store's catchment inter-purchase times. This means that consumers will be more likely to
area was broadly representative of the South Australian population purchase again within the same category shortly after the previous
(based on the 2011 Australian Bureau of Statistics census): median age purchase. This is important for the experiments, as we moved the lo-
of 40 years (similar to the South Australia state median age of 39), 51% cation of the brands between front and rear endcaps every other week,
female (the same as the state percentage of 51% female), weekly with a one-week break between each location (see Table 2). Therefore,
household income of $1125 (slightly higher than the state average of we can expect consumers to come back looking for the same category
$1044). There were 12 aisles in the store, with two endcaps located at within that timeframe, finding the chosen category either on a front or a
each end (front and rear) of the aisle. There were 24 endcaps in total rear endcap. The weekly rotation design is in line with past studies
within the store (Fig. 3). The independent variable is the endcap loca- (Buckinx and Van den Poel, 2005; Jain and Vilcassim, 1991; Kahn and
tion: front or rear. The operational definitions and endcap location are Schmittlein, 1989), which stated that the inter-purchase time for con-
as follows: sumer goods is a seven-day cycle.
The dependent variable is the sales uplift. Even though we had no
• Front endcap: An endcap located at the front of the store, facing the control over the selling price, empirical data show little variability in
entrance or checkout counters. Coded using the aisle number and the price promotion depth across different endcap locations. The typical
‘F’. For example, the endcap located at Aisle 1 facing the store en- promotion depth is 30%, ranging from a minimum of 27% to a
trance is coded as ‘1F’;
• Rear endcap: An endcap located at the rear of the store, facing the
storage area. Coded using the aisle number and ‘R’. For example, the Table 2
endcap located at Aisle 1 facing the rear of the store is coded as ‘1R’. Endcap item weekly location.
Experiment Week 1 2 3 4
Chips, soft drinks and biscuits are categories most commonly sold
on endcaps (Caruso et al., 2015). The second largest chips brand is Experiment 1 In-aisle only In-aisle and In-aisle only In-aisle and
chips No discount 7F endcap No discount 7R endcap
chosen as the manipulated brand for Experiment 1. We did not choose
the category market leader due to ceiling effects. As the brand is already Experiment 2 soft In-aisle only In-aisle and In-aisle only In-aisle and
drinks No discount 10F endcap No discount 10R endcap
the market leader, there would be very little room for it to increase its
penetration, which is shown through the sales level. Hence, its sales Experiment 3 In-aisle only In-aisle and In-aisle only In-aisle and
biscuits No discount 9F endcap No discount 9R endcap
uplift would not be shown clearly through the data analysis. To identify

204
P.J. Tan et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 200–208

maximum of 36%, with no specific endcaps displaying always higher or Table 3

lower price discounts. Therefore, the promotion depth can be con- Front versus rear endcap sales uplift (%).
sidered reasonably constant. When the brand is displayed on endcaps, Experiment Total sales uplift (%)
the price discount is 30%. This avoids confounding effects due to var-
iations in price discounts. Sales uplift is calculated as follows: Front Rear

Q1 –Q0 Experiment 1 chips 231 305

Sales  uplift   (%) =
Q0
•Q 1 is the quantity sold during the manipulation week. The brand is
located in-aisle and either at the front or rear endcap, in both cases
with a price discount of 30%.
• Q0 is the quantity sold during week 1. The brand is sold in-aisle only
at a normal price, with no discount.
In order to answer RQ2 and RQ2a, we separated in-aisle sales from
endcap sales. This is executed by having one of the store's staff count
the daily stock-take figure from the manipulated endcap—this is the
exact number of units sold from the endcap itself (i.e., endcap-only
sales). Next, we collected the brand's total daily sales data from store
transaction data (i.e., brand's total sales). The daily counts are then
combined into weekly totals. Finally, the percentage difference between
the endcap-only sales and the transaction report total yielded the per-
centage of sales that is generated from the endcap display.
Endcap − only sales
Endcap − only  share  of  sales   (%) =
Brand’s total sales
As a further level of investigation for RQ1 and RQ2a, we decided to
perform one-way repeated measures ANOVA and paired sample t-tests,
and to measure statistical differences between front and rear sales up-
lift, and front and rear endcap-only share of sales, respectively.
The fixed variables in this study: the chosen brand was placed at the
endcap of the same parent category aisle, it was advertised in the cat-
alogue, and no brand substitution of the same product category was
placed at the other endcap of the same aisle. The order of the endcaps
and aisles was not manipulated during the experiment, to avoid any
disruption to the natural shopping environment and consumer beha-
viour. Naturally, it happened that all our endcap spaces were “on ca-
tegory” – that is located on the same aisle as where the main brand
display was. So, following the normal shopper ‘racetrack’ at the back of
the store, shoppers would have first seen the endcap, then (immediately
after) they can see down the corresponding aisle, and have an option to
turn into it. Moreover, the same promotion framing was used across all
endcaps. Only one standard promotion sign was used in the study (this
was also in accordance with the store's usual operation): a single price
promotion sign showing the word “Special”, the selling price, dollar
savings, and unit price.
To ensure that the experiment was conducted according to the re-
search protocol, we visited the store on a regular basis – once a week.
The store manager's weekly endcap plan was also collected to record
the items sold on each endcap. For added reliability, we took high-
resolution photos and recorded the endcap location, item, and pricing
information.
5. Results
Experiment 2 soft drinks 462 479
Experiment 3 biscuits 344 465
Average 346 416
difference between the baseline condition and the front endcap condi-
tion (M = − 16.66, SD = 1.70, p = .00). The second pair-wise com-
parison shows a significant difference between the baseline condition
and the rear endcap condition (M = − 21.29, SD = 2.11, p = .00). The
third pair-wise comparison shows a significant difference between front
endcap condition and the rear endcap condition (M = − 4.62, SD =
2.08, p = .03).
Overall, these results suggest the endcap location has an effect on
the amount of sales uplift. Specifically, the strongest effect occurs when
the brand is sold on the rear endcap, compared to in-aisle only. When
comparing between the front and rear endcap locations, the rear endcap
is able to generate higher sales uplift.
In relation to RQ3, front endcaps generate higher endcap-only sales
(+ 34%) than rear endcaps (+ 24%) (Table 4). A pair-wise comparison
revealed a significant difference between the front endcap-only sales
and the rear endcap-only sales condition (M = 11.72, SD = 28.16,
p = .02).
For RQ2a, a paired t-test is carried out to check for statistically
significant differences between front endcap-only sales level and rear
endcap-only sales level (see Appendix B for detailed output). Front
endcaps contribute to higher endcap-only sales (M = 19.31, SD =
26.07), as opposed to the rear endcaps (M = 7.58, SD = 8.17). This
also suggests that shoppers are more likely to purchase items from front
endcap displays, as compared to rear endcap displays.
6. Discussion and contributions
This research is the first systematic study to investigate the sales
effectiveness of front endcaps versus rear endcaps within a super-
market, thus contributing to the growing body of literature on in-store
displays and promotions. The findings add to knowledge about short-
term effects of in-store promotions. When items are sold on endcaps,
there is an increase in sales of a product (416% for rear endcap and
346% for front endcap). This supports past research stating that in-store
displays magnify the impact of a price cut (van Heerde et al., 2000,
2001). For example, sales volume could increase up to 400% when a
deep discount of 45% was accompanied by a special display (Totten and
Block, 1994). Furthermore, shoppers are conditioned to associate end-
caps with price discounts. This is in accordance with classical con-
ditioning principles: over the years, shoppers have learnt that good
value can be obtained from special displays, such as endcaps. This is
another reason why endcaps are effective in increasing sales.
Results show that when products are offered at the rear endcap,
shoppers tend to purchase more items from the in-aisle shelf rather than

On average, the three experiments revealed that rear endcaps gen- Table 4
erate higher total brand sales (+ 416%) than front endcaps (+ 346%) Front versus rear endcap sales composition (%).
(Table 3).
Experiment Sales composition (%)
A one-way repeated measure ANOVA was conducted to compare the
effect of location on endcap sales uplift in the baseline condition, front Front endcap In-aisle Rear endcap In-aisle
endcap condition, and rear endcap condition (see Appendix A for de-
tailed output). The results reveal a significant effect of location on Experiment 1 chips 35 65 22 78
Experiment 2 soft drinks 35 65 29 71
endcap sales uplifts (F(2,103) = 68.82, p = .000).
Experiment 3 biscuits 33 67 20 80
Three pair-wise comparisons are used to make post hoc comparisons Average 34 66 24 76
between conditions. The first pair-wise comparison shows a significant

205
P.J. Tan et al.
rear endcaps. As people shop along the rear of the store, they notice the
rear endcap and are reminded of the category purchase. When shoppers
move towards the checkout area, they walk into the category aisle,
purchase items from the in-aisle shelf, and complete their shopping
task. This emphasises that shoppers follow a typical path (Sorensen,
2010). This research also supports Underhill's “butt-brush” theory
(Underhill, 1999). Shoppers are more comfortable when shopping
along the spacious area at the rear of the store compared to the crowded
area at the front of the store. Therefore, shoppers are more likely to stop
at and pay attention to the rear endcaps than the front endcaps.
However, front endcaps can be useful too, as noted in Table 4. When
shoppers queue for the checkout at the front of the store, they tend to
purchase the offered item on the front endcap. From the ‘racetrack
shopping pattern’ (Larson et al., 2005; Sorensen, 2009), it can be pos-
ited that shoppers are more focused on looking out for the checkout
counters and getting out of the shop when they reach the front of the
store. Shoppers are less likely to purchase the item from the in-aisle
shelf because they would have to walk into the category aisle, and then
double back out towards the checkout area (which could also mean that
they lose their position in the checkout queue). The results also show
that shoppers consider front endcaps to be a secondary purchase loca-
tion.
From a managerial perspective, this research provides directions for
actions and strategies that retailers and manufacturers could undertake
to improve their practices, as well as some actions that they could avoid
to prevent wasting effort and resources. Firstly, the study suggests that
in order to increase short-term sales, manufacturers should seek to
place more of their products on the rear endcap than the front endcap.
The results, in fact, show that rear endcaps are more efficient in in-
creasing brand sales than front endcaps. Rear endcaps act as a signpost,
reminding shoppers of the category purchase and attracting them into
the category aisle, which prompts them to purchase items from the in-
aisle shelf.
Secondly, manufacturers can utilise front endcaps as a secondary
purchase location. Using front endcaps will not only benefit manu-
facturers, but also help shoppers to complete their shopping task in a
time-efficient manner. Across different markets, geographic locations,
and store formats and sizes, 59% of all shopping trips were completed
in l0 minutes or less, and the most common number of items purchased
was one (with an average of nine items purchased) (Anesbury et al.,
2016; Bogomolova et al., 2013). In such cases, front endcaps would be
ideal in helping shoppers to complete their shopping task more effi-
ciently. For example, placing high penetration and high purchase fre-
quency categories, such as household essential items, at the front
endcaps could help accelerate shoppers’ task completion.
Thirdly, this research shows some inconsistency with the industry's
beliefs and assumptions. While conducting the experiments, we inter-
acted with the retail partners and manufacturers. The manufacturers
offered a higher incentive to the store manager so that products would
be placed at the front endcap, rather than the rear endcap. For example,
if the products are placed at the front endcap, the store manager re-
ceived $100, but if the products are placed at the rear endcap, the store
manager only received $70. The manufacturers strongly believed that
the front endcap is more efficient than the rear endcap in increasing
brand sales levels. Often, there is a discrepancy between industry be-
liefs and the academic knowledge of shopper behaviour (Bogomolova
et al., 2017). Retailers and manufacturers typically make promotional
decisions based on short-term sales figures, due to the lack of access to
data and reliable knowledge. Therefore, by strengthening their colla-
boration with academics, they will have access to data and evidence-
based knowledge, which will help them to improve their retail store
operations and decision-making processes.
Finally, when placing products on the endcap, manufacturers need
to take into account the slotting fee and discount depth, as these will
affect the profit margin. Due to limited store size and shelf space, re-
tailers put an expensive price tag on some of their premium shelf space
206
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 200–208
(i.e. endcaps), and the manufacturer who offers the best deal obtains
the shelf space (Marx and Shaffer, 2004). Hence, it is important to gain
knowledge that optimises endcap space, especially for local producers
or healthier (premium) products. These producers tend to have smaller
marketing budgets and higher production costs. Having the ability to
retain a high profit margin while offering a small discount would be the
ideal scenario for them.
7. Limitations and future research
7.1. Limitations
The main limitations of this research are the constraints of the re-
search protocol, time availability, and the logistical challenges of con-
ducting quasi-experiments. This research involved 12 weeks of shop-
pers’ transactional data, and three brands across three product
categories were manipulated. Thus, future research should extend the
experiment across a longer timeline and more categories.
Quasi-experiments require close collaboration with the retailer.
Only one Australian supermarket is used for this study. Therefore, this
research needs to be replicated across other stores to determine the
robustness of the results. Furthermore, due to the limited availability of
the store manager and floor staff, the endcap manipulation was carried
out one brand at a time. Hence, the experiment timeline was tight.
7.2. Future research
There is still a need to better understand endcap space and how
shoppers react to in-store displays in supermarkets. First, we re-
commend that future research examine other off-location displays, such
as display bins, free-standing racks, and checkout counter displays. This
research only focused on one off-location display: endcaps. Future re-
search can help determine the extent of the results, establish the
boundary conditions, and determine whether the results hold the same
for the other off-location displays.
Second, future research should seek a retailer's collaboration to
control for catalogue-feature promotions. The sales results from this
research contain catalogue promotion effects. Having the ability to
isolate the catalogue promotion effect would allow future researchers to
confidently state that the sales uplift effect is generated solely from the
additional endcap location.
Thirdly, the baseline sales levels referred to situations where the
product is sold in-aisle only at a “normal” price. Hence, the sales result
is a combined effect from the additional endcap location and the dis-
count depth. Future research could address this by setting the baseline
for when the product is sold in-aisle only at a discounted price.
Lastly, the chosen discount depth is the typical discount depth ob-
served in the store and in agreement with the store manager. Future
research should conduct the experiment at different discount depths, in
order to determine the extent of the discount effect paired with the
additional endcap location.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Herb Sorensen for his advice during
the results write up, and Luke Greenacre for his guidance during the
experiment design. A special thank you should go to staff at the Barossa
Co-op for their time, effort and assistance in the data collection process.
The authors would also like to thank Andrew Murphy and Clinton
Weeks for helpful comments during the examination of the thesis on
which this paper is based.
Declaration of interest
None.
P.J. Tan et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 200–208

Table A1
One-way repeated measures ANOVA.
Multivariate tests

Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powera

Pillai's trace .57 68.82 2.00 103.00 .000 .57 137.65 1.00
Wilks' lambda .43 68.82 2.00 103.00 .000 .57 137.65 1.00
Hotelling's trace 1.34 68.82 2.00 103.00 .000 .57 137.65 1.00
Roy's largest root 1.34 68.82 2.00 103.00 .000 .57 137.65 1.00

Pairwise comparisons

(I) location (J) location Mean difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for differenceb

Lower bound Upper bound

Baseline Front − 16.66 *

1.70 .000 − 20.03 − 13.29
Rear − 21.29* 2.12 .000 − 25.48 − 17.09

Front Baseline 16.66* 1.70 .000 13.29 20.03

Rear − 4.63* 2.08 .029 − 8.76 − .50

Rear Baseline 21.29* 2.15 .000 17.09 25.48

Front 4.63* 2.08 .029 .50 8.76

Based on estimated marginal means.

Each F tests the multivariate effect of location. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
* The mean difference is significant.
a
Computed using alpha = 0.05.
b
Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference.

Table B1
Paired t-test.
Paired samples statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 Front endcap-only sales 19.31 36 26.07 4.35

Rear endcap-only sales 7.59 36 8.17 1.36

Paired samples correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Front endcap-only sales –Rear endcap-only sales 36 − .11 .526

Paired samples test

Paired differences t df Sig.

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper (2-tailed)

Pair 1 Front endcap-only sales – Rear endcap-only sales 11.72 28.16 4.69 2.19 21.25 2.50 35 .017

Appendix A

See Table A1.

Appendix B

See Table B1.

References Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia, Australia.

Anderson, E., Simester, D., 2003. Mind your pricing cues. Harv. Bus. Rev. 96–103.
Anesbury, Z., Nenycz-Thiel, M., Dawes, J., Kennedy, R., 2016. How do shoppers behave
online? An observational study of online grocery shopping. J. Consum. Behav. 15 (3),
261–270.
Baldassi, S., Megna, N., Burr, D.C., 2006. Visual clutter causes high-magnitude errors.
PLoS Biol. 4 (3), e56.
Bogomolova, S., Anderson, K., Kennedy, R., Page, B., Sharp, A., Sorensen, H., 2013.
Report 64: The Fundamentals of Shopper Behaviour. Corporate Sponsors Report.
Bogomolova, S., Dunn, S., Trinh, G., Taylor, J., Volpe, R.J., 2015. Price promotion
landscape in the US and UK: depicting retail practice to inform future research
agenda. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 25, 1–11.
Bogomolova, S., Szabo, M., Kennedy, R., 2017. Retailers' and manufacturers' price-pro-
motion decisions: intuitive or evidence-based? J. Bus. Res. 76, 189–200.
Bolton, R., Shankar, V., Montoya, D., 2010. Recent trends and emerging practices in re-
tailer pricing. In: Krafft, M., Mantrala, M.K. (Eds.), Retailing in the 21st Century:
Current and Future Trends. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 245–359.
Buckinx, W., Van den Poel, D., 2005. Customer base analysis: partial defection of beha-
viourally loyal clients in a non-contractual FMCG retail setting. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 164

207
P.J. Tan et al.
(1), 252–268.
Buttle, F., 1993. Merchandising. Eur. J. Mark. 6 (7), 104–123 (18).
Cameron, A., 2014. Big supermarkets, big on junk food: how to make healthier food
environments. The Conversation.
Carter, C., Vandell, K., 2005. Store location in shopping centers: theory and estimates. J.
Real Estate Res. 3, 237–266.
Caruso, W., Bogomolova, S., Corsi, A., Cohen, J., Sharp, A., Lockshin, L., 2015. Exploring
the effectiveness of endcap locations in a supermarket: early evidence from in-store
video observations. Paper presented at the ANZMAC, Sydney, Australia.
Caruso, W., Bogomolova, S., Corsi, A., Cohen, J., Sharp, A., Lockshin, L., Tan, P.J., 2018.
The real estate value of supermarket endcaps. J. Advert. Res (In press).
Cohen, D.A., Babey, S.H., 2012. Contextual influences on eating behaviours: heuristic
processing and dietary choices. Obes. Rev. 13 (9), 766–779.
Chevalier, M., 1975. Increase in sales due to in-store display. J. Mark. Res. 12
(November), 426–431.
Egol, M., Vollmer, C., 2008. Major media in the shopping aisle. Strategy + Bus. 53,
68–79.
Federal Trade Commission, 2003. Slotting allowances in the retail grocery industry: se-
lected case studies in five product categories. Retrieved from 〈https://www.ftc.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/reports/use-slotting-allowances-retail-grocery-
industry/slottingallowancerpt031114.pdf〉.
Inman, J.J., McAlister, L., Hoyer, W.D., 1990. Promotion signal: proxy for a price cut? J.
Consum. Res. 17 (1), 74–81.
Jain, D.C., Vilcassim, N.J., 1991. Investigating household purchase timing decisions: a
conditional hazard function approach. Mark. Sci. 10 (1), 1–22.
Kahn, B., Schmittlein, D., 1989. Shopping trip behavior: an empirical investigation. Mark.
Lett. 1 (1), 55–69.
Kennedy, J.R., 1970. The effect of display location on the sales and pilferage of cigarettes.
J. Mark. Res. 7 (2), 210–215.
Larson, J.S., Bradlow, E.T., Fader, P.S., 2005. An exploratory look at supermarket shop-
ping paths. Int. J. Res. Mark. 22 (4), 395–414.
Levy, M., Weitz, B.A., 2009. Retailing Management, 7th ed. McGraw Hill, Boston.
Marx, L., Shaffer, G., 2004. Slotting allowances and scarce shelf space. Mark. Sci. 22 (2),
198–230.
Nakamura, R., Pechey, R., Suhrcke, M., Jebb, S.A., Marteau, T.M., 2014. Sales impact of
displaying alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages in end-of-aisle locations: an ob-
servational study. Soc. Sci. Med. 108 (1), 68–73.
Nielsen, 2015. The path to efficient trade promotions. Retrieved from: 〈http://www.
nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2015/the-path-to-efficient-trade-promotions.
208
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 200–208
html〉.
Nordfält, J., 2011. Improving the attention-capturing ability of special displays with the
combination effect and the design effect. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 18 (3), 169–173.
O'Dwyer, J., 2015. Battle for store shelf & media space fought with $$. O'Dwyer’s.
Pavlov, I.P., Anrep, G.V., 2003. Conditioned Reflexes. Courier Corporation, New York.
Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., Nakano, L., 2007. Measuring visual clutter. J. Vis. 7, 2.
Roy Morgan Research, 2014. Market share narrows between Coles and Woolworths, while
ALDI makes important gains. Retrieved from: 〈http://www.roymorgan.com/
findings/5427-market-share-narrows-between-coles-woolworths-while-aldi-makes-
gains-201402120013〉.
Schwartz, B., 2004. The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. Harper Collins, New York.
Sharp, B., 2010. How Brands Grow. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Sommer, R., Aitkens, S., 1982. Mental mapping of two supermarkets. J. Consum. Res. 9
(2), 211–215.
Sorensen, H., 2008. Long tail media in the store. J. Advert. Res. 48 (3), 329–338.
Sorensen, H., 2009. Inside the Mind of the Shopper 1 Pearson Education Inc., Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey.
Sorensen, H., 2010. The "path-to-purchase" is often a U-turn. Views.
Sorensen, H., 2016. Inside the Mind of the Shopper: The Science of Retailing, 2nd ed.
Pearson Education, New Jersey.
Sorensen, H., Bogomolova, S., Anderson, K., Trinh, G., Sharp, A., Kennedy, R., Page, B.,
Wright, M., 2017. Fundamental patterns of in-store shopper behavior. J. Retail.
Consum. Serv. 37, 1–13.
Timmermans, H., 2004. Retail location and consumer spatial choice behavior. In: Bailly,
A., Gibson, L.J. (Eds.), Applied Geography: A World Perspective. Springer, Dordrecht,
pp. 133–147.
Totten, J.C., Block, M., 1994. Analyzing Sales Promotions, 2nd ed. Dartnell Corporation,
Chicago.
Turley, L.W., Milliman, R.E., 2000. Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of
the experimental evidence. J. Bus. Res. 49 (2), 193–211.
Underhill, P., 1999. Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping. Obat, Inc., London.
van Heerde, H.J., Leeflang, P.S.H., Wittink, D.R., 2000. The estimation of pre- and
postpromotion dips with store-level scanner data. J. Mark. Res. 37, 383–395.
van Heerde, H.J., Leeflang, P.S.H., Wittink, D.R., 2001. Semiparametric analysis to esti-
mate the deal effect curve. J. Mark. Res. 38, 197–215.
Wilkie, W.L., Desrochers, D.M., Gundlach, G.T., 2002. Marketing research and public
policy: the case of slotting fees. J. Public Policy Mark. 21 (2), 275–288.
Wilkinson, J.B., Mason, J.B., Paksoy, C.H., 1982. Assessing the impact of short-term su-
permarket strategy variables. J. Mark. Res. 19, 72–86.