Intern. J.

of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273 – 286

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijresmar

The impact of retailer stockouts on whether, how much,

and what to buy
Katia Campo a,*, Els Gijsbrechts b, Patricia Nisol a
a
University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium
b
University of Tilburg, Warandelaan 2, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
Received 12 July 2001; received in revised form 12 December 2002; accepted 17 December 2002

Abstract

This paper investigates the impact of retailer stockouts on whether, how much, and what consumers buy in a category
during the out-of-stock period. It adds to previous literature by investigating the stockouts’ impact on purchase quantities, by
uncovering the pattern of within-category shifts triggered by them, and by analyzing dynamic effects on incidence, quantity,
and choice decisions. Although essential for an accurate assessment of stockout implications, these aspects of out-of-stock
(OOS) behavior have received little attention so far. Moreover, while most of the previous literature on stockouts relies on
surveys measuring reported or intended behavior, this research examines revealed stockout response in a natural store
environment. To this end, traditional purchase incidence, quantity and choice models are adapted to account for various
stockout effects, and estimated based on scanner panel data for two product categories. While tractable, the models capture
various aspects of stockout reactions within the store, allowing to trace the implications of stockouts for specific SKUs and
household (segment)s. The estimation results demonstrate that out-of-stocks can affect all three purchase decisions: they may
reduce the probability of purchase incidence, lead to the purchase of smaller quantities, and induce asymmetric, non-IIA
choice shifts. Simulation of aggregate implications further suggests that, on the whole, retailer losses from stockouts remain
limited, while manufacturer losses can be quite substantial, depending on the stockout item and the store’s assortment
composition.
D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Stockouts; Quantity reduction; Asymmetric switching; Dynamic effects; Scanner panel analysis

1. Relationship to the literature and research
questions
Already in the 60s and 70s, the importance of out-
of-stock (OOS) occurrences in retail outlets, as well as
* Corresponding author. Tel. +32-3-275-5045.
E-mail address: katia.campo@ua.ac.be (K. Campo).
the potential losses they represent for manufacturer
and retailer, was advocated by practitioners and mar-
keting scholars (see, e.g., Peckham, 1963; Schary &
Christopher, 1979; Walter & Grabner, 1975). Recent
evolutions in the area of ECR, EDI, and Category
Management have led to a renewed interest in the
occurrence and consequences of stockouts (Campo,
Gijsbrechts, & Nisol, 2000; Corstjens & Corstjens,
1999).

0167-8116/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0167-8116(03)00037-5
274 K. Campo et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273–286
Previous studies of reactions to retailer stockouts
have indicated that the switch item response is predo-
minant, and hence, that stockouts may entail sub-
stantial sales losses for manufacturers. At the same
time, a non-negligible portion of consumers seem to
switch to another store or to cancel the purchase
altogether, implying that retailers, too, may experi-
ence important sales decreases due to stockouts.
Stockout response was also found to vary substantially
among consumers, products and situations. An over-
view of the factors explaining differences in OOS
reaction is given in Corstjens and Corstjens (1999)
and Campo et al. (2000).
While generating valuable insights, OOS studies to
date leave a number of issues uncovered, three of
which deserve special attention. First, existing papers
on OOS reactions have typically concentrated on
purchase incidence and choice decisions. The pur-
chase quantity issue has been ignored, the implicit
assumption being that consumers either buy nothing
or purchase the regular quantity. Research in other
areas suggests that this assumption may be unrealistic
and that consumers may decide to buy smaller quan-
tities (smaller sizes or less units) to reduce the risk of a
poor choice, or limit the loss in intrinsic utility
associated with the purchase of a less preferred alter-
native (Campo et al., 2000; Chiang, 1995). Second,
while studies to date do analyze whether consumers
switch to another item in case of a stockout, they shed
little light on which replacement item will be selected.
Yet, as suggested by Anupindi, Dada, and Gupta
(1998), switching in response to an OOS may deviate
from regular choice and switching behavior. When all
items are available, item switching predominantly
results from positive incentives, such as promotions
or a desire for variety. In the case of stockouts,
however, the decision to switch to another item is
not purely voluntary and its underlying motivation is
essentially negative in nature (e.g., to avoid an extra
visit to a different store). It follows that the group of
switchers may comprise consumers who do not nor-
mally change items and who may attach a higher
importance to specific product attributes (e.g., brand
name, as a risk-reducing indicator of product quality).
Stockouts may for these reasons produce dispropor-
tionate choice shifts towards some items, compared to
the regular preference and choice distribution. Third,
stockouts may not only have an immediate impact on
purchase decisions during the OOS period, they may
also influence whether, how much and what consum-
ers buy in post-OOS periods. Based on the inventory
effects studied in the sales promotions literature (see,
e.g., Neslin & Schneider-Stone, 1996), we expect that
unusually low home stocks—resulting from the deci-
sion to buy nothing or less in response to an OOS—
may lead to purchase acceleration and increased pur-
chase quantities in periods succeeding the stockout. In
addition to these ‘rational’, inventory based motiva-
tions, dynamics in OOS reaction may be caused by
psychological reactions. Situational influences that
disrupt habitual purchasing can—in combination with
imperfect information on the home inventory level—
result in risk-reducing purchase strategies (Neslin &
Schneider-Stone, 1996). In the case of stockouts, this
could lead consumers to buy sooner or more from the
category than what is strictly needed to restore
normal inventory levels. Also, having temporarily
been denied one’s favorite product may reinforce item
preference, enhancing the item’s post-OOS choice
probability.
Insights into these immediate and delayed OOS
effects are of crucial importance (i) for an accurate
assessment of potential OOS losses and (ii) to identify
appropriate measures for preventing stockouts or
reducing their negative consequences.
2. Methodology
To shed more light on these issues, traditional
purchase incidence, quantity, and choice models are
adjusted to account for stockout effects, and estimated
based on scanner panel data of a large European
supermarket chain. This procedure has several advan-
tages over the traditional, survey based research ap-
proach applied in most previous OOS studies. Using
behavioral data may reduce some of the validity threats
associated with the use of reported purchase intentions
and behavior. The fact that surveys somewhat artifi-
cially draw attention to product unavailability may, for
instance, entail a risk of overestimating OOS reaction
strength. Also, individual buying behavior models
allow for a tractable yet flexible approach to OOS
reaction analysis, making it possible to account for
mixed response strategies (e.g., combinations of item
switching and purchase quantity reduction).
 K. Campo et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273–286 275

2.1. Purchase incidence and quantity models
Purchase incidence—or the probability that a house-
hold h will engage in a category purchase on a given
purchase occasion t (PIth)—is modeled using a logistic
function (see, e.g., Bucklin, Gupta, & Siddarth, 1998a;
Bucklin & Lattin, 1991). The probability that—given
incidence—a quantity qth will be purchased (PQth) is
modeled as a truncated Poisson process (see, e.g.,
Dillon & Gupta 1996). Purchase utility in the incidence
model (Wth) and purchase rate in the Poisson model (kth)
are linked to traditional household characteristics and
h
marketing mix variables (Zk,t ), further specified below.
A special feature of our models is that they account for
the effect of stockouts in the category (COOS), in the
current as well as the previous period:
variable equal to 1 when item i is out-of-stock in t and
equal to 0 otherwise.
The definition in Eq. (3) is checked against two
alternative definitions, which are also embedded in the
literature. One is based on the notion that propensity to
purchase from the category declines when there is a
substantial difference in utility between the OOS and
second preference item(s) (see, e.g., Corstjens &
Corstjens, 1999),1 the other that especially consumers
who are uncertain about their preference for the
remaining items, will be less inclined to purchase from
the category (Dhar, 1997).2 Note that the category
stockout definitions integrate information from the
choice model into the incidence model, making pur-
chase incidence probabilities dependent on expected
choice results.3 The coefficients of the COOS variable

expðWth Þ 1
PIht ¼ In this definition, the (importance of the) category stockout is
1 þ expðWth Þ measured as the difference in systematic utility between (i) the item

X  with the highest systematic utility when all items are available
h
exp h0 þ hk Zk;t þ f0 COOSht þ f1 COOSht1 h
(U max, t /AV) and (ii) the item with the highest systematic utility
h
k when one or more items are OOS (U max, t /OOS):
¼
X 
ðIÞh h
1 þ exp h0 þ h h h
hk Zk;t þ f0 COOSt þ f1 COOSt1 COOS t ¼ U max;t =AV  U hmax;t =OOS:
k 2
Using entropy as an indicator of preference uncertainty, this
ð1Þ leads to the following alternative definition for the category
stockout variable:
h
expðkht Þ*ðkht Þqt " #
X  
PQht¼ ðIIÞh
COOS t ¼  pchit *ln pchit when there is at least
ð1  expðkht ÞÞ*factorialðqht Þ

X
i available at t

h h h
kt ¼ expðVt Þ ¼ exp b0 þ bk Zk;t þ g0 COOSht one item out-of -stock in the category,
k ¼ 0 otherwise:

3
þ g1 COOSht1 ð2Þ Interdependencies between incidence and choice decisions are
incorporated in a similar way, through definition of the category
marketing mix variables as weighted sums of item marketing
Given that reactions to item unavailability strongly variables (see below). A similar approach was followed by Dillon
depend on the consumer’s preference for the missing and Gupta (1996), Bucklin, Gupta and Siddarth (1998b), and Jedidi
et al. (1999). Compared to the alternative inclusive value approach
item (see, e.g., Broniarczyk, Hoyer, & McAlister, (see, e.g., Bucklin & Lattin, 1991; Bucklin et al., 1998a), this
1998; Campo et al., 2000; Fitzsimons, 2000), we procedure has the advantage of being less restrictive and of better
specify the category stockout variable (COOS) as a isolating interdependencies due to stockouts. Indeed, instead of one
weighted sum of item stockouts. As weights, we use the inclusive value coefficient, separate incidence parameters are
item’s relative attractiveness for the household, i.e., its estimated for the category price, promotion, and OOS variables—
where especially the latter are of interest to us. To further compare
probability of being selected by the household if all both approaches, we re-estimated (single segment) incidence and
items would have been available: quantity models (1) replacing the aggregate price, promotion, and
X stockout variables with the inclusive value variable; and (2) adding
COOSht ¼ pchit *OOSit ð3Þ the inclusive value variable to the aggregate (category level)
i variable. Only for incidence and cereals did the model with inclusive
value provide a slightly better fit (CAIC, BIC), in all other cases the
where pcith=the
choice probability of item i for house- models with aggregate variables only were found to have superior
hold h in t when all items are available; OOSit=dummy descriptive value.
276 K. Campo et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273–286
in expressions (1) and (2) (f0 and g0) are expected to
be negative, pointing to a reduced likelihood of a
category purchase in case of a (more prominent)
stockout. The delayed effect coefficients, f1 and g1,
on the contrary, are expected to be positive, the
tendency (quantity) to buy from the category being
reinforced by previous stockouts.4,5
2.2. Choice model
To model choice in the potential presence of stock-
outs, the traditional multinomial logit (MNL) model
expression is modified in two ways. First, when an item
is not on the shelves, obviously, it cannot be selected:
the variable OOSit takes it out of the choice set:
expðUith Þ*ð1  OOSit Þ
pcith ¼ X ð4Þ
½expðUkth Þ*ð1  OOSkt Þ
k stants aA,l typically reflect the consumers’ base pref-
where Uith=utility of item i for household h in t and
OOSit=1 when item i is out-of-stock in t and 0
elsewhere.
Second, for any item i in the category, the utility is
adjusted to allow for non-IIA switching patterns in
OOS situations and for carry-over effects of previous
stockouts:
XX X X
Uith ¼ aA;l *DA;l;i þ h
dk Zk;it þ qA OOSA;it
A laLA k A
þ u OOSi;t1 ð5Þ
where A=set of attributes relevant to the product cate-
gory (e.g., brand, flavor, and size); LA=index set of
4 items i of brand B in the assortment. A positive
Positive post-stockout effects already occur through reduced
inventory levels (see Section 1). The lagged stockout coefficient
measures the potential presence of post-stockout peaks over and
above what is explained by (rational) inventory effects.
5
Note that our models are ‘reduced form’ models, i.e., they do
not follow from a dynamic utility framework with forward-looking
consumers. As shown by Erdem, Imai, and Keane (2002), this may
result in biased choice estimates, even if (besides choice) incidence
decisions are explicitly modeled in a nested logit model framework.
Empirical results demonstrate that this is indeed the case for price and
promotions effects, as a result of consumers integrating future price
and promotion expectations in current purchase incidence decisions
(Erdem et al., 2002; Sun, Neslin, & Srinivasan, 2002). Whether this
also holds for stockout events—the core issue of this paper—is not
clear and should be tested in future research. We thank an anonymous
reviewer for pointing this out.
levels relevant for attribute A; DA,l,i=dummy variable
equal to 1 if item i is characterized by level l on attribute
h
A, and to 0 otherwise; Zk,it =household and marketing
mix variables, further specified below; OOSA,it=stock-
out asymmetry variable: number of items similar to i
on attribute A that are OOS in t; OOSi,t1=dummy
variable equal to 1 if item i was out of stock in t1 and
to 0 otherwise.
Recognizing that choices for FMCG are typically
attribute-based (see, e.g., Boatwright & Nunes, 2001;
Hoch, Bradlow, & Wansink, 1999), the first term
expresses item utility explicitly as a function of its
relevant product features. Like Fader and Hardie
(1996), we consider discrete attributes (e.g., ‘brand’,
‘size’), each with a finite number of attribute levels
(e.g., different brand names or package sizes). For
each attribute-level, a separate constant is introduced
in the item utility expression. These attribute con-
erences when all items are available. When OOS
switching patterns do not deviate from ‘normal’
switching behavior, the attribute-based choice model
will suffice to capture stockout-induced choice shifts.
Yet, following Section 1, switching in response to
stockouts may not correspond to the regular prefer-
ence distribution, and cause disproportionate shifts
towards items with specific attributes. To allow for
these NON-IIA patterns, we also include attribute-
specific ‘OOS asymmetry variables’ (OOSA,it) in the
model, which are set equal to the number of items
that are OOS in t and similar to the considered item
on attribute A. For example, if one item of brand B is
unavailable on occasion t, the brand asymmetry
variable, OOSBrand,it, is set equal to 1 for all other
(negative) coefficient associated with the OOSA,it
variable would point to asymmetric switching to-
wards (away from) alternatives that are similar to
the missing item on attribute A (e.g., items of the
same brand).6 Apart from immediate effects, stock-
outs may impact on choice probabilities in subse-
quent periods through preference reinforcement for
6
Note that our model bears some resemblance to the ‘cluster
asymmetry’ model of Vanden Abeele, Gijsbrechts, and Vanhuele
(1990)—which also considers attribute-based asymmetric competi-
tion—but in the context of aggregate market share models with no
stockouts.
 K. Campo et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273–286 277

the OOS item. This is captured by the lagged OOS tively. Data from 626 (499) households for cereals
variable, OOS i,t1 , the coefficient of which is (margarine) were used for model estimation, providing
expected to be positive. information on 31 599 (19 999) store visits and 6069
(5563) purchases for cereals (margarine). Table 1 gives
2.3. Estimation an overview of the variables included in the models.
Besides attribute constants and OOS asymmetry vari-
To accommodate household heterogeneity in OOS ables (see Section 2), the choice model includes SKU
(and other) reactions, we use latent class estimation price, promotion, and dynamic loyalty variables (see
for each of the three buying behavior models. Like Ailawadi, Neslin, & Gedenk, 1999; Bucklin et al.,
Dillon and Gupta (1996) and Jedidi, Mela, and Gupta
(1999), we start out with a sequential estimation
approach. In a first step, we obtain estimates for Table 1
the incidence, quantity, and choice models separately. Variables in the choice, incidence, and quantity models
These estimates are then used as inputs for one Variable Description Model
iteration of joint likelihood estimation (see Jedidi et OOSit item stockout variable, equal to 1 if choice
al., 1999). This procedure substantially improves item i is out of stock in t, 0 otherwise
tractability, while preserving the possibility to allow OOSA,it stockout asymmetry variable for attribute choice
A, equal to the number of items similar
for correlated errors among the three decision
to i on attribute A that are OOS in t
stages.7 PRICEit price of item i in period t. Because regular choice
prices hardly varied during the analysis
period, this price variable mainly captures
3. Empirical analysis the effect of promotional price cuts.
PROMOit dummy variable equal to 1 if there is an choice
extra amount promotion for item i in
3.1. Data and variables period t and equal to 0 otherwise
LOYGLhit a dynamic loyalty variable (see choice
Scanner panel data are available for one store of a Guadagni & Little, 1983), equal to:
h
large European retail chain. These data cover 1 year of a*LOYGLit1 +(1a)*LPith ,
with LPith=last-purchase dummy variable,
store visits, SKU purchases and in-store promotions.
equal to 1 when item i was last
The data set is split up into a 15-week initialization purchased, and 0 otherwise, a=
period (for inventory and loyalty variables), a 28-week smoothing constant between 0 and 1
estimation period, and a 7-week validation period. Our COOSth category OOS variable, weighted sum of incidence,
application concentrates on two product categories, item stockouts with choice probabilities quantity
as weights: Sipchit *OOSit
cereals and margarine, with 24 and 16 SKUs, respec-
CRh the household’s category consumption incidence,
rate, measured as the ‘daily purchased’ quantity
quantity in the initialisation period
7 INVMCth the (mean-centered) household’s incidence,
A sequential approach was preferred over a joint estimation
inventory level in the category at time quantity
approach for reasons of tractability. Especially in our model,
t=INVthINVMh, where INVM h=mean
tractability is an issue because (i) the category stockout variables
of INVth for household h; INVth=INVt1 h
+
depend in a complex fashion on the choice model parameters, such h
qt1 CRh*INTt,t1, with qt1 h
=quantity
that the joint likelihood is an intricate function of these parameters,
purchased during the last visit, and
and (ii) unlike other studies—which include a reduced subset of items
INTt,t1=number of days between the
from the category only—we leave in a maximum of available items to
two consecutive visits t1 and t.
get a truthful picture of stockout induced choice shifts. This, however,
Cpriceth category price variable, weighted average incidence,
comes at the expense of computational tractability of the joint
of item prices with choice probabilities quantity
estimation procedure. Sequential estimation might entail a bias in the
as weights: Sipchit*PRICEit
parameters. However, as indicated by Jedidi et al. (1999), performing
Cpromoth an index of promotional activity in the incidence,
one last ‘joint’ iteration on the sequentially obtained estimates allows
category, equal to the weighted sum of quantity
to assess the importance of this bias and, eventually, remove it. In our
individual item dummy promotion
case, we found the results of the joint iteration to remain very close to
variables: Sipchit*PROMOit
the sequential parameters.
278 K. Campo et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273–286

1998a,b; Gupta, 1988 for a similar approach).8 In the Table 2

incidence and quantity models, the category stockout Frequency of OOS occurrences
variables are supplemented with category-level price Distribution of observed OOS events over different brand typesa
and promotion variables, household consumption rate, Brand type Cereals: Margarine:
and inventory (see also Bucklin et al., 1998a,b; Jedidi et %OOS events %OOS events
al., 1999). National brand 31.4 58.82
Distributor brand 68.6 0.0
Generic 0.0 41.18
3.2. OOS detection procedure
Distribution of OOS events over low and high selling itemsb
An important problem in using behavioral data for
Market share Cereals: Margarine:
OOS research is that stockout occurrences are seldom %OOS events %OOS events
systematically recorded, and that available OOS data (market share (market share
are thus unreliable and incomplete. Identification of range) range)
stockouts is further complicated by the fact that (i) Low 42.86 (0.00 – 1.49) 23.53 (0 – 3)
zero-sales during a given period do not necessarily Below median 0.00 (1.50 – 2.74) 32.35 (3 – 7)
imply that an OOS occurred and, on the other hand, (ii) Above median 28.57 (2.75 – 6.00) 23.53 (7 – 10)
High 28.57 (>6.00) 20.59 (>10)
that there may have been a stockout in periods with
non-zero sales (for instance, when the product ran out Number of stockouts 35 34
of stock halfway during the observation period). To be during the 28-week
able to identify OOS events based on historical sales estimation period
data, we develop a two-stage tracking procedure. In a a
The cereals category comprises only one generic item, the
first step, potential (‘candidate’) stockout periods are margarine category only one private label product, neither of which
identified. In step two, these periods are further is very succesful. OOS occurrence for national brands should
therefore mainly be compared with the stockout frequency of
screened using a sales model and an iterative outlier
distributor brands in the cereals category, and with generic stockouts
analysis procedure, to distinguish ‘normal’ low sales in the margarine category.
from true stockouts. A detailed description of the b
Items were divided in quartiles based on market share, to
procedure is given in Appendix A. Application of check whether stockouts occur more or less frequently for high/low
the procedure to the cereals and margarine data led selling items.
to the detection of several stockouts, in both categories
and for a wide variety of items (see Table 2). Feedback nitions and is therefore retained. Models are estimated
from managers confirmed that the outcomes have face for a varying number of classes and re-estimated using
validity. In addition, several formal validity checks different sets of starting values.9 Based on the BIC and
were performed to ensure the robustness of the OOS CAIC values (see, e.g., Leeflang, Wittink, Wedel, &
detection procedure (see Appendix A). Naert, 2000, p. 493) reported in Table 3, we opt for four
purchase incidence classes and three purchase quantity
3.3. Estimation results classes, for cereals as well as margarine. For choice, a
one-class model is retained for margarine and a three-
For both purchase incidence and quantity, the ‘pref- class model for cereals. Stability of the latent classes is
erence based’ category stockout definition (Eq. (3)) validated on a holdout period of 7 weeks. In both
clearly provided superior fit over the alternative defi- categories, hit rates, average probability for hits, and
mean absolute deviations are very similar for the
8
The use of dynamic loyalty variables is based on Ailawadi et
al. (1999), who show that a combination of these variables with
9
finite mixture estimation outperforms other modelling approaches to Like Gönül, Carter, Petrova, and Srinivasan (2001), we also
capturing time dependence and heterogeneity in consumer choices examined different values for the smoothing constant a and retained
(see Andrews & Currim, 2002, for a similar recent approach). Note the a with the best model fit, which in our application amounts to 0.7.
that a choice model with separate (static) loyalty and last purchase This smoothing constant provided superior fit in both the
variables resulted in extreme collinearity and, similar to the results homogeneous model and the final model (three latent classes for
of Ailawadi et al., did not improve model fit. cereals).
 K. Campo et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273–286 279

Table 3
Goodness-of-fit (BIC, CAIC statistic) for various models
Model Cereals: number of latent classes Margarine: number of latent classes
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Incidence
BIC 14 899 14 175 14 025 13 980 13 996 11 620 11110 11 006 10 927 10 944
CAIC 29 805 28 365 28 074 27 992 28 031 23 247 22 235 22 036 21 886 21 927

Quantity
BIC 5423 5134 5125 5143 6305 5816 5762 5766
CAIC 10 853 10 284 10 274 10 318 12 617 11 647 11 548 11 564

Choice
BIC 15 336 15 061 15 037 15 073 3098 3163
CAIC 30 690 30 156 30 127 30 219 6212 6359

estimation and the validation period, as are the segment
sizes.10
3.4. Parameter estimates
For each of the three buying behavior models, the
coefficients of price, promotion, loyalty, inventory and
consumption rate are significant in the majority of
cases and, when significant, have the expected sign.
Results for the purchase incidence model are reported
in Table 4. In line with previous papers, we find that
stockouts can reduce the likelihood of a category
purchase: the immediate effect coefficients, f0, being
significant and negative in two out of four classes for
cereals, and in three out of four classes for margarine.
In addition, delayed stockout coefficients, f1, are
significant and positive for two out of the four marga-
rine incidence classes, suggesting that ‘extra’ purchase
acceleration takes place in post-stockout periods.11
Table 5 reports the results for the purchase quantity
model. The immediate OOS parameters, g0, indicate
that stockouts lead to a reduction of purchase quantity
in class three for margarine. While this effect is only
weakly significant in the final model, it consistently
appeared in all estimated versions of the margarine
model (one to four latent classes), and was found to be
10
For reasons of space, we do not report details here. They can
be obtained from the authors on request.
11
Note that stockouts in period t may lead to reduced
inventories in t+1, which then automatically lead to higher incidence
probabilities. A positive coefficient f1 points to purchase acceleration
over and above these ‘regular’ adjustments, see also Section 2.
more strongly significant in models with a smaller
number of latent classes. For cereals, no impact is
found of stockouts on purchase quantity. Delayed OOS
coefficients, g1, are insignificant in all cases, suggest-
ing that in the period succeeding the stockout, con-
sumers do not buy more than what is needed to
replenish the decreased home inventory.12
The choice model parameters are summarized in
Table 6. The constants for each attribute (brand, flavor,
type, or size) reflect the difference in attractiveness vis-
à-vis a reference item. Concentrating on stockout
effects, we find significant OOS asymmetry parame-
ters, qA, in all classes, with the exception of class three
for cereals. This finding confirms that stockout induced
choice shifts may deviate from regular switching pat-
terns.13 Product characteristics that produce dispropor-
tional choice shifts in response to OOS are consistent
between classes of the same product category, yet differ
between categories. For cereals, consumers tend to
switch to another brand (negative qB coefficient for
class 2) in order to be able to buy the same type
(positive qT coefficient for classes 1 and 2) and/or
flavor of cereals (positive qF coefficient for class 2).
For margarine, in contrast, consumers who have to
12
Note, again, that this does not rule out positive post-stockout
effects. If stockouts lead to immediate incidence probability and/or
quantity reductions, this will lower next period’s inventory, and hence
increase next period’s incidence probability and quantity through the
inventory effect.
13
Fader and Hardie’s (1996) IIA-test was applied to the final
model to check for any remaining conflicts with the MNL model’s
IIA-assumption, and provided satisfactory results.
280 K. Campo et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273–286

Table 4
Estimation results for the purchase incidence model
Variable Cereals Margarine
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4
a a a a a a
Constant 0.065 2.837 1.341 3.026 2.066 0.756 1.930 0.098
(0.10) (0.07) (0.04) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.14) (0.16)
Inventory 0.101a 0.058b 0.090a 1.173a 0.364a 0.271a 2.597a 0.370a
(0.02) (0.03) (0.01) (0.07) (0.05) (0.04) (0.21) (0.08)
Cons. rate 11.110a 12.913a 10.227a 39.774a 5.721a 6.019a 28.779a 22.211a
(2.48) (0.89) (0.61) (1.65) (1.18) (1.48) (4.80) (4.67)
Cprice 0.007 0.012 0.005 0.014c 0.037b 0.003 0.002 0.059
(0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.04)
Cpromo 0.339 0.253 0.220 0.166 0.233b 0.045 0.498a 0.427
(0.30) (0.26) (0.17) (0.25) (0.14) (0.13) (0.20) (0.31)
COOS(f0) 2.720a 1.999 1.524a 0.641 0.813b 1.165a 1.569a 0.566
(1.00) (1.73) (0.54) (0.82) (0.49) (0.33) (0.44) (0.53)
COOSt-1(f1) 0.011 0.978 0.472 0.827 0.525c 0.369 0.989b 0.103
(1.05) (1.09) (0.41) (0.73) (0.42) (0.31) (0.43) (0.56)
Class size (%) 11 13 42 34 22 33 31 14
a
Significant at the 1% level.
b
Significant at the 5% level.
c
Significant at the 10% level (one-tailed significance test).

switch to another item because of an OOS tend to stay
with the same brand (positive qB coefficient), and buy
another size of margarine instead (negative qS coeffi-
cient). The coefficient of the delayed stockout variable,
u, is positive and significant for margarine—pointing
to a preference reinforcement effect for the OOS
item—but insignificant for cereals.
3.5. Heterogeneity in OOS reactions
The results above show that consumers differ in
their stockout reactions and this at each of the decision
levels. To get an overall picture, we group the inci-
dence, quantity, and choice classes into segments with
homogeneous OOS reactions. Table 7 provides an
overview of observed OOS reaction patterns and the
fraction of households for which they occur. While
some segments hold on to a single stockout reaction
(segments 1, 2, and 3), others follow a mixed strategy.
Consumers in segment 4 appear to select one out of
two ‘favorite’ options: switch to items with specific
attributes (asymmetric switching), or give up the
planned category purchase. Segment 5 consumers
not only buy less when confronted with an OOS, they

Table 5
Estimation results for the purchase quantity model
Variable Cereals Margarine
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
Constant 0.522a (0.11) 1.747a (0.13) 0.488a (0.08) 2.115a (0.08) 0.801a (0.09) 0.064b (0.05)
Inventory 0.019 (0.02) 0.106b (0.05) 0.038a (0.02) 0.084c (0.06) 0.090b (0.04) 0.041c (0.03)
Cons. rate 2.510 (2.46) 10.675a (1.52) 9.393a (1.04) 30.647a (1.36) 7.766a (1.89) 9.172a (0.53)
Cprice 0.005 (0.01) 0.002 (0.01) 0.019a (0.01) 0.012 (0.03) 0.009 (0.04) 0.003 (0.01)
Cpromo 0.713a (0.20) 0.955a (0.26) 0.473a (0.14) 0.994a (0.15) 0.100 (0.20) 0.238a (0.07)
COOS(g0) 0.557 (0.90) 2.642 (2.24) 0.174 (0.93) 0.008 (0.62) 0.197 (0.30) 0.483c (0.39)
COOSt-1(g1) 0.706 (0.81) 1.094 (1.39) 0.423 (0.87) 0.144 (0.59) 0.139 (0.43) 0.087 (0.37)
Class size (%) 7 48 45 38 9 52
a
Significant at the 1% level.
b
Significant at the 5% level.
c
Significant at the 10% level (one-tailed significance test).
 K. Campo et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273–286 281

Table 6
Estimation results for the choice model
Variable Cereals Margarine
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Variable Class 1
Brand constant Brand constant
NBc1 3.034a (0.25) 1.231a (0.15) 0.046 (0.10) NBm1 1.315a (0.19)
Distributor 4.510a (1.01) 0.557a (0.16) 1.740a (0.31) NBm2 0.014 (0.15)
Generic 6.482 (51.4) 1.088a (0.14) 5.612 (70.9) NBm3 1.454a (0.22)
Flavor constant NBm4 1.879a (0.52)
Nature 1.382a (0.14) 0.489a (0.12) 0.535a (0.17) NBm5 1.382a (0.79)
Chocolate 1.003a (0.10) 0.970a (0.10) 0.060 (0.12) Distributor 4.738a (0.23)
Honey 0.804a (0.10) 0.269a (0.10) 0.155 (0.13) Generic 7.332a (0.24)
Type constant Type constant
Rice 0.358a (0.08) 0.248a (0.09) 0.042 (0.11) Regular 0.091 (0.12)
Wheat 0.040 (0.10) 0.069 (0.09) 0.034 (0.13) Size constant
2 cereals 1.146a (0.14) 0.387a (0.12) 0.146 (0.10) Large 0.374a (0.13)
Multicereals 0.130 (0.15) 0.432a (0.11) 0.520a (0.16) Loyalty 5.998a (0.07)
Loyalty 4.044a (0.10) 5.196a (0.10) 4.609a (0.13) Price 0.312a (0.03)
Price 0.026a (0.00) 0.014a (0.00) 0.003 (0.01) Promotion 0.321a (0.14)
Promotion 0.340a (0.11) 0.387a (0.09) 0.170 (0.16) OOS variables
OOS variables Brand(qB) 0.410a (0.14)
Brand(qB) 0.779 (0.99) 0.489a (0.16) 0.186 (0.30) Size(qS) 0.230b (0.12)
Type(qT) 0.196b (0.08) 0.172b (0.08) 0.151 (0.11) Type(qT) 0.011 (0.10)
Flavor(qF) 0.048 (0.08) 0.179b (0.08) 0.167 (0.15) OOSt1(u) 0.640a (0.22)
OOSt1(u) 0.219 (0.69) 0.064 (0.26) 0.027 (0.66)
Class size (%) 47 34 19 100
a
Significant at the 1% level.
b
Significant at the 5% level.
c
Significant at the 10% level (1-tailed significance test, with exception of OOS variables, for which a 2-tailed test was applied).

also have a tendency to switch to items of the same with specific attributes, possibly in smaller quantities.
brand—both reactions pointing to risk-reducing be- While the segment characterization is somewhat spec-
havior. Segment 6 combines the previous strategies by ulative, it does point to the need to account for mixed
either dropping the purchase or buying an alternative reaction patterns.

Table 7
OOS response patternsa
OOS-reaction Reduced Reduced Asymmetr. Margarine Cereals
incidence quantity (non-IIA)
switching
1. ‘‘Switch to other item’’ No No No 194 (31%)
2. ‘‘Do not buy’’ Yes No No 217 (34.7%)
3. ‘‘Switch to item with No No Yes 38 (7.6%) 98 (15.6%)
specific attributes’’
4. ‘‘Do not buy or switch to Yes No Yes 200 (40.1%) 117 (18.7%)
item with specific attributes’’
5. ‘‘Buy less and switch to item No Yes Yes 33 (6.6%)
with specific attributes’’
6. ‘‘Do not buy, or buy less and Yes Yes Yes 228 (45.7%)
switch to item with specific attributes’’
a
These figures were obtained after assignment of households to latent classes for the incidence, quantity, and choice models, based on a
posteriori class membership probabilities.
282 K. Campo et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273–286
4. Implications for manufacturers and retailers
From the estimation results presented above, in-
sights can be obtained into the consequences of stock-
outs for retailers and manufacturers. The retailer is
primarily interested in the implications of stockouts
on total category sales within the store. The manufac-
turer, in contrast, is preoccupied with shifts within the
category to competitors’ items.
4.1. Loss in category sales due to purchase incidence
and quantity adjustments
As indicated in the literature review, category
losses implied by a stockout vary across households
and items. The incidence and quantity models allow to
predict stockout implications for particular (groups of)
households and products. Based on Eq. (1), a stockout
for item j reduces the purchase incidence probability
for household h in the stockout period with the
following fraction:
ðpiht j AVÞ  ðpiht j OOSjt Þ
RIhjt ¼
ðpiht j AVÞ
1 immediate reduction of category sales of 2.0% for
¼1 h
ðpit j AVÞ þ expðf0 pchjt Þ*ð1  ðpiht j AVÞÞ
ð6Þ
where (PIthjAV) is the purchase incidence probability
when all items are available and (PIthjOOSjt) is the
purchase incidence probability with a stockout for
item j. To illustrate, consider a household in class 1
of margarine with an average purchase probability of
0.3. If this household encounters a stockout for an
item for which it has a 0.8 choice probability, its
propensity to purchase from the category will reduce
by 39%14 (drop from 0.3 to 0.18). Following expres-
sion (6), this reduction in purchase incidence proba-
bility is larger (i) for segments with more negative
stockout parameters f0 and (ii) for highly preferred
OOS items (high pcjth). Incidence effects for cereals
14
Note that the latter result is surprisingly close to the finding
of Campo, Gijsbrechts, and Nisol (2000), that 34% of consumers
decide not to buy from the category in the store (that is: to switch
stores, defer or cancel the purchase) when their favorite margarine is
not on the shelves.
can be computed in the same fashion and also have
face value.15
Similarly, based on the quantity model Eq. (2), a
stockout for item j reduces the household’s purchase
rate with the fraction:
kht j AV  kht j OOSjt
RQhjt ¼ ¼ 1  expðg0 pchjt Þ ð7Þ
kht j AV
where (kht jOOSjt) is the household purchase rate when
j is out-of-stock and (kht jAV) the purchase rate when
all items are available. Like for incidence, the reduc-
tion in purchase quantity increases with the absolute
value of the stockout parameter (g0) and the house-
hold’s preference for the stockout item (pcjth). For
instance, for households in class 3 of margarine
(where g0=0.483), their purchase rates would de-
crease by 9% for stockouts of items with a 20%
choice probability and by as much as 32% for items
with a 80% choice probability.
To obtain insights into overall retailer losses, we
use the actual market environment in the calibration
period as a basis for simulation. On average, unavail-
ability of one item from the assortment leads to an
margarine and of 1.83% for cereals. While immediate
OOS effects are similar for both product categories, a
much larger part of the sales losses can be recovered in
the post-OOS period for margarine (1.66%) than for
cereals (0.02%), implying much smaller net losses for
margarine (0.34%) than for cereals (1.81%).
4.2. Loss in brand sales due to competitive switching
From a manufacturer’s perspective, choice shifts in
response to stockouts are not problematic as long as the
consumer switches to other items of his own product
line. Our choice models allow to compute how the
purchase probability of a brand is affected by a stockout
of one of its SKUs, taking regular switching patterns as
15
For instance, with a stockout parameter of 1.52 (class 3), a
stockout for a household’s favorite item—for which a ‘typical’
choice probability in the cereals category is 50%—would reduce
this household’s purchase propensity from say, 0.2 to 0.104. This
48% reduction is largely comparable to that reported by Campo et
al. (2000), who find that 56% of consumers do not purchase any
cereals in the store when their favorite product is missing.
 K. Campo et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273–286
well as OOS induced asymmetric choice shifts into
account. Based on expressions (4) and (5), a stockout
for the i-th SKU reduces brand B’s choice share (equal
to SjaBrand Bpcjth) with the following fraction:
RChB;t
! among items—may not need to decrease purchase
X X
ðpchjt Þ*exp qA OOSA;jt
jaB;jpi A tution. For margarine, the quantity effect is significant
¼1
X X X
ðpchjt Þ* ðpchlt Þ*exp qA OOSA;lt
jaB lpi A Second, stockout induced choice shifts are found to
The loss in brand sales becomes less dramatic as (i)
more SKUs of the brand are available, (ii) the remain-
ing SKU’s are relatively more attractive compared to
competitive items (incorporated in the denominator of
Eq. (8)), and (iii) the brand’s other SKUs share impor-
tant attributes with the stockout item that produce
positive asymmetric choice shifts. Simulation results
show, for instance, that asymmetric choice shifts to
items of the same type in class 1 of the cereals category
(qT=0.196), could lead to twice as large choice share
losses for brand NBC2 when the brand assortment
would not comprise any other item of the same type
(share loss of 43% instead of 23% in case an alternative
of the same type would be available). To assess the
implications of this phenomenon at the market level,
we, again, use our data set as a simulation environment.
For the margarine national brand NBm5, which has
only one item in its line, a stockout automatically
reduces brand sales to zero (100% loss). For the other,
multiple item brands, sales losses range between 7%
and 58% of the original choice share. This large
variation in brand sales losses is not at all surprising,
given that the availability of substitute items in the
brands’ assortments, as well as the OOS items’ attrac-
tiveness (choice share), varies considerably.
5. Discussion and limitations
This research contributes to the literature in two
ways. At the substantive level, the paper improves our
understanding of consumer response to OOS in retail
outlets. First, our results reveal that stockouts may alter
each of the three consumer decisions: whether to buy,
283
how much to purchase from the category, and what to
choose. At the same time, quantity effects—contrary to
incidence and choice effects—only occur in one of the
two categories. No such effects are found for cereals,
where variety seeking is typically high (Campo, 1997;
Givon, 1984) and consumers—who regularly switch
quantity to limit the risk or utility loss of item substi-
! but small, which may be due to the fact that most
consumers purchase only one package per occasion.
ð8Þ deviate from regular switching patterns. Disproportion-
ate shifts are observed towards items of the same type
or flavor for cereals, and of the same brand for
margarine. These differences in non-IIA switching
patterns appear to be in line with product category
characteristics and category differences in OOS re-
sponse reported in a recent stockout study (Sloot,
Verhoef, & Frances, 2002). Cereals’ brand lines typi-
cally contain similar varieties—the private label line,
for instance, containing a copy of most of the market
leaders’ product variants. Also, consumers—being
familiar with more product alternatives—rely less on
the brand as a quality cue. Margarine manufacturers
rather try to differentiate themselves from competitors
through distinctive positioning (e.g., ‘low cholesterol’
vs. ‘tasty’ brands). They also offer different package
sizes, making it easier for consumers to stay with their
familiar product and brand. On the whole, our findings
indicate that traditional choice models—which do not
account for non-IIA (stockout) choice shifts—may lead
to biased estimates of manufacturer OOS losses and
that insights into the category-specific characteristics
driving stockout-based switches may be crucial to
counteract their negative effects. Third, our results
show that stockouts may positively affect purchase
incidence and choice decisions in post-OOS periods,
allowing retailers and manufacturers to recover some of
the immediate losses. Interestingly, dynamic effects
over and above those needed to restore inventories
are only observed for margarine—a more ‘necessary’
and ‘storable’ category than cereals.
From a methodological viewpoint, our approach
has the advantage that it allows to assess stockout
implications on the basis of scanner panel data. The
OOS tracking procedure permits to trace the occur-
rence of stockouts when no or incomplete OOS
284 K. Campo et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273–286
records are available. The purchase incidence, quanti-
ty, and choice models—adjusted to account for imme-
diate and delayed stockout effects—can be used to
simulate OOS implications for specific SKUs and/or
consumer segments, and this for the manufacturer as
well as the retailer. Our reliance on revealed (not
stated) behavior may produce a more realistic view
on the importance of stockout losses. Among consum-
ers for whom the unavailable item is their category
favorite, our model predicts similar stockout losses as
previous survey studies (see, e.g., Campo et al., 2000).
Yet, as the retailer’s clientele also comprises many
customers for whom the missing item is not their
favorite, overall losses predicted for the retailer are
found to be lower than is often believed. In contrast,
manufacturer losses may be quite substantial, and are
largely governed by the consumers’ preference for the
missing item and the availability of acceptable alter-
natives in the brand’s line, a finding in line with
Boatwright and Nunes (2000), Broniarczyk et al.
(1998), Campo et al. (2000), and Fitzsimons (2000).
Clearly, our study also has important limitations and
opens up opportunities for future research. The empir-
ical application covers only two categories in one store.
Our substantive findings, therefore, need to be inves-
tigated in a wider range of settings. Moreover, category
losses in our study were formulated from the viewpoint
of a specific retail outlet. Future research may add the
distinction between store switch, deferment and can-
cellation; requiring scanner panel data across stores. On
the methodological side, it needs to be mentioned that
our models do not follow from a unified utility frame-
work with forward-looking consumers: our paper treats
retailer stockouts as exogeneous and unexpected by the
consumer. Future research could formally investigate
the presence of systematic patterns in retailer stockout
occurrences, as well as the impact of such patterns on
the behavior of forward-looking consumers. The ap-
proaches developed by Erdem et al. (2002) and Sun,
Neslin, and Srinivasan (in press) could prove useful for
this purpose, allowing for a more accurate estimation of
stockout effects as well as a more comprehensive
evaluation of the impact of replenishment policy
changes. Moreover, despite the validation checks, our
‘inferred’ stockout variables are likely to contain errors,
which may somewhat dampen the estimated impact of
stockouts. Further validation of the stockout detection
method and/or accounting for the potential errors in
variables problem, constitute interesting areas for fu-
ture research.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted with the financial aid
of the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders. The
authors are much indebted to the managers of the retail
chain for their valuable inputs and comments. They
also thank the editor, Prof. Dr. Hubert Gatignon, and
three anonymous reviewers for their comments and
suggestions.
Appendix A . OOS tracking system
OOS detection takes place for each SKU in the
category and proceeds in two steps.16 Obviously, not
all low-sales periods correspond with true stockouts
(TSO). The first step consists of a screening procedure
to reduce the number of periods that have to be
examined more closely in the second stage. For each
item, we identify ‘candidate stockout’ (CSO) periods,
in which the item may have been unavailable. House-
hold purchase observations are aggregated into item
sales with periodicity equal to (maximum) one third of
the minimum replenishment time (MRT) for the
category (which, for this application, amounts to 1
day). This data periodicity implies that, if an item has
been OOS, there should be at least one observation
with zero sales (i.e., in at least one of the three
subperiods). This is true because if a stockout oc-
16
Note that our tracking procedure does NOT lead to a ‘self-
fulfilling prophecy’. In the stockout identification stage, TSOs are
detected using an aggregate model for the stockout item’s sales.
This is a ‘definition’ issue: if an item is unavailable, it cannot be
sold. For the TSOs thus identified, we later assess whether and how
strongly they affect category purchase incidence, category purchase
quantity, and choice shares of other items in the category. Even if
unavailability of an item results in huge sales losses for that item, it
does not automatically imply large incidence or quantity losses at
the category level, nor does it condition the nature of the choice
shifts within the category. Note also that the procedure—in contrast
with models used to fill missing prices of non-promoted brand in
scanning data—does not entail what Erdem et al. (1999) refer to as
the ‘self selection bias’, since it does not infer missing out-of-stock
observations from available observations on stockouts.
 K. Campo et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273–286
curred in a certain period (say, between 8 and 12 a.m.
of the 12-h opening day), it cannot have been replen-
ished within the same period (between 8 and 12 a.m.)
nor in the period after that (between 12 and 4), and
sales can at best reappear during the third part of the
day, the mid-period necessarily showing zero sales.
All periods with length equal to MRT (in our case,
daily periods) which comprise at least one zero sales
sub-period (third of a day) are designated as candidate
stockouts.
Step 2 consists of an outlier analysis to distin-
guish ‘normal’ low-sales periods from those due to
item unavailability. This is done by estimating, for
each item, a simple sales model with item sales per
MRT (in our case, daily sales) as dependent, and
item, time of week, and promotion indicators as
explanatory variables. Next, for each CSO identified
in step 1, we re-estimate the model excluding the
observation and assess the probability for the ob-
served sales level to be ‘predicted’ by the estimated
model. If this probability is too low (below a cut-off
value a, which is typically set at 0.05) and if the
observed sales level is below the predicted value, the
observation is labelled to comprise a TSO. Finally,
all successive periods with zero sales between two
subsequent TSO are also labelled as stockout peri-
ods. Note that, to prevent item sales per period from
being too strongly skewed towards zero, model
estimation is conducted at a higher level of time
aggregation (data periodicity equal to MRT and not
one third of MRT) than in step 1.
Validation. The outcomes of the OOS detection
procedure depend on the choice of the cut-off value a.
To shed some light on the stability of the results, a
sensitivity analysis was conducted: in addition to an a
of 0.05, TSOs were identified for an a level of 0.025.
We thus identified two ‘series’ of OOS occurrences,
one corresponding with each level of a. We then re-
estimated our incidence, quantity, and choice mod-
els—in which stockouts intervene as explanatory
variables. The results confirm the stability of the
findings: even though the stockout parameters slightly
change, the pattern of the coefficients across models,
households, and categories remains the same. As an
extra check, we cross-validated the results of the
tracking procedure against two other data sources:
(i) available objectively registered (but incomplete)
stockout information and (ii) subjectively identified
285
stockouts obtained from the retail manager judging
item sales data. In both cases, a satisfactory rate of
agreement was obtained, providing additional support
for the robustness of the tracking procedure.
References
Ailawadi, K., Neslin, S., & Gedenk, K. (1999). Heterogeneity and
purchase event feedback in choice models: An empirical analy-
sis with implications for model building. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 16, 177 – 198.
Andrews, R., & Currim, I. (2002). Identifying segments with iden-
tical choice behaviors across product categories: An intercate-
gory Logit mixture model. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 19(1), 65 – 80.
Anupindi, R., Dada, M., & Gupta, S. (1998). Estimation of con-
sumer demand with stockout based substitution: An applica-
tion to vending machine products. Marketing Science, 17(4),
406 – 423.
Boatwright, P., & Nunes, J. C. (2001, July). Reducing assort-
ment: An attribute-based approach. Journal of Marketing, 65,
50 – 63.
Broniarczyk, S., Hoyer, W., & McAlister, L. (1998, May). Consum-
ers’ perceptions of the assortment offered in a grocery category:
The impact of item reduction. Journal of Marketing Research,
35, 166 – 176.
Bucklin, R., Gupta, S., & Siddarth, S. (1998a, May). Determining
segmentation in sales response across consumer purchase be-
haviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 189 – 197.
Bucklin, R., Gupta, S., & Siddarth, S. (1998b). Modelling the effect
of purchase quantity on consumer choice of product assortment.
Journal of Forecasting, 17, 281 – 301.
Bucklin, R., & Lattin, J. (1991). A two-state model of purchase
incidence and brand choice. Marketing Science, 10(1), 24 – 39.
Campo, K., 1997. Variety seeking and the sensitivity to in-store
promotions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Antwerp: Uni-
versity of Antwerp-UFSIA.
Campo, K., Gijsbrechts, E., & Nisol, P. (2000). Towards under-
standing consumer response to stock-outs. Journal of Retailing,
76(2), 219 – 242.
Chiang, J. (1995). Competing coupon promotions and category
sales. Marketing Science, 14(1), 105 – 122.
Corstjens, J., & Corstjens, M. (1999). Store Wars: The battle for
mindspace and shelfspace. New York: Wiley.
Dhar, R. (1997, September). Consumer preference for a no-choice
option. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 215 – 231.
Dillon, W., & Gupta, S. (1996). A segment-level model of category
volume and brand choice. Marketing Science, 15(1), 38 – 59.
Erdem, T., Keane, M., & Sun, B. (1999). Missing price and coupon
availability in scanner panels: Correcting for the self selection
bias in choice model parameters. Journal of Econometrics, 89,
177 – 196.
Erdem, T., Imai, S., & Keane M.P. (2002, September). Brand and
choice dynamics under price uncertainty. Working Paper.
Fader, P. S., & Hardie, B. G. S. (1996, November). Modeling con-
286 K. Campo et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 20 (2003) 273–286
sumer choice among SKU’s. Journal of Marketing Research,
33, 442 – 452.
Fitzsimons, G. (2000). Consumer response to stockouts. Journal of
Consumer Research, 27(2), 249 – 266.
Givon, M. (1984). Variety seeking through brand switching. Mar-
keting Science, 3(1), 1 – 22.
Gönül, F. F., Carter, F. C., Petrova, E., & Srinivasan, K. (2001,
July). Promotion of prescription drugs and its impact on phys-
ician’s choice behavior. Journal of Marketing, 65, 79 – 90.
Guadagni, P., & Little, J. (1983). A Logit model of brand choice
calibrated on scanner data. Marketing Science, 2(3), 203 – 238.
Gupta, S. (1988, November). Impact of sales promotions on when,
what, and how much to buy. Journal of Marketing Research, 25,
342 – 355.
Hoch, S., Bradlow, E., & Wansink, B. (1999, Winter). The variety
of an assortment. Marketing Science, 18, 527 – 546.
Jedidi, K., Mela, C., & Gupta, S. (1999). Managing advertising and
promotion for long-run profitability. Marketing Science, 18(1),
1 – 22.
Leeflang, P., Wittink, D., Wedel, M., & Naert, Ph. (2000). Build-
ing models for marketing decisions. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Neslin, S. A., & Schneider-Stone, L. G. (1996). Consumer inven-
tory sensitivity and the postpromotion dip. Marketing Letters,
7(1), 77 – 94.
Peckham, J. (1963, October). The consumer speaks. Journal of
Marketing, 21 – 26.
Schary, Ph., & Christopher, M. (1979). The anatomy of a stock-out.
Journal of Retailing, 55(2), 59 – 70.
Sloot, L., Verhoef, P. C., & Frances, Ph. H. (2002). The impact of
brand and category characteristics on consumer stockout reac-
tions. Working Paper. Rotterdam: Erasmus Research Institute of
Management.
Sun, B., Neslin, S., & Srinivasan, K. (2002). Measuring the impact
of promotions on brand switching when consumers are forward
looking. Working Paper, Carnegie Mellon University.
Vanden Abeele, P., Gijsbrechts, E., & Vanhuele, M. (1990). Spec-
ification and empirical evaluation of a cluster-asymmetry market
share model. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 7,
223 – 247.
Walter, C., & Grabner, J. (1975, July). Stockout cost models:
Empirical tests in a retail situation. Journal of Marketing, 39,
56 – 68.