See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239794426

Push-based brand awareness: The role of product availability and in-store

merchandising

Article  in  The International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research · July 2011
DOI: 10.1080/09593969.2011.578793

CITATIONS READS

11 1,677

1 author:

S. Umit Kucuk

69 PUBLICATIONS   1,436 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by S. Umit Kucuk on 03 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research
Vol. 21, No. 3, July 2011, 201–213

Push-based brand awareness: the role of product availability

and in-store merchandising
S. Umit Kucuk*

Department of Management, Central Washington University, College of Business, 400 E.

University Way, Ellensburg, WA 98926, USA
(Received 3 August 2010; final version received 22 December 2010)

This study introduces a new brand awareness conceptualization; ‘push-based

brand awareness’ in the light of available retailing, distribution, and branding
literature. Previously, push-based awareness merely defined brand/product
availability. This study extends that definition by including available brand
awareness created by in-store merchandising. While out-of-stock (OOS) literature
extensively interprets product availability and consumers’ responses to OOS
brands, a brand’s effect on consumer awareness remains unexamined. Because
such brand awareness may be one of the major reasons behind frequently
purchased product success, such consumer awareness deserves closer attention.
This study introduces the push-based brand awareness concept with a proposed
model including possible managerial implications.
Keywords: branding; brand awareness; out-of-stock; top-of-mind awareness;
availability awareness; distribution and store loyalty; frequently purchased
product

Introduction
Many consumers enter retail stores with a strong idea of what to buy under the
influence of media advertisements and choose their preferred brands. Others enter
stores without a strong preference toward any specific brand and can easily change
their preferences inside stores. A choice created with these kinds of shopping
behaviors inside the retail stores are defined as ‘compromised demand’ for frequently
purchased products (FPPs) and is an indispensable part of push strategy
conceptualization (Farris, Olver, and DeKluyver 1989; Reibstein and Farris 1995).
This compromised demand conceptualization indicates the importance of product
availability and in-store operations influence on consumers’ final purchase decisions.
Consumers with unmodified preferences are more likely to be influenced by
available brands in out-of-stock (OOS) situations. Srinivasan, Chan, and Chang
(2005) note:

‘The levels of brand availability and corresponding level of awareness created by

distribution are denoted as push-based availability and push-based awareness,
respectively.’ (p. 1435)

*Email: kucuku@cwu.edu

ISSN 0959-3969 print/ISSN 1466-4402 online

Ó 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09593969.2011.578793
http://www.informaworld.com
202 S.U. Kucuk

This definition takes only product availability into consideration and does not
totally focus on availability of possible in-store sales supports. However, push
strategies are conceptualized as the combination of ‘product availability’ and ‘in-store
merchandising’, or alternatively Push ¼ (product availability) 6 (in-store merchan-
dising) in the retailing literature (Farris, Olver, and DeKluyver 1989; Reibstein and
Farris 1995). In other words, if a product is available at the retail spaces at the right
time with a significant amount of in-store merchandising support, which might better
define the push strategy’s success and perhaps push-based brand awareness (PBA).
If product availability goals cannot be achieved, then consumers might prefer to
pick the available close substitutions in the same retail store. This is broadly
discussed in OOS literatures (Schary and Christopher 1979; Emmelhainz,
Emmelhainz, and Stock 1991; Verbeke, Farris, and Thurik 1998; Campo,
Gijsbrechts, and Nisol 2000; Kucuk 2004, 2008; Sloot, Verhoef, and Franses 2005;
Fernie and Grant 2008; Aastrup and Kotzab 2010). The aforementioned push
equation defines the success of the push strategy for the available brands, as opposed
to those that consumers might be willing to switch to or compromise for in the OOS
situation. This is generally not studied broadly in the literature. Therefore, a
theoretically extended definition of PBA is necessary and is developed in this
study’s context as follows: ‘available brand’s ability to create consumer awareness
with the support of retailer’s in-store merchandising efforts in the situation of
consistent unavailability of the searched item at the same retail store/setting over
time.’
In this context, no detailed study defines push-based awareness and investigates
the role of such PBA on brand building as an alternative approach. This study is the
first of its kind reconceptualizing push-based awareness with related literature. It
questions how much awareness available brands gain when an alternative brand is
not available. It considers brand awareness erosion in the OOS of favorable/searched
item in the stores. This study also reviews the consumer decision dynamics or
effectiveness of in-store merchandising efforts. These points are generally left
unanswered in the literature and need more attention to shed light on both OOS and
brand awareness research. As a result, the aforementioned relationships and
conceptualization might introduce approaches as to maximizing PBA productivity
for retailers struggling with such hidden OOS costs.

Brand awareness
In branding literature, brand awareness is one of the major antecedents and
components of brand loyalty and brand equity. As brand awareness is potentially
the major reason behind consumer repeat purchase decisions for FPPs (Hoyer and
Brown 1990; Srinivasan, Chan, and Chang 2005), brand equity products reflect
higher market share growth, especially when supported with reminder advertising
(Aaker 1991; Percy and Rossiter 1992; Aaker 1996; Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000;
Srinivasan, Chan, and Chang 2005). It follows that unavailability of a brand could
hurt the consumer levels of both brand loyalty and brand equity. PBA importance
might be more important than brand loyalty and equity for FPPs, as discussed by
Christopher (1997) as follows:

‘. . . the supplier is now faced with a buyer who is much more demanding and less easily
persuaded by marketing ‘‘hype’’. One consequence of this change is the gradual decline
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 203

in brand loyalty in many markets. Brand loyalty has been replaced by brand preferences.
What this means is that the buyer may prefer to buy a particular product from a
particular supplier for a variety of reasons, e.g. physical characteristics, attributes,
convenience, etc. However, this is not the same as loyalty. If, for example, a product is
out-of-stock on the shelf, is the shopper willing to take another brand? Often they are.’ (p.
3) [Emphasis added]

Distribution and product availability might cause or enhance brand awareness

(Heeler 1986; Reibstein and Farris 1995). Product availability may be one of the
major reasons behind sales/market share (Jeuland 1979; Heeler 1986; Farris, Olver,
and DeKluyver 1989; Reibstein and Farris 1995; Verbeke, Farris, and Thurik 1998;
Kucuk 2008); and behavioral brand loyalty (or repeat purchases) (Fader and
Schmittlein 1993; Kucuk 2008). Although it depends on the product category and
shopping trip purposes, many consumers prefer to make their decision in the store
rather than searching for an OOS item elsewhere (Gruen, Corsten, and Bharadwaj
2002; Kucuk 2004; Kucuk 2008; Fernie and Grant 2008; Aastrup and Kotzab 2010).
Finally, some store loyal consumers may not even realize the OOS situation and
simply switch the unavailable brand with the available brand (Schary and
Christopher 1979; Kucuk 2004). As a result, it is possible that available brands
might reach higher brand awareness levels when supported with in-store
merchandising efforts. If such brand awareness can be enhanced with media
advertisement, a long-lasting positive branding experience would be delivered to
consumers.
Defined in marketing theory, brand awareness is generally the ‘simple recognition
of brand name’ (Hoyer and Brown 1990) or ‘the strength of a brand’s presence in the
consumer’s mind’ (Aaker 1996, 10), further detailed as:

‘the ability of a potential buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a member of a

certain product category. A link between product class and brand is involved.’ (Aaker
1991, 61) [Emphasis added].

Similarly, Percy and Rossiter (1992) discuss brand awareness as follows:

‘. . . remembering the brand name is not necessary since the brand awareness may proceed
by brand recognition. In other words, when a brand is recognized at point of purchase,
brand awareness does not require brand recall. This is a key point in the consideration of
brand require brand recall. Brand recognition and brand recall are two separate types of
brand awareness. The difference depends upon the communication effect that occurs first in
the buyer’s mind: category need or brand awareness’ (p. 264–5) [Emphasis added].

Brand awareness is also discussed in dimensions of ‘brand recognition’ and ‘brand

recall’ (Percy and Rossiter 1992).

Brand recall awareness

Aaker (1991) classifies brand awareness using a three-layer hierarchical format: first,
the lowest level awareness, brand recognition, is based on an aided recall test; second,
moderate level awareness, brand recall, is based on asking a person to name the brand in a
product class and is also referred to as ‘spontaneous awareness’ (Laurent, Kapferer, and
Roussel 1995); and third, the highest level awareness, top-of-mind awareness (TOMA),
which is the first named brand in an unaided recall task (Aaker 1991, 62).
204 S.U. Kucuk

On a regular shopping trip, consumers enter a store with some degree of

awareness about brands, as explained by TOMA, and indicate the power of pull
strategies such as media advertisements. However, unavailability of brands in store
spaces can create a negative experience for many consumers. Some research indicate
that consumers are more likely to name brands and stores they associate with what
they perceive to be best practices. They will have a harder time identifying such
names and brands when the question is seeking negative associations (Woodside and
Trappey 2001). Also, the studies regarding ‘implicit memory’ – retrieval of
previously exposed information unintentionally and unconsciously from memory –
revealed that previous exposures of a brand (either positive or negative) might
increase the chance of being placed in consumers’ consideration sets (Schacter, Chiu,
and Ochsner 1993; Coates, Butler, and Berry 2004). Consumers recollect information
about available brands supported with in-store merchandising activities, and so
some level of brand awareness is unconsciously created in consumers mind during an
OOS situation. Because unavailability of a favorite brand in the retail store is
unexpected and often has a negative influence on consumers’ expectations, TOMA
toward the unavailable brand might decrease while brand awareness might increase
for available brands (positive association with the available brand, possibly a result
of in-store merchandising). This can simply be identified as erosion of brand
awareness of the unavailable brand to the availably exposed brands during an OOS
situation.
The main issue in baseline brand awareness is strong TOMA, indicating the
maximum, final and desired outcome of the previously mentioned awareness stages
(Aaker 1991). In a sequential order of brand equity, the next big step after TOMA is
to reach ‘brand attitude’ where the first element of ‘brand loyalty’ is formed.
However, this is not always the case with FPPs where ‘consumers may choose a
brand on the basis of a simple heuristic (e.g., brand awareness, pricing, packaging)
and then evaluate the brand subsequent to purchase’ (Hoyer and Brown 1990, 142).
In other words, consumers spend less time and effort while shopping for FPPs
(Hoyer and Brown 1990; Christopher 1997), and so brand awareness might play a
more active role in consumers’ brand recognition and purchase decisions than
previously thought. This is also discussed by Aaker (1991, 48) as follows:

‘Existing customers and dealers will enhance recognition merely by being there [. . .]
users will become aware of the product just by seeing it. Further, this type of exposure –
actually seeing it ‘‘in action’’ or even on a retailer’s shelf –will be much more vivid and
have more impact than only seeing an ad several times.’

Simply, TOMA’s importance to brand loyalty is sometimes emphasized even more

than attitude/belief toward the brand for FFPs and/or impulse products (Hauser
1978; Haley and Case 1979; Kucuk 2004; Kucuk 2008). Clearly, there is a need to
discuss more powerful indications of brand awareness, which eventually overtake
TOMA for FPPs stimulated by an OOS situation.

Brand recognition awareness

In a simple brand recall test, the brand is not presented when the consumer is asked
to remember the brand name from a category. However, at the point of purchase,
brand recognition (for FPPs) can effectively function with enhanced reminders of
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 205

push strategies such as product availability and in-store merchandising efforts. This
is discussed by Percy and Rossiter (1992, 265) as follows:

‘Shoppers rely upon visual reminders of their needs as they scan the packages on the
shelf and brands are recognized. Clearly, then, when purchase selections rely upon
recognition, advertising should feature the package as it will be seen in the store.’
‘Recognition of the brand reminds me of category needs . . . a brand may actually fail a
recall test, yet be recognized in the store at the time of the purchase decision and bought’
[Emphasis added]

This is similarly discussed in a broader perspective in implicit memory and visual

object priming literature by Schacter, Chiu, and Ochsner (1993, 169–170) as follows:
‘Picture naming, in which subjects name previously presented pictures as quickly as
possible (e.g. Biederman and Cooper 1991; Durso and Johnson 1979); picture fragment
completion, in which subjects are given fragment versions of pictures and asked to
identify them (e.g. Snodgrass and Feenan 1990; Warrington and Weiskrantz 1968);
object decision, in which subjects are shown drawings of real and nonsense objects
(Kroll and Potter 1984) or structurally possible and impossible objects (Schacter et al
1990a) and are asked to make object/nonobject decisions; and dot pattern identification,
in which subjects are exposed to degraded versions of dot patterns that they either copy
(Musen and Treisman 1990) or complete (Gabrieli et al 1990). In all cases, priming is
indicated by greater accuracy or reduced latency for studied items relative to nonstudied
items (for detailed review, see Schacter et al 1990b).’

Coates, Butler, and Berry (2004) also indicated that implicit memory might play an
important role particularly in consumers’ low-risk product (or FPPs in this study’s
context) purchases. More importantly, the authors indicated that when product is not
available (e.g., sold out, wrong size, etc.) on a shopping occasion, priming or implicit
memory might directly operate on consumer choices (Coates, Butler, and Berry 2004,
1209). Thus, brand recognition of available brands in previous OOS situations for a
searched item might trigger a collected implicit memory about available brands during
the consistent OOS. This also can be used as an indicator of the ability of distribution or
product availability to create brand awareness, recently conceptualized as ‘availability
awareness (AA)’ by Kucuk (2008, 414) as follows:

‘the ability of the available brand to create awareness in consumers’ eyes over time when
experiencing consistent OOS of a brand’

This definition, in turn, can also be used in conceptualization of PBA. Brand

recognition and AA might be a more powerful indication of brand awareness that
eventually overtakes TOMA for FPPs. AA can indicate brand recognition and PBA
in the retail store, while TOMA might define brand recall and pull-based brand
awareness. Therefore, distribution (product availability) and in-store merchandising
efforts might have not only the power to stimulate brand switching but also the
power to create the first steps of PBA in this context.

Push-based brand awareness

If AA can create a baseline awareness for FPPs, it is also possible that AA can
transform that to a purchase over time with the support of retailers’ in-store
206 S.U. Kucuk

merchandising supports in OOS situations. When tied to in-store merchandising

support, AA reached merely by product availability and distribution can be moved
to higher levels, which is defined as PBA in this study’s context.
Observe five typical consumer behaviors’ OOS situations: 1 – brand switching,
switching the OOS brand with alternatives; 2 – size switching (buying from the same
brand but different size); 3 – store switching; 4 – postpone the purchase; and 5 –
neither buying the product nor a substitute. Such consumer decision routes and the
place of TOMAs and PBAs possible impact points in an OOS situation are indicated
in Figure 1.
Although the degree of brand and store loyalty are major factors influencing
consumers decisions in this OOS situation (Kucuk 2004; Kucuk 2008), the major
situational factors under the control of retailers can be summarized as: (1) the
duration of the OOS situation and (2) effectiveness of in-store merchandising
activities for available alternatives in the store. The context of this model follows:
PBA ¼ ðproduct availabilityÞ  ðin-store merchandisingÞ

MAX ½PBAðtþnÞ  ¼ f½duration of OOSðtÞ ; in-store merchandising effortðtÞ  :

If retailers successfully manage and control the duration of OOS and in-store
merchandising efforts, the brand awareness level created by PBA might be pulled to
higher TOMA levels in FPP consumption. This increases the importance of retailers’
role on enhancing and reaching higher levels of TOMA through PBA. Such retail
control factors need to be investigated closely.

Duration of OOS situation

Many OOS studies generally assume that brands are temporarily unavailable in the
retailer’s shelves and stores. However, the duration of an OOS situation indicates the

Figure 1. Algorithm for consumer behaviors in OOS situation. Note: Dotted lines indicate
consumer’s behavioral responses to the OOS item as also discussed in OOS literature.
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 207

real damage to retail sales (Gruen, Corsten, and Bharadwaj 2002). In general, 50%
of products in an OOS remain unavailable for more than 24 hours, 25% are OOS
between 8 and 24 hours, and 20% of OOS items were replenished in fewer than 8
hours. However, note that the duration of OOS for perishable products or high-
velocity items such as promoted items could be particularly shorter on average;
therefore, temporary unavailability is used in general terms in the context of this
study.
This temporary unavailability does not generally deeply influence consumer
loyalty toward brands (Motes and Castleberry 1985). However, if the unavailability
continues over an extended period, generally reflecting retailer and manufacturer
stocking decisions, significant decreases in consumer brand loyalty to the OOS item
is observed (Walter and Grabner 1975; Verbeke, Farris, and Thurik 1998). The
longer the brand’s OOS, the greater the decrease in brand loyalty and the higher the
AA and PBA of alternative brands in the store.
If the consumer chooses to switch the OOS item with an available one, OOS will
surely damage brand loyalty toward the OOS item, and in some cases it could even
result in the first exposure to a competitive brand – with more lasting effects (Vuyk 2003,
55). On the other hand, store loyal consumers sometimes may not even observe the
OOS situation (Schary and Christopher 1979), and might not have time sensitivity
regarding the OOS item. Potentially, strong store loyal consumers are completely under
the influence of the alternative brand’s AA and PBA, especially for FPPs.

In-store merchandising efforts for available alternatives

AA can be activated or enhanced with in-store merchandising efforts in the OOS
situation. Retailers can easily control this effect. Because FPPs are low-risk products,
brand evaluation of available brands might indicate low switching risks; consumers
show more switching behaviors because of sheer availability within the store. The
PBA might urge consumers to switch their preferred brand if the OOS continues over
an extended period. This possible impact of PBAs’ ability to enhance repeat
purchases when OOS items’ alternatives are widely available is documented in
previous studies (Fader and Schmittlein 1993; Kucuk 2008). Perhaps, PBA is a
starting point of long-lasting repeat purchase behaviors toward available brands in
retail stores.
In-store merchandising variables include in-store pricing, shelf space allocation/
shelving, and in-store advertisement (Little 1998; Kim and Staelin 1999; Boatwright,
McCulloch, and Rossi 1999; Kucuk 2004). Price, specifically in-store promotions
and discounts, can play an important role in decreasing the strength of brand loyalty
(Walters 1991; Wedel et al. 1995; Agrawal 1996; Kucuk 2004). It may also increase
the strength of store loyalty (Little and Shapiro 1980), and hence shape consumers’
switching decisions toward the OOS item. As packaged goods take on a visual
similarity, in-store pricing becomes a determining factor in purchase decisions
(Walters 1991), particularly in-store loyal consumers’ decisions for FPPs (Kucuk
2004). In this context, the influence of in-store pricing on AA and PBA is undeniable.
In addition, Hansen and Heinsbroek (1979) articulate the main argument behind
shelf space allocation as follows: ‘if the customer doesn’t see a certain product, he
can’t buy it, and if the customer sees a certain product, he may buy it (p. 474).’
However, if a consumer is highly brand loyal and the favored product is available on
the retail shelves, the space allocated to an item may not have an effect on its sales
208 S.U. Kucuk

(Anderson 1979). In-store advertisement (such as promotion signs and features)

makes passive product shelves and spaces active to impact consumer decisions, and
is an important factor not only on the level of AA and PBA but possibly future
behavioral brand loyalty levels for a specific FPP.
In conclusion, the longer the brand is available with strong in-store merchandis-
ing efforts, higher AA and PBA is likely and retailers might expect a greater increase
in behavioral brand loyalty.

The PBA model

A conceptual PBA model can be developed in the light of the aforementioned
discussions. As the market is of a fixed size and brand loyalty is nonexistent, product
availability (or distribution) and in-store merchandising play active roles in
consumer preferences.
Figure 2 illustrates how AA and PBA might shape, a convex curve slopes upward
to the right. If a brand is frequently in an OOS situation, the amount of TOMA
(TOMAa) created with previous exposures and AAa might eventually go down as
consumers are exposed to availability of other brands in the same store (AAb). In
this situation, AAb might reach higher levels over time when brand-b is widely
available in the market, and the duration of OOS extends (also indicated with a thick
gray arrow pointing an action toward the right). If brand-b also receives an effective
in-store merchandising effort from a retailer (which is indicated with a thick gray
arrow pointing an action toward the left), brand-b reaches higher awareness levels
earlier than as expected (PBAb). This is indicated with dotted lines in the Figure 2.
The point where AAa and AAb as well as PBAa and PBAb intersect is where brand
awareness levels reach equilibrium, conceptualized as a ‘brand awareness break-
even’ point (also indicated with arrows in Figure 2). In this break-even awareness
point, consumer brand awareness might eventually be further triggered by active
implicit memory created during previous and frequent OOS occasions.
If a brand passes the break-even brand awareness level, consumer AA and PBA
toward the available brands increase at higher paces. At some point, the consumer
does not search for a previously preferred item anymore, and TOMA of the available
brand takes over and eventually starts entering the consumer’s awareness and

Figure 2. PBA model.

 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 209

consideration set. The consumer’s choice finally might be compromised in the store.
With that, AA and PBA transform to TOMA, completing consumer preference
modification in the retail store.
The figure developed in Figure 2 resembles a natural exponential function. Thus,
a mathematical explanation of the proposed PBA model can be developed in light of
the aforementioned discussions as follows:

PBAit: ith brand t time PBA

AAit: ith brand t time AA
DurOOSi: ith brand t time Duration of OOS
IsMi: ith brand t time In-store Merchandising support
a: consumer sensitivity as influenced by in-store merchandising; 0 5 a 5 1
b: consumer sensitivity as influenced by OOS duration (store/brand loyalty);
05b51
b ¼ 0 if a consumer is store loyal (switching behavior), b ¼ 41 if a consumer is
brand loyal (searching behavior)
PCV: percentage of product category volume (PCV), the percentage of category
sales stores make, which stock the product in question (PCV) takes into account
the OOS at the store level and is used as an indicator of store-based product
availability (Reibstein and Farris 1995; Farris et al. 2006).
PBAit ¼ f (DurOOSit, IsMjt)

PBAa ¼ b þ eðDurOOSt Þ  1 or alternatively PBAa ¼ b þ eð1PCVt Þ  1

PBAb ¼ a eðIsMt Þ  1

If brand is OOS, PCVt will equal 0 (zero), then (17PCVt) will equal 1 and PBAa will
equal b (which is TOMA).
a might be used as an indictor of store loyalty, which might also indicate
consumers’ in-store merchandising sensitivity (0 5 a 5 1).

Possible implications
The introduced PBA concept and model can provide various implications and
opportunities for both manufacturers and retailers. Such possible implications and
the conceptual contribution of this newly introduced PBA concept can be discussed
as follows:

Control of understocking costs

If there is a high brand loyalty toward the OOS item or a high search loyalty (Farris,
Olver, and DeKluyver 1989), understocking that item will eventually cause consumer
dissatisfaction and perhaps store switching that in turn reduces retailers’ sales and
market shares. A major cost of understocking elements is defined with brand loyalty
(Aastrup and Kotzab 2010). In this context, the cost of understocking can be
reduced by switching consumers to available items with the support of in-store
merchandising efforts in the OOS situation. During this process, TOMA plays an
active role in reducing the cost of overstocking while AA plays an important role in
reducing cost of understocking. Retailers can then better manage the total cost of
210 S.U. Kucuk

stocking an item (cost of overstocking and understocking) if PBAs’ roles on

consumers purchase decisions are understood in a true manner.

Store and in-store traffic generation

Pull-based brand awareness (created with media advertisement exposures) can be a
good tool to attract the consumers to retail stores and might play an active role in
increasing the store traffic. Such awareness acts as a dominant factor in the selection
of where to shop, where to search for the product – while PBA is used to direct
consumers shopping behaviors inside the retail store by increasing visibility of the
available brands with in-store merchandising activities (such as in-store advertise-
ments, in-store coupons, etc.). In turn, this shapes structure of the in-store traffic at a
specific time. If consumers have a strong store loyalty, then PBA and AA of OSS are
used as effective factors in designing in-store traffic stimulating brand switching,
while TOMA acts as a basic stimulator for brand loyal consumers’ store selection
decisions outside the store. In short, TOMA of a brand is a main reason behind retail
store selection while PBA and AA might be dominant sources for shaping the in-
store traffic generation process. Thus, retailers can work with manufacturers to
enhance the TOMA of a frequently OOS brand to attract consumers to the store and
compensate OOS cost with PBA and AA of the available brands inside the store.

Building retail brand (private label) equity

If a consumer has a high store loyalty, then it is highly possible that the consumer
prefers to switch the search item with an available alternative one in the retail store
as discussed in OOS literature earlier. In fact, many studies indicated that the
dominant behavior in an OOS situation for especially a FPP is ‘brand switching’
(Kucuk 2008). In other words, if consumer is highly store loyal, it is likely that she/he
can be influenced by available retailer brands in the stores as a result of consumer
retail store loyalty (Ailawadi and Keller 2004; Ailawadi, Pauwels, and Steenkamp
2008; Burt and Davies 2010). Thus, if it is managed successfully, retailers’ in-store
merchandising and display decisions might lift the retail brand’s equity level to the
manufacturers or national brand levels (Burt and Davies 2010). In short, if a
national brand is constantly OOS then such national brand’s close private label
substitute can be benefited from PBA, and that could be a starting point for retail
brand’s PBA and equity development process. Because private labels provide higher
percent margins than national brands (Ailawadi and Keller 2004), retailers can easily
maximize their profits by implying low-cost PBA approaches as proposed in this
study.

Manufacturers brand extension efforts

Product/brand line extension of existing brands can be accomplished only by
extensive distribution in the markets. Recognition-based awareness better predicts
sales and market share for such brands. Brand recognition is actually transformed to
brand recall, which can be triggered by in-store efforts such as merchandising,
promotion, etc. The most important difference in terms of distribution is that
recognition requires that the brand is available. However, availability is not the case
for brand recall. Both media advertising and in-store merchandising should be aimed
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 211

at increasing brand awareness – both TOMA and AA. Also indicated in OOS
literature, a favored consumer decision involves picking from the same brand’s
different sizes in OOS if a consumer is highly brand loyal. Thus, if retailers stock
more options (especially different sizes of constant OOS item), they can take
advantage of OOS items previously established TOMA with AA and PBA. This, in
turn, might create a synergy effect in brand awareness levels and manufacturers’
product line extension efforts. In this context, current models for forecasting new
product sales use four basic components: awareness, distribution, trial, and repeat
rates. Generally, these are estimated independently and the assumption is that
awareness is driven by advertising and consumer promotion. However, distribution
can also create both awareness and the substitute recognition. This issue might also
enhance the important role of implicit memory to create PBA, addressed by Coates,
Butler, and Berry (2004, 1209) as follows:

‘. . . to bias selection on the basis of one recent exposure should be of some concern to
marketers and companies who spend huge sums of money on advertising campaigns in
the hope of building strong preferences for their brands. Also, even if the role of implicit
memory is often limited to aiding transition of brand names into individuals’
consideration sets, the importance of this should not be underestimated.’

Thus, PBA can be an effective brand extension tool for manufacturers if they are
facing with constant OOS problems.

Conclusions
This study introduces a new brand awareness conceptualization; ‘PBA’ in the light of
available retailing, distribution, and branding literature. Although, previously, push-
based awareness is discussed in a narrower context (with only brand/product
availability and distribution – AA), this study extends this definition by adding
available brands’ in-store merchandising into such conceptualization. This study also
sheds light on the dimensions of push-based awareness to develop better strategies at
overcoming possible OOS costs and addresses problems occurring both inside and
outside the retail stores.
Obviously, OOS is at the heart of the PBA conceptualization. And also, it is clear
that there is no perfect tool or approach to fix OOS problems and lower many of the
hidden OOS costs in real time in retail stores for both manufacturers and retailers.
However, investigation and a closer look at consumer behavior in OOS situations
can help companies to develop their own solutions how to reduce such negative
effects in OOS situation. Thus, understanding this newly introduced PBA concept
can also eventually help retailers and manufactures to control of their understocking
costs, to generate and manage store and in-store traffic, to build retail brand (private
label) awareness and equity, and finally to organize manufacturers’ brand extension
efforts. Thus, the conceptualization of PBA and discussion of how PBA is utilized in
retailers and manufacturers operations in OOS situations are necessary and some
occasions are indispensable.
Although this study introduces this new brand awareness model and concept,
there are still some questions to answer. A major question addressed by retailing
scholars in the future might be ‘Are the effects of availability on awareness and
recognition of the same order in magnitude as the effects of advertising and
consumer promotion?’ There is no clear distinction as to how this kind of brand
212 S.U. Kucuk

awareness functions – whether or not in an OOS situation. Another important

question would be ‘Do the combined effects of TOMA and PBA create a synergy in
brand awareness or alternatively do these measures complement or substitute for
each other?’ The basic difference between TOMA, AA, and PBA along with brand
recall and recognition should be investigated in terms of media advertising and in-
store merchandising points of view to reach better investment decisions in creating
affective brand awareness. This will be the foundation of future brand loyalty and
repeat purchases. Therefore, future studies focusing on empirically testing the
proposed model and theoretical interactions are more likely to answer such
aforementioned questions.

Acknowledgments
The author appreciates comments by Paul W. Farris and Jesper Aastrup on the early version
of this paper.

References
Aaker, A.David. 1991. Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York: The Free Press.
Aaker, A. David. 1996. Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.
Agrawal, D. 1996. Effect of brand loyalty on advertising and trade promotions: A game
theoretic analysis with empirical evidence. Marketing Science 15, no. 1: 86–108.
Aastrup, J., and H. Kotzab. 2010. Forty years of Out-of-Stock research-and shelves are still
empty. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 20, no. 1:
147–64.
Ailawadi, K., and K. Keller. 2004. Understanding retail branding: Conceptual insights and
research priorities. Journal of Retailing 80, no. 4: 331–42.
Ailawadi, K., K. Pauwels, and J.B. Steenkamp. 2008. Private-label use and store loyalty.
Journal of Marketing 72, no. 6: 19–30.
Anderson, E.E. 1979. An analysis of retail display space: Theory and methods. Journal of
Business 52, no. 1: 103–18.
Boatwright, P., R. McCulloch, and P. Rossi. 1999. Account-level modeling for trade
promotion: An application of a constrained parameter hierarchical model. Journal of the
American Statistical Association 94, no. 448: 1063–73.
Burt, S., and K. Davies. 2010. From the retail brand to retail-er as a brand: Themes and issues
in retail branding research. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management
38, no. 11/12: 865–78.
Campo, K., E. Gijsbrechts, and P. Nisol. 2000. Towards understanding consumer response to
stock-outs. Journal of Retailing 76, no. 2: 219–42.
Christopher, Martin. 1997. Marketing logistics. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Coates, S.L., L.T. Butler, and D.C. Berry. 2004. Implicit memory: A prime example for brand
consideration and choice. Applied Cognitive Psychology 18, no. 9: 1195–211.
Emmelhainz, L.W., M.A. Emmelhainz, and J.R. Stock. 1991. Consumer responses to retail
stock-outs. Journal of Retailing 67, no. 2: 138–47.
Fader, S.P., and D.C. Schmittlein. 1993. Excess behavioral loyalty for high-share brands:
Deviations from the Dirichlet Model for repeat purchasing. Journal of Marketing Research
30, no. 4: 478–93.
Farris, W. Paul, Neil T. Bendle, Philip P. Pfeifer, and David J. Reibstein. 2006. Marketing
metrics: 50 þ metrics every executive should master. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Farris, P.W., and J. Olver and C. DeKluyver. 1989. The relationship between distribution and
market share. Marketing Science 8, no. 2: 107–28.
Fernie, J., and D. Grant. 2008. On-shelf availability: The case of a UK grocery retailer.
International Journal of Logistics Management 19, no. 3: 293–308.
Gruen, T.W., D.S. Corsten, and S. Bharadwaj. 2002. Retail out of stocks: A worldwide
examination of extent, causes, and consumer responses. Washington DC: Grocery
Manufacturers of America.
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 213

Haley, R.I., and P.B. Case. 1979. Testing thirteen attitude scales for agreement and brand
discrimination. Journal of Marketing 43, no. 3: 20–32.
Hansen, P., and H. Heinsbroek. 1979. Product selection and space allocation in supermarkets.
European Journal of Operational Research 3, no. 6: 474–84.
Hauser, R.J. 1978. Testing, accuracy, usefulness and significance of probabilistic models: An
information theoretic approach. Operations Research 26, no. 3: 406–21.
Heeler, R.M. 1986. On the awareness effects of mere distribution. Marketing Science 5, no. 3:
273.
Hoyer, D.W., and S.P. Brown. 1990. Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common,
repeat-purchased product. Journal of Consumer Research 17, no. 2: 141–148.
Jeuland, A.P. 1979. Brand choice inertia as one aspect of the notion of brand loyalty.
Management Science 11, no. 7: B231–43.
Kim, S.Y., and R. Staelin. 1999. Manufacturer allowances and retailer pass-through rates in a
competitive environment. Marketing Science 18, no. 1: 59–76.
Kucuk, S.U. 2004. Reducing the out-of-stock costs in a developing retailing sector. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing 16, no. 3: 75–104.
Kucuk, S.U. 2008. Can distribution explain double jeopardy patterns. International Journal of
Retail and Distribution Management 36, no. 5: 409–25.
Laurent, G., J. Kapferer, and F. Roussel. 1995. The underlying structure of brand awareness
scores. Marketing Science 14, no. 3: G170–79.
Little, D.C.J. 1998. Integrated measures of sales, merchandising, and distribution.
International Journal of Research in Marketing 15, no. 5: 473–85.
Little, D.C.J., and J.F. Shapiro. 1980. A theory for pricing non-featured products in
supermarkets. Journal of Business 53, no. 3: S199–209.
Motes, W.H., and S.B. Castleberry. 1985. A longitudinal field test of stockout effects on multi-
brand inventories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 13, no. 4: 54–68.
Percy, L., and J.R. Rossiter. 1992. A model of brand awareness and brand attitude advertising
strategies. Psychology and Marketing 9, no. 4: 263–74.
Reibstein, J.D., and P.W. Farris. 1995. Market share and distribution: A generalization, a
speculation, and some implications. Marketing Science 14, no. 3: G190–202.
Schacter, D.L., C.-Y.P. Chiu, and K.N. Ochsner. 1993. Implicit memory: A selective review.
Annual Reviews Neuroscience 16: 159–82.
Schary, P.B., and M. Christopher. 1979. The anatomy of a stock-out. Journal of Retailing 55,
no. 2: 59–70.
Sloot, L.M., P.C. Verhoef, and P.H. Franses. 2005. The impact of brand equity and the
hedonic level of products on consumer stock-out reactions. Journal of Retailing 81, no. 1:
15–34.
Srinivasan, V., S.P. Chan, and D.R. Chang. 2005. An approach to the measurement, analysis,
and prediction of brand equity and its sources. Management Science 51, no. 9: 1433–48.
Walter, C.K., and J.R. Grabner. 1975. Stockout cost models: Empirical tests in a retail
situation. Journal of Marketing 39, no. 3: 56–68.
Walters, G.R. 1991. Assessing the impact of retail price promotions on product substitution,
complementary purchase, and inter-store sales displacement. Journal of Marketing 55, no.
2: 17–28.
Wedel, M., W.A. Kamakura, W.S. Desarbo, and F. TerHofstede. 1995. Implications for
asymmetry, nonproportionality, and heterogeneity in brand switching from piece-wise
exponential mixture hazard models. Journal of Marketing Research 32, no. 4: 457–62.
Woodside, G.A., and R.J. Trappey III. 2001. Learning why some customers shop at less
convenient store. Journal of Business Research 54, no. 2: 151–9.
Verbeke, W., P. Farris, and R. Thurik. 1998. Consumer response to the preferred brand out-
of-stock situation. European Journal of Marketing 32, no. 11/12: 1008–28.
Vuyk, C. 2003. Out-of-stocks: A nightmare for retailer and supplier. Beverage World 122, no.
1723: 55.
Yoo, B., N. Donthu, and S. Lee. 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix elements
and brand equity. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 28, no. 2: 195–211.

View publication stats