M A N A G E R I A LAND DECISIONECONOMICS, VOL.

1 1, 1 1 1 - 12 I (1990)

Unplanned Buying and In-store

Stimuli in Supermarkets
Russell Abratt
Department of Rusinrss f.:conomics,Univcwity of the Witwutersrund, South AJLica
and
Stephen Donald Goodey
Richardson- Vicks ( P t y ) Ltd, Johannesburg, South Africu

Manufacturers and retailers in industrialized countries spend large sums on advertising and/or
in-store promotion in the hope of increasing sales of their merchandise through ‘impulse’
buying. Results are reported in this paper of the unplanned buying behaviour of 450 consumers
in 15 major supermarkets in South Africa compared with similar studies in the United States
and the United Kingdom. The findings indicate that unplanned buying is higher in the United
States than in South Africa, but that the importance of in-store stimuli holds true across
cultures. Analysis of other variables such as brand loyalty, specific outlet, and presence of a
shopping list is also reported on a cross-cultural basis.

INTRODUCTION ing such information is the purpose of this study

and the results are reported on a cross-cultural
Unplanned buying in supermarkets is of interest to basis, an information need increasingly important
manufacturers as well as retailers. Manufacturers not only to the multinational corporations such as
spend large sums each year ‘advertising’ their Unilever and Procter and Gamble which operate
brands to consumers, hoping to increase awareness, globally but the major retailers who adopt mer-
trial, and ultimately market share. These manu- chandise practices from retailers throughout the
facturers also spend large amounts of money ‘pro- world. This is a descriptive study undertaken in
moting’ the same brands in retail outlets, although South African supermarkets. The data obtained are
the annual amount expended on in-store activity is then compared with similar studics in the United
not accessible from any one source. The food and States and Europe.
toiletries sector is a specific example of high-
volume, large turnover business in supermarkets
DEFINITION OF TERMS
that is extremely competitive, with manufacturers
competing both ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the major
Impulse Buying
retail chains for the attention of the consumer. In
the United States sales promotion expenditure is Impulse buying is defined in this study as a pur-
growing at a faster rate than advertising. In 1984 chase decision made in-store with no explicit recog-
sales promotion expenditure was estimated at $85 nition of a need for such a purchase prior to entry
billion (Engel, 1987). Similar trends appear to be into the store. (Kollat and Willett, 1967; Kollat,
occurring in South Africa as well as Europe, accen- 1966; Bellenger et al., 1978). We believe this defi-
tuated perhaps by the rise in sclf-servicc outlets. nition is supported in the literature in spite of the
Manufacturers need information on the effective- lack of consensus about the meaning of impulse
ness of in-store stimuli and the extent to which they purchasing and thc recognition that the different
influence consumer purchasing behaviour for their definitions used in empirical studies make it dif-
brands. Retailers also need such information to ficult to compare findings and accumulate informa-
determine the efficiency of resources designed to tion about the nature of impulse behaviour.
stimulate additional sales and perhaps to differenti- There are two explanations of why impulse
ate their stores from those of competitors. Obtain- buying occurs. The first is exposure to in-store

0143-6570/90/020111-11$05.50
$3 1990 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
112 R. ABRATT AND S. D.GOODEY
stimuli. This view states that in-store stimuli pro-
duce impulse purchases simply because these act as
reminders of shopping needs. They assist in making
purchase decisions and offer consumers new ways
of satisfying needs (Kollat and Willett, 1969).
The second explanation is the customer-
commitment hypothesis. This view maintains that
unplanned purchasing, or differences between pur-
chase intentions and actual purchases, are attribut-
able, in part, to incomplete measure of purchase
plans (Kollat and Willett, 1969). The conclusion
made by Kollat and Willett in their 1967 study of
600 supermarket shoppers is: ‘Unplanned purchas-
ing can be described as a blend of hypotheses. Some
unplanned purchases are probably precipitated by
exposure to in-store stimuli. Others are not un-
planned at all, but are caused by the way in which
the behaviour is usually measured.’ If this conclu-
sion is accepted, then the results of various studies
measuring unplanned purchases, using the inter-
viewing technique referred to by Kollat and Willett,
would be inflated to a degree. That is, the rate of
unplanned purchase would be lower due to the
‘consumer-commitment’ explanation weighting.
Both the ‘exposure’ and the ‘consumer-com-
mitment’ explanations rely upon ‘in-store stimuli’.
Thus the importance of such stimuli is in no way
diluted, whichever explanation is applicable. Under
the ‘exposure’ explanation ‘in-store stimuli’ play a
vital role in generating impulse purchases. Under
the ‘customer-commitment’ explanation these
stimuli play a vital role in reminding the consumer
that certain products were (subconsciously)
planned and should be purchased.
In-store Stimuli
In-store stimuli are promotional techniques em-
ployed to increase unplanned (or subconsciously
planned) purchases of products. These techniques
include in-store siting, on-shelf positions, price-off
promotions, sampling, point-of-purchase displays,
coupons, and in-store demonstrations.
Several tests have attempted to measure the re-
lationship between sales of a brand and its shelf
space. In a test to measure the influence of shelf
space upon sales of two brands of salt and pow-
dered coffee cream, Cox (1970) found no relation-
ship between the amount of shelf space given to a
staple product brand and total unit sales of that
brand. Cox found a positive relationship, however,
between the amount of shelf space given to an
impulse product brand that has high consumer
acceptance and total unit sales of that brand, but
found no relationship between the amount of shelf
space given to an impulse brand that has low
consumer acceptance and total unit sales of that
brand. These findings have been supported to some
extent by later studies conducted by Curhan (1974),
Wilkinson et al. (1982) and Limentour (1984). The
key point arising from the various studies is that the
effect of increasing facings on a shelf is likely to vary
by product, by category, by brand, by in-store
location, by store, but diminishes once a certain
number of facings have been obtained.
On-shelf position is an important factor. In the
average South African supermarket the normal
shelf structure is similar to those found in North
America and Europe. Controlled tests carried out
in the United Kingdom and West Germany have
concluded that the on-shelf position does influence
the unit sales for supermarket products (Sewell,
1984). The rationale is that consumers have a
natural tendency to focus and perceive at eye level.
Displays can therefore increase the rate of un-
planned purchase in retail stores (Peak and Peak,
1977; Quelch, 1983). Many studies have been con-
ducted in an attempt to quantify the sales respons-
iveness of displays. All these found that displays
increased the sales of items displayed (Chevalier,
1975; Engel et al., 1978; Kennedy, 1970; Wilkinson
et al., 1982).
One study suggested that in-store signage can
effectively increase unit sales of products (Wood-
side and Waddle, 1975). From the manufacturer’s
viewpoint, price-off promotions are used to in-
crease market share and to get trial of the product
by non-users (Blattberg et al., 1981). Studies by
Hawkins and Doyle and Gidengil found price re-
duction to have a significant but often unpre-
dictable effect on unit sales (Wilkinson et al., 1982).
Previous Research on Unplanned Buying in
Supermarkets
Three major studies concerned with unplanned
buying in supermarkets have been undertaken in
recent years: the Popai/Du Pont Consumer Buying
Habits Study (1977); the Johnson and Williams
study (1984); and the Kollat and Willett study of
Consumer Impulse Purchasing Behaviour (1967).
The Popai/Du Pont study classified buying deci-
sions into four categories, which are referred to by
 CINPLANNF.1) HCIYING
most researchers involved in monitoring unplan-
ned buying:
Specifically planned purchase. Those itcms
where the consumer had in mind a brand or
item and purchased that brand or item as
planned.
Generally planncd purchase. Where the con-
sumer had a product category or a product,
without a specified brand, in mind.
Substitute purchase. Where the consumer
changed from a spccifically planned item to
another.
Unplanned purchase. Whcrc the consumer pur-
chases an item that was not planned at all.
They define in-store decisions as the all-important
buying classification figure arrived at by combining
gcncrally planned, substitute and unplanned
purchases.
In thc Popai/Du Pont Study it appears that
approximately 65Y0 of all supcrmarkct purchasc
decisions were made in-store with over 50% of
thcsc bcing unplanned. The rate of unplanned pur-
chase differs for dilferent product categories. The
study went further and asked shoppers who had
purchased a previously untried brand what had
brought their attention to the brand in-store.
Thirty-eight per cent statcd retail forces, 29%
manufacturer forces and 24% word-of-mouth
forces. Nine per cent said othcr rcasons. These
results highlight the importance of display in super-
markets in generating trial of products among
consumers.
The Johnson and Williams (1984) study was
conductcd over a period of a year and used a
technique similar to that of the Popai/Du Pont
study. They found that 20% of purchasing deci-
sions were made inside the store and that there
were important differences between the product
categories.
The Kollat and Willett (1984) study was conduc-
ted in eight stores of a national supermarket chain
over a four-week period. The methodology em-
ployed was a modification and expansion of the Du
Pont approach, as it was used in carlier years. They
found that the average customer purchased 50.5%
of the products on an unplanned basis. The in-
cidence of unplanned purchases varies greatly for
shoppers, the maximum number of unplanned pur-
chases being 40.0, the minimum 0 and the standard
deviation 9.2.
113
This study is an important one because it not
only gives quantitative data related to unplanned
buying but it attempts to cxplain customcr dif-
fercnccs in unplanned purchasing behaviour and
discusses competing explanations for unplanned
purchasing. The South African results are com-
pared with those of other studies undertaken in the
United Kingdom and the United States.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Propositions
The research questions investigated in this studj
are:
P1 There is a high incidcnce of unplanned non-
food purchase decisions made in South
African supermarkets.
P2 The rate of incidence of ‘unplanned’ pur-
chase decisions varics across product cat-
egories.
P3 The rate of ‘unplanned’ purchases in supcr-
markets varics across factors such as the
presence of shopping lists, the supermarket
selcctcd and in-store stimuli.
1’4 Consumers tend to spcnd more in super-
markets than they planned.
P5 Brand switching in supermarkets varies be-
tween product classes.
THE SAMPLE
This research covered 450 consumers in 15 major
supermarkets located in the grcatcr Johannesburg
area, covering the Northern, Southern, Eastern and
Western suburbs. The 15 supcrrnarkets were geo-
graphically selected to provide a fair representation
of the South African consumer mix from an
economic, social and cultural point of view. The
supermarkets werc choscn from the three major
chains that dominate the retail supermarket indus-
try in South Africa.
The sample size of 450 supermarket shoppers
was similar to the studies conducted in othcr coun-
tries with larger populations than South Africa.
See, for example, Prasad (1975); Kollat and Willett
( I 967); Johnson and Williams ( 1 984); Popai/Du
Pont (1987). Table 1 prescnts the demographics of
respondents and indicates that there is a fair rcpres-
entation of the South African urban consumer from
an economic, social and cultural point of view.
1 I4 R. A B R A T T AND S . D. GOODEY

increased the costs of this research, thereby reduc-

Table 1. Demographic Profile of the Respondents
ing the affordable sample size.
NO %
Location b y suhurhan region The selection of consumers in Johannesburg may
North Johannesburg 193 43 be regarded as a limitation. As 12% of all super-
South Johannesburg 58 13 markets are located in the greater Johannesburg
East Johannesburg 115 26 area, however, this study is considered meaningful.
West Johannesburg 84 18
Total 450 100 The sample appears to overrepresent the English-
Homi, language
speaking and the married community. As the find-
English 370 82 ings indicate no evidence of major differences in
Afrikaans 80 18 shopping patterns between English and Afrikaans
Total 450 100 or married and single shoppers, this may not be
Years married relevant.
(r2 8 2 A further limitation identified by Kollat and
2-4 52 12
5 7
Willett (1967) is that shoppers may be unable or
31 8
Over 7 269 60 unwilling to describe their purchase intentions ac-
Unmarried 84 18 curately. Prasad (1975) identifies a further limit-
Total 450 100 ation when he states a hypothetical possibility
Size o / household (persons) exists that asking the respondents to describe their
1 38 8 purchase plans may have influenced their subse-
2 I I6 26 quent in-store purchase behaviour. Kollat and Wil-
3 70 16
4 121 27
lett (1967) tested the effects of entry interview and
Over 5 105 23 found that although the product purchase mix may
Total 450 100 be slightly affected, the amount spent and number
Werklylmonthly shoppers of different products purchased was not.
Weekly 316 84
Monthly 14 I1
Total 450 100
SURVEY DESIGN
Shopping-list status
Shop with list 220 49
Shop without list 230 51 The methodology is similar to that used in the
Total 450 100 studies conducted by Kollat and Willett (1967);
Size o / s h o p p i n g parry Popai/Du Pont (1977); Bellenger et al. (1978); and
Alone 270 60 Johnson and Williams (1984). A qualitative ap-
I child 63 14 proach was used whereby personal face-to-face in-
2 children 22 5 terviews were conducted with shoppers at the en-
3 children 3 1
Husband 51 II
trance of the selected stores establishing their
Friend 41 9 buying intentions, and at the store check-out where
Total 450 100 actual purchases and reasons for selection were
recorded. As used by Kollat and Willett and
Prasad, the disparity between the actual purchases
and the purchase intentions has been used to deter-
mine the level and nature of unplanned buying.
It was necessary to establish what in-store
Limitations
stimuli would be utilized in the supermarket and
This study is concerned with non-food buying ac- for which non-food brands. Therefore an ‘in-store
tivity in supermarkets. The rationale for this is stimuli record sheet’ was devised to enable inter-
twofold; first, basic foodstuffs comprise many gen- viewers to record such information prior to start of
eric products such as eggs, meat, fish, cheese, veget- interviewing consumers. In the pilot interview, the
ables, flour, sugar and milk ‘which have a high interview procedure tested well although the ques-
frequency of purchase and tend to have a relatively tionnaire format proved to be complicated and was
low unplanned purchase percentage’ (Kollat and subsequently revised.
Willett, 1967, p. 26); and second, to monitor tinned All interviews were conducted by fully trained
foods and other branded foodstuffs would have interviewers in-store, on a personal face-to-face
 UNPLANNE D BUYING I I5

basis using a semi-structured questionnaire in the Table 2. Unplanned Purchase Rate Comparisons
respondent’s home language, and with the per- Between United States, United Kingdom
mission of store management. Interviews were con- and South Africa Percentage of Unplan-
ducted during the period 27 September to 26 Octo- ned Decisions
ber 1986 on all days of the week, at various time Study
periods. The interviewee was not told at the pre- Product c i t e ~ o r y USA SA UK
shopping interview that a post-shopping interview Dcodorants 49 26 nJa
was intended. First aid 61 37 nja
Hair care 66 0 16
Skincare 57 6 nja
Books and magazines 72 49 nja
Toilct soap nja 13 13
RESULTS 8 8
Washing-up liquid nla
Tooth paste nja 10 8
The research data were analysed by testing the five
propositions described earlier. Sourcvs: United States data from the PopaijDu Pont study
( I 977, p. 43). United Kingdom data from the Johnson
and Williams study (1984, p. 47). South African data
Test of Proposition One from this study (19x6).

P1 There is a high incidence of unplanned

buying decisions for non-food items in
South African supermarkets.
The buying decision information obtained was
classified into the four categories referred to by
most studies involved in monitoring unplanned
buying. In total, respondents purchased 2284 non-
food items. Twenty-two and a half per cent of these
items were an unplanned purchase, 52.9% speci-
fically planned, 1.6Yo substitutes, and 23.0% were
generally planned items.
To determine whether an unplanned purchase
rate of 22.5% represents a high incidence of un-
planned buying decisions, a comparison must be
made with the Popai/Du Pont study in the United
States and the Johnson and Williams study in the
United Kingdom.
’I‘able2 shows the unplanned purchase rates for
certain non-food products in this study, and com-
pares them with the unplanned rates in the United
States and the United Kingdom studies. Although
these studies were conducted in different years, with
different samples, the comparisons are nevertheless
considered useful. In the product categories com-
mon to the above-mentioned countries, the United
States unplanned purchase rate is higher than that
of South Africa, while the South African rate is
marginally higher than that of the United
Kingdom.
The overall rates of unplanned purchases for the
total purchases made in the key studies were com-
pared on a cross-cultural basis. The Popai/Du Pont
study in the United States revealed a rate of 47%,
the Johnson and Williams study in the United
Kingdom established a rate of 20Y0 and this study
in South Africa revealed a rate of 22.5%. The
comparative analysis indicates that the United
Kingdom and South Africa havc similar unplanned
purchase rates while the United States experiences
a much higher incidence of unplanned purchases
than both the United Kingdom and South Africa.
The testing of proposition 1 is difficult because
the criterion of ‘a high incidence of unplanned
buying decisions’ suggests relativity. Relative to the
United States, the unplanned purchase rate in
South Africa cannot be stated as ‘high’; compared
to a criterion of no unplanned results, however, the
proposition must be accepted. For manufacturers
or retailers, even a ‘one-in-five’ unplanned purchase
incidence must be considered managerially
significant.
‘In-store’ purchase decisions are those brand-
buying decisions made inside the supermarket and
comprise brands purchased:
( I ) On impulse;
(2) Within a generally planned category;
(3) Instead of specifically planned brands.
Table 3 compares the ‘in-store’ purchase decision
rates for the United States, the United Kingdom,
and South Africa.
As expected, the United States has a much higher
percentage of decisions made in-store than South
Africa; nonetheless, the fact that South Africa has a
48% in-store decision rate is significant. The results
suggest that one out of two purchase decisions is
made in store.
t 16 R . ABRATT AND S. D. GOODEY

Table 3. In-store Purchase Decision Comparisons (%)

Genernlly Total in-store SpeciRcully Total
Unplanned plnnncd Substitutc Decisions planned purchases
United States 47 15 3 65 35 - 100
United Kingdom 20 n/a 4 24" 16' - 100
South Africa 23 23 21 48 52 - 100

"The Johnson and Williams study seems to have combined generally planned and unplanned
purchase intentions. This makes a comparison with the United Kingdom relating to 'in-store'
decisions difficult.

An important issue that manufacturers and re-
tailers must address is; what factors affect in-store
purchasing decisions and is the 'unplanned' and the
'in-store' decision rate the same for all product
categories?
Test of Proposition two
P2 The rate of incidence of unplanned purchase
decisions varies for different product cat-
egories.
The database referred to 159 different product
categories, some of which had very low purchase
activity. In order to obtain a workable number of
product categories, those categories were grouped
together.2
The net effect of this exercise was to reduce the
product categories from 159 to 28 that were utilized
for the test of the proposition. The data relating to
these 28 product categories are classified into the
four relevant planning categories shown in Table 4.
Table 4 shows that the rate of incidence of un-
planned purchase decisions does vary between the
product categories. The rates of unplanned pur-
chases for various product categories should be
useful information for both manufacturers and re-
tailers. Bellenger et al. (1978) state: 'Items with a

Table 4. Percentage of purchase in each Product Category

Specifically Gcncrnlly
planned planned Unplanncd Substitulc Total
Toothpaste 69 16 10 5 100
Shampoo 67 27 - 6 100
Washing powder 78 10 8 4 100
Toilet soap 62 21 13 4 100
Washing-up liquid 71 19 8 2 100
Toilet 48 38 13 1 100
Deodorants 52 22 26 100
Sanitary products 52 39 9 100
Skin care 72 21 7 100
Razor blades 63 16 21 100
Books and magazines 41 10 49 100
Fabric softener 74 4 19 3 100
Snack foods 24 40 36 100
Batteries 44 31 25 100
Confectionery 13 26 61 100
First-aid products 52 I1 31 100
Cleansing agents 76 13 10 1 100
Plastic bags 42 35 23 100
Kitchenware 35 28 37 100
Tissues 40 30 30 100
Cold remedies 63 13 24 100
Polishes 51 33 7 3 100
Baby care 43 25 32 100
Men's toiletries 17 8 15 100
Paper products 39 36 25 100
Fizzy beverages 57 12 30 1 100
Wine 29 25 46 100
Soft drinks 41 27 31 I 100
 IJNPIANNKI) H l l Y l N G
high percentage of impulse purchasing typically
need greater stress on in-store promotion. To make
decisions relative to which items to support with in-
store displays, increased shelf space, and the like;
the retailer needs to monitor the rate of impulse
purchasing by specific merchandise line.’
Simmons (1 968) supports this view: ‘Awareness
of the level of impulse buying does provide a useful
guide to the allocation of resources. It indicates
products where below the line expenditure would
appear to be warranted.. . and others where it
would not.’ Kollat and Willett (1969) question the
usefulness of such information, stating that ‘some
unplanned purchasing is not unplanned at all, but
an artifact of the way in which the behaviour is
measured, true Unplanned purchasing rates are
considerably lower than those that are currently
accepted’. They conclude that due to possible meas-
urement error there may be a smaller range be-
tween products purported to have high and low
unplanned purchase rates; and the use of these rates
as a single criterion for assignment of promotional
effort may be questionable.
The data represented here may well be inflated
according to Kollat and Willett since the account-
ability of the consumer-commitment hypothesis
has not been taken into consideration. The propo-
sition that the rate of unplanned purchase differs
for product categories appears to be valid.
Proposition 2 was evaluated for statistical sig-
nificance by analysing selected product categories
to test the hypothesis that there is a difference
between product classes with respect to unplanned
purchases. The product classes were selected to
present different products. This is shown in Table 5.
The Chi-square test suggests that there is strong
Table 5. Difference Between Product Classes
with Respect to Rate of Unplanned
Purchase
Product class Actual Thcorctical
Toilet soap Planned 97 92.4
Unplanned 14 18.6
Fizzy drinks Planned 58 68.2
Unplanned 24 13.8
Toothpaste Planned 78 72.4
Unplanned 9 14.6
Computed Chi-square-1 3.1 149.
Critical Chi-square-5.99 I.
p < 0.05
117
evidence of statistically significant differences be-
tween these product classes. This appears obvious
from a glance down the unplanned purchase rate
column in Table 4. Thus proposition 2 is accepted.
Test of Proposition Three
P3 The following factors affect the rate of un-
planned purchase behaviour in supermarkets:
( I ) Presence of a shopping list;
(2) Supermarket selected;
(3) In-store stimuli.
As unplanned purchases and planned purchases arc
not dependent, the Chi-square statistical technique
is used to test for any significant differences bc-
tween the variables with respect to the rate of
unplanned purchasing. Kollat and Willett ( 1 967)
found that ‘a shopping list influences unplanned
purchasing only when more than 15 products are
purchased’. In this study, most respondents pur-
chased more than 15 items.
Table 6 shows the significance of a shopping list
with respect to unplanned purchases. There ap-
pears to be a difference between consumers with a
shopping list and those without shopping lists with
respect to the rate of unplanned purchasing. Thus,
the results support the findings of Kollat and Wil-
lett (1967).
The competing major supermarkets have a com-
mon objective of maximizing consumer expendi-
ture in their stores. Therefore the management of
these companies should be interested in finding out
what expenditure is unplanned and, further, what
factors influence unplanned purchasing. Assuming
the in-store stimuli proposition is valid, manage-
ment of these supermarkets have a controllable
means of increasing consumer purchases of selected
product categories and brands-the employment
of in-store promotional techniques. An analysis of
the in-store stimuli records completed shows that
all the supermarkets utilized end-of-aisle displays,
check-out displays, special stands and hanging dis-
plays. It appears that very little use was made of in-
store radio and promoters. Table 6 compares the
unplanned purchase rates of the three supermarket
groups, and the Chi-square test is used to test for
any significant difference. The Chi-square test indi-
cates no evidence of a statistically significant dif-
ference between the different supermarkets with
respect to unplanned purchasing.
I18 R. ABRATT AND S. D. GOODEY

Table 6. Chi-square Tests on Shopping Lists and Com-

parisons between Supermarket Groups
Shopping lists and unplanned purchases
Number of unils
purchased
Actual Theorelicnl
With shopping list Planned 846 804.8
Unplanned 161 202.2
Without shopping list Planned 639 680.2
Unplanned 212 170.8

Computed Chi-square-22.9376
Critical Chi-square 3.84146
p < 0.05

Comparisons Between the Three Major Supermarket

Groups With Respect to Unplanned Purchases
Supermarkel group
A Planned 619 615.7
Unplanned 154 157.3
B Planned 608 598.2
Unplanned 143 152.7
C Planned 253 266. I
Unplanned 81 678.9

Computed Chi-squard.0486
Critical Chi-square--5.9915
p c 0.05

If one accepts the in-store stimuli proposition as Table 7. In-store Stimuli Mentioned by Respon-
defined by Kollat and Willett (1969) then one could dents Involved in Unplanned Brand Pur-
assume from this finding that the three supermar- chase Decisions
ket groups have in-store stimuli similar to one Percentage of
another. The Johnson and Williams (1984) study Stimulus No. of mentions Total menlions
found that the three supermarket chains studied in Sign on shelf 216 54.0
the United Kingdom showed consistent rates of Price 58 14.5
Special display 32 8.0
unplanned purchasing. The most important in- 21 5.0
Other
fluence on unplanned purchases appears to be signs Point-of-sale material 18 4.5
on the shelf, followed by price and special displays. Friend suggestcd it 16 4.0
The number of stimuli recalled by consumers as End-of-aisle display 14 3.5
important on their unplanned purchases is shown Advertising recall 9 2.0
Family suggested it 8 2.0
in Table 7. 5 1.o
Size/packaging
The findings of this study suggest that in-store Special offer 3 1.O
stimuli do affect unplanned purchasing quite sig- In-store advertising 1 0.5
-~
nificantly. Controllable promotional techniques, ~

400 100.0
point-of-sale, shelf signs, end-of-aisles displays, and
special displays receive 70% of total mentions. Also
evident is that 25% of unplanned purchases were Test of Proposition Four
made because the respondent ‘remembered a need’
P4 Consumers tend to spend more in supermar-
for the product. This high incidence of ‘remember-
kets than they planned.
ing need’ tends to support Kollat and Willetts’
(1967) statement that ‘in-store stimuli usually re- The testing of this proposition is considered im-
mind shoppers of present or future needs’. portant in view of the Kollat and Willett (1967,
 1JNPLANNED BUYING 119

p. 29) reference to it: ‘If the customer commitment

Table 8. Actual Expenditures Compared with
explanation has any validity, it would seem that
Spending Intentions
measured purchase intentions should correspond
Percentage or rcspondcnra
more closely to actual purchase intentions when Rand s p a d i n g No. or I.esp The More
the customers’ time and effort are minimized.’ In intenlions rcspondcnts lhan s;amr lhan Tolal

their study, Kollat and Willett found that ‘there is a 21-30 17X 4 49 47 100
3140 51 IX 2s 57 100
strong tendency for actual expenditure to approx- 41 50 4s 32 24 44 100
imate spending intcntions. Shoppers are more like- 5 1-60 33 24 42 34 100
ly to spend less than they anticipated than they are 61-70 21 3x 29 33 loo
to spend more than they planned’. 7 1-80 16 50 19 31 I00
This evidence seems to detract from the in-store n i -100 29 48 17 3s 100
10 1 1 50 48 31 27 42 100
stimuli proposition, for if, as evidenced from the -

1 s I -200 17 47 42 II 100
22.5% unplanned purchase rate in this study, con- 201 250 9 ~- 67 33 loo
sumers are stimulated in-store to make unplanned Over 250 3 100 100
and hence unbudgeted purchases, it would seem Total 450
likely that their spending intentions and actual Overall percentages 20 39 41 100
expenditures will approximate. As in the Kollat
and Willett (1967) study, respondents were asked
what they intended to spend in the supermarket ~ ~-

during the entry interview and their actual expendi- Table 9. Brand Switching as Percentage of Plan-
ture was recorded from the cash register on com- ned Specific Purchase Intentions
pletion of the shopping process. Johnson Cavllllo
Popill/ and and
The results are presented in Table 8 and do not Priiduul Du Ponl This Williams Tmiarcr
support the finding of Kollat and Willett (1967). In catcgory study study study study

this study 41% of respondents spend more than Deodorants n 0 n/a n/a
their expressed spending intention, which suggests I:irst aid 0 0 nla nb
Hair care 15 9 14 nl a
that the proposition that consumers tend to spend Skin care 10 0 nla nla
more than they planned may hold. Books and magazines 0 0 n/a n/a
Toilet soap nla 7 I1 n/a
Washing-up liquid nja 2 9 n/a
Test of Proposition Five Toothpaste n/a 7 I6 n/a
Dctergents and soaps n/a 6 9 19
P5 Brand switching varies between product Beverages nla 3 n/a 18
classes.
Cavallo and Temares (1969) question the sugges-
tion made by certain studies that a large percentage per product category is certainly lower than the
of consumers who are pre-sold by an advertising 19% average for the product categories in the
campaign switch brands once they are in-store. Cavallo and Temares (1969) study. A comparison
This brand-switching phenomenon, according to with other studies in Table 9 suggests that there is
these studies, is linked to in-store stimuli such as not a high rate of brand switching among South
sales promotion, packaging, and point-of-purchase African supermarket shoppers. This may suggest
displays. strong brand loyalty among South African
In this study consumers were asked what caused consumers.
them to purchase a brand other than the one they Fifty per cent of the respondents that switched
specifically stated they intended to purchase at the brands said that they switched because the other
entry interview. Therefore it was possible not only brand was cheaper. Seventeen per cent said they
to record the incidence of brand switching but also switched because of the display, 17% said it was a
to evaluate the influence affecting brand switching. usual brand, 13% switched because of a special
Respondents who had stated an intention to pur- offer and 3% said it was recommended to them.
chase a particular brand, but made no purchase at One might expect price-induced brand switching to
all, were not counted as brand switchers. Table 9 increase in South Africa, as respondents experience
shows the findings, and the brand switching rate increasingly reduced purchasing power.
120 R. A B R A T T AND S. D.GOODEY

Table 10. Test of Significance Between Product and hence tend to be more restrained when shop-
Classes with Respect to Brand Switch- ping in supermarkets. These reasons are speculative
ing and more cross-cultural research in this area must
Product class Actual Theoretical
be done.
Toothpaste Intended brand 60 60.5 It may be short-sighted, however, for retailers to
Other brand 4 3.5 focus exclusively on increasing unplanned pur-
Toilet soap Intended brand 70 70.0 chases as a retailing strategy. This is because un-
Other brand 4 4.0 planned purchases can be of two broad types;
Washing Intended brand 133 132.5
additional consumption items and advance pur-
powder Other brand 7 1.5
chases. That is, some unplanned items are really
Computed Chi-square4.1106. just stocking-up behaviour that translates into re-
Critical Chi-square-5.991. duced purchases later. Thus, increasing unplanned
p < 0.05 stocking up (for example, of reduced-price items)
may not be to the supermarket’s advantage. Items
that were never intended to be purchased (for
Table 10 shows the test of significance between example a candy bar) may reflect full-price items
certain product categories with respect to brand with increased profit to the retailer.
switching. The findings in this Table indicate that Perhaps this limited study will provide a catalyst
there is no evidence of a statistically significant for manufacturers and retailers to co-operate to-
difference between product classes with respect to wards monitoring and accurately measuring the
brand switching. This supports the findings of ‘pure’ rates of unplanned purchase, for both indi-
Cavallo and Temares (1969), who found no vidual brands and product categories, on an on-
evidence of a statistically significant difference going basis. The pure measurement of unplanned
between vegetables, detergents and soaps, and purchasing would be equated to in-store purchase
beverages with respect to brand switching. decisions and thus the rate of unplanned purchase
for brands and products would be a criterion for
evaluating the effectiveness of both advertising and
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS in-store promotional activity.

It is evident that the rate of unplanned purchase in

South African supermarkets, although not as high
as in the United States, is sufficiently high to war-
rant the attention of both manufacturers and re-
tailers. Both parties have the opportunity to in-
crease their, sales and respective market shares if
they better understand what influences consumer
purchasing. This implies an understanding of the
total communication process to consumers. Indeed,
the ideal is to optimize the communication mix to
fit a product or brand’s in-store purchase profile.
The challenge is how to cost effectively, and accu-
rately determine a brand’s in-store purchase profile,
and to evaluate to what extent in-store stimuli
generate purchases.
Several factors could account for the higher level
of unplanned buying in the United States. The level
of development of state-of-the-art merchandising in
the United States is very good. American con-
sumers may tend to use the actual supermarket as a
‘shopping list’ and hence their unplanned purchase
rate is artificially increased. South African and Brit-
ish consumers could have less discretionary income
NOTES
1. The actual interview procedure is available on request.
2. The grouped product categories are available on
request.
REFERENCES
D. N. Bellenger, D. H. Robertson and E. C. Hirschmann
(1978). Impulse buying varies by product. Journal of
Advertising Research 18, December, 15-18.
R. C. Blattberg, E.D. Eppen and J. Lieberman (1980). A
theoretical and empirical evaluation of price deals for
consumer non-durables. Journal of Marketing 45,
Winter, 116-25.
G. Cavallo and M. L. Temares (1969). Brand switching at
the point of purchase. Journal of Retailing 45, Fall,
27-36.
M. Chevalier (1975). Increase in sales due to in-store
display. Journal of Marketing Research 12, November,
426-3 1.
K. Cox (1970). The effect of shelf space upon sales of
branded products. Journal of Marketing Research 7 ,
February, 55-8.
 IJNPLANNED BUYING
R. C. Curhan (1974). The effects of merchandising and
temporary promotional activities on the sales of fresh
fruits and vegetables in supermarkets. Journal of Mar-
keting Research 11, August, 286 94.
P. Doyle and B. Z. Gidengil (1977). A review of in-store
experiments. Journal o f Retailing 53, Summer, 47-62.
J. F. Engel, D. T. Kollat and R. D. Blackwell (1978).
Consumer Behavior, New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
J. F. Engel, M. R. Warshaw and T. C. Kinnear (1987).
Promotional Strafegy, Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.
M. Johnson and J. Williams (1984). Towards more ef-
fective point of sale. Murkef Research Society Conjer-
ence Papers, London, 208 33.
J. R. Kennedy (1970).The effect of display location on the
sales and pilferage of cigarettes. Journal of Marketing
Research 7 , May, 210-15.
D. T. Kollat (1966). A Decision-Process Approuch to
Impulse Purchasing, Science, Technology and Market-
iny, American Marketing Association, September, 626.
D. T. Kollat and R. P. Willett (1967). Consumer impulse
purchasing behaviour. Journal of Marketing Research
4, February, 21-31.
D. T. Kollat and R. P. Willett (1969). Is impulse purchas-
ing really a useful concept for marketing decisions?
Journal q\ Marketing 33, January, 79-83.
P. Kotler ( I 984). Murketing Management: Analysis,
Planning and Control, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
J. Limentour, J. Lohr, L. Phillips and P. Robinson (1984).
Merchandising Task Force Report, Unpublished Re-
121
port, Richardson-Vicks, Paris, June.
R. A. Marquardt, J. C. Makens and R. G. Roe (1983).
Retail Management, New York: The Dryden Press.
G. F. McKinnon, J. P. Kelly and E. D. Robinson (1981).
Sales effects of point-of-purchase in-store signing.
Journal of Retuiling 57, Summer, 49-63.
H. S. Peak and E. F. Peak (1977). Supermarket Mer-
chandising and Management, Englcwood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Point-of-Purchase Institute of the United States of Amer-
ica (1977). PopaiJDu Pont Consumer Buying Habits
Study-Supermarkets, New York.
V. Prasad (1975). Unplanned buying in two retail set-
tings. Journal of Retailing 51, 3 12.
J. A. Quelch (1983). It’s time to make trade promotion
more productive. Harvard Business Reoic~wMayJJune,
130 36.
B. Sewell (1984). Merchandising Seminar. Institute of
Marketing Management, London, April.
M. Simons (1968). Point of sale advertising. Journal qfthe
Market Research Society 10, 2.
R. E. Stanley (1977). Promotion: Advertising, Publicity,
Personal Selling, Sales Promotion, Englewood Cliffs,
N J: Pren tice-H all.
J. B. Wilkinson, J. Mason and C. H. Paksoy (1982).
Assessing the impact of short term supermarket
strategy variables. Journul of Marketing Research 19,
February, 72 85.
A. Woodside and G. Waddle (1975). The effects of in-
store advertising. Journal of’AdvertisinyResearch June,
29 33.