Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 438–448

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

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

Interformat competition in the grocery retailing

Maria Grazia Cardinali 1, Silvia Bellini n
Marketing Area – Department of Economics, University of Parma, Via Kennedy 6, Parma 43125, Italy

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the last few years, we have seen significant changes in the Italian retail environment which suggest
Received 9 December 2013 that the patterns of retailing competition are more complex than in the past. In order to expand their
Received in revised form target market in a context of economic recession, retailers are implementing new strategies aimed to
13 March 2014
stimulate the switching between different store formats. As a result, store formats are getting similar and
Accepted 18 March 2014
new "hybrid" formats are emerging.
This paper investigates the interformat competition between grocery store formats in the Italian
Keywords: retail market in order to understand which formats are converging and which, otherwise, are
Interformat competition maintaining their distinctiveness. Our findings show that the rivalry between store formats (interformat)
Intraformat competition
is becoming more intense than the competition within store formats (intraformat). These results have
Competitive convergence
significant implication on both retailers and trade marketing strategies.
Grocery
Retailing & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Consumer perceptions

1. Introduction unbranded products. Other retailers (e.g. Finiper) have made a

In the last few years, we have seen significant changes in the
Italian grocery retailing because of the economic crisis. In parti-
cular, two prevalent trends can be observed. Firstly, the structure
of the retail market is changing: small and medium size store
formats (o2.500 mq, i.e. convenience stores, small/medium
supermarkets and discounts) are growing, while larger scale
formats ( 42.500 mq, i.e. large supermarkets and hypermarkets)
are declining (Competition Authority, 2013).
Secondly, retailers’ strategies are changing in response to the
recession: in a mature environment with slow growth opportunities,
in fact, grocery retailers expand their target market and develop new
strategies in order to capture the competitors' customers. In parti-
cular, retailers try to stimulate the switching between different store
formats. As a result, new “hybrid” formats (i.e. new formats which
combine the characteristics of different store formats) are emerging
as a consequence of the “trading up” and “trading down” policies
implemented by retailers in response to the new market context.
The trading up and trading down policies make the store
attributes less distinctive than in the past.
Some examples will help to better interpret the current trends.
Some retailers (e.g. Auchan and Carrefour) have implemented a
“trading down” policy in order to make the hypermarkets more
attractive: they have extended the range of value products, they
have introduced the “self-discount” areas and the unpackaged
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 39 0521 032416.
E-mail addresses: mariagrazia.cardinali@unipr.it (M.G. Cardinali),
silvia.bellini@unipr.it (S. Bellini).
1
Tel.: þ39 0521 032479.
“trading up” policy in order to make the hypermarket format able
to satisfy daily shopping needs: they have extended the range of
fresh foods and ready meals, and they have introduced small
baskets for daily shopping.
Also the supermarket format is evolving, in order to better
satisfy “price sensitive” consumers: some retailers (e.g. Simply and
Unes) have implemented a “trading down” policy: they have
rationalized the assortment and introduced “Every Day Low Price”
(EDLP) policies. At the same time, we can observe a “trading up” of
the supermarket formats which are evolving in order to better
satisfy the needs of the consumers who eat away from home:
Conad, for example, has extended the ready meals assortment and
created eat-in areas in stores.
The discount format (e.g. Lidl) has implemented a “trading up”
policy by improving the quality of the assortment: it has intro-
duced a new line of organic products and it has also tested a new
line of products with a low fat and sugar.
These trends suggest that the patterns of competition among
store formats are more complex than in the past.
Competitive interaction among retailers, in fact, is described
most commonly as either intra or intertype. Levy and Weitz (1998)
define intratype competition as that existing between the same
type of retailers selling similar merchandise, while intertype
competition is between different types of retailers selling similar
merchandise. According to this interpretation, the intratype com-
petition exists between two grocery retailers (e.g. Auchan and
Carrefour) while the intertype competition occurs between a mass
merchandise retailer and a category killer (e.g. Auchan and Toy's).
Changes in the retail environment make this dichotomy insuf-
ficient. The intratype competition in the grocery sector, in fact, has

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.03.005
0969-6989/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.G. Cardinali, S. Bellini / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 438–448
two dimensions: the first, which is the most known and studied by
the literature, is the intraformat competition which occurs within
the same store format; the second, more recently and less studied
by the literature, is the interformat competition which invest
different store formats. This means that the hypermarket does
not compete only with another hypermarket (intraformat compe-
tition) but also with a discount or a supermarket (interformat
competition). These issues are the focus of our work.
On the basis of these observations, we investigate the competi-
tion between store formats in grocery retail sector in terms of a
dual perspective combining the supply side with demand. The
supply side of the investigation focuses on the degree of similarity
in store attributes and the demand side focuses on consumer
perception of how different formats meet their shopping needs.
This dual perspective is useful for the retailers who want to
better understand the role that formats have in the consumer's
purchasing decision as well as which parameters are better than
others in the process of offer segmentation.
If we find out that store formats are perceived as similar in
meeting food shopping needs, retailers should focus more on the
brand image in order to differentiate themselves from competi-
tors, achieve a sustainable competitive advantage and consolidate
their position in the market.
2. Theoretical framework
The matter of intertype and intratype competition is of great
relevance in the current context of economic recession, since
retailers are looking for marketing strategies to prevent consumers
from switching store formats. This trend is of course not new
(Hirschmann, 1978; Ingene, 1983; Levy and Weitz, 1998; Dunne
and Lusch, 1999), but in recent years it has increased rapidly
affecting the market retail structure (Miller et al., 1999).
The emerging of new form of competition that goes beyond the
traditional boundaries draws a new market context that is defined
as “competitive convergence” (Ancarani and Costabile, 2009) in
order to emphasize a growing competition between different
firms or, as far as concern the retail sector, between different
retailers or different store formats.
The matter of competitive convergence was first studied from
the perspective of the industrial sectors: starting from the nineties,
several authors have studied the convergence among industrial
sectors (e.g. information technology and media), mainly due to the
advent of digital technologies (Bradley et al., 1993; Moore, 1996;
Yoffie, 1997; Evans and Wurster, 1997; Shapiro and Varian, 1999;
Valdani et al., 2001). These authors analyzed the intertype com-
petition resulting, which involves, for example, companies that
belong to the information technology sector with companies
coming from the media sector.
The phenomenon of the competitive convergence in the retail
sector, instead, is more recently, especially in Italy. At the end of
the nineties, with the introduction of a new commercial legisla-
tion, several retailers began to develop new market strategies
extending their target market: specialized and non-specialized
retailers started to compete against each other for the same
households. This phenomenon has been described as “intertype
competition” (Lugli, 2004) as well as “competitive convergence”
(Valdani et al., 2001). In particular, Lugli (2004) explored the
convergence between grocery retail and food service. Grocery
retailers have implemented new strategies in order to satisfy the
need of consumers who eat out of home: they have introduced
ready meals in their range, they have created new categories by
aggregating food, beverage and non- food items (such as paper
napkins and plastic cups), and they have introduced “eat-in” areas
439
in stores. As a consequence, grocery retailers have entered into
competition with food service operators.
Valdani et al. (2001) studied the competition between grocery,
non-grocery and public utilities sectors. In particular, they revealed a
growing convergence between grocery and fuel sectors: on one
hand, grocery retailers have opened fuel stations under their own
banner; on the other hand, fuel companies have opened conveni-
ence stores near their fuel stations. At the same time, grocery
retailers have started to invest in insurance and financial services,
getting in competition with financial operators.
The “competitive convergence”, which is characterized by the
entrance of grocery retailers in non-food sectors (e.g. fuel, phar-
macy, insurance, finance, optics) and “non-core” services (e.g. food
service), is due to the to the maturity of the grocery sector.
Focusing on the grocery retail sector, several studies (Lal and
Rao, 1997; Bell et al., 1998; Bell and Lattin, 1998; Fox et al., 2002;
Bhatnagar and Ratchford, 2004; Gonzales-Benito et al., 2005;
Popowski-Leszczyc et al., 2000, 2004;Rhee and Bell, 2002; Singh
et al., 2006; Gijsbrechts et al., 2008; Cleeren et al., 2010) have
made a distinction between intraformat and interformat competi-
tion: the first occurs between the same type of store formats (e.g.
Auchan vs Carrefour), while the second occurs between different
types of store formats (Auchan vs Carrefour Market).
Several contributions have tried to understand what are the
levers that contribute to generate the competitive convergence
and the interformat competition.
Some authors (Lal and Rao, 1997; Bell and Lattin, 1998; Rhee
and Bell, 2002; Popowski-Leszczyc et al., 2000; Singh et al., 2006)
examined the role of pricing strategies in increasing competition
between retailers, focusing on the nature and intensity of compe-
tition between EDLP and HiLo supermarkets. Fox et al. (2002)
looked at competition between grocery stores, mass merchandi-
sers and drug stores, and the influence of range, price and
promotion policy on purchasing behavior and on the amount of
spending for each store format. Purchasing behavior and amount
of spending were found to be more variable between formats than
within the same format.
Bhatnagar and Ratchford (2004) presented a model to explain
factors underlying consumer choice between supermarkets, con-
venience stores and food warehouses. It is based on the assump-
tion that consumers choose the format that gives the best overall
combination of prices and costs for each shopping mission. Their
analysis showed how to identify the best format for minimizing
costs on the basis of whether the shopping mission is routine,
daily or emergency, etc. They found that substitution is limited by
rational choice on the part of the consumer, who tries to limit
overall costs for each purchase.
An interesting study on the degree of competition between
different store formats (Gonzales-Benito et al., 2005) presents a
model showing the degree of interaction between supermarkets,
hypermarkets and discount stores in the Spanish market. Competi-
tion between hypermarkets and discount stores was found to be the
most intense, while supermarkets compete with the same level of
intensity against both the hypermarkets and discount stores.
Gonzales-Benito et al. (2005) discussed intraformat and interformat
competition, and they showed empirically that competition is more
intense within a format than between different store formats. This
work is interesting because it recognizes that spatial competition
between stores is not based exclusively on a specific format. The
competition between different formats, defined as an “asymmetric”
competition by the authors, need to be taken into account, along
with the competition within the same formats.
Lastly, in a recent work, Cleeren et al. (2010) presented findings
of a study of the German market which measures the competitive
impact of a new entry on the market both within the formats and
between two formats, supermarkets and discount stores.
440 M.G. Cardinali, S. Bellini / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 438–448

Table 1
Store sample by store formats.

Store formats Retail chain

Hypermarket Ipercoop (Hypermarket 1), Famila (Hypermarket 11), Esselunga (Hypermarket 7), Auchan (Hypermarket 8), Finiper (Hypermarket 9),
Carrefour (Hypermarket 16)
Supermarket Conad (Supermarket 3), Coop (Supermarket 10), Simply Market (Supermarket 14), Pam (Supermarket 15), Carrefour Market (Supermarket 17),
Unes (Supermarket 19), Billa (Supermarket 20)
Convenience Punto Sigma (Convenience 6), Punto Sma (Convenience 4), U2 (Convenience 5), Conad City (Convenience 12)
Discount Eurospin (Discount 13), Lidl (Discount 2),
Penny Market (Discount 18)

Table 2
Definition of store formats in Italya.
Source: Competition Authority, 2013.

Store format Retail chain

Hypermarket A grocery retail store, self-service based with a sales area of more than 2.500 mq, with a big parking area, which offers a wide
range of products (from 7000 to 40,000 references of food and non-food items). Generally, it attracts consumers located in a
radius distance of 30 min or more
Supermarket A grocery retail store, self-service based with a sales area of more than 400 mq, which offers a wide range of food items, in
most cases packaged, as well as some non-food items for domestic use (from 5000 to 10,000 references of food and non-
food). Services (the number of check outs, parking areas, opening hours, etc.) depend on the size of the store. Generally, it
attracts consumers located in a radius distance of 15 min
Convenience store A grocery retail store, smaller than the supermarket, self-service based with a sales area of between 200 and 400 mq, which
offers a limited range of food items in terms of brands and references. It satisfies daily shopping needs. Generally, it attracts
consumers located in a radius distance no more than 10 min
Discount A grocery retail store, self-service based with a sales area of between 200 and 1000 mq, which offers a limited range of
products (the number of references is usually less than 1000) that excludes, in most cases, fresh department and branded
products. The layout is very simple, as well as the services offered to customers. It differs from other retail stores for the low
price policy

a
These definitions, agreed by the Italian Ministry of Industry Commerce and Handicrafts, have been developed for statistical purposes from a working group, composed
of officials of the Ministry and experts from the industry trade associations, regions, ISTAT and research institutions.

The strength of these studies is that they measure interaction
and competition between stores within the same format (intra-
format) and between different formats (interformat). A weakness,
however, tends to be that they are based on a consumer perspec-
tive, while the offer side is not considered. In the past, interformat
competition was driven only by price promotion, while in the
actual market scenario (as described in our introduction) retailers
compete against each other using all the retail mix levers, such as
range and services. This makes the boundaries between store
formats increasingly confused.
Measuring the degree of similarity between formats from the
perspectives of both retailers and consumers can suggest how the
competitive boundaries between grocery retailers might be drawn in
future.
3. Research aims and methodology
the last few years. This growth could have led standardization
between store formats making them less differentiated and
recognizable by consumers.
Q2. What parameters bring about convergence and which
maintain format differentiation?
Some structural and service parameters contribute to compe-
titive convergence, while others help and will continue to
create identity and differentiation of store formats. In the past
it was promotions which tended to make boundaries fluid, but
in recent years more parameters bring about convergence.
Q3. Which formats are showing the most convergence and
which are retaining their identity on the Italian market today?
We intend to explore which formats show most convergence
and which retain their identity and are easily recognized by the
consumer in the current context of increased competition.
Q4. What perception do consumers have of the different store
formats in terms of meeting shopping needs?

On the basis of these observations, our work intends to

investigate the new dimensions of competition between grocery
store formats in order to verify if they are becoming similar, which
means that they are converging.
Our research differs from the contributions discussed above by
using a dual perspective combining the supply side with demand.
On the supply side, we focus on the degree of similarity in store
attributes while on the demand side we focus on consumer
perception of how different formats meet their shopping needs.
In particular, we aim to answer the following questions:
From the point of view of demand, we aim to find out whether
consumers perceive the gradual convergence of store formats and
whether it influences purchasing behavior by changing the criteria
for choosing store. The results will enable us to assess current
segmentation strategy and how well it meets shopping needs.
In order to pursue the research aims mentioned above, our field
research was carried out in two strands.
Firstly, the convergence between store formats in terms of supply
perspective has been measured using the store checks' analysis.2

Q1. Which are the boundaries between store formats in the era
of “competitive convergence”?
Competitive convergence is of course not new in the grocery
sector, but the current economic recession has speeded it up in
2
Analysis based on store checks is a method of observation which measures
both qualitative and quantitative variables in the supply perspective (Pellegrini and
Dolciotti, 2001).
 M.G. Cardinali, S. Bellini / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 438–448 441

Table 3
Variables.

Parameters Store attributes Measurement

Structural variables (macro-parameters) Layout model (grid/free flow) Present/absent

Aggregation of promotion areas Present/absent
Gondola promotion areas Present/absent
Double entrance Present/absent
Value area Present/absent
Unpackaged items area Present/absent

Time saving services (macro-parameters) Self-scanning Present/absent

Automatic checkout Present/absent
Daily shopping baskets Present/absent
Fast checkout Present/absent
Home delivery Present/absent

Range (macro-parameters) Categories Products Type of number of products per categories

Retail mix levers (micro parameters) Products Number
Brands Number
Organic products Number
Premium products Number
Value products Number
Store brands Number
Promotions Number of product code in promotions
Average duration of promotions in flyer Days
National brand in flyer Number
Follower brand in flyer Number
Store brands in flyer Number
Food products in flyer Number
Non-food products in flyer Number
Fresh products in flyer Number
Products with discount lower than 30% in flyer Number
Products with discount between 30% and 40% in flyer Number
Products with discount higher than 40% in flyer Number

Field research was carried out in Milan (Italy) in July 2012 on a
sample of 20 point of sales (Table 1), belonging to the main Italian
grocery retail chains, which account for over 70% of Italian grocery
turnover, and to four different store formats, which have been
identified on the basis of the Competition Authority's classification
(Table 2). Store checks were made on just one point of sale per
retail chain, indicated by the retailer as being representative of
retailing strategy for store format.
For each of them, several store attributes were observed and
measured in order to understand if store formats are becoming
similar (Table 3). The selected variables correspond to those most
frequently mentioned in the literature.
According to the main contributions, in fact, store formats in
grocery retailers differ with reference to several attributes (Spranzi,
1981; Pellegrini, 1988; Lugli, 1998; McGoldrick, 1990), ranging from
structural parameters (size of the store, location, layout, display,
services) to retail mix levers (range, communication, promotion,
price). These attributes have a different impact on store loyalty
(Mitchell and Kiral, 1998; Morganosky and Cude, 2000; Cortinas
et al., 2004; Miranda and Konya, 2005; Pan and Zinkhan, 2006; Clottey
et al., 2008; Bellini et al., 2011) and store choice (Reutterer and
Teller, 2009). Moreover, the store attributes qualified the degree of
retail innovation, as defined by Cardinali (2003) who distinguished
between primary and secondary innovation.
Secondly, empirical qualitative research based on the focus
group discussion was used to verify consumer perception of the
convergence.
Focus group discussion took place in September 2012 and
involved 28 consumers in four groups of seven. Recruitment was
made through intercept technique at the stores involved in the
research. Participation was restricted only at consumers who
declared to be the main responsible for the household shopping.
Discussion was based on a semi-structured interview, starting
with the reason why one particular store was chosen, which
identified consumer shopping needs, and led into closer focus on
store formats and their role in purchase decisions. The discussion
was aimed to understand if the choice of the main store depended
on the belonging to a particular store formats or it depended on
the retailers' strategies.
Each discussion lasted for about 2 h, and was sound and video
recorded. Sessions have been videotape and verbatim transcribed
for the purposes of thematic analysis. In particular, the analysis
was divided into two steps. First, we read the transcripts twice to
become familiar with the data and defined the codes using the
template method (King, 1998) which combines the theory-driven
approach (themes identified a priori) with the data-driven one
(themes emerging from the discussion). Secondly, the codes were
aggregated into categories, according to the similarities found
between them. The NVivo 9 software was used to facilitate the
focus groups content analysis by means of data categorization.
Some comments from participants have been selected to explain
in depth the themes and are verbatim reported in quotes in the
findings.
4. Findings
4.1. Convergence between store formats
To answer our first research question, we analyzed structural
and service parameters of the stores. Field research confirmed that
different formats are growing increasingly similar as a result of
trading up and trading down policies operated by different formats.
One of the clearest trends emerging is the growing hybridization
of hypermarkets. Many are implementing trading up and trading
down policies in response to the crisis, while others have also
recently opted for a discount policy by increasing their range of
low price products. These are often displayed in order to appeal to
the value segment. Some of them introduced a display of unpackaged
unbranded goods for which the consumer brings their own
442 M.G. Cardinali, S. Bellini / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 438–448
Structural variables Dendrogram
Supermarket 10
Supermarket 14
Supermarket 20
Supermarket 15
Supermarket 17
Convenience 6
Hypermarket 11
Supermarket 3
Convenience 4
Hypermarket 1
Discount 13
Discount 2
Discount 18
Convenience 5
Supermarket 19
Convenience 12
Hypermarket 7
Hypermarket 9
Hypermarket 8
Hypermarket 16
Fig. 1. Degree of similarity in structural variables.
Source: Author's elaboration.
containers. At the same time, this trading down policy does not
exclude a trading up policy. Different forms of time saving services
are also being tried out. These are mainly offered at the checkout and
include fast checkouts for a limited number of products in a basket,
automatic checkouts and self-scanning. There are also time-saving
innovations in layout, such as everyday shopping circuits, and
aggregating all fresh goods for daily purchase on display together
etc. The hypermarket format is thus being hybridized, as it competes
directly with discount stores on one hand and supermarkets and
convenience stores on the other hand.
The discount store format also provides interesting findings.
Due to the trading up policy, discount is becoming increasingly
close to levels in supermarkets and hypermarkets. Most of the
discount chains on the Italian market now have a “mixed layout”
with fresh goods zones, like supermarkets and convenience stores.
Most have recently increased the number of fresh goods on offer,
and have increased the number of national brands which have
high signaling value in promotional flyers. Trading up of the
product range and the improvement of customer services is making
the boundary between discounts, hypermarkets and supermarkets
increasingly blurred.
The boundary between hypermarkets and supermarkets too
is becoming increasingly fluid, and there is increasing overlap
between the two store formats.
The convergence between store formats in the macro-parameters
(structural parameters, time saving services and range) was measured
through proximity matrices, known as dendrograms (Fig. 1–3).3
3
Dendrograms are one of the various possible outputs of the statistical
explorative method known as hierarchical cluster analysis, as computed in many
multivariate statistics software (for example, SPSS and SAS). As a method of
representation of cluster membership, they are useful to expose and clarify the
groupings emerging from the data collected. The calculation of the index number
(from 1 to 25) is made through the application of an agglomeration procedure
implicating the use of one between the many available measures of similarity/
dissimilarity. The lower the index number, the lesser is the dissimilarity between
the cases taken into consideration. The agglomeration procedure is iterative: first, it
combines the cases which are closer between them than any other in the sample,
The distance between store formats, shown on the horizontal
axis, confirms that sometimes stores from different formats are
nearer than stores from the same format. For example, Fig. 1 shows
that as far as structural parameters are concerned, three super-
markets, one convenience and one hypermarket can be aggregated
at a distance of 3. Another example is that supermarket 3 and
convenience 4 are very similar and can be aggregated at a distance
slightly bigger than 1, while hypermarket 7 and hypermarket 9 can
be aggregated at a distance bigger than 6.4
For time saving services (Fig.2), stores belonging to different
store format show shorter distances, lower than 5. For example,
two hypermarkets (1 and 7) can be aggregated with supermarket
10. In the same way, two supermarkets (3 and 19) and conve-
nience 4 can be aggregated a distance shorter than 5.5
Lastly, Fig. 3 shows the distance between formats for the range.
The distance between supermarket 19 and three convenience
stores (6, 12 and 5) is shorter than the distance between super-
markets 10 and 19, which can be aggregated only at a greater
distance (4 versus 10).6 In the same way, hypermarket 1 and
supermarket 17 show a minimum distance and can be aggregated
(footnote continued)
according to the distance measure chosen; once formed the first cluster composed
from the two cases most similar, it goes on iteratively for any other cases in the
sample. The agglomeration procedures as well as the distance measures are
provided by default in many of the most common used multivariate statistics
software. For our analysis, we used SPSS software.
4
Supermarket 3 (Conad) and Convenience 4 (Punto Sma), while belonging to
different formats, are very similar in the structural parameters such as layout
model, aggregation of promotional areas and gondola promotion areas, while
Hypermarket 7 (Esselunga) and Hypermarket 9 (Finiper), while belonging to the
same store formats, are very different concerning the structural parameters
analyzed.
5
Hypermarket 1 (Ipercoop) and Hypermarket 7 (Esselunga) have introduced
time saving services (self-scanning, automatic checkout, daily shopping baskets,
fast checkout, home delivery). This make them very similar to the Supermarket 10
(Coop).
6
Supermarket 10 (Coop) has introduced new products in fresh foods and ready
meals. This make it similar to the convenience stores analyzed.
 M.G. Cardinali, S. Bellini / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 438–448 443

Time saving Dendrogram

Convenience 5
Convenience 6
Convenience 12
Supermarket 20
Discount 18

Supermarket 3

Supermarket 19

Convenience 4
Supermarket 15
Supermarket 17

Hypermarket 1
Hypermarket 7
Supermarket 10
Supermarket 14
Hypermarket 11
Discount 2

Discount 13

Hypermarket 8
Hypermarket 16
Hypermarket 9

Fig. 2. Degree of similarity in time saving services.

Source: Author's elaboration.

Range Dendrogram

Convenience 6
Convenience 12
Convenience 5
Supermarket 19
Discount 2
Discount 18
Discount 13
Supermarket 10
Supermarket 3
Convenience 4
Hypermarket 1
Supermarket 17
Supermarket 14
Supermarket 15
Hypermarket 11
Hypermarket 7
Hypermarket 9
Hypermarket 8
Hypermarket 16

Fig. 3. Degree of similarity in range.

Source: Author's elaboration.

in the same cluster, whereas the distance between hypermarket
8 and hypermarket 16 is about 20.
Convenience 5, supermarket 19 and three discount stores (2, 13
and 18) can be aggregated at a distance slightly over 5. Again,
these are stores from different formats.
These preliminary findings reveal the growing similarity
between formats, which are increasingly less differentiated and
overlapping in terms of structure, time-saving services and range.
This appears to show that Italian retailers are aiming to attract
customers from one format to another through macro-parameters
strategies and not only through price promotions, as supported by
the literature in the past (Lugli, 1998).
4.2. Structural parameters and time saving services in
standardization and differentiation
In order to answer our second research question, an index of
dissimilarity for structural parameters and time saving services was
calculated.7 This is an indicator of the “closeness” of the different
formats (Fig. 4). The closer the index to 100, the more widely is the
7
The index of similarity (Gini index) has been constructed only with reference
to the macro-parameters because it requires the conditions of “present or absence”
of the phenomenon.
444 M.G. Cardinali, S. Bellini / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 438–448

Mixed layout

Aggregation of promotion area

Small baskets for day-to-day shopping

Gondola promotion areas

Home deliveries

Fast checkouts

Automatic checkouts

Self-scanning

Unpackaged items area

Value area

Double entrance

Fig. 4. Degree of similarity between formats (based on Gini dissimilarity index).

Source: Author's elaboration.

Table 4
Convergence between store formats by macro parametersa

Store format Hypermarket Supermarket Discount Convenience

Hypermarket – High convergence Medium convergence Low convergence

Structural variables, time saving Structural variables, time saving Time saving services
services, range services
Supermarket High convergence – Low convergence Medium convergence
Structural variables, time saving Range Structural variables, time saving
services, range services
Discount Medium convergence Low convergence – No convergence
Structural variables, time saving services Range
Convenience Low convergence Medium convergence No convergence –
Time saving services Structural variables, time saving services

a
We defined the convergence as “high” when it occurs in all the three parameters (structural variables, time saving services, range), as “medium” when it occurs in two
of the three parameters and “low” when it occurs in only one parameter.

phenomenon present in the store formats, and the closer the index is
to zero the more concentrated it is and the more it is a distinctive
lever for the format. Fig. 4 shows clearly the degree of similarity
between different formats concerning structural parameters and
time saving services: 8 parameters of 11 in fact present an index of
dissimilarity above 50%, a clear sign that store formats are becoming
closer. Only three of the variables (unpackaged items area, value area,
double entrance) are concentrated in one single format (hypermar-
ket) and are, in fact, distinctive store attributes.
Focusing more closely on this issue, we see that formats are
becoming more similar in certain structural aspects of the store
such as layout, aggregation and promotion areas, and these factors
are immediately followed by time saving services.
4.3. Standardization versus differentiation of store formats on the
Italian market
The hybridization of store formats has not occurred to the
same extent in all store formats (Table 4). As well as some formats
are gradually becoming closer and partially overlap in macro-
parameters, there are those which are keeping their own identity.
One of these is discount format, although they are currently under-
going big changes resulting from the widespread practice of
trading up. This format, in fact, is becoming similar to the
hypermarket for what concern the structural parameters and time
saving services, and to the supermarket for the range. In the same
way, the boundary around hypermarkets is gradually disappearing
and there is increasing overlap with the supermarket format, in all
the three macro-parameters.
4.4. Similarity between store formats: consumer perception
4.4.1. Purchasing needs
In order to identify shopping needs and the role of the format in
meeting them, focus group participants were asked to compare their
reasons for choosing the store by writing down words and phrases
associated with their usual shop. This activity led to the identification
of the categories and codes listed in Table 5. In particular, words and
phrases of store associations can be grouped into four conceptual
categories of consumer needs: time-saving, quality of the shopping
experience, money saving and trust.
Time-saving is a priority for consumers: 40% of words and
phrases associated with the usual point of sale mention them. It
may refer to exogenous factors concerning with context (“the store is
easy to get to”) or format (“It's not too big and not too small”). Other
factors are endogenous and depend on the retail mix. Range is
particularly important: it helps to save time when it is “very wide”, as
a single shopping expedition can be made, and also when it is “basic”,
 M.G. Cardinali, S. Bellini / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 438–448
Table 5
Categories and codes of the thematic analysis.
Source: Author's elaborations.
Categories Codes
Time savings
Exogenous factors (location,
parking, opening time, store size)
Endogenous factors (instore services, layout, display,
promotions, range, customer service)
Quality of the
shopping experience
Range
Environment
Customer services
Money savings
Long term prices
Short term prices (promotion)
Trust
Familiar
Guide in the choice
Loyalty program
a
The remaining 3% of the words and phrases associated with the main store are not categorized because they refer to an
occasional frequency of the store (e.g. the store is attended only for “packaged goods”, “home care products”, “non-food items”).
as shopping is quicker because no time is needed to evaluate
alternatives. Store layout helps to save time if it “not too spread
out”, for example if items on special offer are aggregated on pro-
motional areas. Display also speeds up shopping when it is “logically
organized” and “products are well-presented”. The store may also
help save time by in-store services such as “self-scanning”, or offering
“sales person presence" and “efficiency at the checkout”.
Quality of shopping experience is the second reason for choos-
ing a point of sale: 31% of the words and phrases associated with
the usual store reflect a concept of quality in the widest sense.
Range accounts for 18% of these and is followed by environment
(9%) and customer services (4%). The quality of the range is
evaluated intrinsically ("quality of fresh products” and “quality of
private label products”) and for its differentiation (“ethnic pro-
ducts” and “displays of newly launched products”). Participants
evaluate also the quality of environment (“pleasant”, “light”,
“clean” and “tidy”), and the customer services (sales personnel
are “competent", “polite” and “ready to listen”).
Prices, which are usually cited as an important reason for
choice in quantitative research questionnaire based, appear to be
less important in our investigation: only 18% of words and phrases
associated with usual point of sale reflect money saving, either in
the long-term pricing (“good price-quality ratio”) or short-term
pricing (“special offers”). Focus group discussions concentrated
more on time-saving than money savings: consumers tend to
judge positively a purchase for the time it takes and ease of
purchasing, even if it is not necessarily cheap.
Lastly, consumers need to trust the retailer: 9% of the words
and phrases reflect the need to be reassured (point of sale must be
“trustworthy”, “welcoming”, “familiar”) and guided in their shop-
ping decisions. In this sense, the store can orient the consumer by
way of layout and in store communication (“It gives ideas for
cooking”, or “gives advice on nutrition”).8
Time-saving, quality of shopping experience, money saving and
trust are the four pillars supporting a stable relationship with the
retailer.
8
The remaining 3% of the words and phrases associated with the main store
are not categorized because they refer to an occasional frequency of the store (e.g.
the store is attended only “for packaged goods”, “for home care products”, for non-
food items).
445
Frequency %a Frequency % (Total)
40
14
26
31
18
9
4
18
10
8
9
5
3
1
4.4.2. The role of store format and retail mix levers in meeting
shopping needs
Focus group participants were asked to discuss the role of the
store formats in meeting their shopping needs. For this purpose,
participants were asked to complete the pre-printed sentences
“Supermarket is….”, “Hypermarket is…”, “Discount is….”, “Con-
venience is….” on a sheet. Initially, the participants appeared to be
clearly aware of the roles of the different formats: they readily
identified the supermarket as “point of sale for food products”, the
hypermarket as “food and non-food products”, the discount store
as “a shop for cheap products” and the traditional store as “shop
for emergencies”.
But looking at these findings in more detail (Table 6), formats
converge in consumers’ eyes on several fronts. “Variety of range” is in
fact associated with both the supermarket (25% of the associations)
and the hypermarket (31% of the of the associations). The “long
queues and chaos” which first distinguishes the hypermarket (20% of
the associations) also appears for the supermarket (13% of the
associations), although in third place in the order of frequency. The
“low prices”, mainly associated with discounts (32% of the associa-
tions), are also mentioned for supermarkets (15% of the associations)
and for hypermarkets (7% of the associations). The only format which
retains its identity is the convenience, where consumers perceive
“quality” (35% of the association), “high prices” (21% of the associa-
tions) and “trust” (19% of the associations).
Even if consumers recognize structural differences between
formats, chiefly size and range, they do not perceive big differ-
ences in terms of meeting shopping needs.
The need to save time is not met by the hypermarket (43% of
the association are in the negative sense), which is seen as “time-
wasting”, for consumers who “have time” or who “have time to
waste”. There are consumers, however, who shop at the hyper-
market satisfying their need to save time as “There are small
baskets on wheels for small quantities of goods at hypermarkets
too” and “Fast check-outs mean the queue is shorter”. According to
some consumers, in fact, the hypermarket is "similar to the
supermarket" (5% of the association). It is also remarked “My
usual hypermarket is like a supermarket: clothes and other
departments are separate and you hardly see them, they don’t
waste my time”. So in fact, in-store services and layout are helping
hypermarkets and supermarkets to converge, as hypermarkets
meet needs previously met by smaller formats.
 446
Table 6
Categories and codes of the thematic analysis per store formatsa.
Source: Author's elaborations.

M.G. Cardinali, S. Bellini / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 438–448
Categories Hypermarket Supermarket Discount Convenience

Codes Frequency Codes Frequency Codes Frequency Codes Frequency

% % % %

Time savings Positive (similar to the supermarket for the 48 33 2 17

presence of small baskets and fast checkouts)
5 Positive (easy to reach, not 20 Positive – Positive (no time wasting, for 17
too big, right choice) emergency, easy to reach
Negative (not easy to reach) 2
Negative (time wasting, long queues and chaos, 43 Negative (Long queues and 13 Negative –
too big, not easy to reach, too much choice) chaos)
Quality of the 42 40 57 43
shopping
experience
Positive (variety of range, food and non-food) 39 Positive (Variety of range, 40 Positive – Positive (quality of range, high 35
Specialized in food products) quality of services, specialized)
Negative (medium/low quality product) 3 Negative – Negative (low quality of products, 57 Negative (not too much variety) 8
low services, low quality of
environment, low variety of range,
unbranded
products)
Money savings 7 21 32 21
Positive (money savings) 7 Positive (money savings, 21 Positive (money savings) 32 Positive
value for money)
Negative – Negative – Negative Negative (high prices) 21
Trust 3 6 9 19
Positive – Positive (friendly, loyalty 6 Positive – Positive (trust and relationship 19
program) with staff)
Negative (not friendly) 3 Negative – Negative (I don’t’ like it) 9 Negative –

a
The words and phrases most frequently mentioned by the participants are shown in italics in the order of frequency.
 M.G. Cardinali, S. Bellini / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 438–448
The need to save money is met by discount stores (32% of the
association), which are immediately associated with “low prices” and
used by people who “wish to save”. But if the aim is saving is also
possible to go to a supermarket. Consumers commented “You can
find low prices at the supermarket too, but the quality is better, so
there is no point going to the discount store”. They also remarked
“Prices at discount stores are similar to private label prices, so it is not
worth going there”. So again, the need for low prices is met by more
than one format: supermarkets (21% of the association) and hyper-
markets (7% of the association) as well as discount.
Lastly, the need for quality and trust appear to be met by the
convenience store, associated with “quality" (35% of the associa-
tion) and “relationship of trust with retailer” (19% of the associa-
tion). But these needs too can be met in other formats, even in
the supermarket. Consumers find for example that “You can taste
samples of cheese, jam and honey at the hypermarket, like in a
convenience store” and that “If you want a particular cut of meat,
they will prepare it for you just like the old-fashioned butcher”.
So customer service is bringing the supermarket closest to the
traditional store meeting the need for quality and trust.
5. Conclusions and implications
For a long time, the literature argued that competition took
place within a store format (McGoldrick, 1990; Spranzi, 1991;
Lugli, 1998). Only in the last decade, some authors have started
to recognize a greater competition between store format (Lugli,
2004; Gonzales-Benito et al., 2005; Cummins et al., 2008; Findlay
and Sparks, 2008; Reutterer and Teller, 2009) arguing that there is,
in fact, an increasing use of multiple stores and formats since they
offer different opportunities to satisfy bundles of wants and needs
depending on the shopping occasion. However, this type of
competition (interformat) remains less intense than the one
within the same format (intraformat).
Our findings, however, show that the spatial rivalry between
store formats (interformat) is becoming more intense than the
competition within store formats (intraformat). The degree of
similarity between different store formats is sometimes almost
greater than the degree of similarity between different stores
within the format. This means that traditional segmentation
criteria used by retailers are in conflict with consumer perception
of the different store formats.
Specifically, our field research confirmed that several trends are
taking place in competitive convergence, and these are probably set
to redraw the boundaries of competition between grocery retailers.
Firstly, there is an increasing overlap between store formats.
Boundaries are gradually disappearing and this is widening the
arena of competition between stores. This competition is “all
against all” regardless store formats. The different formats are no
longer distinguished by their capacity to meet specific shopping
needs: all of them meet food shopping needs. Only discount have
kept a distinct profile on the Italian market. They too are under-
going big changes, but so far have kept several elements that
distinguish them from other formats. Hypermarkets too have kept
some strong elements that identify them, mainly resulting from
their size, but they show increasing areas of overlap with super-
markets which are set to increase further in future.
A second finding of our field research is that a similarity
between different store formats can sometimes be greater than
similarity between different stores in the same format. This trend
could be explained as the retailers reaction to the economic
crisis: in a mature environment with slow growth opportunities,
retailers seek to develop new strategies in order to expand
their target market and capture the competitors' customers. In
particular, Italian grocery retailers are reacting to the recession by
447
implementing new strategies aimed to stimulate consumers'
shifting between different store formats. As a result, different
store formats are getting similar and new “hybrid” formats are
emerging. The boundaries between formats therefore need to be
redefined, so that criteria segmentation can take account of new
parameters.
Finally it emerged that not all levers contribute in the same
way to the convergence between formats: range and time saving
services appear to be most influential.
The findings of the store checks are confirmed by the consumers’
research. Consumers perceive that different store formats are becom-
ing increasingly similar in meeting shopping needs. This implies a
certain hierarchical organization when consumers select a retail store,
first choosing the retailer and later the store format within the retailer
portfolio, depending on the shopping needs. Our findings confirm the
starting hypothesis that increasing convergence between store formats
affects consumers’ decision-making on purchasing. These findings
suggest retailers to invest more in store banner differentiation rather
than in format. As supported by the literature (Birtwistle et al., 1999;
Uusitalo, 2001). A store's image is an important means of managing
store positioning. A proper understanding of the store image can help
retailers in store differentiation strategies.
These results are important for retailers who want to configure
an optimal network of store locations as well as for producers who
want to allocate their trade marketing budgets.
The gradual process of standardization between store formats
opens a discussion on the role of store format in retailing strategy.
This segmentation is becoming less important compared to the
differentiation strategy or to the joint maneuvers of marketing
levers which give each retailer a distinctive identity. This means
that, given the irreversible nature of the standardization, in the
near future the degree of differentiation between formats will
lessen. The differentiation will be achieved through the joint
operation of levers macro and micro by joint maneuvers of macro-
and micro-marketing levers (Bellini et al., 2011) in order to sustain
customer loyalty.
In the near future, retailers are thus to face new challenges:
rationalization and segmentation appear to be the key to future
strategy. On one hand, rationalization of format, less differentiated
and recognizable to consumer, is going to be a necessity. On the
other hand, segmentation of format will need to follow parameters
of demand rather than supply.
The increasing standardization between store formats has clear
repercussions also for producers, given that segmentation needs to
follow different criteria and trade marketing policies need to be
differentiated for store formats. It has always been thought that
investments should be planned according to formats and then
according to retailer. In the past, the high level of differentiation of
store format made this practice right, although only few firms
actually have succeeded in orienting trade marketing by format.
However, today this practice does not appears to be effective and
there is a need to discover what criteria will be useful for
clustering stores in the future.
6. Limits of the research and prospects for future research
This study investigates the boundaries between store formats in
the era of competitive convergence from the perspectives of both
consumer perception and retailers strategy. Field research has indi-
cated the growing overlap between different store formats in Italy in
terms of structural parameters, time saving services and range. This
issue is important as it emphasizes the role that store formats will
have in the near future in retailer strategy as well as in consumer's
purchasing choices. There are however several limitations.
448 M.G. Cardinali, S. Bellini / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 438–448
Firstly, store checks focuses on just one city (Milan, in Italy) and
were carried out on just one sample store per chain, which was
indicated by the retailers themselves as being representative of
retailing strategies implemented per store format. Even if Milan
presents a high number of retail chains and a variety of store
formats, future research will need to cover wider geographical
areas and a higher number of stores for each format.
Secondly, the convergence has been measured only with
reference to the macro-parameters, while the micro parameters
have been ignored because they would have required an analysis
at the category level and not at the level of the overall store, as we
conducted for this work. We have started this analysis in some
categories (e.g. yogurt and coffee) suggested by the retailers
interviewed, but the process is ongoing. In a further work, we
will present these results.
Thirdly, specialized store formats have been mentioned during
the focus groups but they were not included in the store checks
which focused only on the unspecialized store formats. The con-
sumer perception about the specialized and unspecialized formats
could represent an interesting future research area. Specialized store
formats, in fact, are not perceived by consumers as being very
different from unspecialized formats in meeting shopping needs,
especially in time saving.
As emerging from the focus groups, consumers appear willing
to sacrifice low prices and a variety of ranges for speed in shopping
choosing the “traditional shop” instead of the unspecialized store
formats, such as hypermarkets or supermarkets. The spatial
boundaries within which the consumer moves to meet shopping
needs thus appear to be even wider than the boundaries of
retailers' competition. The consumer not only substitutes the
unspecialized store formats (hypermarket, supermarket, discount
and convenience store) but will move between specialized and
unspecialized formats, especially to save time. In other words,
there is a higher level of substitutability in the perspective of the
demand than in those of the retailers. This opens up new
competition areas between retail companies, widening the bound-
aries of intertype competition.
Lastly, this contribution raises unexplored issues related to
customer loyalty and how it is gained in the current context of
competitive convergence. Given that different formats meet the
same shopping needs, it become interesting to discover if this
similarity stimulates consumers to use different formats (because
each of them satisfies the same needs) or, otherwise, stimulates
them to concentrate the shopping "under one roof" (because there
is no reason to change). In other words, it is important to know if
similarity between formats encourages consumer mobility or
loyalty, and how mobility takes place between formats and
between retail firms. It may be, in fact, that the convergence is
taking place at different intensities for different retailers. So it
becomes important to explore what role a retail company can play
in reducing mobility between different stores. If differentiation is
not made at format level, retailers need to base their distinctive-
ness on store identity, and need to know which are the most
effective retail mix levers for raising customer loyalty.
References
Ancarani, F., Costabile, M., 2009. Concorrenza ibrida. Pearson Financial Times,
Milano.
Bell, D.R., Lattin, J.M., 1998. Shopping behavior and consumer preference for store
price format: why “Large Basket” shoppers prefers EDLP. Market. Sci. 17 (1),
66–88.
Bell, D.R., Ho, T.H., Tang, C.S., 1998. Determining where to shop: fixed and variable
costs of shopping. J. Market. Res. 25, 352–369.
Bellini, S., Cardinali, M.G., Ziliani, C., 2011. Building customer loyalty in retailing: not
all levers are created equal. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consumer Res. 21 (5),
461–481 (December).
Bhatnagar, A., Ratchford, B.T., 2004. A model of retail format competition for non-
durable goods. Int. J. Res. Market. 21 (1), 39–59.
Birtwistle, G., Clarke, I., Freathy, P., 1999. Store image in the Uk fashion sector:
consumer verus retail perceptions. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consumer Res. 9 (1),
1–16.
Bradley, S., Hausman, J., Nolan, R., 1993. Globalization, technolgy and competition.
The fusion of computer and telecommunications in the 1990s. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston.
Cardinali, M.G., 2003. Le nuove traiettorie dell’innovazione di prodotto nelle
imprese commerciali. Ind. Distrib. 3.
Cleeren, K., Verboven, F., Dekimpe, M.G., Gielens, K., 2010. Intra- and inter-format
competition among discounters and supermarkets. Market. Sci. 29 (3),
456–473.
Clottey, T.A., Collier, D.A., Stodnick, M., 2008. Drivers of customer loyalty in a retail
store environment. J. Service Sci. Third Quarter 1 (1), 35–48.
Competition Authority, 2013, Market Investigation About the Grocery Retail, IC43.
Cortinas, M., Elorz, M., Villanueva, M.L., 2004. Retail store loyalty management via
an analysis of heterogeneity of the service elements. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib.
Consumer Res. 14 (4), 407–436.
Cummins, S., Findlay, A., Petticrew, M., Sparks, L., 2008. Retail-led generation and
store-switching behavior. J. Retail Consumer Services 15 (4), 288–295.
Dunne, P., Lusch, R., 1999. Retailing. The Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX.
Evans, P., Wurster, T.S., 1997. Strategy and the new economics of information.
Harvard Bus. Rev. 3, 72,85.
Findlay, A., Sparks, L., 2008. Switched: store-switching behaviours. Int. J. Retail
Distrib. Manag. 36, 375–386 (4/5).
Fox, E.J., Montgomery, A.L., Lodish, L.M., 2002. Consumer Shopping and Spending
Across Retail Formats. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Gijsbrechts, E., Campo, K., Nisol, P., 2008. Beyond promotion-based store switching:
antecedents and patterns of systematic multiple-store shopping. Int. J. Res.
Market. 25, 5–21.
Gonzales-Benito, O., Munoz-Gallego, P.A., Kopalle, P.K., 2005. Asymmetric competi-
tion in retail store formats: evaluating inter- and intra-format spatial effects. J.
Retail. 81 (1), 59–73.
Hirschmann, E., 1978. A descriptive theory of retail market structure. J. Retail. 54,
2948 (Winter).
Ingene, C., 1983. Intertype competition: restaurants versus grocery stores. J. Retail.
59, 49–75 (Fall).
King, N., 1998. Template analysis. In: Gillian, S. and Cassell, C. (Eds). Qualitative
Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide. Sage
Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks, CA, 118–134.
Lal, R., Rao, R., 1997. Supermarket competition: the case of every day low pricing.
Market. Sci. 16 (1), 60–80.
Levy, M., Weitz, B., 1998. Retailing Management. McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Lugli, G., 1998. Economia e gestione delle imprese commerciali. Utet, Torino.
Lugli, G., 2004. Food & beverage intertype competition. Mercati e Competitività 0,
17–44.
McGoldrick, P.J., 1990. Retail Marketing. McGraw-Hill, London, New York.
Miller, C.E., Reardon, J., McCorkle, D.E., 1999. The effects of competition on retail
structure: an examination of intratype, intertype, and intercategory competi-
tion. J. Market. 63, 107–120.
Miranda, M.J., Konya, L., 2005. Shopper's satisfaction levels are not the only key to
store loyalty. Market. Intell. Plan. 23 (2), 220–232.
Mitchell, V.W., Kiral, R.H., 1998. Primary and secondary store-loyal customer
perceptions of grocery retailers. Br. Food J. 100 (7), 312–319.
Moore, J., 1996. The Death of Competition. Harper Collins, New York.
Morganosky, M.A., Cude, B.J., 2000. Large format retailing in the US: a consumer
experience perspective. J. Retail. Consumer Serv. 7 (4), 215–222.
Pan, Y., Zinkhan, G.M., 2006. Determinants of retail patronage: a meta-analytical
perspective. J. Retail. 82 (3), 229–243.
Pellegrini, D., Dolciotti, I., 2001. Store Check. Franco Angeli, Milano.
Pellegrini, L., 1988. Servizi commerciali e innovazione: una nota metodologica.
Commercio 30.
Popowski-Leszczyc, P.T.L., Sinha, A., Sahgal, A., 2004. The effect of multi-purpose
shopping on pricing and location strategy for grocery stores. J. Retail. 80, 85–99.
Popowski-Leszczyc, P.T.L., Sinha, A., Timmermans, H.J.P., 2000. Consumer store
choice dymanics: an analysis of the competitive market structure for grocery
stores. J. Retail. 76 (3), 323–345.
Reutterer, T., Teller, C., 2009. Store format choice and shopping trip types. Int. J.
Retail Distrib. Manag. 37 (8), 695–710.
Rhee, H., Bell, D.R., 2002. The inter-store mobility of retail store shoppers. J. Retail.
78, 225–237.
Shapiro, C., Varian, H.R., 1999. Information Rules. Harvard Business Press, Boston.
Singh, V.P., Hansen, K.T., Blattberg, R., 2006. Market entry and consumer behavior:
an investigation of a Wal–Mart supercenter. Market. Sci. 25 (5), 457–476.
Spranzi, A., 1981. Il bisogno di servizi commerciali e il servizio fornito dal
commercio. Commercio 9.
Spranzi, A., 1991. La distribuzione commerciale. F. Angeli, Milano.
Uusitalo, O., 2001. Consumer perceptions of grocery retail formats and brands. Int. J.
Retail Distrib. Manag. 29 (5), 214–225.
Valdani, E., Ancarani, F., Castaldo, S., 2001. Convergenza. Egea, Milano.
Yoffie, D.B., 1997. Competing in the age of digital convergence. Harvard Business
School Press, Boston.