Assessing the External Validity of Analytical Results from National Brand and Store Brand Competition Models

Abstract

This research has three objectives: (i) to compile analytical results on national brand and store brand marketing obtained from mathematical models, (ii) to assess the external validity of those results and thus the applicability of the results to practice, and (iii) to identify avenues for further research on national brand and store brand competition. A total of 44 analytical results (29 related to retailer strategies and 15 related to manufacturer strategies) are compiled from a survey of literature published between 1966 and 2006. Three criteria are then used to assess the external validity of these results—robustness (R), empirical support (E), and credibility (C) (collectively, REC). Each result is quantitatively assessed (scored) using these three criteria. Robustness is measured as the total number of relevant market conditions for which the result has been shown to hold. Empirical support is measured as the number of independent empirical studies in which the findings are consistent with the analytical result. Credibility is measured as the believability of the theoretical result as perceived by experienced brand managers and retail executives. Thus, the REC scoring approach represents a triangulation of perspectives—robustness (modeler perspective), empirical support (empiricist perspective), and credibility (managerial perspective). In particular, this research serves in part as a bridge between scholars and practitioners in the context of national brand and store brand marketing.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 118 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.