Shelf share data from physical or virtual (eCommerce) stores can be extremely valuable to improve your sales. The below example will illustrate how you can use that type of data to become conscious of your gaps in retailers where you should be stronger, remedy them, and… improve your sales score.
Brand X has the profile (by quartiles) you can see below for TVs in Spain.
That means 44% of the products from that brand displayed in eCommerce retailers (not weighted by sales) have a price locating them in quartile 4 (the highest end). 34% are from quartile 3, 19% from quartile 2, and only 3% from the lowest end, quartile 1.
The lower the quartile is, the lower the share is. That’s a very high end profile.
For such a brand, it is few efficient to get a high presence in retailers showing a low end or medium profile. That brand should focus to be extremely present in retailers showing a high end profile, similar to its own type.
A view on the profile of several retailers shows El Corte Inglés, Fnac, and Hiperclick are the best (most similar) profile for brand X, that should be extremely strong on their virtual shelves.
Being the share of voice of brand X nearly 25% (1272 prices out of 5169) on the total of websites of the research perimeter, share of voice of each of these three retailers should be always close to that value.
Checking share of voice of brand X in the listed retailers, it appears a strong gap exists with Fnac (less than 17% of share of voice instead of nearly 25%).
On the contrary, share of voice is nearly correct in El Corte Inglés, and is extremely high on Hiperclick. Situation on Fnac must be analyzed further.
Fnac profile limited to brand X is as displayed in the left side. Fnac displays 23 articles from brand X.
As share of voice of X in Fnac should be 25% instead of 17%, number of articles displayed should be 34 instead of 23: (25/17) x 23 = 34
As the profile of brand X is Q1 = 3%, Q2 = 19%, Q3 = 34%, Q4 = 44%, distribution of the 34 articles by quartiles should be Q1 = 1, Q2 = 6, Q3 = 12, Q4 = 15
Actually, current distribution is Q1 = 5, Q2 = 6, Q3 = 4, Q4 = 8. Negative gap is 8 products is Q3, and 7 models in Q4.
The KAM in charge of Fnac should propose to that retailer to include 8 products more from Q3, and 7 articles more from Q4. He should define extremely interesting special conditions on those 15 specific products, and could concede 4 products less in Q1 (he shouldn’t care too much about). Even if he can include less than 15 articles in Q3 and Q4, each newly introduced model will allow to improve presence where it should be strong: in a retailer showing his same profile, and in the quartiles where a gap was made evident.
When you do it in the right place, the more you are present, the more you sell.
The range of products in Fnac could have in a certain quartile and can’t be made evident to the buyer.