What it is

Gruen, Corsten and Bharadwaj, commissioned by the Grocery Manufacturers of America with FMI and CIES and funded by Procter & Gamble, a supplier with an interest in shelf availability.

The study examined out-of-stocks across 661 retail outlets in 29 countries, measuring how often shelves were empty, why, and what shoppers did about it. Its consumer-response figures are the ones the industry still quotes: on meeting an out-of-stock, 31% of shoppers bought the item elsewhere, 26% substituted a different brand, 19% substituted a different size of the same brand, 15% delayed the purchase and 9% did not buy.

The original document, hosted by the manufacturers’ association, is no longer reachable; the figures are confirmed verbatim in a reproduction hosted by the chain drug stores’ association. It is 24 years old and was funded by a supplier.

What the commerce leader should take from it

  • Nearly half of stockout responses, the 31% who buy elsewhere and the 15% who wait, cost the store the sale outright. Only 45% end in a substitute bought in the same aisle.
  • The 9% who do not buy are the quiet loss. Nothing in a store’s systems records them.
  • It measured the aisle, not the online order, and the immediate response, not the next trip.

Where to start

Findings 1.1, 3.1 and 4.1 use it for the size of the switching risk, never for a claim about online behavior. Finding 4.3 cites it for a different reason: it is the evidence executives rely on because their own channels never ask, and the two-question prompt in that finding is the way to replace it with your own numbers.

Keep in mind

A 2002 study funded by a supplier, measured in the aisle before online grocery existed. The report’s primer found nothing since that measures the same response for an online order.

Where the report uses it