The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm

APJML
20,4
Malaysian grocery shoppers’
behavioural response to
stock-outs
396 Mario J. Miranda and K. Jegasothy
School of Applied Economics, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia
Received April 2007
Revised March 2008 Abstract
Accepted April 2008 Purpose – A better understanding of the response of shoppers in developing countries to inevitable
product stock-outs would help logisticians to put structures in place to reduce the disruption. The
purpose of this paper is to examine the differences in orientations that characterize shoppers’
responses to stock-outs in retailing environments by comparing an emerging economy, Malaysia,
with a developed economy, Australia.
Design/methodology/approach – Randomly selected adult grocery shoppers across Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia were surveyed to examine shoppers’ behavioural response to a most recent stock-
out of their preferred dairy item. This study followed the methodology and reporting framework
adopted in an Australian study.
Findings – When responding to stock-outs of their preferred grocery items, shopping lists serve as
instruments that give archetypical Malaysian shoppers, unlike their Australian counterparts, a
framework to adjust their budgets and seek alternatives within the store itself rather than venture to
another store. Most Malaysian shoppers’ reactions to an out-of-stock situation, just as their
Australian counterparts, appear to be underpinned by their household size. If their preferred item is
not available, the frugal and observant among Malaysian shoppers, however, are not inclined as
much as their Australian counterparts, to buy more of their alternative choice, even if these substitute
items are discounted.
Research limitations/implications – Insight into Malaysian shoppers’ behavioural response to
inadequate shelf life of perishable products, considering that they might feel impelled to act as per
their shopping lists, would give members of the supply chain confidence to adopt inventory
management policies that make a judicious balance between avoiding stock-outs and ensuring stock
availability with acceptable shelf life.
Practical implications – Malaysian frugal and observant shoppers when responding to stock-outs
of their preferred items might allow the opportunity to let a bargain pass on alternative brands or
variants, because these shoppers, guided by their shopping lists, are possibly hamstrung, by
budgetary constraints in not being able to make heavier purchase outlays and by likely storage
constraints in their living accommodation. Retailers in Malaysia have a greater challenge than
Australian retailers to dispose of stocks of grocery products that are fast approaching their expiry
dates through discounting, because Malaysian shoppers may resist buying more than their
immediate need.
Originality/value – Malaysian shoppers, inclined to carry memory scripts to assist them in their
shopping efforts, are conditioned to stay within their planned budgets and when confronted with a
stock-out of their preferred item, are likely to resist buying anymore than what they had planned to buy.
Keywords Malaysia, Australia, Consumer behaviour, Stock control
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Increasingly global brands are filling shopping baskets of grocery shoppers all round
the world. Inevitably every now and then, there is a stock-out of the shopper’s preferred
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics
brand. There is no gainsaying that these mega brands confront a significant chance of
Vol. 20 No. 4, 2008
pp. 396-412
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1355-5855
The authors are grateful to Garry Terdich, Jason Cheok and Geoff Atkinson for their useful
DOI 10.1108/13555850810909722 input in designing the survey instrument and assistance in collecting the data.
not getting to the destination stores in time because of several logistic imponderables, Shoppers’
particularly in those markets that have structural limitations. Equally true, is the fact
that finding out that one’s preferred item is not in stock, is bound to annoy shoppers.
response to
When customers are faced with a stock-out, they must decide whether to buy the stock-outs
same brand at another store, switch brands, delay the purchase and buy the same
brand later at the same store or forgo the purchase altogether (Corsten and Gruen,
2004). To have more products in-store is a rather simplistic solution that an average
shopper might offer. Few businesses can afford to have working capital tied up in 397
surplus stock sitting out the back of the store, or tied up elsewhere in the supply chain.
Much of what is consumed in developing countries has made their way into these
market places from foreign suppliers. These markets will invariably engage with
globalisation in a manner that is different from that of the developed world because of
differences in infrastructure and cultural idiosyncrasies. Inevitably there will be
shortages and stock-outs of items sourced nationally and more so of products coming
from beyond national boundaries. A better understanding of shoppers’ response in
emerging markets, to stock shortages or stock-outs, would help the local distribution
trade and retailers in particular, to configure their procurement patterns for reducing
the disruption and possible loss of business. Literature appears to be particularly
remiss in addressing whether societies in countries in various stages of economic
development respond to stock shortages different ways. We were therefore motivated
to examine if there are substantive differences in orientations that characterize
shoppers’ responses to stock-outs in retailing environments by comparing an emerging
economy, Malaysia, with a developed economy, Australia.

Background
A recent study of grocery shoppers in Melbourne, Australia, by Miranda and Jegasothy
(2007), has estimated the orientation of consumers that motivated them to respond to
stock outs of their preferred milk and milk products, using behaviour typologies (study
and interpretation of shopper profiles) that foreshadowed consumers buying a brand
variant, buying another brand, forgoing/postponing their purchase or buying from
another store. In this study it emerged that for most grocery shoppers, their household
size appeared to be a pressing variable that influenced the way they tackled the non-
availability of their normal choice.
Malaysia, a quintessentially Southeast Asian country is considered an emerging
economy that is highly westernised. According to Austrade (2007), the GDP per capita
of Malaysia in 2005 was AUD 11,160 as against AUD 31,000 for Australia. Malaysia
has a population of around 28 million consisting of several Asian ethnicities, housed in
an area of about a tenth of Australia. The capital of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur was
chosen for our research because we believed that since a high proportion of Malaysians
in Kuala Lumpur are sufficiently well versed in the English language, the
administration of the same survey instrument used by Miranda and Jegasothy (2007)
in Melbourne, Australia, would be facilitated without having to compromise through
translation, the nuances of the earlier investigation.

Literature review
Rising urbanization and the greater concentration of wealth in cities, combined with an
increasingly westernised society, are gradually changing the behaviour and
aspirations of Malaysian consumers. In Malaysia, numerous companies and brands
represent grocery products from several parts of the world. The consciousness of
APJML health and wellness also appears to play a key role in purchasing decisions with regard
to packaged food products and fresh produce (Euromonitor, 2006). Inevitably,
20,4 consumers are required to confront the use-by dates of products that they pick from the
supermarket shelves. Added to the challenge of ensuring that grocery items provide
enough consumption time before the use-by date, consumers also have often to address
the stock-out of their preferred items, as Schonberger (1990) has identified that at any
point in time, the average supermarket is out of stock of approximately 8 per cent of the
398 items planned to be on the shelves. A serious concern for retailers is that an earlier
report (though published more than three decades ago), identified 39 per cent of
stocked-out items were subsequently bought elsewhere (Nielsen, 1975). Further,
shoppers who had experienced stock-outs left the store with a lower store image and
less satisfaction, measured on several scales (Zinszer and Lesser, 1980).
The ability of a store to provide a wide range of assortments and variety is one of
the critical factors to producing customer satisfaction. However, larger the range,
greater is the chance that at some point of time, the store will suffer an out-of-stock for
some brand variant (Bucklin, 1972). Consumers are less loyal to specific brands but
instead will have a portfolio of brands within a category from which they make their
choice, particularly in grocery markets, as the purchase involvement increases
(Ehrenberg et al., 1994; Knox, 1995). In fact, according to Christopher, (2005), ‘‘markets
are becoming increasingly commodised and brands are beginning to lose their lustre.
The perceived product equality in the eyes of customers is resulting in their
preparedness to substitute one brand for another, including store labels’’.
Shoppers’ in-store buying behaviour largely depends on their orientation, i.e.
inclination in particular contexts, motives and attitudes (Stone, 1954). Considerable
shopping behavioural research has given attention to the four shopper orientation
segments identified by Stephenson and Willet (1969) as under, which may have a
bearing on the manner in which shoppers react to a stock-out of their preferred item:
(1) Convenience shoppers who put a premium on disposable time in the store.
(2) Recreational shoppers who perceive the shopping activity as filling in time,
both in terms of number of shopping trips undertaken and time spent browsing
in the store.
(3) Price-bargain shoppers could range anywhere between ‘‘economic shoppers’’
(Darden and Reynolds, 1971) and ‘‘deal-prone’’ segments (Blattberg et al., 1978).
(4) Store-loyal shoppers are considered a worthwhile segmentation criterion
because this cohort is a profitable segment (Massy, 1966).
One’s tendency to behave in a certain manner is modified by the situation in which the
behaviour will occur (Hawkins et al., 1998). Shoppers’ specific predispositions or
inclinations in various contextual situations direct them to respond in different ways to
stock-out situations. Inevitably response behaviour is also affected by the post hoc
attitude shifts that occur with shoppers who have had to cope with stock-outs of their
preferred items (Emmelhainz et al., 1989; Zinszer and Lesser, 1980).

Research problem
A number of shopper typologies, according to Moschis (1976), while associating
shopping behaviour to customer dispositions (mindsets), do not inquire which
customer orientations (predispositions) in certain contextual situations explain
shoppers’ specific behavioural response to stock-outs. Any identified inconsistency in
the product (including its non availability), which belies the attitude that the consumer Shoppers’
holds towards the product, according to McGuire (1976), is sufficient to cause the
consumer some psychological discomfort. McGuire’s (1976) argues that the ensuing
response to
cognitive dissonance will drive the consumer to respond to this discomfort. It is logical stock-outs
to believe that the character of product decisions and spontaneous choice made by
consumers in response to the unavailability of their preferred items would depend on
the nature of the social (e.g. employment situations, disposable incomes, product range,
transport and travel times to stores) and economic environment (e.g. inflation, interest 399
rates and credit availability). There seems to be a literature gap of the differences in
orientations and contextual circumstances that motivate shoppers, in developing
economies and the developed world, to deal with stock-outs of their preferred item, in
specific ways. It is only when logisticians become aware of what drives customer
response to items that are unavailable, will they be able to put structures in place to
improve the certainty of availability.
The objective of our study is to compare and contrast the orientations that
characterize Malaysian shoppers’ responses to stock-outs of their preferred dairy item
with the study of Melbourne, Australia by Miranda and Jegasothy (2007). In the study
done in Australia, the dependent variable was the shoppers’ responses to stock-outs of
their preferred dairy item with the independent variables being shopper dispositions,
the contextual shopping situations, and customer demographics.

Research method
The same framework of research enquiry administered in Melbourne, Australia by
Miranda and Jegasothy (2007) was used in Kuala Lumpur, so that we could make
meaningful comparisons with the Australian study. The Malaysian study just like the
study in Australia was restricted to the investigation of groceries and perishable items
(milk and milk products). Shoppers when choosing a course of action to deal with a
stock-out of a convenience item are called upon to apply some rigour to their decision-
making (Miranda and Jegasothy, 2007). Moreover milk/milk products have the added
dimension of offering/not offering adequate consumption time.

Research setting
The research methodology included the personal administration of a structured
pretested questionnaire among 579 randomly (non-systematic) selected adult shoppers
across Kuala Lumpur, exiting four supermarkets, after having purchased their
groceries. Supermarkets, which are the leading distribution channel for groceries in
Malaysia, almost always have a presence in the shopping malls that are sprinkled all
around Kuala Lumpur and some of the other bigger cities in Malaysia. Over 70 per cent
of groceries are sold through supermarkets in Malaysia (Euromonitor, 2006).
The survey was meant to investigate the actual behavioural response of grocery
shoppers to a most recent stock-out of their preferred dairy item that they had to deal
with. Most supermarkets are conveniently located in shopping centres and these stores
stock a wide and deep range of grocery varieties and assortments including private
labels of every day need products. Almost all selected respondents were prepared to
participate in the survey. Only those respondents that admitted to being confronted
with an out-of-stock situation of dairy items in their principal store were included in
the data analysis. Around 3 per cent (17) of respondents claimed that they could not
recollect in the recent past, a dairy item that was not available to them to purchase. The
survey was conducted at varying times on different days of the week over a two-week
APJML period in the second quarter of 2006. No incentive was offered for participating in the
20,4 survey, but the respondents were made aware that the investigation was part of
academic scholarship.
Knowledge about shopper’s predispositions and demographics (operators), about
the conditions of their applicability in contextual situations and about their responses
(reactions) to stock-out situations is critical for the retailer’s merchandise planning
400 efforts. The following independent variables used in the Australian study that could
explain how shoppers react to stock-outs were also used in the study in Malaysia:
. Various shoppers’ dispositions, like store loyalty (length of time that shopper has
been visiting this supermarket and is a predictor of whether consumer would
prefer an alternative item in the same store or move to another store), deal-
proneness (susceptibility to product promotions) and inclination to observe
expiry dates
. Shopping contextual situations, like presence of alternative contiguous (near-by)
stores, shopping lists (carried by the shopper to aid memory), price offers
(discounted priced items) and products’ use-by dates,
. Customer demographics, like age and household size.
The measures of each of these explanatory variables are detailed in the section of
Analysis and are the same that were used in the Australian study.
The dependent variable (shopper reaction to stock-outs) included four options,
namely, forgo/postponing purchase, buying a brand variant, buying another brand and
buying from another store. Since the purpose of this research study is to compare and
contrast the predispositions of Malaysian shoppers to stock-outs of their preferred items
of milk and milk products with that of shoppers in Australia, we used the same
dependent and independent variables. The study done in Australia showed evidence of a
good fit in a multinomial logit model between the dependent and independent variables.
The Australian study also estimated a binary logit model that predicted shoppers’
orientations, which motivated them to seek their preferred item from another store.
The choice of dairy items for investigation was motivated because they are
considered as convenience products and literature has identified that almost 43 per
cent of ‘‘product decisions’’ are made in the store (Corsten and Gruen, 2004). Their study
also observed that the proportion of convenience products that qualify for
‘‘spontaneous choice’’ in the store would be far higher than for shopping products and
specialty items. The dairy items that were examined included, milk, yoghurt, butter,
cheese, cream and margarine.

Analysis
As stated by Corsten and Gruen (2004), customers respond to stock-outs in one of five
ways, namely:
(1) forgoing purchase of the item (9 per cent of shoppers);
(2) postpone the purchase of the item (15 per cent of shoppers);
(3) buy another brand (19 per cent of shoppers);
(4) buy a brand variant (31 per cent of shoppers); or
(5) buy the item from another store (26 per cent of shoppers).
In this study the respondents were specifically asked what was their response if they Shoppers’
did not find their preferred milk/milk product on the retail shelf. By combining three response to
defining dimensions of shopper’s behaviour – their orientations, the contextual stock-outs
situations and shoppers’ demographics, we can distinguish the classes of
representational responses to stock-out situations. A Multinomial model can be fitted
very well to the data and allows calculating the significance of different types of
explanatory variables, namely, orientations, contextual situations and demographics 401
that explain the behavioural response to stock-outs. The functional form chosen to
structure the relationship between the available response options and the explanatory
variables is logistic and thus the model is known as Multinomial Logit regression
(MLLR).
In the MLLR, one of the response options is to be treated as the base option. We
considered that the shopper acquiring their preferred item from another store to be the
least desirable outcome for the principal store; and in order to inhibit store attrition, it
is important for the principal store to know what is the orientation of these shoppers
that foreshadows them crossing floors to another store. Therefore when specifying the
MLLR model, we selected our base option as ‘‘buying from another store’’. However the
Multinomial Logit regression while identifying the significant explanatory variables
for the other options does not identify the variables that explain the base option.
When applying MLLR, the dependent variable is the response variable (Y) and the
explanatory variables or predictor variables (xk) represent respondents’ orientations,
their demographics and contextual situations. The parameters with respect to the
explanatory variables can differ across the categories of the response variable.
Given that j þ 1 options for response (Yij) are available to shoppers, then under
MLLR the probability an individual shopper (i) will choose:
option 0 (base option) is
" #
XJ
0
Pi0 ¼ 1= 1 þ expðXi j Þ ð1Þ
j¼1

and option of any j is

" #
X
J
Pij ¼ expðXi0 j Þ= 1þ expðXi0 j Þ for j ¼ 1; :::; J ð2Þ
j¼1

where Xi: vector of independent variables relates to the shopper i, j: vector of
coefficients specific to the category of response j.
Further, treating Yij as a binary (i.e. 1 if j is chosen and 0 other wise) and assuming
independence of alternative responses ( j) the log-likelihood function of shopper i can be
obtained by summing the individual log-densities.
Y
Li ¼ ðpij ÞYij ð1  pij Þ1Yij ð3Þ
Yij

Substituting the representations of probability of j options available as in

equation (2) into equation (3), the log likelihood function can be expanded as the
APJML following estimable from
20,4 X
J X
J
Li ¼ Yij ðXi0 j Þ þ ½logð1 þ expðXi0 j Þ ð4Þ
j¼1 j¼1

where, Yij is the dependent variable and Xi is a vector of independent variables (i.e.
402 Xi ¼ x1i, x2i, . . . ,x23i)
By defining the dependent variable (Yij) options, the above-generalized MLLR
framework can be transformed into a Multinominal model.

Multinomial model
Yij: Purchase action (PA) following non-availability of preferred dairy item.
(Forgo/postpone purchase: j ¼ 1/buy a brand variant: j ¼ 2/buy another brand: j ¼ 3/
buy from another store j ¼ 0)
The number of shoppers who responded as forgoing purchasing the item because of
its non-availability was only 22 (about 3.9 per cent) in the total effective sample of 562
respondents. Since this small number of observations does not lend itself to statistical
validity, the forgoing purchase outcome is combined with the option that it closely
resembles, namely, the postponing purchase response, and represented as j ¼ 1.
The explanatory variable vectors of both models are constituted with the following
variables:
x1 (stloyal): Duration of store loyalty (<6 months/between 6-12/>1 year)
x2 (shpfreq): Shopping frequency (weekly/>weekly)
x3 (shdays): Shopping days (weekdays/weekends)
x4 (shlist): Preparation of shopping list (yes/no)
x5 (brdmilk): Choice of milk brand (popular brand(D1)/uncommon brand(D2)/home
brand(D3)
x6 (brdmpdt): Choice of brand of milk products (popular brand(D1)/uncommon
brand(D2)/home brand(D3)
x7 (stotime): Elapsed time of last stock out of preferred dairy product (6/>6
months)
x8 (stostat): Status of stock out (temporary/discontinued)
x9 (prsize): Preferred alternative dairy item’s size (same size/smaller size/bigger size)
x10 (prprice): Alternative dairy item’s price (; same price/less expensive/don’t
know)
x11 (exdmilk): Checking the expiry date of milk (yes/no)
x12 (exdmpdt): Checking the expiry date of milk products (yes/no)
x13 (paknstd): Purchase action after knowing short time duration for consumption of
preferred item (postpone purchase(D1)/buy a variant(D2)/buy another brand(D3)/buy
from another store(D4)
x14 (Astconv): Alternative store for convenient purchasing (yes/no)
x15 (prspec): Response to price specials (yes/no)
x16 (prdisc): Purchase of additional discounted products (yes/no)
x17 (awrefrig): Awareness of need for refrigeration of dairy items after opening (yes/no)
x18 (ppgbhbrd): Proportion of grocery bill spent on home brands (25/>25%)
x19[1] (shduratn): Average time duration spent in store during each visit (<15, 15-30,
31-45, >45 min)
x20[1] (avgb): Average size of grocery bill ($50, $51-$100, $101-$150,>$150)
 x21[1] (age): Age group (<21, 21-35, 36-50, >50years) Shoppers’
x22[1] (hhsize): Household size (1 member, 2-3 members, 4 members)
response to
Odds of combination of variables stock-outs
It is customary to interpret ordered regression models by considering odds. Odds
measure, in probability terms, the relative strength of an event’s occurrence to that of
its non-occurrence. The sizes of the ratios are comparable and enable inferences to be
made about the occurrence of a given event over other events in a multi-event situation.
403
In this study, each event identified as alternative combinations of the options, belong to
a pair of (qualitative) variables. The odds of an event is estimated as

PrðaÞ PrðaÞ
ODDa ¼ ¼ ð5Þ
PrðbÞ þ PrðcÞ þ   PrðhÞ 1  PrðaÞ

where b, c . . . , h are alternative events to event a

Odds are estimated in this study for selected significant variables to make inferences
that are likely to provide further insights of Malaysian consumer’s behavioural
typology.

Estimation method
Maximization of log likelihood function (Equation 4) is accomplished by a non-linear
estimation method known as Maximum Likelihood Estimator (MLE) and therefore the
b estimates are Best Linear Unbiased Estimates (see Table I). MLE in this study is
carried out using the LOGDEN option of the non-linear estimation in Shazam program.
MLE is an iterative method and hence requires a starting value to commence
estimation process. Note that the log density function is concave and therefore permits
any starting value.
As the underlying functional form of the estimated models is logit, the estimated
coefficients of Shopping list, Preferred alternative dairy item, Purchase of additional
discount products and Household size are non-linear and therefore cannot be
interpreted directly. Alternatively, the impact of these variables can be calculated using
the probability values of each response option and the estimated b coefficients. The
calculated Marginal Effects of Shopping list, Preferred alternative dairy item, Purchase
of additional discount products and Household size on alternative response options are
given in Table II.

Findings
The estimation results indicate that the probability of each of the following responses
to the non-availability of shoppers’ preferred dairy item is as follows:
. The probability of buying variants of their preferred brand among Malaysian
shoppers (probability equal to 0.408) is less than among Australian shoppers
(probability equal to 0.502).
. The probability of forgoing/postponing the purchase among Malaysian shoppers
(probability equal to 0.192) is marginally more than among Australian shoppers
(probability equal to 0.166).
. The probability of buying another brand among Malaysian shoppers
(probability equal to 0.214) is more than among Australian shoppers (probability
equal to 0.172).
APJML Yij Malaysia (sample size: 562) Yij Australia (sample size: 541)
20,4 ’s Variables j¼1 j¼2 j¼3 j¼1 j¼2 j¼3

0 Intercept 2.6721* 1.9472* 1.9352** 1.4951* 1.6272* 3.0352**

(1.5648) (1.5504) (2.0698) (1.5848) (1.6204) (2.5698)
7 stotime 0.7830**
(1.7626)
404 7 shlist 0.1422* 0.3830* 0.2743*
(1.6433) (1.6626) (1.5723)
9 prsize 0.3845** 0.5267** 0.1355*
(D1: same size) (1.6446) (2.0142) (1.5822)
9 prsize 0.2243* 0.3215* 0.1246*
(D2: bigger size) (1.5492) (1.5552) (1.5647)
 10 prprice 0.2563* 0.3462*
(D1:same price) (1.5586) (1.5945)
 11 exdmilk 0.9085* 0.8945** 1.3085**
(1.6042) (1.9142) (2.4042)
 13(d1) paknstd 1.3557**
(D1: postpone) (2.9296)
 15 prspec 0.7690** 0.4494* 1.2690** 0.8496*
(1.9322) (1.5923) (2.0504) (1.6223)
 16 prdisc 0.7293* 0.1957** 0.2895* 0.8681** 0.9895**
(1.5822) (1.9296) (1.5742) (1.6870) (1.6742)
 17 awrefrig 1.0422* 1.0655**
(1.5578) (1.7578)
 19 shduratn 0.9156*
(1.6268)
 20 avgb 0.1327** 0.0684** 0.16007*
(1.7220) (1.6870) (1.7220)
 21 age 0.3426* 0.3632* 0.3627**
(1.6237) (1.6142) (1.7140)
 22 hhsize 0.2746** 0.6056* 0.5049** 0.2746** 0.1789* 0.3628**
(1.7852) (1.6268) (1.7140) (1.7852) (1.5526) (1.6460)
Estimated
Mean
Probabilities 0.192 0.408 0.214 0.166 0.502 0.172
Log  likelihood ratio (at
df ¼ 69) 99.6752 118.9532
Table I. Estimated probability of
Multinomial model buying from other store 0.1860 0.1601
estimates (only
significant coefficients Notes: Z-values reported in parentheses; *significant at 5 per cent level; **significant at 10
are reported) per cent level

Shlist prsize (D1) prsize (D2) prdisc hh size

Buying from another store 0.035 0.032 0.021 3E-04 0.0562

Table II. Forgo/postponing the purchase 0.019 0.0128 0.0045 0.086 0.0256
Marginal effects from Buying a variant 0.057 0.0853 0.0492 0.035 0.08068
MLLR estimates Buying another brand 0.007 0.039 0.016 0.002 0.02077
 . The probability of buying from another store among Malaysian shoppers Shoppers’
(probability equal to 0.186) is marginally more than among Australian shoppers response to
(probability equal to 0.160).
stock-outs
In both countries shoppers appear most often to buy variants of their preferred brand.
Where as the probability of shoppers responding in each of the other three ways is
almost equal, with only marginal differences in the inclination to each of these three
alternatives, the propensity of the Malaysian shopper to buy a brand variant is almost 405
25 per cent lower than the Australian shopper faced with a similar predicament.
Notably, the Malaysian shopper has got more inclination than their Australian
counterpart to buy another brand, to postpone/forgo their purchase or to buy from
another store.
Different typologies of shoppers based on the trait suggested by the most
significant variable (highest t-ratio) in the particular response behaviour were
identified in the Australian study (Miranda and Jegasothy, 2007). We have similarly
typified the Malaysian shopper’s response behaviour to stock outs and compared our
findings with the Australian results (Table I).

Discussions
Buying variants of preferred brand – the circumspect shopper
Circumspect shoppers are careful not to compromise their faith in the brand that they
are familiar with. When confronted with a stock-out of their normal choice, these
shoppers would opt not to stray from their preferred brand but to select another
variant of the same brand (Miranda and Jegasothy, 2007). Unlike the Australian
circumspect shopper, Malaysian circumspect grocery shoppers are likely to be directed
by a shopping list. This finding suggests that Malaysian shoppers are less likely to
buy on impulse than their Australian counterpart. In fact the propensity of Malaysian
shoppers carrying a shopping list, to be wary of purchases that they make while
responding to the unavailability of their preferred choice, increases by 5.7 per cent
(Table II).
There is evidence that the Malaysian circumspect shopper is strongly inclined to
check the use-by date of their preferred choice and ostensibly is prepared to postpone/
forgo purchase of their preferred choice in favour of a brand variant even if their
preferred item was available but does not have ample time for consumption.
It appears from our study that the probability of Malaysian shoppers being
circumspect will increase by 8.07 per cent (Table II) as compared to the 1.3 per cent
increase in being circumspect among Australian shoppers, as their household size
increases. Large families may be encouraged to use larger pack sizes because they
would be less concerned about running out of the product (Folkes et al., 1993). A recent
study identified that circumspect shoppers are inclined to opt for another flavour in a
larger package and will ignore the smaller pack sizes (Miranda and Jegasothy, 2007).
However, we observe from Table II that Malaysian circumspect shoppers will tend to
discriminate against the variant of their preferred in the smaller pack size and will
either consider the alternative brand in the same size as they would for their preferred
choice (higher probability) or in a bigger size pack (lower probability). Notably, as
evident in Table II, Malaysian circumspect shoppers are not driven to respond to a
stock-out in favour of a variant of their preferred brand because it is made available in
at lower prices (MLLR estimate for prdisc ¼ 0.035). This study also demonstrates
that if the Malaysian shopper is inclined to buy brand variants as alternative
APJML purchases, they are prepared to do so at same or even higher prices. This is not to
suggest that Malaysian circumspect shoppers are not price sensitive, because they are
20,4 also prepared to buy more of the variant if opportunity presents the variant (being
available) cheaper, even though they may not be actively seeking discounted products.
There is no gainsaying that these (same brand) variants require to be priced as much as
or cheaper than the shopper’s normal (out-of-stock) item per unit measure, if they are to
qualify for purchase by these bargain opportunist circumspect shoppers. It also
406 evident in this study that while shoppers are inclined to be more circumspect with an
increasing outlay on purchases, Malaysian shoppers demonstrate less caution than
their Australian counterparts.

Adopt another brand-the frugal shopper

Customers who are likely to be deal prone, when responding to the stock-out of their
preferred choice, can be considered as frugal shoppers (Miranda and Jegasothy, 2007).
Price-specials are a surrogate compensation that frugal shoppers seek for the risk that
they are undertaking in buying their non-preferred brand. The most common strategy
consumers use to reduce risk is brand loyalty (Roselius, 1971; Chaudhuri et al., 2001).
Brands that customers are accustomed to, give their customers an assurance of
performance. Conversely customers resist untried/unfamiliar brands because of the
perceived the risk of not performing to their expectations. By buying an alternative
cheaper brand in the face of a stock-out, these frugal customers inevitably trade-off the
higher (perceived) risk with getting savings from the other brand. Frugal shoppers
among both Malaysian consumers and Australian consumers are also prone to
maximize the recompense for their risk by seeking to buy more of the alternative brand
if it is available at a discount. Notably frugal shoppers among Australian shoppers
responding to an item stock-out, appear to be more likely to be deal-prone and
demonstrate a much higher inclination to acquire more of the alternative brands when
they are discounted than their Malaysian counterparts. In fact the marginal effect of
acquiring more of the alternative brands when they are discounted among Malaysian
frugal shoppers is only 0.002. One can conjecture that accommodation spaces in
Malaysia are generally smaller than in Australia and consequently the capacity in
houses to store groceries other than those required for immediate consumption, is
limited. Hence the Malaysian shopper’s non-inclination to stock up as much as the
corresponding Australian shopper, even if acceptable alternative brands can be had at
a discount. Further Malaysian shoppers are also inclined to carry memory aids to
assist them in their shopping efforts. To that extent, shoppers guided by scripts, are
conditioned to stay within their planned budget and would resist buying anymore than
what they had planned to buy (Thomas and Garland, 2004).
In Table III, the estimated odd values for being deal prone are consistently smaller
than for not being deal prone, across family sizes. However, the odd estimates for not
being deal-prone is higher for smaller Malaysian families than larger families. These
estimates jointly enable us to infer that Malaysian frugal shoppers, just like Australian
frugal shoppers, are less inclined to be deal prone in general when responding to a
stock-out of their preferred item, but across family sizes, Malaysian shoppers
demonstrate inclination to be more deal prone among larger families than small
families.
Deal prone shoppers are ordinarily keen to seek economies from their purchases and
maximize value. These customers are without doubt attracted to the larger pack sizes
because they are customarily offered at lower prices per unit measure and consumers
therefore have lower transaction (replacement) costs (Lynn, 1992). Bigger pack sizes Shoppers’
involve lesser bulk breaking processes, accordingly incurring lower operating costs response to
and consequently the larger sizes lend themselves to be priced lower per unit measure
than the smaller packs (Coughlan et al., 2006). Notably, larger households have lower stock-outs
brand loyalty since different family members tend to prefer different brands (Frank
et al., 1968). It is therefore almost axiomatic that consumers of bigger size packs when
confronted with a stock-out of their preferred item brand may be pressed to switch to 407
the larger packages of other brands. In fact we observe from Table II, that the
probability of the frugal among Malaysian shoppers buying another brand increases
by 2.08 per cent (Table II) as their family size increases. Notably, the probability of the
frugality in Australian community buying another brand when responding to a stock-
out of their preferred item increases by 5.2 per cent as their family size increases
(Miranda and Jegasothy, 2007).

Forgo/postponing purchase – the observant shopper

Shoppers, who are likely to be attentive to the expiry date of their normal preference,
will invariably forgo/postpone their purchase when met with the unavailability of their
preferred item (Miranda and Jegasothy, 2007). This study identified that the observant
among Malaysian shoppers appear to be aware that some dairy products can be stored
in ambient temperature. Inevitably these shoppers when met with a situation where
their preferred choice is unavailable are inclined to examine use-by dates and make
themselves aware of storage prescriptions. Observant shoppers both among Malaysian
and Australian consumers can almost equally be expected for these two reasons not to
buy products that do not offer sufficient consumption times.
Further, both Malaysian and Australian observant shoppers appear to make their
product choice in response to in-store price specials (deal prone) and justifiably so,
because it appears that their purchases are directed by the size of their grocery bills.
Their outlay on grocery shopping appears to heighten the risk of purchasing items that
do not allow them adequate consumption time and resulting in wasteful expenditure.
On the other hand, Malaysian observant shoppers are less inclined than their
Australian counterpart to buy additional quantities of their preferred choice when
available at special prices. Storage space limitations ascribed to frugal shoppers may
be of concern to Malaysian observant shoppers as well and may inhibit them from
acquiring more of the item even when available at reduced prices.
The appearance of a stock-out item on the shopping list makes the need to purchase
the product compelling. Observant shoppers amongst Malaysian consumers are more
likely to be directed by their shopping lists, as is evident in the table of marginal effects

Deal prone (prdisc)

Yes No

Household 1 0.05261 0.48152

size 2-3 0.18814 0.27662
(hhsize) 4 0.02021 0.09093 Table III.
Malaysian frugal
Note: Odds of household sizes (hhsize) and deal prone shoppers (prdisc) shoppers
APJML where the probability of forgoing/postponing purchase when responding to a stock-out
20,4 while carrying shopping scripts, decreases by around 1.9 per cent (Table II).
Further, Malaysian observant shoppers are also influenced by their household size,
to the extent of having the probability of forgoing/postponing their purchase decrease
slightly by 2.56 per cent (Table II) as their family size increases. The Malaysian
observant shopper like their Australian counterpart is unlikely to buy a reduced size
408 and the probability of Malaysian shoppers buying a bigger pack size than what they
normally purchase increases slightly by 0.45 per cent (Table II). Larger packages are
therefore also likely to be the favoured pack size among these shoppers since being
deal-prone, observant shoppers would seek to maximize their purchases. Observant
shoppers (noted for their self-restraint in making purchases) may however run out of
patience, if the stock-out annoyance keeps recurring in their subsequent shopping
trips, as large households cannot sustain chronic denial of their preferred item. They
may well consider taking up another brand, particularly if they are swayed by the price
offers of bigger size packs of competing brands.

Buying from another store – the opportunistic shopper

One would expect that shoppers, in view of incurring high outlays on groceries, would
welcome a price relief on their preferred items at another store. We note that some
Malaysian shoppers show no inhibitions of being deal-prone as well as seeking to
acquire additional stock if their preferred item is available at special rates. Notably
Table II indicates that the probability of Malaysian consumers being opportunistic
shoppers reduces by 3.5 per cent if they carry shopping memos along to the stores. It is
reasonable to assume that shopping lists give shoppers a framework to adjust their
budgets and seek alternatives within the store itself for brand variants, alternative
brands or even to postpone/ forgo their purchase rather than speculate and venture to
another store where their preferred item may also not be available.
Both Malaysian and Australian opportunistic shoppers do not appear to pay
attention to the use-by dates of the item. It is not as if the available consumption time
does not concern opportunistic shoppers since they seem to be aware that all
perishable products need to be refrigerated once they are opened. In fact, even if their
preferred item is available, albeit with insufficient consumption time, opportunistic
shoppers both among Malaysian and Australian consumers are inclined to buy another
variant of their preferred brand and even buy another brand; Malaysian opportunistic
shoppers unlike their Australian counterparts are not inclined to forgo/postpone their
purchase when confronted with the unavailability of their preferred choice. In response
to a stock-out of their desired item at their principal store, this shopper cohort among
Malaysian consumers, during their visits to another store, is likely to buy the usual size
of their preferred brand.
Consumers may not make all of their grocery purchases from their principal stores.
It is possible that some products more than others could prompt opportunistic
shoppers to venture outside their principal store to get what they want, because there is
evidence in this study that non-availability of both common and uncommon brands
appear to make the prospecting of a different store irresistible among this cohort.
Higher incomes and greater wealth is encouraging shoppers to make trips to several
stores to acquire exotic groceries (Smith, 2006). It is therefore not unusual that both
Malaysian and Australian opportunistic shoppers show evidence of being prepared to
pay more elsewhere for their preferred item.
 While household size does not emerge as a significant variable that explains the Shoppers’
behavioural response of opportunistic shoppers among Australian consumers to stock- response to
outs, household size affects the Malaysian opportunistic shopper’s response to stock-
outs, albeit in a reverse way. It appears that as household size increases there is a stock-outs
decrease of 5.62 per cent (Table II) in the likelihood of the opportunistic shopper
choosing to visit another store.
It must be noted that the probability of shoppers not being opportunistic (equal to 409
0.1891) is almost 4.3 times more than the probability of those who are likely to be
opportunistic (equal to 0.8119).

Limitations of study and future research

The sample proportion of respondents <35 year in this study is approximately 59
per cent and thus the disproportionate number in these age categories may have
marginally biased the result. Just as in the study among Australian shoppers (Miranda
and Jegasothy, 2007), age could otherwise emerge as a significant variable in all types
of behavioural responses to stock-out. Moreover, this skew towards younger household
shoppers, may also have affected the implications of this research. Nonetheless the
proportion of respondents in the Malaysian sample <35 years (59 per cent) is similar to
the proportion of respondents <35 years in the sample in the study in Australia (almost
57 per cent) and hence the bias of age in both samples is comparable.
Because this research addressed itself to the study of shoppers’ response to
perishable products only, future research may be well served to examine if the
parameters that affect shoppers’ response to stock-outs for non-perishable items are
similar to the ones that explain shoppers’ reactions to stock-outs of perishable items.
This study was not able to demonstrate how compelling is the need of opportunistic
shoppers making purchases for larger families, to buy from alternative stores when
complementary (tea in the case of milk or bread in the case of cheese) products are out
of stock in their principal store.
Further, insight into shoppers’ behavioural response to inadequate shelf life would
give retailers and other members of the supply chain more confidence to adopt
inventory management policies that make a judicious balance between avoiding stock-
outs and ensuring stock availability with acceptable shelf life.

Implications and conclusion

It is evident from the findings of our study that the archetypical Malaysian shopper’s
response to the stock-out of their preferred item is governed by the item’s annotation in
their written shopping. It appears that the shopping list aside from serving as an ‘‘aid
memoir’’, also serves as an instrument that give shoppers a framework to adjust their
budgets and seek alternatives within the store itself for brand variants, alternative
brands or even to postpone/forgo their purchase rather than speculate and venture to
another store where their preferred item may also not be available. Shopping lists that
accompany the consumer inevitably increase the probability of the Malaysian shopper
(as distinct from their Australian counterpart), demonstrating greater cautiousness to a
larger or smaller extent in one of the four typologies discussed in this research paper.
Malaysian shoppers who carry a shopping list are more likely when confronted by a
stock-out of their desired item, to buy a brand variant, to buy an alternate brand, not to
forgo or postpone their purchase or not go to an alternative store where they may not
be assured of getting what they want.
APJML While being circumscribed by characteristic variables, the reactions of most
Malaysian shoppers to an out-of stock situation appear to be underpinned by their
20,4 household size. There is no gainsaying that grocery shoppers either buy for themselves
and/or inevitably for others in their household. Marketing literature postulates that
large families invariably gravitate to larger pack sizes. Previous research also observes
that brand loyalty is negatively correlated to household size. Because of the latent
danger in stock-outs of larger packages triggering brand attrition, brand owners and
410 retailers thus ought to be particularly sensitive to the inventory management of these
packages.
Malaysian shoppers are concerned that items that they purchase are within the use-
by dates and could hardly be expected to select alternative variants of their preferred
brand if they are not within their expiry dates of consumption. They would be quite
willing to forgo or postpone their purchase if they had concerns about the use-by dates
of the alternatives. In an era when large numbers of products make their way into
Malaysian supermarkets from all over the world, it is important that enough attention
is paid to groceries being made available in as pristine a condition as possible. It would
be useful for brand variants to offer shoppers sufficient consumption times till the
products’ use-by dates, to encourage purchase of variants and prevent shoppers
crossing over to another brand or store. Central to the ample availability of
consumption time is the capacity of channel members to support frequent deliveries of
larger pack sizes in small lot quantities to the retail store.
It is reasonable to believe that since household size has a significant impact on
Malaysian shoppers in determining their reaction to stock-unavailability, the
circumspect ones particularly (whose typology is affected most by household size),
would be wary of deviating from the ‘‘brand’’ that the household is used to. It is a moot
point whether to Malaysian shoppers in general and among them, the circumspect
shoppers in particular, would consider opting for an alternative brand as ‘‘lower risk’’
than an alternative brand variant. They obviously believe that family members would
adjust to a variant of their current brand more easily than to a different brand
particularly if their current brand has a strong symbolization among family members.
Malaysian society is known to have a high component of religiosity and according to
Hofstede (1985), communities that reside in such countries, tend to be steeped in ‘‘faith’’.
Such beliefs have a significant bearing on shoppers who are inclined to ascribe a ‘‘halo
effect’’ to their current brand. The typology of circumspect shoppers in Malaysia in fact
suggest that they unlike their Australian counterparts are even prepared to consider
paying higher prices for brand variants (rather than ‘‘risk’’ adopting another option
when they are faced with their item not being on the store shelf) and are not bargain
hunters. It might be prudent for brand owners to impress upon retailers that when
there is an exigent stock-out of a popular item to discount the other assortments of the
brand in order to encourage shoppers to adopt a brand variant and not forgo/postpone
their purchase, buy another brand or worse, buy from another store. The level of
discounts that are applied should at least be equal to or more than the savings that the
customer achieves per unit measure from the regular price offered on the large pack. It
goes without saying that brand owners/manufacturers would encourage brand loyalty
if the brand stable had a bigger range of assortments.
Empirical evidence indicates that in Malaysia, several grocery products are not
made available in pack sizes as large as in Australia. Malaysian frugal and observant
shoppers when responding to stock-outs of their preferred items might allow the
opportunity to let a bargain pass on alternative brands or variants, because these
shoppers, guided by their shopping lists, are possibly hamstrung, by budgetary Shoppers’
constraints in not being able to make heavier purchase outlays and by likely storage response to
constraints in their living accommodation. Retailers in Malaysia have a greater
challenge than Australian retailers to dispose stocks of grocery products that are fast stock-outs
approaching their expiry dates through discounting, because Malaysian shoppers may
resist buying more that their immediate need. One can hardly stress the importance of
Malaysian retailers investing in finely tuned inventory management systems that
particularly regulate imported items with limited shelf lives.
411

Note
1. Variables are treated as continuous variables in the regression while in obtaining logits
they are treated as discrete variables.

References
Austrade (2007), ‘‘Processed food to Malaysia: trends and opportunities’’, available at:
www.austrade.gov.au/default.aspx (accessed 12 September 2007).
Blattberg, R., Buesing, T., Peacock, P. and Sen, S. (1978), ‘‘Identifying the deal prone segment’’,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 369-77.
Bucklin, L.P. (1972), Competition and Evolution in the Distribution Trades, Prentice-Hall,
Englewoods Cliffs, NJ, pp. 18-31.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), ‘‘The Chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect
to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty’’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2,
pp. 81-93.
Christopher, M. (2005), Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-added Networks,
3rd ed., Prentice-Hall Financial Times, Harlow, p. 97.
Corsten, D. and Gruen, T. (2004), ‘‘Stock-outs cause walkouts’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82
No. 5, pp. 26-8.
Coughlan, A.T., Anderson, E., Stern, L. and El-Ansary, A.I. (2006), Marketing Channels, Pearson
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, p. 174.
Darden, W.R. and Reynolds, F.D. (1971), ‘‘Shopping orientations and product usage rates’’, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 505-08.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Hammond, K. and Goodhart, G.J. (1994), ‘‘The after-effects of price-related
consumer promotions’’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 34, July-August, pp. 11-21.
Emmelhainz, L.W.A., Stock, J.R. and Emmelhainz, M.A. (1989), ‘‘Retail stock-outs: now what?’’
Annual Conference Proceedings, Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL, pp. 71-9.
Euromonitor (2006), Meal Replacement Products in Malaysia, available at: www.euromonitor.
com/MealReplacementProductsinMalaysia (accessed 29th March 2007).
Folkes V.S., Martin, I.M. and Gupta, K. (1993), ‘‘When to say when: effects of supply on usage’’,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 467-78.
Frank, R.E., Douglas, S.P. and Polli, R.E. (1968), ‘‘Household correlates of brand loyalty for
grocery products’’, Journal of Business, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 237-45.
Hofstede, G. (1985), ‘‘A case for comparing apples with oranges’’, in Mamachi, S. (Ed.), Values and
Attitudes Across Nations and Time, Brill, Leiden, pp. 16-25.
Hawkins, D.I. Best, R.J. and Coney, K.A. (1998), Consumer Behaviour, 7th ed., International
edition, McGraw-Hill, Burr Ridge, IL, p. 597.
Knox, S. (1997), ‘‘The death of brand deference: can brand management stop the rot,’’ Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 49-55.
APJML Lynn, M. (1992), ‘‘Scarcity’s enhancement of desirability: the role of naive economic theories’’,
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 13, March, pp. 67-78.
20,4 Massy, W.F. (1966), ‘‘Brand and store loyalty as basis for market segmentation’’, in Newman, J.E.
(Ed.), On Knowing the Consumer, John Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 169-72.
McGuire, W.J. (1976), ‘‘Some internal psychological factors influencing consumer choice’’, Journal
of Consumer Research, March, pp. 302-19.
412 Miranda, M.J. and Jegasothy, K. (2007) ‘‘Family size underpin grocery shoppers’ behavioural
response to stock-outs’’, Journal of Channel Management, Vol. 14 No. 1/2, pp. 97-115.
Moschis, G. (1976), ‘‘Shopping orientations and consumer uses of information’’, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 52, Summer, pp. 51-9.
Nielsen Media Research (1975), ‘‘Distribution – a perennial problem’’, Nielsen Researcher, No. 3,
pp. 1-6.
Retailing in Malaysia, available at: www.euromonitor.com (accessed 14 November 2006).
Roselius, T. (1971), ‘‘Consumer ranking of risk reduction methods’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35,
January, pp. 56-61.
Schonberger, R.J. (1990), Building a Chain of Customers, Free Press, New York, NY.
Smith, B. (2006), ‘‘Shopping and changing: supermarkets win the day’’, The Age News, 23 May,
p. 5.
Stephenson, D. and Willet, R.P. (1969), ‘‘Analysis of consumers’ retail patronage strategies’’, in
MacDonald, P.R. (Ed.), Marketing Involvement in Society and Economy, AMA, Chicago, IL,
pp. 316-22.
Stone, G.P. (1954), ‘‘City shoppers and urban identification: observations on the social psychology
of city life’’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 60, pp. 36-45.
Thomas, A. and Garland, R. (2004), ‘‘Grocery shopping: list and non-list usage’’, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 623-35.
Zinszer, P.H. and Lesser, J.A. (1980), ‘‘An empirical evaluation of the role of stock-out on shopper
patronage processes’’, in Marketing in the 1980s: Changes and Challenges: 1980 AMA
Educators’ Conference proceeding, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 221-4.

Corresponding author
Mario J. Miranda is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: mario.miranda@vu.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints