Construct · 3 names · 4 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · one shelf problem, several named practices Nearest construct by meaningword of mouthcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to planogram is word of mouth.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The measured responsiveness of a product's unit sales to the amount of shelf room, or number of facings, it is given: adding space usually lifts sales, but by less and less, so the relationship is captured as an elasticity that says how much room each item earns. Curhan's 1972 study The Relationship between Shelf Space and Unit Sales in Supermarkets was among the first to measure this link across grocery categories, and Drèze, Hoch, and Purk's 1994 Shelf management and space elasticity turned it into a rule for allocating space to maximise category profit. Here the thing referred to is a statistical coefficient estimated from sales data, and it differs from the retailer and supplier practice of category management and from the drawn planogram, which are the same shelf problem approached as a strategy and as a diagram rather than as a measured number.[1][2]
The practice of treating a whole product category, such as coffee or laundry care, as a single strategic business unit that a retailer and a lead supplier plan together, coordinating which items to stock, how to price them, and how much shelf room each receives. Basuroy, Mantrala, and Walters's 2001 The Impact of Category Management on Retailer Prices and Performance laid out the practice and showed how it moves retail prices and category profit. Here the thing referred to is an organisational routine for governing a category, and it is wider than the space-elasticity coefficient and the physical planogram, which it takes as inputs: the same shelf-space problem seen as a management process rather than as a number or a picture.[3]
The planogram proper is the visual diagram that fixes exactly where each product sits on a fixture: which shelf, which position, and how many facings, so that an abstract space allocation becomes a concrete, buildable layout a store can put up and audit. Hübner and Kuhn's 2012 review Retail category management surveyed the optimisation models and commercial software that generate these layouts, and noted the gap between the academic models and the simpler rules the software actually uses. Here the thing referred to is the placement diagram and the operations tooling that produces it, the tangible output of the same shelf problem that space elasticity measures and category management governs.[4]
Next
See how planogram sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct