The Effect of Assortment Rotation on Consumer Choice and Its Impact on Competition

Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 131)


The recent success of fast fashion retailers has changed the (affordable) fashion industry dramatically. These companies, such as Zara, are characterized by a flexible supply chain that has allowed them to reduce design and production lead times to just a few weeks, rather than months. More importantly, they are using these capabilities to change the assortment (i.e., introduce new products) more frequently, which many practitioners claim increases sales, since there is evidence showing that customers visit more often the stores with fresher products. We propose in this chapter a customer consumption model with satiation and multiple competing retailers. The model implies that the consumers will spend a higher share of their budget in retailers that renovate the assortment at a faster pace. Using the insights from the model, we determine how often retailers should change the assortment in the competitive equilibrium.


Supply Chain Ment Rotation Cost Structure Consumer Choice Production Lead Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alptekinouğlu A, Corbett CJ (2008) Mass customization vs. mass production: Variety and price competition. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management 10(2):204–217Google Scholar
  2. Anderson SP, de Palma A, Thisse J-F (1992) Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Baucells M, Sarin RK (2007) satiation in discounted utility. Operations Research 55(1):170–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertsekas DP (2000) Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control. Athena Scientific, Belmont, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Cachon G, Swinney R (2007) Purchasing, Pricing, and Quick response in the presence of strategic customers. Working paper, The Wharton School, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  6. Cachon G, Terwiesch C, Xu Y (2008) On the effects of consumer search and firm entry in a multiproduct competitive market. Marketing Science 27(3):461–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caro F, Gallien J (2007) Dynamic assortment with demand learning for seasonal consumer goods. Management Science 53(2):276–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caro F, Martìnez-de-Alb’eniz V (2005) The Impact of Quick Response in Inventory-Based Competition. Working paper, IESE Business School, University of NavarraGoogle Scholar
  9. Caro F, Martìnez-de-Alb’eniz V (2009) Strategic Assortment Rotation. Working paper, IESE Business School, University of NavarraGoogle Scholar
  10. Chintagunta PK (1998) Inertia and variety seeking in a model of brand-purchase timing. Marketing Science 17(3):253–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferdows K, Machuca JAD, Lewis M (2002) Zara. The European case clearing house. Case 603-002-1Google Scholar
  12. Fisher ML (1997) What is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product? Harvard Business Review, March–April, Reprint 97205Google Scholar
  13. Fisher ML, Raman A (1996) Reducing the cost of demand uncertainty through accurate response to early sales. Operations Research 44(1):87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghemawat P, Nueno JL (2003) ZARA: Fast Fashion. Harvard Business School Multimedia Case 9-703-416Google Scholar
  15. Givon M (1984) Variety seeking through brand switching. Marketing Science 3(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. The Guardian (2008) Zara Overtakes Gap to Become World’s Largest Clothing Retailer. August 11Google Scholar
  17. Hammond JH, Kelly MG (1990) Quick Response in the Apparel Industry. Harvard Business School Note 9-690-038Google Scholar
  18. Hayes R, Pisano G, Upton D, Wheelwright S (2005) Operations, Strategy, and Technology. Pursuing the Competitive Edge. Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  19. H&M 2007 annual reportGoogle Scholar
  20. Ho T-H, Tang CS (1998) Product Variety Management: Research Advances. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. Hotelling H (1929) Stability in competition. Economic Journal 39(153):41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iyer AV, Bergen ME (1997) Quick response in manufacturer-retailer channels. Management Science 43(4):559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. (2005) Fast Fashion and Supply Chain Management. July 29Google Scholar
  24. Kahn BE (1995) Consumer variety-seeking among goods and services: An integrative review. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2(3):139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahn BE, Kalwani MU, Morrison DG (1986) Measuring variety-seeking and reinforcement behaviors using panel data. Journal of Marketing Research 23(2):89–100Google Scholar
  26. Kök G, Fisher ML, Vaidyanathan R (2008) Assortment planning: Review of literature and industry practice. Retail Supply Chain Management, Eds. N. Agrawal and S. A. Smith, Kluwer Publishers. New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  27. Lancaster K (1990) The economics of product variety: A survey. Marketing Science 9(3):189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lim WS, Tang CS (2006) Optimal product rollover strategies. European Journal of Operational Research 174:905–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McAfee A (2004) Do you have too much IT? MIT Sloan Management Review 45(3 Spring):18–22Google Scholar
  30. McAfee A, Dessain V, Sjöman A (2004) ZARA: IT for Fast Fashion. Harvard Business School Case 9-604-081Google Scholar
  31. El País (2008) Estrenar ropa dura segundos, January 2Google Scholar
  32. Popescu I, Wu Y (2007) Dynamic pricing strategies with reference effects. Operations Research 55(3):413–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith SA, Agrawal N (2000) Management of multi-item retail inventory systems with demand substitution. Operations Research 48(1):50–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Ryzin G, Mahajan S (1999) On the relationship between inventory costs and variety benefits in retail assortments. Management Science 45(11):1496–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCLA Anderson School of ManagementLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.IESE Business SchoolUniversity of NavarraBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations