Offering the ideal product that individuals will systematically repurchase (intensification) and satisfying their need for variety in order to make them cross-purchase within a brand-line’s products (diversification) instead of switching toward competitors are two fundamental functions of brand-lines. Both rely on product variety, organized along breadth (complementary products) and depth (substitutes). We analyze the differing impacts that breadth and depth have on brand-line repurchasing behavior. Repurchasing is broken down into four components based on its motivation, intensification (repurchasing the same product) vs. diversification (cross-purchasing), and its temporal perspective, inter-trip (over shopping trips) vs. intra-trip (during purchasing trips). Whereas breadth demonstrates only positive effects on the repurchasing components, it has no protective effect against brand-switching. Conversely, depth has a negative impact on inter-trip product repurchasing, the most frequent repurchasing component, but offers a protective negative impact against brand-switching. We examine the moderating impacts of brand-line quality, brand-line alignability, and household size.
The service marketing literature uses the terms depth and breadth of the consumer–service provider relationship to refer respectively to intensification and diversification (Aurier & N’Goala, 2010; Bolton et al., 2004). To avoid confusion with brand-line depth and breadth, we use the terms intensification and diversification.
Other terms are used such as assortment choice (Kwak et al., 2015), within-trip variety-seeking (Kim et al., 2002), multiple discreteness (Dubé, 2004) or multiple item choice (Harlam & Lodish, 1995).
We used a nonalignability ratio calculated as the number of distinct levels for the nonalignable attribute (flavor) minus that for the alignable attribute (format), divided by the total sum of levels for the two attributes (Aurier & Mejía, 2020). This ratio varies between −1 (purely alignable) and 1 (purely nonalignable). A ratio greater (lower) than zero represents a predominantly nonalignable (alignable) assortment, and the brand-line was classified accordingly. A ratio close to zero represents an equally alignable and nonalignable assortment, and the brand-line was not considered. Because a line’s alignability depends on its store exposure, it was measured at the store level and then aggregated across stores, over a 4-week moving window.