The size-rank relationship for market shares of consumer packaged goods

ABSTRACT This study examines the relationship between market share and its rank for a comprehensive set of product categories and subcategories in the U.S consumer packaged goods industry. Based on prior research, we expect that the slope of the market share-rank relationship will be more consistent with the Zipf distribution at the higher levels of aggregation (category-level versus subcategory-level shares). Two alternative model formulations were examined: the size-rank power law and an exponential alternative used in prior research. Model parameters were estimated across categories (and subcategories) using random coefficients for both the slopes and intercepts. The overall slopes for both samples were significantly higher than −1, the slope consistent with the Zipf distribution. However, as expected, we also found that the slope associated with data from the higher level of aggregation (category level) is flatter than that from the lower level of aggregation (subcategory level). We discuss implications of these results for future research on the size-rank relationship.

[1]  Sérgio Luis da Silva,et al.  Granularity of the top 1,000 Brazilian companies , 2018, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications.

[2]  Massimo Riccaboni,et al.  Where Gibrat meets Zipf: Scale and Scope of French Firms , 2017 .

[3]  Evgeny A. Antipov,et al.  Rank-sales relationship in electronic commerce: Evidence from publicly available data on 11 product categories , 2016, Electron. Commer. Res. Appl..

[4]  M. Augusto,et al.  Size Distribution of Portuguese Firms between 2006 and 2012 , 2014 .

[5]  Rahul Telang,et al.  Inferring App Demand from Publicly Available Data , 2013, MIS Q..

[6]  François Moreau,et al.  Internet and the ‘Long Tail versus superstar effect’ debate: evidence from the French book market , 2012 .

[7]  S. Kang,et al.  Changes of firm size distribution: The case of Korea , 2011 .

[8]  Qinghua Chen,et al.  Zipf distribution in top Chinese firms and an economic explanation , 2009 .

[9]  Rajeev Kohli,et al.  Some Empirical Regularities in Market Shares , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[10]  O. Marsili,et al.  Technology and the Size Distribution of Firms: Evidence from Dutch Manufacturing , 2005 .

[11]  M. Gallegati,et al.  Do Pareto–Zipf and Gibrat laws hold true? An analysis with European firms , 2003, cond-mat/0310061.

[12]  Mauro Gallegati,et al.  On the size distribution of firms: additional evidence from the G7 countries , 2003 .

[13]  Erik Brynjolfsson,et al.  Consumer Surplus in the Digital Economy: Estimating the Value of Increased Product Variety at Online Booksellers , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[14]  G. J. Rodgers,et al.  Business size distributions , 2001 .

[15]  R. Axtell Zipf Distribution of U.S. Firm Sizes , 2001, Science.

[16]  Jeremy J. Ramsden,et al.  Company size distribution in different countries , 2000 .

[17]  H. Takayasu,et al.  Zipf's law in income distribution of companies , 1999 .

[18]  J. Sutton Gibrat's Legacy , 1996 .

[19]  S. Rhoades Market share inequality, the HHI, and other measures of the firm-composition of a market , 1995 .

[20]  R. D. Buzzell,et al.  Are There “Natural” Market Structures? , 1981 .

[21]  C. Fogg Planning Gains in Market Share , 1974 .

[22]  F. Angulo-Brown,et al.  Company size distribution for developing countries , 2006 .

[23]  John Kwoka Regularity and diversity in firm size distributions in U.S. industries , 1982 .