Welcome to the SmallBusiness.com WIKI
The free sourcebook of small business knowledge from SmallBusiness.com
Currently with 29,735 entries and growing.

WIKI Welcome Page
Local | Glossaries | How-to's | Guides | Start-up | Links | Technology | All Hubs
About · Help Hub · Register to Edit · Editing Help
Twitter: @smallbusiness | Facebook | Pinterest | Google+

SmallBusiness-com-logo.jpeg

In addition to the information found on the SmallBusiness.com/WIKI,
you may find more information and help on a topic
by clicking over to SmallBusiness.com and searching there.


Note | Editorial privileges have been turned off temporarily.
You can still use the Wiki but cannot edit existing posts or add new posts.
You can e-mail us at [email protected].


Store-within-a-store

SmallBusiness.com: The free small business resource
Jump to: navigation, search

Template:Multiple issues

A store-within-a-store is an agreement in which a retailer rents a part of the retail space to be used by different company to run another shop.

This agreement is popular among filling stations and supermarkets. Many bookstores partner with coffee shops because customers often desire a place to sit and enjoy a drink while they browse. Companies employing this technique include BP/Amoco Sheetz, Exxon Mobil and Hollywood Video with its Game Crazy video-game boutiques.

Often the store-within-a-store is a owned by a manufacturer, operating an outlet within a retail companys's store. For example, the American department store Bloomingdale's has had such arrangements with Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, DKNY and Kenneth Cole. Neiman Marcus, another American department store, has had them with Armani and Gucci.

A study by business-school academics found that the arrangement works, because the retailer offers prime locations for which it can charge high rents, the manufacturer makes a higher profit than it would through a wholesale model,and the consumer gets a lower price and better service. The operator of the store-within-a-store can provide these benefits because it receives all profits, instead of having to share then with the retailer, as it would in the traditional split between manufacturer and retailer activities. The study also found that the arrangement works best for relatively non-substitutable goods, like cosmetics and brand fashions.[1]

See also

Template:Portal

Template:Clear

References

Template:Retailing-stub