Product Life-Cycle & Portfolio

Managing Cannibalisation in Line Extensions

Differentiate variants, price‑pack roles and evidence so new SKUs add rather than steal value. This quiz covers concepts, measurement, and tests that keep line extensions incremental.

What best defines product cannibalisation within a portfolio?

Competitors copy your features

A new SKU draws sales from an existing SKU without growing total revenue

A new SKU grows the whole category

Stores add more shelf space overall

Cannibalisation is intra‑portfolio substitution that doesn’t expand the pie.

Which formula expresses cannibalisation rate at a simple SKU level?

(New SKU sales ÷ Total category sales) × 100

(Units sold this year ÷ last year) × 100

(Old price ÷ New price) × 100

(Sales lost on existing SKU ÷ Sales of the new SKU) × 100

This ratio estimates how much new sales displaced the old item’s sales.

A pre‑launch method specifically used to flag cannibalisation risk is ______.

randomizing server regions

tracking code coverage in CI

running only brand lift surveys

shelf/simulation testing comparing lineups and shopper choice

Shelf and simulated market tests reveal substitution versus incrementality before rollout.

Which move most often reduces unintended cannibalisation?

Matching prices and claims across variants

Launching multiple near‑identical flavors

Clear price‑pack architecture and differentiated positioning by need state

Hiding differences in packaging

Distinct roles and price tiers help segment demand instead of shifting it sideways.

Which evidence best proves a line extension is incremental?

Higher ad impressions only

Anecdotes from one store visit

Net portfolio sales and margin rise after controlling for seasonality and distribution

The new SKU sells but legacy sales fall faster

Incrementality requires portfolio‑level gains, not simply shifting share across SKUs.

When can cannibalisation be a rational strategy?

When retailers resist assortment changes

When migrating users to a higher‑margin or strategically critical offer

When the new item has lower margin than the old

When supply is constrained on all SKUs

Planned migration can improve economics or defensibility even if some sales shift.

Which monitoring approach catches cannibalisation early post‑launch?

Only total brand sales without mix

SKU‑level YoY sales and velocity by store, benchmarked against category trends

Engineering ticket throughput

Follower counts on social media

SKU and store‑level dashboards show substitution patterns and incrementality.

What portfolio action helps fund incremental bets while managing overlap?

Add every proposed variant simultaneously

Replicate a rival’s lineup exactly

Freeze prices regardless of elasticity

Prune or fix low‑return SKUs to free capacity for stronger variants

Reallocation improves earnings trajectory and creates room for winners.

Which pricing scenario typically increases cannibalisation risk?

Launching a cheaper near‑substitute below an existing item without clear differentiation

Bundling complements together

Introducing a premium tier with added benefits

Adding a bulk pack at a distinct price‑per‑unit

Lower‑priced lookalikes tend to steal share unless benefits are segmented clearly.

Which test demonstrates incrementality most convincingly to retailers?

A single influencer campaign

Internal preference polls

Controlled pilots showing net category lift and minimal substitution

One week of uncontrolled sales

Retailers seek proof that new items expand category revenue rather than reshuffle it.

Starter

You get the basics; strengthen measurement and pre‑launch testing for incrementality.

Solid

Good grasp of pricing, roles and dashboards; tighten retailer‑ready proofs of lift.

Expert!

You manage overlap deliberately—using tests, roles and pruning to grow portfolio value.

What's your reaction?

Related Quizzes

1 of 10

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *