A marketing and sales expert on how mathematics helps brands survive in the era of rational consumption.
The global fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) market has entered a zone of turbulence that experts are calling a “threshold era.” According to Deloitte’s global forecast for 2026, the industry is undergoing a shift in priorities: the race for scale is giving way to agility and speed. Against this backdrop, a new dominant buyer type has emerged — the “value seeker” — a category that now accounts for 47% of consumers worldwide.
Marketer and sales expert Ihor Obshta, whose research was published in the February issue of the Advance Journal of Economics and Marketing Research, notes that under these conditions, the retail shelf has definitively cemented its status as “the most expensive real estate in the world.” He argues that it is precisely at this point of direct contact — where up to 70% of purchase decisions are made — that the fate of even the largest brands is now decided. Obshta emphasizes that to survive, companies must move away from intuition-driven merchandising toward adaptive solutions in which every centimeter of space is mathematically justified.
The hands-on expert Ihor Obshta shares the secrets of adaptive merchandising and explains how AI and precise calculations can help brands win back consumer attention from retailers’ private labels.
Ihor, global reports show that consumers have become extremely rational. How is the role of merchandising changing against the backdrop of this trend?
We are indeed seeing that classical promotional methods are no longer effective on their own. In my research, I emphasize that in conditions of high uncertainty — including significant price volatility, deglobalization, and the rapid advancement of AI, all of which have radically shifted buyer behavior toward a rational search for value — what comes to the forefront is so-called salience, or the cognitive ease with which a product is perceived. When a shopper is overwhelmed with information and trying to save money, they subconsciously gravitate toward whatever is easiest to spot and reach. That is why I often say that the retail shelf today is, in effect, the most expensive real estate in the world. Merchandising is no longer simply “attractive product placement” — it is a sophisticated attention management system in which every display parameter is mathematically grounded to maximize the probability that a specific brand will be chosen.
In your academic paper you use econometric models to analyze retail space. Does this mean that shoppers no longer pay attention to price, and that what matters most is where exactly a product is positioned?
Not quite. Price absolutely remains an important factor, but my calculations show that a product’s visual prominence and physical accessibility can have a comparable — and in certain categories, even greater — impact on demand patterns. Using discrete choice models, we can see that even when a competing offer is slightly cheaper, consumers will with high probability choose the more expensive brand if it is positioned within their natural visual focus zone. We are moving away from static rules toward adaptive, data-driven decisions based on how physical space “programs” human behavior.
Many people have heard of the concept of the “golden shelf,” but your article cites specific figures. What is the real effect of correct vertical product placement?
My data confirms that the visual focus zone — the so-called Strike Zone at a height of 120–150 cm from the floor — remains a critical parameter. Placing a product at this level can increase the probability of a brand being chosen by 20–30%. This is connected to the minimization of effort: the shopper does not need to reach up or bend down. Interestingly, the effect is amplified in conditions of intense competition from retailer private labels, as high visibility helps national brands maintain their presence in the shopper’s mind at the moment of decision.
You also mention that moving a product vertically into the Strike Zone can produce explosive sales growth. What kind of figures are we talking about?
Econometric estimates from 2024–2025 show that simply repositioning a product to the vertical center of the shelf — that is, to a height of 120–150 cm from the floor — can deliver a sales increase in the range of 15.2% to 23.4%. This is a tremendous internal efficiency resource that requires no additional advertising spend. It is important to understand, however, that this effect depends on the configuration of the planogram as a whole: localized, targeted changes often outperform a complete shelf reorganization, which can disorient shoppers and undermine the consistency of their navigation within a category.
You write that sales grow rapidly only up to a certain point and then plateau. Does this mean that the “the more product on display, the better” strategy is a myth?
In my paper I describe this through an S-shaped elasticity curve. In the initial phase, increasing a product’s shelf presence (facing) produces a sharp rise in sales, as the brand crosses the threshold of visibility. However, a saturation phase then sets in, where further expansion of the display yields no meaningful additional effect and leads to a plateau. Notably, each additional facing is far more valuable for smaller brands than for market leaders, who already enjoy high recognition.
In your research you argue that the era of uniform planograms is coming to an end. Why is a standardized layout applied across an entire retail network no longer effective?
Because consumer behavior can vary enormously across different stores, even within the same chain. My research, based on European retail data, demonstrates that localizing planograms to specific store locations allows for a more precise alignment between shelf inventory and the local demand profile. This translates directly into financial efficiency: we observe a 15–20% improvement in stock turnover and a significant reduction in out-of-stock situations, which converts directly into net profit.
Retailers sometimes place cheaper alternatives — including their own private labels — directly next to branded products, which can erode brand sales. How can brands use your models to hold shoppers’ attention and defend their position on the shelf?
Yes, retailers frequently employ a tactic of “managed adjacency,” positioning their private labels right next to category leaders at a lower price point. To survive in these conditions, brands must use econometric modeling to defend their positions in premium zones. We analyze how changes in shelf share and adherence to display standards help sustain loyalty. In 2025, the shelf is no longer just a storage space — it is a competitive strategy tool that allows brands to preserve their cognitive accessibility.
You devote considerable attention to the integration of artificial intelligence. How is computer vision technology changing the work of a merchandiser?
The integration of AI enables a shift from manual oversight to automated real-time monitoring. Computer vision systems instantly detect deviations from the planogram. According to my data, deploying such solutions in combination with predictive analytics delivers a profit increase of up to 8%. This is achieved because losses from display compliance failures are reduced by nearly 40% — an error can now be corrected in a matter of minutes rather than days.
Ihor, will robots really be making purchases on our behalf soon — and how should brands start learning to sell not to people, but to artificial intelligence?
We are entering the era of “agentic commerce,” in which AI assistants may begin making purchasing decisions on behalf of humans. This will fundamentally transform the role of the physical shelf. In my upcoming research, I plan to explore how in-store display will interact with digital stimuli within a unified, distributed decision-making system. My key advice to brands today is this: stop relying on intuition. Those who win will be the ones who transform every centimeter of retail space into a justified financial asset, backed by a robust analytical foundation.
