Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v25y2006i4p322-335.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Observed and Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity in Brand-Choice Models

Author

Listed:
  • Dan Horsky

    (William E. Simon Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627)

  • Sanjog Misra

    (William E. Simon Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627)

  • Paul Nelson

    (William E. Simon Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627)

Abstract
This paper extends the scanner-based choice literature by explicitly incorporating individual-level brand-preference data. We illustrate our model using a unique data set that combines survey and scanner data collected from the same individuals. The addition of individual-specific brand-preference information significantly improves fit and prediction. Furthermore, this “observed” heterogeneity better explains choice than does “unobserved” heterogeneity in the standard scanner model's parameters. More importantly, we find that the standard model underestimates the importance of consumers' brand preferences and overestimates both brand loyalties and price sensitivities. Brand loyalty is overestimated because models without preference information confound state dependence, heterogeneity, and preference effects. Price sensitivities are inflated because the “average” preference-based consumer is implicitly assumed to be more willing to switch from his preferred brand than is the “real” preference-based consumer. Further, standard models overestimate the heterogeneity in price and loyalty sensitivities and misidentify both price- and loyalty-sensitive consumers. The managerial implications of our findings and the applicability of our methodology when survey data are collected infrequently and for only a subsample of consumers are pursued. We demonstrate that even under these circumstances better populationwide pricing and promotion decisions are identified and more accurate targeting results.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Horsky & Sanjog Misra & Paul Nelson, 2006. "Observed and Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity in Brand-Choice Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 322-335, 07-08.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:25:y:2006:i:4:p:322-335
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1050.0192
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1050.0192
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1050.0192?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 1983. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 203-238.
    2. Peter E. Rossi & Robert E. McCulloch & Greg M. Allenby, 1996. "The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 321-340.
    3. Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 1996. "Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20.
    4. Füsun Gönül & Kannan Srinivasan, 1993. "Modeling Multiple Sources of Heterogeneity in Multinomial Logit Models: Methodological and Managerial Issues," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 213-229.
    5. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    6. Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Ramarao Desiraju, 2005. "Strategic Pricing and Detailing Behavior in International Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 67-80, June.
    7. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
    8. Jie Zhang & Lakshman Krishnamurthi, 2004. "Customizing Promotions in Online Stores," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 561-578, June.
    9. Keane, Michael P, 1997. "Modeling Heterogeneity and State Dependence in Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 15(3), pages 310-327, July.
    10. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    11. John C. Liechty & Duncan K. H. Fong & Wayne S. DeSarbo, 2005. "Dynamic Models Incorporating Individual Heterogeneity: Utility Evolution in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 285-293, November.
    12. Elrod, Terry & Keane, Michael, 1995. "A Factor-Analytic Probit Model for Representing the Market Structure in Panel Data," MPRA Paper 52434, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Pradeep Chintagunta & Jean-Pierre Dubé & Khim Yong Goh, 2005. "Beyond the Endogeneity Bias: The Effect of Unmeasured Brand Characteristics on Household-Level Brand Choice Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 832-849, May.
    14. Tülin Erdem, 1996. "A Dynamic Analysis of Market Structure Based on Panel Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 359-378.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baltas, George & Doyle, Peter, 2001. "Random utility models in marketing research: a survey," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 115-125, February.
    2. Richard Paap & Philip Hans Franses, 2000. "A dynamic multinomial probit model for brand choice with different long-run and short-run effects of marketing-mix variables," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 717-744.
    3. Pradeep Chintagunta & Jean-Pierre Dubé & Khim Yong Goh, 2005. "Beyond the Endogeneity Bias: The Effect of Unmeasured Brand Characteristics on Household-Level Brand Choice Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 832-849, May.
    4. José M. Labeaga & Mercedes Martos-Partal, 2007. "A Proposal to Distinguish State Dependence and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Binary Brand Choice Models," Working Papers 2007-02, FEDEA.
    5. Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Panel data discrete choice models of consumer demand," Economics Papers 2013-W08, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    6. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    7. Tülin Erdem & Susumu Imai & Michael Keane, 2003. "Brand and Quantity Choice Dynamics Under Price Uncertainty," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 5-64, March.
    8. Karsten Hansen & Vishal Singh, 2009. "Market Structure Across Retail Formats," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 656-673, 07-08.
    9. Keane, Michael & Ketcham, Jonathan & Kuminoff, Nicolai & Neal, Timothy, 2021. "Evaluating consumers’ choices of Medicare Part D plans: A study in behavioral welfare economics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 107-140.
    10. Jean-Pierre Dubé, 2004. "Multiple Discreteness and Product Differentiation: Demand for Carbonated Soft Drinks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 66-81, September.
    11. Nobuhiko Terui & Wirawan Dony Dahana, 2006. "Research Note—Estimating Heterogeneous Price Thresholds," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 384-391, 07-08.
    12. Nobuhiko Terui & Masataka Ban & Greg M. Allenby, 2011. "The Effect of Media Advertising on Brand Consideration and Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 74-91, 01-02.
    13. Chintagunta, Pradeep & Kyriazidou, Ekaterini & Perktold, Josef, 2001. "Panel data analysis of household brand choices," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 103(1-2), pages 111-153, July.
    14. Roozbeh Irani-Kermani & Edward C. Jaenicke & Ardalan Mirshani, 2023. "Accommodating heterogeneity in brand loyalty estimation: application to the U.S. beer retail market," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(4), pages 820-835, December.
    15. Guhl, Daniel & Baumgartner, Bernhard & Kneib, Thomas & Steiner, Winfried J., 2018. "Estimating time-varying parameters in brand choice models: A semiparametric approach," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 394-414.
    16. Karsten Hansen & Vishal Singh & Pradeep Chintagunta, 2006. "Understanding Store-Brand Purchase Behavior Across Categories," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 75-90, 01-02.
    17. Makoto Abe & Yasemin Boztug & Lutz Hildebrandt, 2004. "Investigating the competitive assumption of Multinomial Logit models of brand choice by nonparametric modeling," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 635-657, December.
    18. Sha Yang & Yi Zhao & Ravi Dhar, 2010. "Modeling the Underreporting Bias in Panel Survey Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 525-539, 05-06.
    19. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2007. "Discrete Choice Models With Multiple Unobserved Choice Characteristics," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(4), pages 1159-1192, November.
    20. Andrew T. Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 2020. "How much do consumers know about the quality of products? Evidence from the diaper market," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 541-569, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:25:y:2006:i:4:p:322-335. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.