Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimal Pricing and Advertising Policies for Bottom of Pyramid Markets: An Analytical Approach

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Technology Operation Management

Abstract

We propose a model for developing optimal decisions and normative policies for pricing and advertising of products/services to markets at the ‘bottom of pyramid (BOP).’ This concept has been popularized in the recent times by Prahalad (The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid, 2006). Our model considers two types of market segments. The first type is the BOP market, which is large in size, but has limited ability to pay. The second type of the market is smaller in size, but can pay higher prices. The product/service offered to the two markets is differentiated in such a way that the base product (of appropriate quality) is available to the BOP market, while the premium product at a higher price is available to the higher-end market. The two markets are linked to each other such that there is a positive effect of customer base in the BOP market on the diffusion of product in the Premium market. Successful practices of such kind of models have been reported in widely documented healthcare case studies such as Aravind Eye Care (Kasturi Rangan, Service for sight, 1993). The product diffusion in the two markets is modeled using a pure innovation model by Fourt and Woodlock (J Mark, 25:31–38, 1960). Using optimal control methodology, we derive pricing and advertising policies for two types of organizations—for-profit organization (FPO) and non-profit organization (NPO). Thus, our analytical research design follows a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 (markets—BOP vs. Premium, strategies—pricing and advertising, organizations—FPO vs. NPO, and modeling—static vs. dynamic) design. Our optimal normative policy results can be summarized as follows: (i) A NPO charges lesser price per unit in both BOP and Premium markets, as compared to the FPO, (ii) A NPO spends equal amount of money in advertising or promoting the product/service as that spent by a FPO, (iii) A FPO charges lesser price per unit in the BOP markets as compared to the Premium market, (iv) The FPO receives lesser contribution margin per unit in the BOP market, as compared to the Premium market, (v) For the FPO, the ratio of advertising/promotion done in BOP market to that in the Premium market is governed by the parameters such as relative advertising effectiveness, cost of advertising, and contribution margin per unit in the two markets, (vi) Our dynamic pricing policy results for a FPO show that the prices are gradually increasing in the Premium market, and gradually decreasing in the BOP market, albeit after a threshold level of sales. The dynamic advertising policy results for a FPO show that advertising should gradually be decreased in the BOP market, but should remain stable in the Premium market. The NPO dynamic pricing and advertising results are similar to their static counterparts, though at much lower price levels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This conclusion was based on a study done originally by Monitor Consulting Group (2009).

  2. Our major objective to present these optimal functional forms is to compare the similar expressions for the case of NPO’s. The case of closed-form exact solution will be taken up in a subsequent section.

  3. In case of Weinberg (1983), donor subsidy was a function of demand generation.

  4. We have analyzed our model with a specific upper-bound constraint on the prices in the BOP market. However, our results are not materially affected by this restriction. Therefore, we proceed with the parsimonious model of this section.

  5. The x’ notation is meant to indicate derivative with respect to t. Thus, x’ = dx/dt.

  6. The subscript t is dropped for better exposition from this point onwards.

  7. Pure innovation model is the most parsimonious form at this initial level of specification of the model. This model can readily be extended to include imitation effects using Bass (1969) model, or its later variants to include other marketing variables.

  8. Note that in the optimal control model, we consider the complete effect of “stock” of consumers in BOP market on the adoptions in the Premium market. Although this has been done primarily for the parsimony of the model concerned, it can be reasonably interpreted as the “influence” that the adopters in the BOP market would have on the diffusion in the Premium market.

References

  • Agarwal, Manoj, Guido Berens and Anand K. Jaiswal (2011), CSR and BOP marketing: Are they two sides of the same coin? Proceedings of 4th IIMA conference on marketing in emerging economies, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, 5–7 January 2011.

  • Augustine Grace 2008. Do companies that engage in BOP markets outperform the market? Stanford Center for Social Innovation, http://csi.gsb.stanford.edu/do-companies-engage-bop-markets-outperform-market. Accessed 11 June 2012.

  • Bass, and M. Frank. 1969. A new product growth model for consumer durables. Management Science 15: 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayus, BarryL. 1994. Optimal pricing and product development policies for new consumer durables. International Journal of Research in Marketing 11: 249–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R., and R. Kottasz. 2000. Advertising style and the recruitment of charity volunteers. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 8(2): 45–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R., and A. Sargeant. 2005. The nonprofit marketing landscape: Guest editors’ introduction to a special section. Journal of Business Research 58: 797–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buratto, A., L. Grosset, and B. Viscolani. 2006. Advertising a new product in a segmented market. European Journal of Operational Research 175: 1262–1275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, N. 2000. The emergence of museum brands. International Journal of Arts Management 2(3): 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, K. 2009. Ethical concerns at the bottom of the pyramid. Where CSR meets BOP. Journal of International Business Ethics 2(1): 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, E. Marvin, Martin Fishbein, and Susan.E. Middlestadt. 1997. Social marketing: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Routledge: Taylor and Francis Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Silva, Harsha, Ratnadiwakara, Dimuthu and Zainudeen, Ayesha 2009. Social Influence in mobile phone adoption: Evidence from the bottom of pyramid in emerging Asia, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1564091 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1564091 Accessed on 6 June 2012.

  • Feichtinger, G., R.F. Hartl, and S.P. Sethi. 1994. Dynamic optimal control models in advertising: recent developments. Management Science 40(2): 195–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, J.C., and R.H. Pry 1971. A simple substitution model of technological change, technological forecasting and social change, 3:75–88.

  • Fourt, L.A., and J.W. Woodlock 1960. Early prediction of market success for grocery products. Journal of Marketing 25: 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrette, Bernard, and Aneel Karnani. 2010. Challenges in marketing socially useful goods to the poor. California Management Review 52(4): 29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guesalaga, Rodrigo, and Pablo Marshall. 2008. Purchasing power at the bottom of the pyramid: Differences across geographic regions and income tiers. Journal of Consumer Marketing 25(7): 413–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horsky, D., and K. Mate. 1988. Dynamic advertising strategies of competing durable goods producers. Marketing Science 7(4): 356–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horsky, D., and L.S. Simon. 1983. Advertising and the diffusion of new products. Marketing Science 2: 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamien, M., and N. Schwartz. 1981. Dynamic optimization: The calculus of variations and optimal control theory in economics and management. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karnani, Aneel. 2006. Misfortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Greener Management International 51(51): 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karnani, Aneel. 2008. Help, don’t romanticize, the poor. Business Strategy Review Summer, pp. 48–53.

  • Kotler, P., and G. Zaltman. 1971. Social marketing: An approach to planned social change. Journal of Marketing 44: 24–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P. 1979. Strategies for introducing marketing into nonprofit organisations. Journal of Marketing 43: 7–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., and K.F.A. Fox. 1985. Strategic marketing for educational institutions. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., and A. Andreasen. 1987. Strategic marketing for nonprofit organisations, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landrum, N.E. 2007. Advancing the ‘base’ of the pyramid debate. Strategic Management Review 1(1): 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Yong., and Charles B. Weinberg. 2004. Are nonprofits unfair competitors for businesses? An analytical approach. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 23(1): 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, C.H., and C.B. Weinberg. 1990. Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Scientific Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, V., and E. Muller. 1986. Advertising pulsing policies for generating awareness for new products. Marketing Science 5(2): 86–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, V., and R. Peterson. 1978. Innovation diffusion in a dynamic potential adopter population. Management Science 24: 1589–1597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, Vijay, Eitan Muller., and Frank M. Bass. 1990. New Product Diffusion Models in Marketing: A review and directions for research. Journal of Marketing 54: 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. 1961. Technical change and the rate of inflation. Econometrica 9: 741–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marinelli, Carlo. 2007. The stochastic goodwill problem. European Journal of Operational Research 176(1): 389–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, P.M., and M. Sarvary. 1997. Formulating dynamic strategies using decision calculus. European Journal of Operational Research 98: 542–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitta, DennisA, Rodrigo Guesalaga., and Pablo Marshall. 2008. The quest for the fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Potential and challenges. Journal of Consumer Marketing 25(7): 393–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C.K., and Hammond Allen. 2002. Serving the world’s poor, profitably. Harv Bus Rev 80(9): 48–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C.K. 2006. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Philadelphia: Wharton School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C.K. 2009. Introduction to the fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: revised and updated 5th anniversary edition, www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1398628. Accessed 4 June 2012.

  • Quelch, J.A., J.E. Austin., and N. Laidler-Kylander. 2004. Mining gold in not-for-profit brands. Harv Bus Rev 82(4): 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramani, S.V., and V. Mukherjee 2011. Can radical innovations serve the poor (BOP) and create reputational (CSR) value? Indian case studies, proceedings of the 9th the global network for the economics of learning, innovation, and competence building systems (globelics) international conference, 15–17 November 2011, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

  • Kasturi Rangan, V. 1993. Case: Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai: In Service for Sight. India: Harvard Business School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasturi Rangan, V., Michael Chu, and Djordjija Petkoski. 2011. Segmenting the base of the pyramid. Harv Bus Rev 89(6): 113–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, R.J.B., S. Swami., and C.B. Weinberg. 1998. A brand new world for non-profits. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 4: 26–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, B., and C. Lakhani. 1975. Dynamic price models for new product planning. Management Science 10: 1113–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A. 1999a. Marketing management of nonprofit organisations. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A. 1999b. Charity giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management 15: 215–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A. 2001. Using donor lifetime value to inform fundraising strategy. Nonprofit Management Leadership 12(1): 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savaskan, R.C., and L.N. van Wassenhove. 2006. Reverse channel design: The case of competing retailers. Management Science 52(1): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S.P., and G.L. Thompson. 2000. Optimal control theory: Applications to management science and economics. Kluwer: Norwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Hermann. 1982. ADPULS: An advertising model with wearout and pulsation. Journal of Marketing Research 19: 352–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subrahmanyan, Saroja., and J. Tomas Gomez-Arias. 2008. Integrated approach to understanding consumer behavior at bottom of pyramid. Journal of Consumer Marketing 25(7): 402–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swami, Sanjeev., and Janat Shah. 2012. Channel coordination in green supply chain management. Journal of the Operational Research Society Advance. doi:10.1057/jors.2012.44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swami, Sanjeev., and Pankaj Khairnar. 2006. Optimal normative policies for marketing of products with limited availability. Annals of Operations Research 143(1): 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swami, Sanjeev., and Arindam Dutta. 2010. Advertising strategies for new product diffusion in emerging markets: propositions and analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 204: 648–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, J., and R. Thompson. 1983. Oligopoly models for optimal advertising when production costs obey a learning curve. Management Science 29: 1087–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vachani, Sushil., and N. Craig Smith. 2008. Socially responsible distribution: distribution strategies for reaching the bottom of the pyramid. California Management Review 50(2): 52–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, Charles. 1983. Marketing mix decisions for nonprofit organizations: An analytical approach. In Pubic & nonprofit marketing, ed. H.Lovelock Christopher, and Charles B. Weinberg. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, C.B., and R. Ritchie. 1999. Cooperation, competition and social marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly 5(3): 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, Van R., Dennis A. Pitta., and Frank J. Franzak. 2008. Successful marketing by multinational firms to the bottom of the pyramid: Connecting share of heart, global “umbrella brands”, and responsible marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing 25(7): 419–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The first author acknowledges the support provided by Supply Chain Management Center (SCMC), IIM Bangalore during his stay as Visiting Faculty in the summer of 2012.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, DEI (Deemed University), Dayalbagh, Agra, India

    Sanjeev Swami

  2. Supply Chain Management Center (SCMC), IIM Bangalore, Bangalore, India

    Devanath Tirupati

Authors
  1. Sanjeev Swami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Devanath Tirupati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjeev Swami.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Swami, S., Tirupati, D. Optimal Pricing and Advertising Policies for Bottom of Pyramid Markets: An Analytical Approach. Technol. Oper. Manag. 3, 32–49 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13727-013-0014-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13727-013-0014-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation