Marketing Letters

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 381–389

A reflection on analytical work in marketing: Three points of consensus


  • Raphael Thomadsen
    • UCLA Anderson School of Management
    • UCLA Anderson School of Management
  • Ganesh Iyer
    • Berkeley Haas School of Business
  • Dina Mayzlin
    • Yale School of Management
  • Yesim Orhun
    • Ross School of BusinessUniversity of Michigan
  • Amit Pazgal
    • Jones School of BusinessRice University
  • Devavrat Purohit
    • Duke Fuqua School of Business
  • Ram Rao
    • School of ManagementUniversity of Texas at Dallas
  • Michael Riordan
    • Columbia University
  • Jiwoong Shin
    • Yale School of Management
  • Monic Sun
    • Stanford Graduate School of Business
  • Miguel Villas-Boas
    • Berkeley Haas School of Business

DOI: 10.1007/s11002-012-9184-3

Cite this article as:
Thomadsen, R., Zeithammer, R., Iyer, G. et al. Mark Lett (2012) 23: 381. doi:10.1007/s11002-012-9184-3


This article presents three points of consensus about game-theoretic work in marketing: First, equilibrium analysis is necessary for studying situations that have strategic interactions. In many cases, empirical examination of these strategic scenarios is difficult or impossible, at least without the guidance of an equilibrium model. Second, more general models are not necessarily “better,” because institutional details matter. Thus, the appropriate compromise between generality and specificity depends on the scope of the research question. Finally, there should be a two-way road between theory and empirics—theory is necessary to interpret empirical results, while empirical findings should guide theoretical modeling choices.


Analytical workMarketingGame theoryEquilibrium analysis

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012