Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 491–507 | Cite as

The Pareto rule for frequently purchased packaged goods: an empirical generalization

  • Baek Jung KimEmail author
  • Vishal Singh
  • Russell S. Winer
Article

Abstract

Many markets have historically been dominated by a small number of best-selling products. The Pareto principle, also known as the 80/20 rule, describes this common pattern of sales concentration. Several papers have provided empirical evidence to explain the Pareto rule, although with limited data. This article provides a comprehensive empirical investigation on the extent to which the Pareto rule holds for mass-produced and distributed brands in the consumer-packaged goods (CPG) industry. We used a rich consumer panel dataset from A.C. Nielsen with 6 years of purchase histories from over 100,000 households. Our analysis utilizes a large number of potential factors such as brand attributes, category attributes, and consumer purchase behavior to explain variation in the Pareto ratio at the brand level across products. Our main conclusion is that the Pareto principle generally holds across a wide variety of CPG categories with the mean Pareto ratio at the brand level across product categories of .73. Several variables related to consumer purchase behavior (e.g., purchase frequency and purchase expenditure) are found to be positively correlated with the Pareto ratio. In addition, niche brands are more likely to have a higher Pareto ratio. Finally, brand/category size, promotion variables, change-of-pace brands, and market competition variables are negatively correlated with the Pareto ratio.

Keywords

Pareto rule Frequently purchased products Empirical generalization 

References

  1. Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hachette Books.Google Scholar
  3. Brynjolfsson, E., & Smith, M. (2000). Frictionless commerce? A comparison of internet and conventional retailers. Management Science, 46(4), 563–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y. J., & Smith, M. D. (2003). Consumer surplus in the digital economy: estimating the value of increased product variety at online booksellers. Management Science, 49(11), 1580–1596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y. J., & Simester, D. (2011). Goodbye Pareto principle, hello long tail: the effect of search costs on the concentration of product sales. Management Science, 57(8), 1373–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dodson, J. A., Tybout, A. M., & Sternthal, B. (1978). Impact of deals and deal retraction on brand switching. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(1), 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehrenberg, A. S. C (1972). Repeat-buying : theory and applications. Amsterdam: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
  8. Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1988). Repeat-buying: facts, theory and applications, 2nd ed. Edward Arnold, London; Oxford University Press, New York. Reprinted in the Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Mark Science, 2000, 5, 392–770 (www.empgens.com).
  9. Ehrenberg, A. (2000). Repeat buying. Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science, 5(2).Google Scholar
  10. Ehrenberg, A. S. C., Goodhardt, G. J., & Patrick Barwise, T. (1990). Double jeopardy revisited. The Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferrari, S., & Cribari-Neto, F. (2004). Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics, 31(7), 799–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gupta, S. (1988). Impact of sales promotions on when, what, and how much to buy. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(4), 342–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahn, B. E., Kalwani, M. U., & Morrison, D. G. (1988). Niching versus change-of-pace brands: using purchase frequencies and penetration rates to infer brand positionings. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(4), 384–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krishnamurthi, L., & Raj, S. P. (1991). An empirical analysis of the relationship between brand loyalty and consumer price elasticity. Marketing Science, 10(2), 172–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McPhee, W. N. (1963). Formal theories of mass behaviour. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  16. Morrison, D. G., & Schmittlein, D. C. (1981). Predicting future random events based on past performance. Management Science, 27(9), 1006–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morrison, D. G., & Schmittlein, D. C. (1988). Generalizing the NBD model for customer purchases: what are the implications and is it worth the effort? Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 6(2), 145–159.Google Scholar
  18. Neslin, S., & Shoemaker, R. W. (1989). An alternative explanation for lower repeat rates after promotion purchases. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2), 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raj, S. P. (1985). Striking a balance between brand “popularity” and brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosenberg, L., & Czepiel, J. (1983). A marketing approach for consumer retention. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1(1), 45–51.Google Scholar
  21. Schmittlein, D. C., Cooper, L. G., & Morrison, D. G. (1993). Truth in concentration in the land of (80/20) laws. Marketing Science, 12(2), 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shin, J., & Sudhir, K. (2010). A customer management dilemma: when is it profitable to reward one’s own customers? Marketing Science, 29(4), 671–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Twedt, D. W. (1964). How important to marketing strategy is the heavy users? Journal of Marketing, 28(1), 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Baek Jung Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vishal Singh
    • 1
  • Russell S. Winer
    • 1
  1. 1.Marketing Department, Stern School of BusinessNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations