Marketing Letters

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 381–389 | Cite as

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

  • Raphael Thomadsen
  • Robert Zeithammer
  • Ganesh Iyer
  • Dina Mayzlin
  • Yesim Orhun
  • Amit Pazgal
  • Devavrat Purohit
  • Ram Rao
  • Michael Riordan
  • Jiwoong Shin
  • Monic Sun
  • Miguel Villas-Boas
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Analytical work Marketing Game theory Equilibrium analysis 

References

  1. Acquisti, A., & Varian, H. R. (2005). Conditioning prices on purchase history. Marketing Science, 24(3), 367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bass, F. M. (1995). Empirical generalizations and marketing science: a personal view. Marketing Science, 14(3), G6–G19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Branco, F., & Villas-Boas, J. M. (2010). Competitive vices. Working paper.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, Y., & Riordan, M. H. (2007). Price and variety in the spokes model. The Economic Journal, 117(522 (07)), 897–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, Y., & Riordan, M. H. (2010). Preferences, prices and performance in monopoly and duopoly. Working paper.Google Scholar
  6. Coughlan, A. T., Chan Choi, S., Chu, W., Ingene, C. A., Sridhar Moorthy, V., Padmanabhan, J. S., et al. (2010). Marketing modeling reality and the realities of marketing modeling. Marketing Letters, 21, 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Desai, P., Purohit, D., & Vernik, D. (2011). Music downloads and the flip side of DRM protection. Marketing Science, 30, 1011–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fudenberg, D., & Villas-Boas, J. M. (2006). Behavior-based price discrimination and customer recognition. In T. J. Hendershott (Ed.), Handbook on economics and information systems (Vol. 1, pp. 377–436). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2010). Using the compensation scheme to signal the ease of a task. Working paper.Google Scholar
  10. Guo, L., & Iyer, G. (2010). Multilateral bargaining and downstream competition. Working paper.Google Scholar
  11. Hart, O. D., & Tirole, J. (1988). Contract renegotiation and coasian dynamics. Review of Economic Studies, 55(4), 509–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meyer, R. J., Vosgerau, J., Singh, V., Urbany, J. E., Zuberman, G., Norton, M. I., et al. (2010). Behavioral research and empirical modeling of marketing channels: implications for both fields and a call for future research. Marketing Letters, 21, 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Orhun, Y. (2010). Strategic interactions in the presence of heterogeneous beliefs. Working paper.Google Scholar
  14. Pazgal, A., & Soberman, D. (2008). Behavior-based discrimination: is it a winning play and if so when? Marketing Science, 27(6), 977–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pazgal, A., & Soberman, D. (2010). Behavior-based and location-based prices: winning with information. Working paper.Google Scholar
  16. Shaked, A., & Sutton, J. (1982). Relaxing price competition through product differentiation. Review of Economic Studies, 49, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shin, J., & Sudhir, K. (2010). A customer management dilemma: when is it profitable to reward your own customers? Marketing Science, 29, 671–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shin, J., Sudhir K., & Yoon, D.-H. (2012). Customer cost based pricing. Management Science (in press).Google Scholar
  19. Shugan. (2005). Marketing and designing transaction games. Marketing Science, 24(4), 525–530. Fall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sun, M., Villas-Boas, M., & Branco, F. (2012). Optimal search for product information. Management Science (in press).Google Scholar
  21. Thomadsen, R., Pagal, A., & Soberman, D. (2012). Location choice and profit-increasing entry. working paper.Google Scholar
  22. Villas-Boas, J. M. (2004). Price cycles in markets with customer recognition. RAND Journal of Economics, 35(3), 486–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zeithammer, R., & Thomadsen, R. (2012). Vertical differentiation in the presence of variety seeking. Management Science (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphael Thomadsen
    • 1
  • Robert Zeithammer
    • 1
  • Ganesh Iyer
    • 2
  • Dina Mayzlin
    • 3
  • Yesim Orhun
    • 4
  • Amit Pazgal
    • 5
  • Devavrat Purohit
    • 6
  • Ram Rao
    • 7
  • Michael Riordan
    • 8
  • Jiwoong Shin
    • 3
  • Monic Sun
    • 9
  • Miguel Villas-Boas
    • 2
  1. 1.UCLA Anderson School of ManagementLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Berkeley Haas School of BusinessBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Yale School of ManagementNew HavenUSA
  4. 4.Ross School of BusinessUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Jones School of BusinessRice UniversityHoustonUSA
  6. 6.Duke Fuqua School of BusinessDurhamUSA
  7. 7.School of ManagementUniversity of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA
  8. 8.Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  9. 9.Stanford Graduate School of BusinessStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations