Skip to main content
Log in

Which Brands Gain Share from Which Brands? Inference from Store-Level Scanner Data

Quantitative Marketing and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Market share models for weekly store-level data are useful to understand competitive structures by delivering own and cross price elasticities. These models can however not be used to examine which brands lose share to which brands during a specific period of time. It is for this purpose that we propose a new model, which does allow for such an examination. We illustrate the model for two product categories in two markets, and we provide share-switching estimates. We also demonstrate how our model can be used to decompose own and cross price elasticities.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allenby, G.M. and P.E. Rossi. (1991). “Quality Perceptions and Asymmetric Switching Between Brands.” Marketing Science 10(3), 185–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.E., R.L. Keeney, and J.D.C. Little. (1975). “A Market Share Theorem.” Journal of Marketing Research 12(May), 136–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M. and S.R. Lerman. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, S., J. Levinsohn, and A. Pakes. (1995). “Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium.” Econometrica 63(July), 841–890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blattberg, R.C., R. Briesch, and E.J. Fox. (1995). “How Promotions Work.” Marketing Science 14(3), G122–G132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blattberg, R.C. and K.J. Wisniewski. (1989). “Price-Induced Patterns of Competition.” Marketing Science 8(4), 291–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodie, R. and C.A. De Kluyver. (1984). “Attraction Versus Linear and Multiplicative Market Share Models: An Empirical Evaluation.” Journal of Marketing Research 11(May), 194–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronnenberg, B.J. and L. Wathieu. (1996). “Asymmetric Promotion Effects and Brand Positioning.” Marketing Science 15(4), 379–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucklin, R.E. and J.M. Lattin, (1991). “A Two-State Model of Purchase Incidence and Brand Choice.” Marketing Science 10(1), 24–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucklin, R.E., G.J. Russell, and V. Srinivasan. (1998). “A Relationship Between Market Share Elasticities and Brand Switching Probabilities.” Journal of Marketing Research 35(February), 99–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Che, H., P.B. Seetharaman, and K. Sudhir. (2003). “Pricing Behavior in Markets with State Dependence in Demand.” Working paper.

  • Chen, Y., V. Kanetkar, and D.L. Weiss. (1994). “Forecasting Market Shares with Disaggregate or Pooled Data: A Comparison of Attraction Models.” International Journal of Forecasting 10, 263–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chintagunta, P.K. (2000). “A Flexible Aggregate Logit Demand Model.” Working paper, University of Chicago.

  • Cooper, L.G. (1993). “Market-Share Models.” In J. Eliashberg and G.L. Lilien (eds.), Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science Vol. 5, Elsevier Science Publishers.

  • Cooper, L.G. and M. Nakanishi. (1988). Market Share Analysis: Evaluating Competitive Marketing Effectiveness. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Doornik, J.A. (1998). Object-Oriented Matrix Programming using Ox 2.0. Timberlake Consultants, London, http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Users/Doornik.

  • Fok, D., P.H. Franses, and R. Paap. (2002). “Econometric Analysis of the Market Share Attraction Model.” In P.H. Franses and A.L. Montgomery (eds.), Advances in Econometrics Vol. 16: Econometric Models in Marketing. Elsevier Science Publishers.

  • Givon, M. (1984). “Variety Seeking Through Brand Switching.” Marketing Science 3(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guadagni, P.M. and J.D.C. Little (1983). “A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data.” Marketing Science 2(3), 203–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S. (1988). “Impact of Sales Promotions on When, What, and How Much to Buy.” Journal of Marketing Research 25(November), 342–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., P. Chintagunta, A. Kaul, and D.R. Wittink. (1996). “Do Household Scanner Data Provide Representative Inferences From Brand Choices: A Comparison With Store Data.” Journal of Marketing Research 33(November), 383–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, J.D. (1994). Time Series Analysis. Princeton University Press.

  • Hardie, B.G.S., E.J. Johnson, and P.S. Fader. (1993). “Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice.” Marketing Science 12(4), 378–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W.A. and G.J. Russell. (1989). “A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure.” Journal of Marketing Research 26(November), 379–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V. and T.B. Heath. (1990). “A Comparative Study of Market Share Models Using Disaggregate Data.” International Journal of Forecasting 6, 163–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lal, R. and V. Padmanabhan. (1995). “Competitive Response and Equilibria.” Marketing Science 14(3), G101–G108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattin, J.M. and L. McAlister. (1985). “Using a Variety-Seeking Model to Identify Substitute and Complementary Relationships Among Competing Products.” Journal of Marketing Research 22(August), 330–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeflang, P.S.H. (1974). Mathematical Models in Marketing. Stenfert Kroese, Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeflang, P.S.H., D.R. Wittink, M. Wedel, and P.A. Naert. (2000), Building Models for Marketing Decisions. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • McAlister, L. and E. Pessemier, (1982). “Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review.” Journal of Consumer Research 9(December), 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1974). “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In P. Zarembka (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, Chapter 4, Academic Press.

  • Naert, P.A. and M. Weverbergh. (1981). “On the Prediction Power of Market Share Attraction Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 18(May), 146–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, G.J. and W.A. Kamakura. (1994). “Understanding Brand Competition Using Micro and Macro Scanner Data.” Journal of Marketing Research 31(May), 289–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seetharaman, P.B. and P. Chintagunta. (1998). “A Model of Inertia and Variety-Seeking with Marketing Variables.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 15, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethuraman, R., V. Srinivasan, and D. Kim. (1999). “Asymmetric and Neighborhood Cross-Price Effects: Some Empirical Generalizations.” Marketing Science 18(1), 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Heerde, H.J., S. Gupta, and D.R. Wittink, (2002). “Is 3/4 of the Sales Promotion Bump Due to Brand Switching? No, it is 1/3.” Journal of Marketing Research forthcoming.

  • Villas-Boas, J.M. and R.S. Winer. (1999). “Endogeneity in Brand Choice Models.” Management Science 45(October), 1324–1338.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rutger van Oest.

Additional information

JEL Classification: C10, C51, C53, M31

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Oest, R. Which Brands Gain Share from Which Brands? Inference from Store-Level Scanner Data. Quant Market Econ 3, 281–304 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-005-0302-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-005-0302-x

Keywords

Navigation