Skip to main content
Log in

A Micromodel of New Product Adoption with Heterogeneous and Forward-Looking Consumers: Application to the Digital Camera Category

  • Published:
Quantitative Marketing and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We develop an empirical model for the adoption process of a new durable product that accounts for consumer heterogeneity as well as consumers” forward-looking behavior. Accounting for heterogeneity is important for two reasons. As the mix of consumers with different preferences and price sensitivities could change over time, firms need to update their marketing strategies. Further, it allows for a variety of shapes for the aggregate adoption process over time. As prices for durable and technology products fall over time with firms continually introducing enhanced products, consumers may anticipate these prices and improvements and delay their purchases in the product category. Forward-looking consumers optimize purchase timing by trading off their utilities from buying the product and their expectations on future prices, quality levels, and brand availability. Such forward-looking behavior will result in price dynamics in the marketplace as price changes today influence future purchases. And it results in different shapes of the new product sales pattern over time by influencing the time to take-off. We show how the parameters of our model can be estimated using aggregate data on the sales, prices, and attributes of brands in a product category. We apply our model to market data from the digital camera category. Our data are consistent with the presence of both heterogeneity and forward looking behavior among consumers. At the product category level, we are able to decompose the effects of the entry of Sony into primary demand expansion and switching from other brands. At the brand level, we find that there exist several segments in the market with different preferences for the brands and different price sensitivities leading to differences in adoption timing and brand choice across segments. For a given brand, we show how the changing customer mix over time has implications for that brand”s pricing strategies. We characterize how price effects vary across brands and over time and how price changes in a given time period influence sales in subsequent periods. Model comparison and validation results are also provided.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal, R. and B. Bayus. (2002). “Market Evolution and Sales Takeoff of Product Innovations”, Management Science 48(8), 1024–1041.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, F.M. (1969). “A New Product Growth Model for Consumer Durables”, Management Science 15, 215–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, F.M., T.V. Krishnan, and D.C. Jain. (1994). “Why the Bass Model Fits without Decision Variables”, Marketing Science 13(3), 203–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayus, B.L. (1992). “The Dynamic Pricing of Next Generation Consumer Durables”, Marketing Science 11(3), 251–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergemann, D. and J. Valimaki. (1997). “Market Diffusion with Two-Sided Learning”, RAND Journal of Economics 28(4), 773–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, S., J. Levinshon, and A. Pakes. (1995). “Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium', Econometrica 63(4), 841–890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, E., C.K. Yim, and R.A. Briesch. (1995). “A High-Tech Product Market Share Model with Customer Expectations”, Marketing Science 14(1), 61–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, R. and J. Eliashberg. (1990). “The Innovation Diffusion Process in a Heterogeneous Population: A Micromodeling Approach”, Management Science 36(9), 1057–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T., S. Imai, and M. Keane. (2003). “A Model of Consumer Brand and Quantity Choice Dynamics under Price Uncertainty”, Quantitative Marketing and Economics 1(1), 5–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T. and M.P. Keane. (1996). “Decision-making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets”, Marketing Science 15(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, J., B. Libai, and E. Muller. (2002). “Riding the Saddle: How Cross-Market Communications Can Create a Major Slump in Sales”, Journal of Marketing 66(2), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golder, P.N. and G.J. Tellis. (1997). “Will It Ever Fly? Modeling the Takeoff of Really New Consumer Durables”, Marketing Science 16(3), 256–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonul, F. and K. Srinivasan. (1996). “Estimating the Impact of Consumer Expectations of Coupons on Purchase Behavior: A Dynamic Structural Model”, Marketing Science 15(3), 262–279.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Halder, S. and V.R. Rao. (1998). “A Micro-Analytic Threshold Model for the Timing of First Purchases of Durable Goods”, Applied Economics 30, 959–974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holak, S.L., D.R. Lehmann, and F. Sultan. (1987). “The Role of Expectation in the Adoption of Innovative Consumer Durables: Some Preliminary Evidence”, Journal of Retailing 63(3), 243–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horsky, D. (1990). “A Diffusion Model Incorporating Product Benefits, Price, Income, and Information”, Marketing Science 9(4), 342–365.

    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, 379–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, T.V., F.M. Bass, and D.C. Jain. (1999). “Optimal Pricing Strategy for New Products”, Management Science 45(12), 1650–1663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, T.V., F.M. Bass, and V. Kumar. (2000). “Impact of a Late Entrant on the Diffusion of a New Product/Service”, Journal of Marketing Research 37, 269–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, V., E. Muller, and F. Bass. (1990). “New Product Diffusion Models in Marketing: A Review and Directions for Research”, Journal of Marketing 54, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melnikov, O. (2000). “Demand for Differentiated Durable Products: The Case of the U.S. Computer Printer Market”, Working Paper, Department of Economics, Yale University.

  • Moore, G.A. (1995). Inside the Tornado. New York: Harper Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narasimhan, C. (1989). “Incorporating Consumer Price Expectations in Diffusion Model”, Marketing Science 8(4), 343–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oren, S.S. and R.G. Schwartz. (1988). “Diffusion of New Products in Risk-Sensitive Markets”, Journal of Forecasting 7, 273–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakes, A. (1986). “Patents as Options: Some Estimates of the Value of Holding European Patent Stocks”, Econometrica 54(4), 755–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J.H. and G.L. Urban. (1988). “Modeling Multivariate Utility, Risk, and Belief Dynamics for New Consumer Durable Brand Choice”, Management Science 34(2), 167–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, J. (1987). “Optimal Replacement of GMC Bus Engines: An Empirical Model of Harold Zurcher”, Econometrica 55(5), 999–1033.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, J. (1994). “Structural Estimation ofMarkov Decision Process''. In Handbook of Econometrics, Vol.IV, edited by R.F. Engle and D.L. McFadden, Elsevier Science B.V.

  • Sethuraman, R., V. Srinivasan, and D. Kim. (1999). “Asymmetric and Neighborhood Cross-Price Effects: Some Empirical Generalizations”, Marketing Science 8(1), 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethuraman, R. and V. Srinivasan. (2002). “The Asymmetric Share Effect: An Empirical Generalization on Cross-Price Effects”, Journal of Marketing Research 39, 379–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, R. and M. Chandrashekaran. (1992). “A Split Hazard Model Model for Analyzing the Diffusion of Innovations”, Journal of Marketing Research 29, 116–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V. and C.H. Mason. (1986). “Nonlinear Least Squares Estimation of New Product Diffusion Models”, Marketing Science 5(2), 169–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (1997). “Computer Use in the United States”, U.S. Department of Commerce.

  • Winer, R.S. (1985). “A Price Vector Model of Demand for Consumer Durables: Preliminary Developments”, Marketing Science 4(1), 74–90.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inseong Song.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Song, I., Chintagunta, P.K. A Micromodel of New Product Adoption with Heterogeneous and Forward-Looking Consumers: Application to the Digital Camera Category. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 1, 371–407 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QMEC.0000004843.41279.f3

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QMEC.0000004843.41279.f3

Navigation