Advertisement

Journal of Marketing Analytics

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 234–250 | Cite as

Using a two-part mixed-effects model for understanding daily, individual-level media behavior

  • Shelley A. BlozisEmail author
  • Ricardo Villarreal
  • Sweta Thota
  • Nicholas Imparato
Original Article
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

This study supports a strategic analytics proposal, namely that there is conceptual and practical utility in applying a two-part mixed-effects model for understanding individual differences in daily media use. Individual-level daily diary measures of media use typically contain information about a person’s likeliness to use media, extent of usage, and variation in use across days that, taken together, can provide data for evaluating media behavior that is otherwise masked by using aggregate measures. The statistical framework developed and demonstrated here focuses on these three metrics. The approach, applied to daily diary measures of television use in a large, representative U.S. sample, yields results that add value when weighing media strategies centered on the twin tactics of reach and frequency. The implications for the proposed analytic strategy are discussed.

Keywords

Media TV Mixed-effects models Diary data Repeated measures Frequency versus reach 

Notes

References

  1. Aitkin, M. 1987. Modelling variance heterogeneity in normal regression using GLIM. Applied Statistics 36 (3): 332–339.Google Scholar
  2. Beal, V., J. Romaniuk, and B. Sharp. 2018. Television advertising television: measuring the ability of television promos to deliver ratings for new programs using single-source data. International Journal of Advertising 3 (3): 463–481.Google Scholar
  3. Carroll, R.J., and D. Ruppert. 1988. Transformation and Weighting in Regression. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Cheon, H.J., F.R. Fraser, and T.K. Nguyen. 2018. Family-based treatment for obesity in tweens: A three-year longitudinal follow-up study. International Journal of Advertising 37 (4): 548–567.Google Scholar
  5. Cook, R.D., and S. Weisberg. 1983. Diagnostics for heteroscedasticity in regression. Biometrika 70 (1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  6. Danaher, P.J., and T.S. Dagger. 2013. Comparing the relative effectiveness of advertising channels: a case study of a multimedia blitz campaign. Journal of Marketing Research 50 (4): 517–534.Google Scholar
  7. Duan, N., W.G. Manning, Jr., C.N. Morris, and J.P. Newhouse. 1983. A comparison of alternative models for the demand for medical care. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 1 (2): 115–126.Google Scholar
  8. Gottard, A., E. Stanghellini, and R. Capobianco. 2013. Semicontinuous regression models with skew distribution. In Complex Models and Computational Methods in Statistics, ed. M. Grigoletto, L. Francesco, and S. Petrone, 149–160. Verlag-Mailand: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Hallward, J. 2008. Make measurable what is not so: consumer mix modeling for the evolving media world. Journal of Advertising Research 44 (3): 339–351.Google Scholar
  10. Harvey, A.C. 1976. Estimating regression models with multiplicative heteroscedasticity. Econometrica 44 (3): 461–465.Google Scholar
  11. Kazakova, S., V. Cauberghe, L. Hudders, and C. Labyt. 2016. The impact of media multitasking on the cognitive and attitudinal response to television commercials: The moderating role of type of advertising appeal. Journal of Advertising 45 (4): 403–416.Google Scholar
  12. Kelly, J.S., and S.K. Jones. 2012. The IMC Handbook: Readings & Cases in Integrated Marketing Communications. Chicago: Ramcom Communications.Google Scholar
  13. La Ferle, C., and W.N. Lee. 2005. Can English language media connect with ethnic audiences? Ethnic minorities’ media use and representation perceptions. Journal of Advertising Research 45 (1): 140–153.Google Scholar
  14. Laird, N.M., and J.H. Ware. 1982. Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 38 (4): 963–974.Google Scholar
  15. Larsen, K., J.H. Petersen, E. Budtz-Jorgensen, and L. Endahl. 2000. Interpreting parameters in the logistic regression model with random effects. Biometrics 56 (3): 909–914.Google Scholar
  16. Lin, C., S. Venkataraman, and S.D. Jap. 2013. Media multiplexing behaviour: implications for targeting and media planning. Marketing Science 32 (2): 310–324.Google Scholar
  17. Liu, L., R.L. Strawderman, M.E. Cowen, and Y.C. Shih. 2010. A flexible two-part random effects model for correlated medical costs. Journal of Health Economics 29: 110–123.Google Scholar
  18. Min, Y., and A. Agresti. 2002. Modeling nonnegative data with clumping at zero: a survey. Journal of the Iranian Statistical Society 1 (1–2): 7–33.Google Scholar
  19. McDonal, C., and Ehrenberg, A.S.C. 2003. What happens when brands gain or lose share? Customer acquisition or increased loyalty?: Report 31 for Corporate Members. Adelaide, Australian: Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science.Google Scholar
  20. Molenberghs, G., and M. Kenward. 2007. Missing Data in Clinical Studies. West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Mora, J.D. 2016. Social context and advertising effectiveness: a dynamic study. International Journal of Advertising 35 (2): 325–344.Google Scholar
  22. Nelson-Field, K., E. Riebe, and B. Sharp. 2012. What’s not to “like?”: Can Facebook fan base give a brand the advertising reach it needs? Journal of Advertising Research 52 (2): 262–269.Google Scholar
  23. O’Guinn, T.C., C.T. Allen, A. Close Scheinbaum, and R.J. Semenik. 2019. Advertising and Integrated Brand Promotion. Boston: Cengage Learning Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Olsen, M.K., and J.L. Schafer. 2001. A two-part random effects model for semicontinuous longitudinal data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96 (454): 730–745.Google Scholar
  25. Precourt, G. 2017. Why tv still matters. Journal of Advertising Research 57 (1): 1–2.Google Scholar
  26. Ryff, C.D., and Almeida, D. Midlife in the United States (MIDUS Refresher): Daily Diary Project, 2012-2014. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2018-06-06.Google Scholar
  27. Schmidt, S., and M. Eisend. 2015. Advertising repetition: a meta-analysis on effective frequency in advertising. Journal of Advertising 44 (4): 415–428.Google Scholar
  28. Tobin, J. 1958. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 26 (1): 24–36.Google Scholar
  29. Wolfinger, R.D. 1999. Fitting nonlinear mixed models with the new NLMIXED procedure. Paper 287, SUGI Proceedings. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Wolfinger, R.D. 2000. Fitting nonlinear mixed models with the new NLMIXED procedure, Paper 287, SAS Institute Inc., Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Xing, D., Y. Huang, H. Chen, Y. Zhu, G.A. Dagne, and J. Baldwin. 2017. Bayesian inference for two-part mixed-effects model using skew distributions, with application to longitudinal semicontinuous alcohol data. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 26 (4): 1838–1853.Google Scholar
  32. Xu, S., and S.A. Blozis. 2011. Sensitivity analysis of mixed models for incomplete longitudinal data. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 36 (2): 237–256.Google Scholar
  33. Xu, S., S.A. Blozis, and E. Vandewater. 2014. On fitting a multivariate two-part latent growth model. Structural Equation Modeling 21 (1): 131–148.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shelley A. Blozis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ricardo Villarreal
    • 2
  • Sweta Thota
    • 2
  • Nicholas Imparato
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Marketing, School of ManagementUniversity of San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations