Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Marketing Analytics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AdAge. 2017. Marketing Fact Pack 2018 http://adage.com/d/resources/resources/whitepaper/marketing-fact-pack-2018.

  • Aitkin, M. 1987. Modelling variance heterogeneity in normal regression using GLIM. Applied Statistics 36 (3): 332–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, R.J., and D. Ruppert. 1988. Transformation and Weighting in Regression. New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, R.D., and S. Weisberg. 1983. Diagnostics for heteroscedasticity in regression. Biometrika 70 (1): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, A.C. 1976. Estimating regression models with multiplicative heteroscedasticity. Econometrica 44 (3): 461–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, J.S., and S.K. Jones. 2012. The IMC Handbook: Readings & Cases in Integrated Marketing Communications. Chicago: Ramcom Communications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laird, N.M., and J.H. Ware. 1982. Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 38 (4): 963–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C., S. Venkataraman, and S.D. Jap. 2013. Media multiplexing behaviour: implications for targeting and media planning. Marketing Science 32 (2): 310–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Molenberghs, G., and M. Kenward. 2007. Missing Data in Clinical Studies. West Sussex: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mora, J.D. 2016. Social context and advertising effectiveness: a dynamic study. International Journal of Advertising 35 (2): 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Precourt, G. 2017. Why tv still matters. Journal of Advertising Research 57 (1): 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Schmidt, S., and M. Eisend. 2015. Advertising repetition: a meta-analysis on effective frequency in advertising. Journal of Advertising 44 (4): 415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, J. 1958. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 26 (1): 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger, R.D. 1999. Fitting nonlinear mixed models with the new NLMIXED procedure. Paper 287, SUGI Proceedings. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shelley A. Blozis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

The lognormal and gamma distributions are part of a class of generalized gamma distributions. Depending on their parameters, both can be monotonically declining or bell-shaped and skewed to the right. The lognormal distribution can be characterized by a mean (µlog(y)) and a variance (\(\sigma_{\log (y)}^{2}\)), both of which relate to the log of y: log(y). The probability density function (PDF) of the lognormal distribution for a random variable Y can be given as

$$f\left( {y|\mu_{\log \left( y \right)} ,\sigma_{\log \left( y \right)}^{2} } \right) = \frac{1}{{y_{{i\sqrt {2\sigma^{2} \pi } }} }}\exp \left\{ { - \frac{1}{2}\left( {\frac{{\left( {\log \left( {y_{i} } \right) - \mu_{\log \left( y \right)} } \right)}}{{\sigma^{2}_{\log \left( y \right)} }}} \right)} \right\}^{{}}.$$

Note that y > 0 and both µ and σ2 > 0.

The gamma distribution can be characterized by two parameters, namely a shape (γ) and scale (θ) parameter. The PDF of the gamma distribution for a random variable Y with γ and θ parameters can be given as

$$f\left( {y|\gamma ,\theta } \right) = - \theta \log \left\{ \gamma \right\} - \log \left\{ {\varGamma \left( \theta \right)} \right\} + \left( {\theta - 1} \right)\log \left\{ y \right\} - y/\gamma,$$

where \(\varGamma \left( \theta \right)\) is the standard gamma function of the scale parameter θ. Note that y > 0, γ > , and θ > 0. It is useful to relate the shape and scale parameters to the mean, variance, and standard deviation of y:

$$\mu_{Y} = \gamma \theta ,\;\sigma_{Y}^{2} = \gamma \theta^{2} ,\sigma_{Y}^{{}} = \sqrt {\gamma \theta^{2} },$$
(8)

respectively.

Appendix 2

Empirical Bayes estimates of the random effects based on a two-part mixed-effects model. Values are the random effects relating to the individual estimated logits (upper figure), log time spent (middle figure), and variance of log time spent (bottom figure).

figure a
figure b
figure c

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blozis, S.A., Villarreal, R., Thota, S. et al. Using a two-part mixed-effects model for understanding daily, individual-level media behavior. J Market Anal 7, 234–250 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-019-00062-7

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-019-00062-7

Keywords

Navigation