Advertisement

Econometric Models for Forecasting Market Share

  • Roderick J. Brodie
  • Peter J. Danaher
  • V. Kumar
  • Peter S. H. Leeflang
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 30)

Abstract

By reviewing the literature we developed principles to guide market analysts in their use of econometric models to forecast market share. We rely on the general principles for econometric forecasting developed by Allen and Fildes (2001) to arrive at specific principles. The theoretical and empirical evidence indicates that they should use econometric market share models when
  1. 1.

    effects of current marketing activity are strong relative to the carryover effects of past marketing activity,

     
  2. 2.

    there are enough observations,

     
  3. 3.

    the models allow for variation in response for individual brands,

     
  4. 4.

    the models are estimated using disaggregate (store-level) data rather than aggregate data,

     
  5. 5.

    the data exhibit enough variability, and

     
  6. 6.

    competitors’ actions can be forecast with reasonable accuracy.

     

In most situations the first five conditions can be satisfied. Condition 6 is more difficult to satisfy and is a priority area for further research. If one or more of the conditions are not satisfied then an extrapolation or judgment forecasting method may be more appropriate.

Keywords

Bias competitors’ actions conditions disaggregation econometric models explanatory power forecasting accuracy market-share models measurement error model specification naive models precision sample size time-series models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aaker, D. A. and R. Jacobson (1987), “The sophistication of `naïve’ modelling,” International Journal of Forecasting, 3, 449–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal, D. and C. Schorling (1996), “Market share forecasting: An empirical comparison of artificial networks and multinomial logit model,” Journal of Retailing, 72, 383–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, P. G. and R. Fildes (2001), “Econometric forecasting” in J. S. Armstrong (ed.), Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, Mass: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Alsem, K. J. and P. S. H. Leeflang (1994), “Predicting advertising expenditure using intention surveys,” International Journal of Forecasting, 10, 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alsem, K. J., P. S. H. Leeflang and J. C. Reuyl (1989), “The forecasting accuracy of market share models using predicted values of competitive marketing behaviour,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 6, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Armstrong, J. S. (2001), “Selecting forecasting methods,” in J. S. Armstrong (ed.), Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, Mass: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Armstrong, J. S. and R. J. Brodie (1999), “Forecasting for marketing,” in G. Hooley and M. Hussey (ed), Quantitative Methods in Marketing. International Thomson Business Press, 2nd ed., pp. 18–40.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, D. E., R. L, Keeney and J. D. C. Little (1975), “A market share theorem,” Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brodie, R. J. and A. Bonfrer (1994), “Conditions when market share models are useful for forecasting: Further empirical results,” International Journal of Forecasting, 10, 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brodie, R. J., A. Bonfrer and J. Cutler (1996), “Do managers overreact to each others’ promotional activity? Further empirical evidence,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brodie, R. and C. A. de Kluyver (1984), “Attraction versus linear and multiplicative market share models: An empirical evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brodie, R. and C. A. de Kluyver (1987), “A comparison of the short term forecasting accuracy of econometric and naive extrapolation models of market share,” International Journal of Forecasting,3, 423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cattin, P. and D. Wittink (1982), “Commercial use of conjoint analysis: A survey,” Journal of Marketing, 46, 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chatfield, C. (1993), “Neural networks: Forecasting breakthrough or passing fad?” International Journal of Forecasting, 9, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen, Y., V. Kanetkar and D. L. Weiss (1994), “Forecasting market share with dissagregate or pooled data: A comparison of attraction models,” International Journal of Forecasting, 10, 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christen, M., S. J. C. Gupta, R. Porter, R. Staelin and D.R. Wittink (1997), “Using market-level data to understand promotion effects in a nonlinear model,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper, L. G. (1993), “Market-share models,” in J. Eliashberg and G. L. Lilien (eds.), Handbooks on Operations, Research and Management Science: Marketing. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 259–314.Google Scholar
  18. Cooper, L. G. and M. Nakanishi (1988), Market Share Analysis: Evaluating Competitive Marketing Effectiveness. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Danaher, P. J. (1994), “Comparing naive and econometric market share models when competitors’ actions are forecast,” International Journal of Forecasting, 10, 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Danaher, P. J. and R. J. Brodie (1992), “Predictive accuracy of simple versus complex econometric market share models: Theoretical and empirical results,” International Journal of Forecasting, 8, 613–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foekens, E. W., P. S. H. Leeflang and D. R. Wittink (1994), “A comparison and an exploration of the forecasting accuracy of a loglinear model at different levels of aggregation,” International Journal of Forecasting, 10, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foekens, E. W., P. S. H. Leeflang and D. R. Wittink (1997), “Hierarchical versus other market share models for many market items, ” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14, 359–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foekens, E. W., P. S. H. Leeflang and D. R. Wittink (1999), “Varying parameter models to accommodate dynamic promotion effects,” Journal of Econometrics, 89, 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghosh, A., S. Neslin and R. Shoemaker (1984), “A comparison of market share models and estimation procedures,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hagerty, M. R. (1987), “Conditions under which econometric models will outperform naïve models,” International Journal of Forecasting, 3, 457–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanssens, D. M., L J. Parsons and R. L. Schultz (1990), Market Response Models: Econometric and Time Series Models. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Jex, C. F. (1994), “Recursive estimation as an aid to exploratory data analysis an application market share models,” International Journal of Forecasting, 10, 445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kmenta, J. (1986), Elements of Econometrics, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Kumar, V. (1994), “Forecasting performance of market share models: An assessment, additional insights, and guidelines,” International Journal of Forecasting, 10, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kumar, V. and T. B. Heath (1990), “A comparative study of market share models using disaggregate data,” International Journal of Forecasting, 6, 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumar, A., V. R. Rao and H. Soni (1995), “An empirical comparison of neural networks and logistic regression models,” Marketing Letters, 6, 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lawrence, K., M. Geurts and I. R. Parket (1990), “Forecasting market share using a combination of time series data and explanatory variables: A tutorial,” Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 36, 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leeflang, P. S. H. and J. C. Reuyl (1984), “On the predictive power of market share attraction models, Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 211–215.Google Scholar
  34. Leeflang, P. S. H. and D. R. Wittink (1992), “Diagnosing competitive reactions using (aggregated) scanner data,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9, 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leeflang, P. S. H. and D. R. Wittink (1996), “Competitive reaction versus consumer response: Do managers overreact?” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Naert, P. A. and M. Weverbergh (1981), “On the predictive power of market share attraction models, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 146–153.Google Scholar
  37. Naert, P. A. and M. Weverbergh (1985), “Market share specification, estimation, and validation: Toward reconciling seemingly divergent views,” Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 453–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singer, A. and R. J. Brodie (1990), “Forecasting competitors’ actions: An evaluation of alternative ways of analyzing business competition,” International Journal of Forecasting, 6, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Steckel, J. H. and W. R. Vanhonacker (1993), “Cross-validating regression models in marketing research,” Marketing Science, 12, 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. West, P. M., P. L. Brockett and L. L. Golden (1997), “A comparative analysis of neural networks and statistical methods for predicting consumer choice,” Marketing Science, 16, 370–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wittink, D. R. (1987), “Casual market share models in marketing. Neither forecasting nor understanding,” International Journal of Forecasting, 3, 445–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zellner, A. (1962), “An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregate bias,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57, 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roderick J. Brodie
    • 1
  • Peter J. Danaher
    • 1
  • V. Kumar
    • 2
  • Peter S. H. Leeflang
    • 3
  1. 1.University of AucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.University of HoustonUSA
  3. 3.University of GroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations