Skip to main content

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This figure holds for temporary price cuts without feature or display support. A feature or display may increase the sales effect up to a factor 9 (Narasimhan et al. 1996).

  2. 2.

    The derivation of CV and its place in the purchase incidence models can be derived from a “nested” logit framework (e.g., see Bucklin et al. 1998).

  3. 3.

    Multinomial probit is an alternative to the logit (e.g., see Jedidi et al. (1999). The advantage of the probit model is that it avoids the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) assumption of logit models (see Guadagni and Little 1983). However, it does not produce a closed form for the probability of consumer choice.

  4. 4.

    The full expressions for the elasticities are not shown due to space restrictions; they require taking the derivatives of Equations (5.2), (5.4), and (5.6) (see Gupta 1988).

  5. 5.

    It is noteworthy that there is some evidence (Abramson et al. 2000; Chiang et al. 1999) that not including choice set heterogeneity significantly distorts parameters. However, perhaps because there have not been too many studies, choice set heterogeneity is usually not included.

  6. 6.

    Another important method is “PromotionScan” (Abraham and Lodish 1993). PromotionScan uses a time series approach to estimating the short-term promotion bump. It is based on the “Promoter” methodology that we discuss in Section 6.8.

  7. 7.

    We note that the final version of this paper (Steenkamp et al. 2005) does not contain these results for anymore, since the journal requested the authors to focus on competitive reactions.

  8. 8.

    The 22% cannot directly be calculated from Table 4 in Macé and Neslin (2004) because the elasticities reported in that table are point elasticities and therefore do not exactly correspond to the 20% price cut effects calculated in that table. However, calculations using the detailed results summarized in Macé and Neslin’s Table 4, reveal that on average, 66.2% of the combined pre and post effect is due to post effects. Since the combined effect reported in Macé and Neslin’s Table 4 is 33.3% of the bump (1–.667 from the last column in the table), the percentage due to postpromotion dips is .662*.333=.2204 = 22.0%.

  9. 9.

    In this same handbook, the chapter by Leeflang (7) provides an in-depth discussion on models for competitive reactions, including structural models.

References

  • Abraham, M.M., L.M. Lodish. 1987. Promoter: An Automated Promotion Evaluation System. Marketing Science 6(2) 101–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abraham, M.M., L.M. Lodish. 1993 An Implemented System for Improving Promotion Productivity Using Store Scanner Data. Marketing Science 12(3) 248–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramson, C., R.L. Andrews, I.S. Currim, M. Jones. 2000. Parameter Bias from Unobserved Effects in the Multinomial Logit Model of Consumer Choice. Journal of Marketing Research 37(4) 410–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ailawadi, K.L., J. Cesar, B. Harlam, D. Trounce. 2007 Quantifying and Improving Promotion Effectiveness at CVS. Marketing Science 26(4) 566–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ailawadi, K.L., K. Gedenk, C. Lutzky, S.A. Neslin. 2007. Decomposition of the Sales Impact of Promotion-Induced Stockpiling. Journal of Marketing Research 44(3) 450–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ailawadi, K.L., K. Gedenk, S.A. Neslin. 1999. Heterogeneity and Purchase Event Feedback in Choice Models: An Empirical Analysis with Implications for Model Building. International Journal of Research in Marketing 16(3) 177–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ailawadi, K.L., S.A. Neslin. 1998. The Effect of Promotion on Consumption: Buying More and Consuming It Faster. Journal of Marketing Research   35(August), 390–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G.M., N. Arora, J.L. Ginter. 1998. On the Heterogeneity of Demand. Journal of Marketing Research 35(3) 384–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R.L., A. Ainslie, I.S. Currim. 2002. An Empirical Comparison of Logit Choice Models with Discrete Versus Continuous Representations of Heterogeneity. Journal of Marketing Research 39(November) 479–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R.L., A. Ansari, I.S. Currim. 2002. Hierarchical Bayes Versus Finite Mixture Conjoint Analysis Models: A Comparison of Fit, Prediction, and Partworth Recovery. Journal of Marketing Research 39(1) 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansari, A., C.F. Mela, S.A. Neslin. 2006. Customer Channel Migration. Working Paper.Columbia Business School, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.R., J. Chiang, V. Padmanabhan. 1999. The Decomposition of Promotional Response: An Empirical Generalization. Marketing Science 18(4) 504–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.R., C.A.L. Hilber. 2006. An Empirical Test of the Theory of Sales: Do Household Storage Constraints Affect Consumer and Store Behavior? Quantitative Marketing and Economics 4(2) 87–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.R., T.-H. Ho, C.S. Tang. 1998. Determining Where to Shop: Fixed and Variable Costs of Shopping. Journal of Marketing Research 35(August) 352–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.R., J.M. Lattin. 1998. Shopping Behavior and Consumer Preference for Store Price Format: Why “Large Basket” Shoppers Prefer EDLP. Marketing Science 17(1) 66–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.R., J.M. Lattin. 2000. Looking for Loss Aversion in Scanner Panel Data: The Confounding Effect of Price Response Heterogeneity. Marketing Science 19(2) 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M., S.R. Lerman. 1991. Discrete Choice Analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, S., J. Levinsohn, and A. Pakes. 1995. Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium. Econometrica 63(4) 841–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besanko, D., J.-P. Dubé, S. Gupta. 2005. Own-Brand and Cross-Brand Retail Pass-Through. Marketing Science 24(1) 123–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besanko, D., S. Gupta, D. Jain. 1998. Logit Demand Estimation Under Competitive Pricing Behavior: An Equilibrium Framework. Management Science 44(11, Part 1 of 2) 1533–1547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijmolt, T.H.A., H.J. Van Heerde, R.G.M. Pieters. 2005. New Empirical Generalizations on the Determinants of Price Elasticity. Journal of Marketing Research 42(May) 141–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blattberg, R.C., R. Briesch, E.J. Fox. 1995. How Promotions Work. Marketing Science. 14(3, Part 2 of 2) g122–g32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blattberg, R.C., A. Levin. 1987. Modelling the Effectiveness and Profitability of Trade Promotions. Marketing Science 6(2) 124–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blattberg, R.C., S.A. Neslin. 1990. Sales Promotion, Concepts, Methods and Strategies. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodapati, A.V., S. Gupta. 2004. The Recoverability of Segmentation Structure from Store-Level Aggregate Data. Journal of Marketing Research 41(August) 351–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodapati, A.V., V. Srinivasan. 2006. The Impact of Feature Advertising on Customer Store Choice. Working Paper, Stanford Graduate School of Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briesch, R.A., L. Krishnamurthi, T. Mazumdar, S.P. Raj. 1997. A Comparative Analysis of Reference Price Models. Journal of Consumer Research 24(September) 202–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucklin, R.E., S. Gupta, S. Siddarth. 1998. Determining Segmentation in Sales Response Across Consumer Purchase Behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research 35(May) 189–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucklin, R.E., J.M. Lattin. 1992. A Model of Product Category Competition Among Grocery Retailers. Journal of Retailing 68(3) 271–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, T., C. Narasimhan, Q. Zhang. 2006. Decomposing Purchase Elasticity with a Dynamic Structural Model of Flexible Consumption. Working Paper, Olin School of Business, Washington University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K., S. Siddarth, C.B. Weinberg. 1999. The Impact of Heterogeneity in Purchase Timing and Price Responsiveness on Estimates of Sticker Shock Effects. Marketing Science 18(2) 178–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, J. 1991. A Simultaneous Approach to the Whether, What and How Much to Buy Questions. Marketing Science 10(4) 297–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, J., S. Chib, C. Narasimhan. 1999. Markov Chain Monte Carlo and Models of Consideration Set and Parameter Heterogeneity. Journal of Econometrics 89(1–2) 223–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chib, S., P.B. Seetharaman, A. Strijnev. 2004. Model of Brand Choice with a No-Purchase Option Calibrated to Scanner-Panel Data. Journal of Marketing Research 41(May) 184–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chintagunta, P.K. 1993. Investigating Purchase Incidence, Brand Choice, and Purchase Quantity Decisions of Households. Marketing Science 12(2) 184–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chintagunta, P.K. 2001. Endogeneity and Heterogeneity in a Probit Demand Model: Estimation Using Aggregate Data. Marketing Science 20(4) 442–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chintagunta, P.K., J.-P. Dubé. 2005. Estimating a Stockkeeping-Unit-Level Brand Choice Model That Combines Household Panel Data and Store Data. Journal of Marketing Research 42(August) 368–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chintagunta, P.K., D.C. Jain, N.J. Vilcassim. 1991. Investigating Heterogeneity in Brand Preferences in Logit Models for Panel Data. Journal of Marketing Research 28(4) 417–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekimpe, M.G., D.M. Hanssens. 1995. The Persistence of Marketing Effects on Sales. Marketing Science 14(1) 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekimpe, M., D.M. Hanssens. 1999. Sustained Spending and Persistent Response: A New Look at Long-Term Marketing Profitability. Journal of Marketing Research 36(November) 397–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Divakar, S., B.T. Ratchford, V. Shankar. 2005. CHAN4CAST: A Multichannel Multiregion Forecasting Model for Consumer Packaged Goods. Marketing Science 24(3) 333–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodson, J.A., A.M. Tybout, B. Sternthal. 1978. Impact of Deal and Deal Retraction on Brand Switching. Journal of Marketing Research 15(May) 72–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drèze, X., D.R. Bell. 2003. Creating Win-Win Trade Promotions: Theory and Empirical Analysis of Scan-Back Trade Deals. Marketing Science 22(1) 16–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, J.-P., P.K. Chintagunta, A. Petrin, B.J. Bronnenberg, R. Goettler, P.B. Seetharaman, K. Sudhir, R. Thomadsen, Y. Zhao. 2002. Structural Applications of the Discrete Choice Model. Marketing Letters 13(3) 207–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T., S. Imai, M.P. Keane. 2003. Brand and Quantity Choice Dynamics Under Price Uncertainty. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 1(1) 5–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T., G. Mayhew, B. Sun. 2001. Understanding Reference-Price Shoppers: A Within- and Cross-Category Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 38(November) 445–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T., B. Sun. 2001. Testing for Choice Dynamics in Panel Data. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 19(2) 142–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fader, P.S., B.G.S. Hardie. 1996. Modeling Consumer Choice Among SKUs. Journal of Marketing Research 33(November) 442–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fok, D., C. Horváth, R. Paap, P.H. Franses. 2006. A Hierachical Bayes Error Correction Model to Explain Dynamic Effects of Price Changes. Journal of Marketing Research 43(August) 443–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franses, P.H. 1994. Modeling New Product Sales; an Application of Cointegration Analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 11(5) 491–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gedenk, K., S.A. Neslin. 1999. The Role of Retail Promotion in Determining Future Brand Loyalty: Its Effect on Future Purchase Event Feedback Journal of Retailing 75(4) 433–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gönül, F., K. Srinivasan. 1996. Estimating the Impact of Consumer Expectations on Purchase Behavior: A Dynamic Structural Model. Marketing Science 15(3) 262–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S. 1988. Impact of Sales Promotion on When, What and How Much to Buy. Journal of Marketing Research 25(November) 342–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., P.K. Chintagunta. 1994. On Using Demographic Variables to Determine Segment Membership in Logit Mixture Models. Journal of Marketing Research 31(1) 128–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, T.-H., J.-K. Chong. 2003. A Parsimonious Model of Stockkeeping-Unit Choice. Journal of Marketing Research 40(August) 351–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horsky, D., S. Misra, P. Nelson. 2006. Observed and Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity in Brand-Choice Models. Marketing Science 25(4) 322–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horváth, C., P.H.B.F. Franses. 2003. Deriving Dynamic Marketing Effectiveness From Econometric Time Series Models. in ERIM Report Series Research in Management. Rotterdam: Erasmus Research Institute of Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, C. 1986. Analysis of Panel Data. Econometric Society Monograph 11, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jedidi, K., C.F. Mela, S. Gupta. 1999. Managing Advertising and Promotion for Long-Run Profitability. Marketing Science 18(1) 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica 47(March) 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyanaram, G., R.S. Winer. 1995. Empirical Generalizations from Reference Price Research. Marketing Science 14(3) G161–G169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W.A., W. Kang. 2007. Chain-Wide and Store-Level Analysis for Cross-Category Management. Journal of Retailing 83(2) 159–170.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane, M.P. 1997a. Modeling Heterogeneity and State Dependence in Consumer Choice Behavior. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 15(3) 310–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane, M.P. 1997b. Current Issues in Discrete Choice Modeling. Marketing Letters 8(3) 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, A., I.S. Currim, R.W. Shoemaker. 1991. Consumer Perceptions of Promotional Activity. Journal of Marketing 55 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnamurthi, L., S.P. Raj. 1988. A Model of Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Price Sensitivities. Marketing Science 7(1) 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, S.Y., M. Vandenbosch, J. Hulland, M. Pearce. 2001. Evaluating Promotions in Shopping Environments: Decomposing Sales Response into Attraction, Conversion, and Spending Effects. Marketing Science 20(2) 194–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeflang, P.S.H., D.R. Wittink. 1992. Diagnosing Competitive Reactions Using (Aggregated) Scanner Data. International Journal of Research in Marketing 9 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeflang, P.S.H., D.R. Wittink. 1996. Competitive Reaction Versus Consumer Response: Do Managers Overreact? International Journal of Research in Marketing 13(2) 103–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodish, L.M. 2007. Another Reason why Academics and Practitioners Should Communicate More. Journal of Marketing Research 44(February) 23–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macé, S., S.A. Neslin. 2004. The Determinants of Pre- and Postpromotion Dips in Sales of Frequently Purchased Goods. Journal of Marketing Research 41(August) 339–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manchanda, P., A. Ansari, S. Gupta. 1999. The “Shopping Basket”: A Model for Multicategory Purchase Incidence Decisions. Marketing Science 18(2) 95–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlister, L. 2007. Cross-Brand Pass-Through: Fact or Artifact?. Marketing Science 26(6) 876–898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mela, C.F., S. Gupta, D.R. Lehmann. 1997. The Long-Term Impact of Promotion and Advertising on Consumer Brand Choice. Journal of Marketing Research 34(May) 248–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mela, C.F., K. Jedidi, D. Bowman. 1998. The Long-Term Impact of Promotions on Consumer Stockpiling Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research. 35(May) 250–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorthy, S. 2005. A General Theory of Pass-Through in Channels with Category Management and Retail Competition. Marketing Science 24(1) 110–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulhern, F.J., R.P. Leone. 1991. Implicit Price Bundling of Retail Products: A Multiproduct Approach to Maximizing Store Profitability. Journal of Marketing 55(October) 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair, H., J.-P. Dubé, P. Chintagunta. 2005. Accounting for Primary and Secondary Demand Effects with Aggregate Data. Marketing Science 24(3) 444–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narasimhan, C., S.A. Neslin, S.K. Sen. 1996. Promotional Elasticities and Category Characteristics. Journal of Marketing 60(April) 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natter, M., A. Mild, T. Reutterer, A. Taudes. 2007. An Assortment-Wide Decision-Support System for Dynamic Pricing and Promotion Planning in DIY Retailing. Marketing Science 26(4) 576–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neslin, S.A. 2002. Sales Promotion.Relevant Knowledge Series, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neslin, S.A., S.G. Powell, L.G. Schneider Stone. 1995. The Effects of Retailer and Consumer Response on Optimal Manufacturer Advertising and Trade Promotion Strategies. Management Science 41(5) 749–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevo, A. 2000. A Practitioner's Guide to Estimation of Random-Coefficient Logit Models of Demand. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 9(4) 513–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijs, V., M.G. Dekimpe, J.B. Steenkamp, and D.M. Hanssens. 2001. The Category Demand Effects of Price Promotions. Marketing Science 20(1) 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paap, R., P.H. Franses. 2000. A Dynamic Multinomial Probit Model for Brand Choice with Different Long-Run and Short-Run Effects of Marketing-Mix Variables. Journal of Applied Econometrics 15(6) 717–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels, K. 2007. How Retailer and Competitor Decisions Drive the Long-term Effectiveness of Manufacturer Promotions for Fast Moving Consumer Goods. Journal of Retailing 83(3) 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels, K., D.M. Hanssens, S. Siddarth. 2002. The Long-Term Effects of Price Promotions on Category Incidence, Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity. Journal of Marketing Research 39(November) 421–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhee, H., D.R. Bell. 2002. The Inter-Store Mobility of Supermarket Shoppers. Journal of Retailing 78(4) 225–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P.E., G.M. Allenby, R. McCulloch. 2005. Bayesian Statistics and Marketing. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, England.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, M.L., W.C. Gaidis. 1981. Behavioral Learning Theory: Its Relevance to Marketing and Promotions. Journal of Marketing 45(2) 70–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, R., P.K. Chintagunta, S. Haldar. 1996. A Framework for Investigating Habits. ‘The Hand of the Past,’ and Heterogeneity in Dynamic Brand Choice. Marketing Science 15(3) 280–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seetharaman, P.B. 2004. Modeling Multiple Sources of State Dependence in Random Utility Models: A Distributed Lag Approach. Marketing Science 23(2) 263–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seetharaman, P.B., A. Ainslie, P.K. Chintagunta. 1999. Investigating Household State Dependence Effects Across Categories. Journal of Marketing Research 36(4) 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siddarth, S., R.E. Bucklin, D.G. Morrison. 1995. Making the Cut: Modeling and Analyzing Choice Set Restriction in Scanner Panel Data. Journal of Marketing Research 32(3) 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva-Risso, J.M., R.E. Bucklin, D.G. Morrison. 1999. A Decision Support System for Planning Manufacturers' Sales Promotion Calendars. Marketing Science 18(3) 274–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, V., K. Hansen, R. Blattberg. 2006. Market Entry and Consumer Behavior: An Investigation of a Wal-Mart Supercenter. Marketing Science 25(5) 457–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., V.R. Nijs, D.M. Hanssens, M.G. Dekimpe. 2005. Competitive Reactions to Advertising and Promotion Attacks. Marketing Science 24(1) 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, B. 2005. Promotion Effects on Endogenous Consumption. Marketing Science 24(3) 430–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, B., S.A. Neslin, K. Srinivasan. 2003. Measuring the Impact of Promotions on Brand Switching When Consumers Are Forward Looking. Journal of Marketing Research 40(November) 389–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tellis, G.J., F.S. Zufryden. 1995. Tackling the Retailer Decision Maze: Which Brands to Discount, How Much, When and Why? Marketing Science 14(3, Part 1 of 2) 271–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.A., T. Noordewier. 1992. Estimating the Effects of Consumer Incentive Programs on Domestic Automobile Sales. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 10(4) 409–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trade Promotion. 2005. Spending and Merchandising Study. Wilton, CT: Cannondale Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK . Also available at http://elsa.berkeley.edu/books/choice2.html.

  • Tyagi, R.K. 1999. A Characterization of Retailer Response to Manufacturer Trade Deals. Journal of Marketing Research 36(November) 510–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Heerde, H.J., T.H.A. Bijmolt. 2005. Decomposing the Promotional Revenue Bump for Loyalty Program Members Versus Non-Members. Journal of Marketing Research 42(November) 443–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Heerde, H.J., S. Gupta. 2006. The Origin of Demand: A System to Classify the Sources of the Sales Promotion Bump. Working Paper, University of Waikato.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Heerde, H.J., S. Gupta, D.R. Wittink. 2003. Is 75% of the Sales Promotion Bump Due to Brand Switching? No, Only 33% Is. Journal of Marketing Research 40(November) 481–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Heerde, H.J., P.S.H. Leeflang, D.R. Wittink. 2000. The Estimation of Pre- and Postpromotion Dips with Store-Level Scanner Data. Journal of Marketing Research 37(August) 383–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Heerde, H.J., P.S.H. Leeflang, D.R. Wittink. 2001. Semiparametric Analysis to Estimate the Deal Effect Curve. Journal of Marketing Research 38(May) 197–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Heerde, H.J., P.S.H. Leeflang, D.R. Wittink. 2004. Decomposing the Sales Promotion Bump with Store Data. Marketing Science 23(3) 317–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varki, S., P.K. Chintagunta. 2004. The Augmented Latent Class Model: Incorporating Additional Heterogeneity in the Latent Class Model for Panel Data. Journal of Marketing Research 41(2) 226–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villas-Boas, J.M., R.S. Winer. 1998. Endogeneity in Brand Choice Models. Management Science 45(10) 1324–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, R.G. 1989. An Empirical Investigation into Retailer Response to Manufacturer Trade Promotions. Journal of Retailing 65(2) 253–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., W.A. Kamakura. 1998. Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer, R.S. 1986. A Reference Price Model of Brand Choice for Frequently Purchased Products. Journal of Consumer Research 13(September) 250–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D.R., M.J. Addona, W.J. Hawkes, J.C. Porter. 1988. The Estimation, Validation, and Use of Promotional Effects Based on Scanner Data. Working Paper, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., L. Krishnamurthi. 2004. Customizing Promotions in Online Stores. Marketing Science 24(4) 561–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harald J. van Heerde .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix: Variable Definition for the Decomposition in Section 5.4.3

Appendix: Variable Definition for the Decomposition in Section 5.4.3

Van Heerde et al. (2004) obtain decomposition Equation (5.14) for price index variables with four types of support (with/without feature, with/without display). To achieve this, they transform the original four promotion variables (PI, FEATONLY, DISPONLY, FEAT&DISP) from the Scan*Pro model into seven new variables: price index with feature-support (PF), price index with display-only support (PD), price index with feature and display support (PFD), price index without support (PWO), plus FWO (Feature without price cut), DWO (Display without price cut), and FDWO (Feature&Display without price cut). Regular price is indicated by a price index with value “1”. A 20% discount would be indicated by 0.8. The PWO, PF, PD, and PFD variables are defaulted to “1” if there is no price discount, but change depending on whether there is a discount and if so how it is supported. The FWO, DWO, and FDWO variables default to “0” and can equal “1” only if there is a feature, display, or both, without a price cut.

To illustrate the transformation, Table A.1contains the four original and seven new variables. In case # 1 there is no promotion, and the original price index (PI) equals 1 while the FEATONLY, DISPONLY, FEAT&DISP are zero, as defined in the Scan*Pro model. Since there is no (supported or unsupported) price discount in case #1, the four new price index variables (PWO, PF, PD, PFD) are all at their nonpromotional value of 1. The FWO, DWO, and FDWO variables are zero since there is no feature or display without a price cut. In case # 2 there is a twenty percent price discount without any support, which shows up in the original variables as a price index of .8 while FEATONLY, DISPONLY, FEAT&DISP remain zero. Since this is a price cut without support, among the new price indices only the price index without support (PWO) variable is decreased to .8. The other three price indices PF, PD, and PFD stay at their nonpromotional level of 1, while the FWO, DWO, and FDWO variables stay at their default value of 0. Case # 3 represents a twenty percent price cut with a feature-only, and hence price index with feature-only support (PF) is lowered to .8 (and again, all other variables are at their nonpromotional levels). Analogously, in cases # 4 and 5 the variables PD and PFD become .8, in turn. In case # 6 there is a feature without a price cut, which can be seen from the original variables since FEATONLY becomes 1 while PI remains 1. Consequently, among the new variables, FWO becomes 1, while DWO and FDWO remain 0, and PWO, PF, PD, and PFD stay 1 since there is no price cut. Cases #7 and 8 show how DWO and FDWO are defined.

Since price cuts tend to be communicated with feature and or display, the four Scan*Pro Variables tend to be highly correlated. The seven new variables, in contrast, describe seven mutually exclusive promotion situations, and they tend to be much less correlated. While the seven new variables are larger in number than the four Scan*Pro variables, a few of them typically do not vary and can therefore be excluded from models (especially the FDWO variable). Researchers who are concerned about multicollinearity in their (store-level) model may consider using the new set of seven variables proposed in this appendix.

Table A.1 Transforming the four scan*Pro variables into seven new variables

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Heerde, H.J., Neslin, S.A. (2008). Sales Promotion Models. In: Wierenga, B. (eds) Handbook of Marketing Decision Models. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 121. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78213-3_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics