The estimation of pre- and postpromotion dips with store-level scanner data

被引:126
作者
Van Heerde, HJ [1 ]
Leeflang, PSH
Wittink, DR
机构
[1] Dept Marketing, Fac Econ, Tilburg, Netherlands
[2] Univ Groningen, Fac Econ, Dept Marketing & Marketing Res, NL-9700 AB Groningen, Netherlands
[3] Yale Univ, Sch Management, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1509/jmkr.37.3.383.18782
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
One of the mysteries of store-level scanner data modeling is the lack of a dip in sales in the weeks following a promotion. Researchers expect to find a postpromotion dip because analyses of household scanner panel data indicate that consumers tend to accelerate their purchases in response to a promotion-that is, they buy earlier and/or purchase larger quantities than they would in the absence of a promotion. Thus, there should also be a pronounced dip in store-level sales in the weeks following a promotion. However, researchers rarely find such dips at either the category or the brand level. Several arguments have been proposed to account for the lack of a postpromotion dip in store-level sales data and to explain why dips may be hidden. Because dips are difficult to detect by traditional models (and by a visual inspection of the data), the authors propose models that can account for a multitude of factors that together cause complex pre- and postpromotion dips. The authors use three alternative distributed lead and lag structures: an Almon model, an unrestricted dynamic effects model, and an exponential decay model. In each model, the authors include four types of price discounts: without any support, with display-only support, with feature-only support, and with feature and display support. The models are calibrated on store-level scanner data for two product categories: tuna and toilet tissue. The authors estimate the dip to be between 4 and 25% of the current sales effect, which is consistent with household-level studies.
引用
收藏
页码:383 / 395
页数:13
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]   The decomposition of promotional response: An empirical generalization [J].
Bell, DR ;
Chiang, JW ;
Padmanabhan, V .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 1999, 18 (04) :504-526
[2]   HOW PROMOTIONS WORK [J].
BLATTBERG, RC ;
BRIESCH, R ;
FOX, EJ .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 1995, 14 (03) :G122-G132
[3]   PRICE-INDUCED PATTERNS OF COMPETITION [J].
BLATTBERG, RC ;
WISNIEWSKI, KJ .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 1989, 8 (04) :291-309
[4]  
Blattberg RobertC., 1990, Sales Promotion: Concepts, Methods, and Strategies
[5]   Commercial use of UPC scanner data: Industry and academic perspectives [J].
Bucklin, RE ;
Gupta, S .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 1999, 18 (03) :247-273
[6]   A SIMULTANEOUS APPROACH TO THE WHETHER, WHAT AND HOW MUCH TO BUY QUESTIONS [J].
CHIANG, JW .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 1991, 10 (04) :297-315
[7]   Using market-level data to understand promotion effects in a nonlinear model [J].
Christen, M ;
Gupta, S ;
Porter, JC ;
Staelin, R ;
Wittink, DR .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 1997, 34 (03) :322-334
[8]   THE LEAD EFFECT OF MARKETING DECISIONS [J].
DOYLE, P ;
SAUNDERS, J .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 1985, 22 (01) :54-65
[9]   A COMPARISON AND AN EXPLORATION OF THE FORECASTING ACCURACY OF A LOGLINEAR MODEL AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF AGGREGATION [J].
FOEKENS, EW ;
LEEFLANG, PSH ;
WITTINK, DR .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORECASTING, 1994, 10 (02) :245-261
[10]  
Foekens EW, 1999, J ECONOMETRICS, V89, P249