IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v17y1998i3p253-270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inertia and Variety Seeking in a Model of Brand-Purchase Timing

Author

Listed:
  • Pradeep K. Chintagunta

    (Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

Abstract

Previous research on state dependence indicates that a brand's purchase probabilities vary over time and depend on the levels of inertia and variety seeking and on the identity of the previously purchased brand. Brand-choice probabilities obtained from models such as the logit and the probit are, however, fixed over time, conditional on the previous brand purchased and on the levels of marketing variables. Consequently, state dependence has largely been studied as a time-invariant phenomenon in brand-choice models, with the levels of inertia and variety seeking assumed to be constant over time. To account for the time-varying nature of state dependence would require a model in which brand-switching probabilities depend upon interpurchase times. One modeling framework that can account for this dependence is based on the hazard function approach. The proposed approach works as follows. All other factors being equal, an inertial household purchasing a brand on a particular occasion is most likely to repurchase that brand on the next occasion. If the household switches, it will be to a brand located perceptually close, in attribute space, to the previously purchased brand. In other words, an inertial household has the highest switching hazard for the same origin and destination brands, with a progressively lower hazard rate for brands perceptually located farther and farther away from the origin brand. The amount by which the hazard is lowered depends upon the perceptual distance and the inertia level of the household. On the other hand, if the household is variety seeking, the most likely brand purchased would be a brand located farthest away from the previously purchased brand in attribute space. In other words, the hazard rate of repurchase is the lowest, with the rate increasing with the distance of the destination brand from the origin brand and the level of that household's variety-seeking tendency. The effects of inertia and variety seeking are, therefore, incorporated at the attribute level into a brand-purchase timing model. In doing so, we attempt to provide greater insight into the nature of state dependence in models of purchase timing. Our model and estimation procedure will enable us to distinguish between households that are inertial and those that are variety prone. In addition to accounting for state dependence, the model also accounts for the effects of unobserved heterogeneity among households in their brand preferences and in their sensitivities to marketing activities. A majority of studies in marketing using the hazard function approach to investigate purchase timing have not accounted for heterogeneity in marketing-mix effects. The study integrates recent methods that incorporate the effects of inertia and variety seeking in brand-choice models with a semi-Markov model of purchase timing and brand switching. The proposed model enables us to (1) infer market structure via a perceptual map for the sample households, and (2) investigate implications for the introduction of a line extension. We provide empirical applications of the proposed method using three different household-level scanner panel data sets. We find that differing levels of inertia and variety seeking characterize the three data sets. The findings are consistent with prior beliefs regarding these categories. In addition, our results indicate that the nature of interbrand purchase timing behavior depends upon the extent of inertia or variety seeking in the data. We are also able to characterize the structure of the three product markets studied. This provides implications for interbrand rivalry in the market. Further, we demonstrate how the model and results can be used to predict the location of a line extension in the perceptual space of households. Finally, we obtain implications for the timing of brand promotions.

Suggested Citation

  • Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 1998. "Inertia and Variety Seeking in a Model of Brand-Purchase Timing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 253-270.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:17:y:1998:i:3:p:253-270
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.17.3.253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.17.3.253
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.17.3.253?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeongwen Chiang, 1991. "A Simultaneous Approach to the Whether, What and How Much to Buy Questions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 297-315.
    2. Heckman, James & Singer, Burton, 1984. "A Method for Minimizing the Impact of Distributional Assumptions in Econometric Models for Duration Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(2), pages 271-320, March.
    3. Elrod, Terry & Keane, Michael, 1995. "A Factor-Analytic Probit Model for Representing the Market Structure in Panel Data," MPRA Paper 52434, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Fraser, Cynthia & Bradford, John W, 1983. "Competitive Market Structure Analysis: Principal Partitioning of Revealed Substitutabilities," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(1), pages 15-30, June.
    5. Dipak C. Jain & Naufel J. Vilcassim, 1991. "Investigating Household Purchase Timing Decisions: A Conditional Hazard Function Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 1-23.
    6. Minakshi Trivedi & Frank M. Bass & Ram C. Rao, 1994. "A Model of Stochastic Variety-Seeking," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 274-297.
    7. McAlister, Leigh & Pessemier, Edgar, 1982. "Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(3), pages 311-322, December.
    8. Tülin Erdem, 1996. "A Dynamic Analysis of Market Structure Based on Panel Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 359-378.
    9. Rishin Roy & Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Sudeep Haldar, 1996. "A Framework for Investigating Habits, “The Hand of the Past,” and Heterogeneity in Dynamic Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 280-299.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. P. B. Seetharaman & Hai Che, 2009. "Price Competition in Markets with Consumer Variety Seeking," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 516-525, 05-06.
    2. Tülin Erdem & Susumu Imai & Michael Keane, 2003. "Brand and Quantity Choice Dynamics Under Price Uncertainty," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 5-64, March.
    3. Baltas, George & Doyle, Peter, 2001. "Random utility models in marketing research: a survey," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 115-125, February.
    4. Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 1999. "Variety Seeking, Purchase Timing, and the "Lightning Bolt" Brand Choice Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(4), pages 486-498, April.
    5. Jaehwan Kim & Greg M. Allenby & Peter E. Rossi, 2002. "Modeling Consumer Demand for Variety," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 229-250, December.
    6. Matthew Osborne, 2011. "Consumer learning, switching costs, and heterogeneity: A structural examination," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 25-70, March.
    7. Chintagunta, Pradeep K., 1999. "Measuring the effects of new brand introduction on inter-brand strategic interaction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 315-331, October.
    8. José M. Labeaga & Mercedes Martos-Partal, 2007. "A Proposal to Distinguish State Dependence and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Binary Brand Choice Models," Working Papers 2007-02, FEDEA.
    9. Nanarpuzha, Rajesh, 2013. "Modeling Situational Factors in Variety Seeking Behaviour: An Extension of the Lightning Bolt Model," IIMA Working Papers WP2013-12-04, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    10. Jie Zhang & Lakshman Krishnamurthi, 2004. "Customizing Promotions in Online Stores," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 561-578, June.
    11. P. B. Seetharaman, 2004. "Modeling Multiple Sources of State Dependence in Random Utility Models: A Distributed Lag Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 263-271, April.
    12. Greg M. Allenby & Thomas S. Shively & Sha Yang & Mark J. Garratt, 2004. "A Choice Model for Packaged Goods: Dealing with Discrete Quantities and Quantity Discounts," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 95-108, June.
    13. Pradeep Chintagunta & Jean-Pierre Dubé & Vishal Singh, 2003. "Balancing Profitability and Customer Welfare in a Supermarket Chain," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 111-147, March.
    14. Meade, Nigel & Islam, Towhidul, 2010. "Using copulas to model repeat purchase behaviour - An exploratory analysis via a case study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(3), pages 908-917, February.
    15. Dan Horsky & Sanjog Misra & Paul Nelson, 2006. "Observed and Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity in Brand-Choice Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 322-335, 07-08.
    16. Pradeep Chintagunta & Jean-Pierre Dubé & Khim Yong Goh, 2005. "Beyond the Endogeneity Bias: The Effect of Unmeasured Brand Characteristics on Household-Level Brand Choice Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 832-849, May.
    17. Gazley, Aaron & Clark, Gemma & Sinha, Ashish, 2011. "Understanding preferences for motion pictures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 854-861, August.
    18. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    19. B. P. S. Murthi & Sumit Sarkar, 2003. "The Role of the Mangement Sciences in Research on Personalization," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 2-2-1025, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    20. S. Siddarth & Amitava Chattopadhyay, 1998. "To Zap or Not to Zap: A Study of the Determinants of Channel Switching During Commercials," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 124-138.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:17:y:1998:i:3:p:253-270. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.