IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v61y2015i7p1722-1740.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Value of Field Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Jimmy Q. Li

    (Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

  • Paat Rusmevichientong

    (Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

  • Duncan Simester

    (MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

  • John N. Tsitsiklis

    (Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

  • Spyros I. Zoumpoulis

    (Decision Sciences, INSEAD, 77305 Fontainebleau Cedex, France)

Abstract

The feasibility of using field experiments to optimize marketing decisions remains relatively unstudied. We investigate category pricing decisions that require estimating a large matrix of cross-product demand elasticities and ask the following question: How many experiments are required as the number of products in the category grows? Our main result demonstrates that if the categories have a favorable structure, we can learn faster and reduce the number of experiments that are required: the number of experiments required may grow just logarithmically with the number of products. These findings potentially have important implications for the application of field experiments. Firms may be able to obtain meaningful estimates using a practically feasible number of experiments, even in categories with a large number of products. We also provide a relatively simple mechanism that firms can use to evaluate whether a category has a structure that makes it feasible to use field experiments to set prices. We illustrate how to accomplish this using either a sample of historical data or a pilot set of experiments. We also discuss how to evaluate whether field experiments can help optimize other marketing decisions, such as selecting which products to advertise or promote.Data, as supplemental material, are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2066 . This paper was accepted by Pradeep Chintagunta, marketing .

Suggested Citation

  • Jimmy Q. Li & Paat Rusmevichientong & Duncan Simester & John N. Tsitsiklis & Spyros I. Zoumpoulis, 2015. "The Value of Field Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1722-1740, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:61:y:2015:i:7:p:1722-1740
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2066
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2066?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. Eric T. Anderson & Duncan I. Simester, 2001. "Are Sale Signs Less Effective When More Products Have Them?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 121-142, March.
    2. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    3. Jean-Pierre Dubé & Günter J. Hitsch & Peter E. Rossi & Maria Ana Vitorino, 2008. "Category Pricing with State-Dependent Utility," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 417-429, 05-06.
    4. Keane, Michael P, 1997. "Modeling Heterogeneity and State Dependence in Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 15(3), pages 310-327, July.
    5. Vivek F. Farias & Srikanth Jagabathula & Devavrat Shah, 2013. "A Nonparametric Approach to Modeling Choice with Limited Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 305-322, December.
    6. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    7. Qing Liu & Neeraj Arora, 2011. "Efficient Choice Designs for a Consider-Then-Choose Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 321-338, 03-04.
    8. Tülin Erdem, 1996. "A Dynamic Analysis of Market Structure Based on Panel Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 359-378.
    9. Puneet Manchanda & Asim Ansari & Sunil Gupta, 1999. "The “Shopping Basket”: A Model for Multicategory Purchase Incidence Decisions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 95-114.
    10. J. Miguel Villas-Boas & Russell S. Winer, 1999. "Endogeneity in Brand Choice Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(10), pages 1324-1338, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Awi Federgruen & Ming Hu, 2016. "Technical Note—Sequential Multiproduct Price Competition in Supply Chain Networks," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 135-149, February.
    2. Kaczan, David & Pfaff, Alexander & Rodriguez, Luz & Shapiro-Garza, Elizabeth, 2017. "Increasing the impact of collective incentives in payments for ecosystem services," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 48-67.
    3. Purva Grover & Arpan Kumar Kar, 2017. "Big Data Analytics: A Review on Theoretical Contributions and Tools Used in Literature," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 18(3), pages 203-229, September.
    4. Dennis J. Zhang & Hengchen Dai & Lingxiu Dong & Qian Wu & Lifan Guo & Xiaofei Liu, 2019. "The Value of Pop-Up Stores on Retailing Platforms: Evidence from a Field Experiment with Alibaba," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(11), pages 5142-5151, November.
    5. Jinglong Zhao, 2024. "Experimental Design For Causal Inference Through An Optimization Lens," Papers 2408.09607, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    6. Awi Federgruen & Ming Hu, 2015. "Multi-Product Price and Assortment Competition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 572-584, June.
    7. Tobias Otterbring, 2023. "Physical proximity as pleasure or pain? A critical review of employee–customer proximity in sales and services settings," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(2), pages 209-221, June.
    8. Hung, Hui-Hsi & Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Yu, Annie Pei-I & Lin, Yu-Ting, 2021. "Consistent price endings increase consumers perceptions of cheapness," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    9. Iavor Bojinov & David Simchi-Levi & Jinglong Zhao, 2023. "Design and Analysis of Switchback Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3759-3777, July.
    10. Yu, Annie Pei-I & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Cheng, Yin-Hui & Wu, Yi-Chin, 2020. "The influence of sharing versus self-use on the preference for different types of promotional offers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).

    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. Roozbeh Irani-Kermani & Edward C. Jaenicke & Ardalan Mirshani, 2023. "Accommodating heterogeneity in brand loyalty estimation: application to the U.S. beer retail market," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(4), pages 820-835, December.
    2. Jean-Pierre Dubé, 2004. "Multiple Discreteness and Product Differentiation: Demand for Carbonated Soft Drinks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 66-81, September.
    3. Guhl, Daniel, 2019. "Addressing endogeneity in aggregate logit models with time-varying parameters for optimal retail-pricing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 684-698.
    4. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Jaehwan Kim & Greg M. Allenby & Peter E. Rossi, 2002. "Modeling Consumer Demand for Variety," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 229-250, December.
    7. Julia Levine & Stephan Seiler, 2023. "Identifying State Dependence in Brand Choice: Evidence from Hurricanes," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(5), pages 934-957, September.
    8. Dimitris Bertsimas & Allison O'Hair, 2013. "Learning Preferences Under Noise and Loss Aversion: An Optimization Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1190-1199, October.
    9. Eggers, Felix & Sattler, Henrik, 2009. "Hybrid individualized two-level choice-based conjoint (HIT-CBC): A new method for measuring preference structures with many attribute levels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 108-118.
    10. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2017. "Default and naive diversification heuristics in annuity choice," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(1), pages 32-57, February.
    11. Koray Cosguner & Tat Y. Chan & P. B. (Seethu) Seetharaman, 2018. "Dynamic Pricing in a Distribution Channel in the Presence of Switching Costs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1212-1229, March.
    12. Jay Pil Choi & Seung-Hyun Hong & Seonghoon Jeon, 2013. "Local Identity and Persistent Leadership in Market Share Dynamics: Evidence from Deregulation in the Korean Soju Industry," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 29, pages 267-304.
    13. Xiao Liu & Timothy Derdenger & Baohong Sun, 2018. "An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Purchase Behavior of Base Products and Add-ons Given Compatibility Constraints," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(4), pages 569-591, August.
    14. Jean‐Pierre Dubé & Günter J. Hitsch & Peter E. Rossi, 2010. "State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 417-445, September.
    15. Bart J. Bronnenberg & Jean-Pierre H. Dube & Matthew Gentzkow, 2012. "The Evolution of Brand Preferences: Evidence from Consumer Migration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2472-2508, October.
    16. Ma, Yu & Seetharaman, P.B. & Narasimhan, Chakravarthi, 2012. "Modeling Dependencies in Brand Choice Outcomes Across Complementary Categories," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 47-62.
    17. Timothy J Richards & Celine Bonnet & Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache, 2018. "Complementarity and bargaining power," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(3), pages 297-331.
    18. 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.
    19. V Kumar & Amalesh Sharma & Shaphali Gupta, 2017. "Accessing the influence of strategic marketing research on generating impact: moderating roles of models, journals, and estimation approaches," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 164-185, March.
    20. Dimitris Bertsimas & Velibor V. Mišić, 2019. "Exact First-Choice Product Line Optimization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 651-670, May.

    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:ormnsc:v:61:y:2015:i:7:p:1722-1740. 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.