IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jmarka/v11y2023i4d10.1057_s41270-022-00187-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accommodating heterogeneity in brand loyalty estimation: application to the U.S. beer retail market

Author

Listed:
  • Roozbeh Irani-Kermani

    (Fred Pirkle Engineering Technology Center)

  • Edward C. Jaenicke

    (Pennsylvania State University)

  • Ardalan Mirshani

    (The Pennsylvania State University)

Abstract

The assessment of consumer behavior in brand-choice models may be greatly influenced by accurately modeling and evaluating a brand-loyalty parameter. The most well-known approaches for estimating brand loyalty employ a household’s past purchase data and account for habit formation with a single smoothing parameter that indicates the weight assigned to households’ current decisions versus their distant shopping history. In this study, we present a method for estimating time-varying smoothing parameters for heterogeneous households. We estimate smoothing parameters for American households from 2014 to 2017 using Nielsen Homescan data for the US beer retail market. Using this more flexible method, we discover that the smoothing parameter varies significantly among households and time frames (for the same households). We next include a brand-loyalty index based on this approach into a brand-choice model of the American beer retail market, demonstrating that this new method improves estimation results.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:jmarka:v:11:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1057_s41270-022-00187-2
    DOI: 10.1057/s41270-022-00187-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41270-022-00187-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41270-022-00187-2?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stafford, Tess M., 2018. "Accounting for outside options in discrete choice models: An application to commercial fishing effort," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 159-179.
    2. Noble, Charles H. & Kumar, Minu, 2008. "Using product design strategically to create deeper consumer connections," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 51(5), pages 441-450.
    3. Jiang, Renna & Manchanda, Puneet & Rossi, Peter E., 2009. "Bayesian analysis of random coefficient logit models using aggregate data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 149(2), pages 136-148, April.
    4. Aviv Nevo, 2000. "Mergers with Differentiated Products: The Case of the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(3), pages 395-421, Autumn.
    5. Einav, Liran & Leibtag, Ephraim S. & Nevo, Aviv, 2008. "On the Accuracy of Nielsen Homescan Data," Economic Research Report 56490, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. 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.
    7. Hoyer, Wayne D, 1984. "An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 11(3), pages 822-829, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Jagmohan S. Raju & V. Srinivasan & Rajiv Lal, 1990. "The Effects of Brand Loyalty on Competitive Price Promotional Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 276-304, March.
    10. German Zenetti & Thomas Otter, 2014. "Bayesian estimation of the random coefficients logit from aggregate count data," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 43-84, March.
    11. Itamar Simonson & Ziv Carmon & Suzanne O'Curry, 1994. "Experimental Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Features and Sales Promotions on Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 23-40.
    12. Yves Bentz & Dwight Merunka, 2000. "Neural networks and the multinomial logit for brand choice modelling: a hybrid approach," Post-Print hal-01822273, HAL.
    13. Eric Anderson & Nanda Kumar, 2007. "Price competition with repeat, loyal buyers," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 333-359, December.
    14. Bonnet, Céline & Richards, Timothy J., 2016. "Models of Consumer Demand for Differentiated Products," TSE Working Papers 16-741, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    15. Tülin Erdem, 1996. "A Dynamic Analysis of Market Structure Based on Panel Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 359-378.
    16. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    17. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 1983. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 203-238.
    18. Bruno J.D. Jacobs & Bas Donkers & Dennis Fok, 2016. "Model-Based Purchase Predictions for Large Assortments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 389-404, May.
    19. Peter S. Fader & James M. Lattin & John D. C. Little, 1992. "Estimating Nonlinear Parameters in the Multinomial Logit Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 372-385.
    20. 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.
    21. Jacobson, Robert & Obermiller, Carl, 1990. "The Formation of Expected Future Price: A Reference Price for Forward-Looking Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(4), pages 420-432, March.
    22. 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.
    23. Lakshman Krishnamurthi & S. P. Raj, 1988. "A Model of Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Price Sensitivities," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 1-20.
    24. Michael Braun & Paul Damien, 2016. "Scalable Rejection Sampling for Bayesian Hierarchical Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 427-444, May.
    25. 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.
    26. Park, C Whan & Milberg, Sandra & Lawson, Robert, 1991. "Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 18(2), pages 185-193, September.
    27. 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.
    28. Peter S. Fader & James M. Lattin, 1993. "Accounting for Heterogeneity and Nonstationarity in a Cross-Sectional Model of Consumer Purchase Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 304-317.
    29. Takumi Kato, 2021. "Brand loyalty explained by concept recall: recognizing the significance of the brand concept compared to features," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(3), pages 185-198, September.
    30. Pradeep Chintagunta & Dominique M. Hanssens & John R. Hauser, 2016. "Editorial—Marketing Science and Big Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 341-342, May.
    31. 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)

    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. Irani-Kermani, Roozbeh & Jaenicke, Edward C., 2018. "Generalizing Variety Seeking Measurement from Brand Space to Product Attribute Space," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273818, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. 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.
    3. Xiaoyang He & Ralph Siebert, 2021. "Switching Beers? The Effects of Switching Costs on Prices and Profits in Competitive Markets," CESifo Working Paper Series 9065, CESifo.
    4. Guhl, Daniel, 2024. "Tracking time-varying brand equity using household panel data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    5. Irani-Kermani, Roozbeh & Jaenicke, Edward C., 2017. "Accommodating Heterogeneity in Brand Loyalty Estimation: Application to the U.S. Beer Retail," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258203, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. 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.
    7. Marshall Freimer & Dan Horsky, 2008. "Try It, You Will Like It—Does Consumer Learning Lead to Competitive Price Promotions?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 796-810, 09-10.
    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. Guhl, Daniel & Baumgartner, Bernhard & Kneib, Thomas & Steiner, Winfried J., 2018. "Estimating time-varying parameters in brand choice models: A semiparametric approach," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 394-414.
    10. 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.
    11. Zenetti, German & Klapper, Daniel, 2016. "Advertising Effects Under Consumer Heterogeneity – The Moderating Role of Brand Experience, Advertising Recall and Attitude," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 352-372.
    12. Timothy J. Richards & Bradley J. Rickard, 2021. "Dynamic model of beer pricing and buyouts," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 685-712, October.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Moon, Sangkil & Voss, Glenn, 2009. "How do price range shoppers differ from reference price point shoppers?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 31-38, January.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Victor Aguirregabiria & Jesus Carro, 2021. "Identification of Average Marginal Effects in Fixed Effects Dynamic Discrete Choice Models," Working Papers tecipa-701, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    19. Draganska, Michaela & Klapper, Daniel, 2010. "Choice Set Heterogeneity and the Role of Advertising: An Analysis with Micro and Macro Data," Research Papers 2063, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    20. Koll, Oliver & Plank, Andreas, 2022. "Do shoppers choose the same brand on the next trip when facing the same context? An empirical investigation in FMCG retailing," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(4), pages 576-592.

    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:pal:jmarka:v:11:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1057_s41270-022-00187-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    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.