IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/servic/v28y2008i6p733-753.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Individual differences in price responsiveness within and across food brands

Author

Listed:
  • Jorge M. Oliveira-Castro
  • Gordon R. Foxall
  • Victoria K. James

Abstract

Various researchers have reported that in routine grocery shopping the quantity consumers buy varies little across shopping occasions. Even in the presence of promotions, the largest part of promotional sales peaks has been attributed to brand switching. Recent investigations, however, indicated that the quantity consumers buy may include complex intra- and inter-consumer and intra- and inter-brand choice patterns. Using panel data from more than 1500 British consumers purchasing four food products during 52 weeks, the present study examined whether such complex patterns occur and assessed their relative contribution to overall quantity elasticity. Results showed that consumers buy larger quantities when paying lower prices, both within and across brands, and that consumers who buy larger quantities tend to pay lower prices, both within and across brands. The results also indicated that intra-brand price variations, especially those associated with consumers switching across package sizes, account for the largest portion of changes in quantity. Methodological differences might explain discrepancies among previous findings such as the duration of the sample used, the number of brands examined, and the conceptualization of a brand as including or excluding different package sizes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge M. Oliveira-Castro & Gordon R. Foxall & Victoria K. James, 2008. "Individual differences in price responsiveness within and across food brands," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 733-753, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:servic:v:28:y:2008:i:6:p:733-753
    DOI: 10.1080/02642060801988605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02642060801988605
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02642060801988605?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. Robert C. Blattberg & Richard Briesch & Edward J. Fox, 1995. "How Promotions Work," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 122-132.
    2. David R. Bell & Jeongwen Chiang & V. Padmanabhan, 1999. "The Decomposition of Promotional Response: An Empirical Generalization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 504-526.
    3. 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.
    4. Walters, Rockney G. & Bommer, William, 1996. "Measuring the Impact of Product and Promotion-Related Factors on Product Category Price Elasticities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 203-216, July.
    5. Gordon R. Foxall, 1999. "The substitutability of brands," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(5), pages 241-257.
    6. Jorge M. Oliveira-Castro & Gordon R. Foxall & Teresa C. Schrezenmaier, 2005. "Patterns of consumer response to retail price differentials," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 309-335, April.
    7. Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 1993. "Investigating Purchase Incidence, Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Decisions of Households," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 184-208.
    8. Mark Uncles & Andrew Ehrenberg & Kathy Hammond, 1995. "Patterns of Buyer Behavior: Regularities, Models, and Extensions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 71-78.
    9. 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.
    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. Foxall, Gordon R. & Yan, Ji & Oliveira-Castro, Jorge M. & Wells, Victoria K., 2013. "Brand-related and situational influences on demand elasticity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 73-81.

    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. Jean-Pierre H. Dubé, 2018. "Microeconometric Models of Consumer Demand," NBER Working Papers 25215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. David R. Bell & Jeongwen Chiang & V. Padmanabhan, 1999. "The Decomposition of Promotional Response: An Empirical Generalization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 504-526.
    3. Boztuğ, Yasemin & Bell, David R., 2004. "The Effect of Inventory on Purchase Incidence: Empirical Analysis of Opposing Forces of Storage and Consumption," Papers 2004,43, Humboldt University of Berlin, Center for Applied Statistics and Economics (CASE).
    4. 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.
    5. Richards, Timothy J. & Gómez, Miguel I. & Pofahl, Geoffrey, 2012. "A Multiple-discrete/Continuous Model of Price Promotion," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 206-225.
    6. Minjung Kwon & Tülin Erdem & Masakazu Ishihara, 2023. "Counter-cyclical price promotion: Capturing seasonal changes in stockpiling and endogenous consumption," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 437-492, December.
    7. Baohong Sun, 2005. "Promotion Effect on Endogenous Consumption," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 430-443, July.
    8. David Bell & Yasemin Boztuğ, 2007. "The positive and negative effects of inventory on category purchase: An empirical analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 1-14, June.
    9. Manish Gangwar & Nanda Kumar & Ram C. Rao, 2021. "Pricing Under Dynamic Competition When Loyal Consumers Stockpile," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 569-588, May.
    10. Nitin Mehta, 2007. "Investigating Consumers' Purchase Incidence and Brand Choice Decisions Across Multiple Product Categories: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 196-217, 03-04.
    11. Kazuko Kano, 2018. "Consumer Inventory and Demand for Storable Goods: New Evidence from a Consumer Survey," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 284-305, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Wendy W. Moe & Peter S. Fader, 2004. "Dynamic Conversion Behavior at E-Commerce Sites," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(3), pages 326-335, March.
    14. Dawes, John G., 2012. "Brand-Pack Size Cannibalization Arising from Temporary Price Promotions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 343-355.
    15. Zhang Qin & Seetharaman P.B. & Narasimhan Chakravarthi, 2005. "Modeling Selectivity in Households' Purchase Quantity Outcomes: A Count Data Approach," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-21, July.
    16. 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.
    17. Jean-Pierre Dubé, 2004. "Multiple Discreteness and Product Differentiation: Demand for Carbonated Soft Drinks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 66-81, September.
    18. J. Miguel Villas-Boas & Russell S. Winer, 1999. "Endogeneity in Brand Choice Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(10), pages 1324-1338, October.
    19. Neeraj Arora & Greg M. Allenby & James L. Ginter, 1998. "A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 29-44.
    20. Harikesh Nair & Jean-Pierre Dubé & Pradeep Chintagunta, 2005. "Accounting for Primary and Secondary Demand Effects with Aggregate Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 444-460, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:servic:v:28:y:2008:i:6:p:733-753. 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 Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/FSIJ20 .

    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.