IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/sfb373/199899.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nicht- und semiparametrische Markenwahlmodelle im Marketing

Author

Listed:
  • Boztuğ, Yasemin
  • Hildebrandt, Lutz

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Boztuğ, Yasemin & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 1998. "Nicht- und semiparametrische Markenwahlmodelle im Marketing," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1998,99, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:sfb373:199899
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/61226/1/722054203.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 1992. "Estimating a Multinomial Probit Model of Brand Choice Using the Method of Simulated Moments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 386-407.
    2. 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.
    3. Makoto Abe, 1995. "A Nonparametric Density Estimation Method for Brand Choice Using Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 300-325.
    4. Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 1996. "Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20.
    5. 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.
    6. P. K. Kannan & Gordon P. Wright, 1991. "Modeling and Testing Structured Markets: A Nested Logit Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 58-82.
    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. Abe, Makoto & Boztuæg, Yasemin & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 2000. "Investigation of the stochastic utility maximization process of consumer brand choice by semiparametric modeling," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2000,84, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.

    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. Sanjog Misra, 2005. "Generalized Reverse Discrete Choice Models," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 175-200, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. Noah Gans & George Knox & Rachel Croson, 2007. "Simple Models of Discrete Choice and Their Performance in Bandit Experiments," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 383-408, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Chen, Bo & Saghaian, Sayed, 2017. "Does Consumers’ Preference for Organic Foods Affect Their Store Format Choices?," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252827, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Makoto Abe & Yasemin Boztug & Lutz Hildebrandt, 2004. "Investigating the competitive assumption of Multinomial Logit models of brand choice by nonparametric modeling," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 635-657, December.
    10. Sha Yang & Yi Zhao & Ravi Dhar, 2010. "Modeling the Underreporting Bias in Panel Survey Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 525-539, 05-06.
    11. Shao, Wei & Lye, Ashley & Rundle-Thiele, Sharyn, 2009. "Different strokes for different folks: A method to accommodate decision -making heterogeneity," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 495-501.
    12. 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.
    13. Ngobo, Paul-Valentin & Legohérel, Patrick & Guéguen, Nicolas, 2010. "A cross-category investigation into the effects of nine-ending pricing on brand choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 374-385.
    14. Peter Stüttgen & Peter Boatwright & Robert T. Monroe, 2012. "A Satisficing Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 878-899, November.
    15. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
    16. Andrew T. Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 2020. "How much do consumers know about the quality of products? Evidence from the diaper market," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 541-569, October.
    17. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 2008. "Commentary—A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data: A 25th Anniversary Perspective," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 26-28, 01-02.
    18. Dhruv Goel & Anushka Goyal & Ishaan Sand, 2024. "Quantity surcharge, competition and package size: evidence from India," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(5), pages 452-460, October.
    19. van Heerde, Harald J. & Dekimpe, Marnik G., 2024. "Household and retail panel data in retailing research: Time for a renaissance?," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 104-113.
    20. Juin-Kuan Chong & Teck-Hua Ho & Christopher S. Tang, 2001. "A Modeling Framework for Category Assortment Planning," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 191-210, January.

    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:zbw:sfb373:199899. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfhubde.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.