This paper proposes and validates the negative binomial distribution (NBD) to predict the variation in repertoire size (the number of brands purchased by a consumer in a specific time period) within a category. From a managerial perspective, the variation is crucial for brand managers who would like to know the nature and intensity of competition that is facing their brands. Empirical findings across multiple datasets from UK consumer packaged goods demonstrate that the NBD model predicts variations in repertoire size very well in different time periods (1year, 18months and 3years), and different buyer groups (light and heavy category buyers). The paper then suggests a simple method to predict those who are brand exclusively loyal, those who are loyal to a few brands, and those who are diversified to buy multiple brands, based on very little information such as category and brand penetrations, using the parameters of the NBD model.
AndrewsR.CurrimI.Behavioural differences between consumers attracted to shopping online versus traditional supermarkets: implications for enterprise design and marketing strategyInt. J. Internet Mark. Advert.11200438–61
2.
AnscombeF.J.Sampling theory of the negative binomial and logarithmic series distributionsBiometrika361950358–382
3.
BanelisM.RiebeE.RungieC.Empirical evidence of repertoire sizeAustr. Mark. J.211201359–65
4.
BanelisM., 2008Understanding consumers’ repertoire sizes (Ph.D. thesis). University of South Australia.
5.
BanelisM., RungieC.M., ColomboR., 2003. Empirical verification of two expected portfolio size formulae.In: Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference Proceedings, Adelaide, Australia.
6.
BanelisM.RungieC.M.RiebeE.Meyer-WaardenL.Do higher spending households buy a greater variety of brands?: an application of repertoire regressionMark. Bull.1620051–7
7.
BogomolovaS.GrudininaO.Under the marketers’ radar: commonly ignored triggers for brand repertoire changesJ. Mark. Manage.2720111378–1403
8.
ChatfieldC.EhrenbergA.S.C.GoodhardtG.J.Progress on a simplified model of stationary purchasing behaviourJ. Royal Stat. Soc. A.12931966317–367
9.
ChrysochouP., LockshinL., HabenschussS., TrinhG., 2011. Does behaviour of heavy and light wine buyers differ?.In: 6th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research BEM Proceedings, Bordeaux, France.
10.
ChrysochouP., KrystallisA., 2010. Repertoire and frequency of consumption in wine: are heavy buyers more loyal to product attributes?In: 39th European Academy of Marketing Conference Proceedings, Copenhagen, Denmark.
11.
ColomboR., JiangW., 2002. Portfolio size of brand purchases in Dirichlet markets.In: Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference Proceedings, Melbourne, Australia.
12.
DawesJ.Regularities in buyer behaviour and brand performance: the case of Australian beerJ. Brand Manage.152008198–208
13.
EhrenbergA.S.C.The pattern of consumer purchasesAppl. Stat.8195926–41
14.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C., 1988. Repeat buying. (2nd ed.), London, Griffin. Reprinted in J. Empirical Gen. Mark. Sci. 5, 392–770. Available from: <http://www.empgens.com/>.
15.
EhrenbergA.S.C.Towards an integrated theory of consumer behaviourInt. J. Mark Res.3841996395–427
16.
EhrenbergA.S.C.UnclesM.D.GoodhardtG.J.Understanding brand performance measures: using Dirichlet benchmarksJ. Bus. Res.5720041307–1325
17.
FaderP.S.HardieB.G.S.A note on an integrated model of customer buying behaviorEur. J. Oper. Res.1392002682–687
18.
GoodhardtG.J.EhrenbergA.S.C.Conditional trend analysis: a breakdown by initial purchasing levelJ. Mark. Res.41967155–161
19.
GoodhardtG.J.EhrenbergA.S.C.ChatfieldC.The Dirichlet: a comprehensive model of buying behaviorJ. Royal Stat. Soc. Ser. A1471984621–655
20.
GreenwoodM.YuleG.U.An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or of repeated accidentsJ. Royal Stat. Soc.8321920255–279
21.
LamD.MizerskiR.An investigation into gambling purchases using the NBD and NBD–Dirichlet modelsMark. Lett.202009263–276
22.
LeeR.RungieC.WrightM.Regularities in the consumption of a subscription serviceJ. Prod. Brand Manage.2032011182–189
23.
MassyW.F.FrankR.E.LodahlT.Purchasing Behavior and Personal Attributes1968University of Pennsylvania PressPhiladelphia
24.
MartinN.Habit: the 95% of Behavior Marketers Ignore2008Pearson EducationUpper Saddle River, NJ
25.
MizerskiD.MillerR.MizerskiK.LamD.The stochastic nature of purchasing a state's lottery productsAustr. Mark. J.123200456–69
26.
RomaniukJ., WightS., 2011. The stability and sales contribution of heavy buyers. Working paper, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia.
27.
RungieC.GoodhardtG.Calculation of theoretical brand performance measures from the parameters of the Dirichlet modelMark. Bull.1520041–19
28.
SternP.HammondK.The relationship between customer loyalty and purchase incidenceMark. Lett.1520045–19
29.
SharpB.WrightM.GoodhardtG.Purchase loyalty is polarised into either repertoire or subscription patternsAustr. Mark. J.1020027–20
WierengaB.An investigation of brand choice processes1974Rotterdam University PressRotterdam
34.
WinkelmannR.Econometric analysis of count data5th ed.2008Springer-VerlagBerlin
35.
WuC.ChenH.-L.Counting your customers: compounding customer's in-store decisions, interpurchase time, and repurchasing behaviorEur. J. Oper. Res.12712000109–119
36.
WuC.ChenH.-L.A consumer purchasing model with learning and departure behaviourJ. Oper. Res. Soc.5152000583–591
