By using the cigarette industry's ad ban of 1970 as a “natural” experiment, the authors explore managerially related effects of such an advertising “shock” through price and advertising elasticities as well as brand purchase inertia. Results indicate substantial differences in the elasticity and inertia values between pre- and post-ban periods. In an environment with reduced advertising options, product demand is more price sensitive. Demand also becomes more inelastic with respect to advertising fluctuations if television and radio can no longer be used as media vehicles. Brand purchase inertia is significantly higher after the ban as consumers cease to learn of and experiment with new brands. The study has important implications for brand management in a regulatory setting and addresses the possibility of an advertising ban's potential to act as a barrier to entry.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advertising Age (1984), “Tales of '85: What to Buy … and Why,” December 21, 2, 24.
2.
Advertising Age (1985), “Whole World is Watching U.S. Alcohol Ad Debate,” February 11, 70.
3.
AssmusGert, FarleyJohn U., and LehmannDonald R. (1984), “How Advertising Affects Sales: A Meta-Analysis of Econometric Results,”Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (February), 65–74.
4.
BainJoe S. (1956), Barriers to New Competition: Their Character and Consequences in Manufacturing Industries., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
CarpenterG. S., and FarleyJ. U. (1984), “Detecting and Estimating Structural Parameter Differences Over Data Subsets in Simultaneous-Equation Models,” working paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles.
6.
ChowG. C. (1960), “Test of Equality Between Subsets of Coefficients in Two Linear Regressions,”Econometrica, 28 (July), 591–605.
7.
CochraneD., and OrcuttG. H. (1949), “Application of Least Squares Regression to Relationships Containing Autocor-related Error Terms,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44 (March), 32–61.
8.
ComanorWilliam S., and WilsonThomas A. (1974), Advertising and Market Power., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
ComanorWilliam S., and WilsonThomas A. (1967), “Advertising, Market Structure, and Performance,”Review of Economics and Statistics, 49 (November), 423–40.
10.
ComanorWilliam S., and WilsonThomas A. (1979), “The Effect of Advertising on Competition: A Survey,”Journal of Economic Literature, 17 (June), 453–76.
11.
DhrymesP. J. (1971), Distributed Lags: Problems of Estimation and Formulation., San Francisco: Holden-Day.
12.
DorfmanRobert, and SteinerPeter O. (1954), “Optimal Advertising and Optimal Quality,”American Economic Review, 44 (December), 826–36.
13.
GujarathiD. (1970), “Use of Dummy Variables in Testing for Equality Between Sets of Coefficients in Two Linear Regressions—A Note,”American Statistician, 24 (February), 50–2.
14.
HamiltonJames L. (1972), “The Demand for Cigarettes: Advertising, the Health Scare and the Cigarette Advertising Ban,”Review of Economics and Statistics, 54, 401–11.
15.
HirshleiferJack (1976), Price Theory and Applications., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
16.
IppolitoRichard A., MurphyDennis R., and SantDonald (1979), “Staff Report on Consumer Responses to Cigarette Health Information.”Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission.
17.
JöreskogK. G. (1971), “Simultaneous Factor Analysis in Several Populations,”Psychometrika, 36 (December), 409–26.
18.
JöreskogK. G. (1977), “Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences: Specification, Estimation and Testing,”Applications of Statistics, in KrishnaiahP. R., ed. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 265–87.
19.
JöreskogK. G., and SörbomD. (1984), LISREL: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood (Version VI)., Chicago: National Educational Resources, Inc.
20.
KaldorNicholas (1950), “The Economic Aspects of Advertising,”Review of Economic Studies, 18 (1), 1–27.
21.
KempthorneO. (1952), The Design and Analysis of Experiments., New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
22.
KrishnamurthiLakshman, and RajS. P. (1985), “The Effect of Advertising on Consumer Price Sensitivity,”Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (May), 119–29.
23.
KullbackS., and RosenblattH. M. (1957), “On the Analysis of Multiple Regression in K Categories,”Biometrika, 44 (June), 67–83.
24.
LyonH. L., and SimonJ. L. (1968), “Price Elasticity of the Demand for Cigarettes in the United States,”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50 (November), 881–93.
25.
MaddalaG. S. (1977), Econometrics., New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
26.
MaxwellJ. C. (1982), Historical Trends in the Cigarette Industry.New York: Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Research.
27.
Media/Scope (1968), February, 95.
28.
NelsonPhillip (1970), “Information and Consumer Behavior,”Journal of Political Economy, 78 (March/April), 311–29.
29.
NelsonPhillip (1974), “Advertising as Information,”Journal of Political Economy, 82 (July/August), 729–54.
30.
NelsonPhillip (1975), “The Economic Consequences of Advertising,”Journal of Business, 48 (April), 213–41.
31.
PaldaK. S. (1964), The Measurement of Cumulative Advertising Effects.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
32.
PelesYoram (1971), “Economies of Scale in Advertising, Beer, and Cigarettes,”Journal of Business, 44 (January), 32–7.
33.
RaoC. R. (1952), Advanced Statistical Methods in Biometric Research.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
34.
SchmalenseeRichard (1974), “Brand Loyalty and Barriers to Entry,”Southern Economic Journal, 40 (April), 579–88.
35.
SchneiderLynne, KleinBenjamin, and MurphyKevin M. (1981), “Governmental Regulation of Cigarette Health Information,”Journal of Law and Economics, 24 (December), 575–612.
36.
StiglerGeorge (1961), “The Economics of Information,”Journal of Political Economy, 69 (June), 213–25.
37.
TalwarP. P. (1983), “Detecting a Shift in Location: Some Robust Tests,”Journal of Econometrics, 23 (December), 353–67.
38.
TelserLester G. (1964), “Advertising and Competition,”Journal of Political Economy, 72 (December), 537–62.
39.
WarnerKenneth E. (1977), “The Effects of the Anti-Smoking Campaign on Cigarette Consumption,”American Journal of Public Health, 67 (July), 645–50.
