In this article consumer store choice preferences are linked to retail trading areas by a new measure of the forces of geographical competition in marketing. Initial examination suggests that existing methodology does not model the overlap between intraurban trading areas correctly. The new measure may also offer improved opportunities for the study of consumer propensity to search.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BucklinLouis P. “The Concept of Mass in Intra-Urban Shopping,” Journal of Marketing, 31 (October1967), 37–42.
2.
BucklinLouis P. “Testing Propensities to Shop,” Journal of Marketing, 30 (January1966), 22–7.
3.
BucklinLouis P.Shopping Patterns in an Urban Area.Berkeley: Institute of Business and Economic Research, University of California, 1967.
4.
BucklinLouis P. and CarmanJames M.The Design of Consumer Research Panels.Berkeley: Institute of Business and Economic Research, University of California, 1965.
5.
DixonWilfred J., ed. Biomedical Computer Programs.Los Angeles: Health Science Computing Facility, University of California, 1965.
6.
HartleyHerman O. “The Modified Gauss-Newton Method for the Fitting of Non-Linear Regression Functions by Least Squares,” Technometrics, 3 (May1961), 269–80.
7.
HuffDavid L. “Ecological Characteristics of Consumer Behavior,” Proceedings.The Regional Science Association, 1961, 19–28.
8.
MurdieRobert A. “Cultural Differences in Consumer Travel,” Economic Geography, 41 (July1965), 211–33.
9.
PredAlan. Behavior and Location, Lund Studies in Geography, Series B, No. 27. Lund, Sweden: The Royal University of Lund, 1967.
10.
ThorpeDavid and NaderG. A. “Customer Movement and Shopping Centre Structure: A Study of a Central Place System in Northern Durham,” Regional Studies, 1 (1967), 183–4.
