A composite model of brand choice is presented. It allows individuals to differ in the order of the stochastic process they follow as well as in the magnitude of the process parameters. Procedures for estimating the parameters of the composite model and selecting the best submodel are proposed. Examination of several sets of panel data reveals that in some product categories consumers seem to follow the Linear Learning Model, in some the Bernoulli model, and in some divide into Markovian and Bernoulli segments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BassF. M. “The Theory of Stochastic Preference and Brand Switching,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (February 1974), 1–20.
2.
BassF. M., JeulandA., and WrightG. P. “Equilibrium Stochastic Choice and Market Penetration Theories: Derivations and Comparisons,” Management Science, 22 (June 1976), 1051–62.
3.
BlattbergR. C. and SenS. K. “An Evaluation of the Application of Minimum Chi-Square Procedures to Stochastic Models of Brand Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (November 1973), 421–7.
4.
BlattbergR. C. and SenS. K. “Market Segments and Stochastic Brand Choice Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (February 1976), 34–45.
5.
CramerH.Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton University Press, 1945.
6.
FrankR. E. “Brand Choice as a Probability Process,” Journal of Business, 35 (1962), 43–56.
7.
GivonM. and HorskyD. “Market Share Models as Approximators of Aggregated Heterogeneous Brand Choice Behavior,” Management Science, 26 (September 1978), 1404–16.
8.
GivonM. and HorskyD. “Homogeneity and Stochastic Models of Brand Choice Behavior,” Working Paper No. 7808, Graduate School of Management, University of Rochester, June 1978.
9.
HerniterJ. D. “An Entropy Model of Brand Purchase Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (November 1973), 361–75.
10.
HorskyD. “An Empirical Analysis of the Optimal Advertising Policy,” Management Science, 23 (June 1977), 1037–49.
11.
JonesJ. M. “A Comparison of Three Models of Brand Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 7 (November 1970), 466–73.
12.
JonesJ. M. “A Composite Heterogeneous Model for Brand Choice Behavior,” Management Science, 19 (January 1973), 499–509.
13.
KalwaniM. U. and MorrisonD. G. “Estimating the Proportions of ‘Always Buy’ and ‘Never Buy’ Consumers: A Liklihood Ratio Test with Sample Size Implications,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (November 1977), 601–6.
14.
KuehnA. A. “Consumer Brand Choice as a Learning Process,” Journal of Advertising Research, 2(December 1962), 10–17.
15.
MassyW. F. “Order and Homogeneity of Family Specific Brand Switching Processes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (February 1966), 48–54.
16.
MassyW. F., MontgomeryD. B., and MorrisonD. G.Stochastic Models of Buying Behavior, MIT Press, 1970.
17.
MontgomeryD. B. “Stochastic Consumer Models: Some Comparative Results,” in KingR., ed., Marketing and the New Science of Planning. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1969.
18.
MorrisonD. G. “Testing Brand-Switching Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (November 1966), 401–9.
19.
RaoC. R.Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applications, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1973.
20.
ZangwillW. “Minimizing a Function Without Calculating Derivatives,” Computer Journal, 10 (November 1967), 293–6.
