Prior empirical literature states that asymmetry in cross-price effect favors the high-share brand. That is, when high-share brands discount, they have a greater impact on low-share brands than the reverse. This conclusion is based on consideration of cross-price elasticities. The authors point out that focusing on cross-price elasticities for assessing asymmetry is inappropriate for determining the incremental profitability from price promotions. Instead, asymmetries should be investigated in absolute cross-price effects, that is, change in market share of a competing brand for a unit price change of the focal brand. The authors theoretically and empirically demonstrate that asymmetry reverses when absolute cross-price effect is considered. That is, the absolute cross-price effect of a price reduction of a low-share brand on the market share or sales of a high-share brand is greater than the reverse. The authors discuss the implications of the findings and future research directions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbeMakoto, (1998), “Behavioral Explanations for Asymmetric Price Competition,”Marketing Science Institute Working Paper No. 98–123.Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
2.
AllenbyGreg M., and RossiPeter E., (1991), “Quality Perceptions and Asymmetric Switching Between Brands,”Marketing Science, 10(Summer), 185–204.
3.
AllenbyGreg M., and RossiPeter E., (1999), “Marketing Models of Consumer Heterogeneity,”Journal of Econometrics, 89(1), 57–78.
4.
BassFrank M., (1995), “Empirical Generalizations and Marketing Science: A Personal View,”Marketing Science, 14(3), G6–G19.
5.
BassFrank M., JeulandAbel, and WrightGordon, (1976), “Equilibrium Stochastic Choice and Market Penetration Theories: Derivations and Comparisons,”Management Science, 10(June), 1051–1063.
6.
BellDavid R., ChiangJeongwen, and PadmanabhanV., (1999), “The Decomposition of Promotional Response: An Empirical Generalization,”Marketing Science, 18(4), 504–26.
7.
BlattbergRobert C., and WisniewskiKenneth J., (1989), “Price Induced Patterns of Competition,”Marketing Science, 8(Fall), 291–309.
8.
BoltonRuth N., (1989), “Relationship Between Market Characteristics and Promotional Price Elasticities,”Marketing Science, 8(Spring), 153–69.
9.
BronnenbergBart, and WathieuLuc, (1996), “Asymmetric Promotion Effects and Brand Positioning,”Marketing Science, 15(4), 379–94.
10.
ChintaguntaPradeep, (1993), “Investigating Purchase Incidence, Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Decisions of Households,”Marketing Science, 12(3), 184–208.
11.
CotterillRonald W., PutsisWilliam P., and DharRavi, (2000), “Assessing the Competitive Interaction Between Private Labels and National Brands,”Journal of Business, 73(January), 109–37.
12.
EhrenbergA.S.C., (1988), Repeat Buying: Facts, Theory, and Applications.New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
GoodhartG.J., EhrenbergA.S.C., and ChatfieldC., (1984), “The Dirichlet: A Comprehensive Model of Buying Behavior,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Section A, 147(Part 5), 621–55.
14.
GuptaSunil, (1988), “Impact of Sales Promotion of When, What, and How Much to Buy,”Journal of Marketing Research, 25(November), 342–55.
15.
HardieBruce, JohnsonEric, and FaderPeter, (1993), “Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice,”Marketing Science, 12(4), 378–94.
16.
KamakuraWagner, and RussellGary, (1989), “A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26(November), 379–90.
17.
KimByung Do, BlattbergRobert, and RossiPeter, (1995), “Modeling the Distribution of Price Sensitivity and Implications for Optimal Retail Pricing,”Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13(July), 291–303.
LemonKatherine N., and WinerRussell S., (1993), “Evaluating Consumers’ Responses to Private Label Price Promotions Utilizing Brand-Loyalty Based Segmentation,” working paper, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley.
20.
LuceR., (1959), Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
21.
MelaCarl F., GuptaSunil, and LehmannDonald, (1997), “The Long-Term Impact of Promotion and Advertising on Consumer Brand Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research, 34(May), 248–61.
22.
RiceJohn A., (1995), Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis.Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
23.
SethuramanRaj, (1995), “A Meta-Analysis of National Brand and Store Brand Cross-Promotional Price Elasticities,”Marketing Letters, 6(4), 275–86.
24.
SethuramanRaj, SrinivasanV., and KimDoyle, (1999), “Asymmetric and Neighborhood Cross-Price Effects: Some Empirical Generalizations,”Marketing Science, 18(1), 23–41.
25.
SivakumarK., and RajS.P., (1997), “Quality-Tier Competition: How Price Changes Influence Brand Choice and Category Choice,”Journal of Marketing, 61(July), 71–84.
26.
TellisGerard J., (1988), “The Price Elasticity of Selective Demand: A Meta-Analysis of Econometric Models of Sales,”Journal of Marketing Research, 25(November), 331–41.
27.
VanhonackerWilfred R., and WinerRussell S., (1990), “A Rational Random Behavior Model of Choice,”Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis, 6(2), 41–52.
28.
ZenorMichael J., (1994), “The Profit Benefits of Category Management,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31(May), 202–13.
