IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fda/fdaddt/2007-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Proposal to Distinguish State Dependence and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Binary Brand Choice Models

Author

Listed:
  • José M. Labeaga
  • Mercedes Martos-Partal

Abstract

This paper uses binary choice models that specify four possible sources of observed regularity in the consumer brand choice decision over purchase occasion: namely, state dependence, observed and unobserved heterogeneity and correlation effects. The objective is to distinguish correctly among the effects of these four variables. The estimation method proposed is an alternative to the most commonly used estimation methods in marketing choice models. We consider that the alternative method appropriately controls for observed heterogeneity and unobserved heterogeneity correlated with the state dependence variable because of the way the state dependence variable is built. The model is used for the first time in marketing following the methodology proposed by Chamberlain (1984). A relationship for unobserved heterogeneity is specified, taking into account the correlation among unobserved heterogeneity and other choice determinants. In this way, we split the influence of household state dependence and tastes on brand choice. The findings are very conclusive. We find that because the individual effects and the covariates are correlated, traditional estimation methods cannot be used to split state dependence and unobserved heterogeneity. The proposed model is found to yield better measures of predictive performance than the conventional model. The results are found to be robust across categories of laundry detergent and have significant implications for marketing policy.

Suggested Citation

  • José M. Labeaga & Mercedes Martos-Partal, 2007. "A Proposal to Distinguish State Dependence and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Binary Brand Choice Models," Working Papers 2007-02, FEDEA.
  • Handle: RePEc:fda:fdaddt:2007-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://documentos.fedea.net/pubs/dt/2007/dt-2007-02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James M. Lattin, 1987. "A Model of Balanced Choice Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 48-65.
    2. J. Morgan Jones & Jane T. Landwehr, 1988. "Removing Heterogeneity Bias from Logit Model Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 41-59.
    3. Chamberlain, Gary, 1984. "Panel data," Handbook of Econometrics, in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 22, pages 1247-1318, Elsevier.
    4. Rishin Roy & Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Sudeep Haldar, 1996. "A Framework for Investigating Habits, “The Hand of the Past,” and Heterogeneity in Dynamic Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 280-299.
    5. Keane, Michael P, 1997. "Modeling Heterogeneity and State Dependence in Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 15(3), pages 310-327, July.
    6. Mark Uncles & Andrew Ehrenberg & Kathy Hammond, 1995. "Patterns of Buyer Behavior: Regularities, Models, and Extensions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 71-78.
    7. Sanjay K. Dhar & Stephen J. Hoch, 1997. "Why Store Brand Penetration Varies by Retailer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 208-227.
    8. Tülin Erdem, 1996. "A Dynamic Analysis of Market Structure Based on Panel Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 359-378.
    9. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 1983. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 203-238.
    10. Rosen, Sherwin, 2007. "Studies in Labor Markets," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226726304, December.
    11. Andrew M. Jones & José M. Labeaga, 2003. "Individual heterogeneity and censoring in panel data estimates of tobacco expenditure," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 157-177.
    12. Erdem, Tulin & Sun, Baohong, 2001. "Testing for Choice Dynamics in Panel Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 19(2), pages 142-152, April.
    13. Füsun Gönül & Kannan Srinivasan, 1993. "Modeling Multiple Sources of Heterogeneity in Multinomial Logit Models: Methodological and Managerial Issues," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 213-229.
    14. Frank M. Bass & Jerry Wind, 1995. "Introduction to the Special Issue: Empirical Generalizations in Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 1-5.
    15. Elrod, Terry & Keane, Michael, 1995. "A Factor-Analytic Probit Model for Representing the Market Structure in Panel Data," MPRA Paper 52434, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Lakshman Krishnamurthi & S. P. Raj, 1988. "A Model of Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Price Sensitivities," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 1-20.
    17. P. B. Seetharaman, 2004. "Modeling Multiple Sources of State Dependence in Random Utility Models: A Distributed Lag Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 263-271, April.
    18. James J. Heckman, 1981. "Heterogeneity and State Dependence," NBER Chapters, in: Studies in Labor Markets, pages 91-140, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baltas, George & Doyle, Peter, 2001. "Random utility models in marketing research: a survey," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 115-125, February.
    2. P. B. Seetharaman, 2004. "Modeling Multiple Sources of State Dependence in Random Utility Models: A Distributed Lag Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 263-271, April.
    3. Chintagunta, Pradeep & Kyriazidou, Ekaterini & Perktold, Josef, 2001. "Panel data analysis of household brand choices," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 103(1-2), pages 111-153, July.
    4. Dan Horsky & Sanjog Misra & Paul Nelson, 2006. "Observed and Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity in Brand-Choice Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 322-335, 07-08.
    5. Martijn G. de Jong & Donald R. Lehmann & Oded Netzer, 2012. "State-Dependence Effects in Surveys," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 838-854, September.
    6. González-Benito, Óscar, 2004. "Random effects choice models: seeking latent predisposition segments in the context of retail store format selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 167-177, April.
    7. Marshall Freimer & Dan Horsky, 2008. "Try It, You Will Like It—Does Consumer Learning Lead to Competitive Price Promotions?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 796-810, 09-10.
    8. Mark D. Agee, 2020. "Classroom management, persistent bullying, and teacher practices in a discrete choice model of habit formation," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(1), pages 5-16, December.
    9. Roozbeh Irani-Kermani & Edward C. Jaenicke & Ardalan Mirshani, 2023. "Accommodating heterogeneity in brand loyalty estimation: application to the U.S. beer retail market," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(4), pages 820-835, December.
    10. Oded Netzer & James M. Lattin & V. Srinivasan, 2008. "A Hidden Markov Model of Customer Relationship Dynamics," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 185-204, 03-04.
    11. Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Panel data discrete choice models of consumer demand," Economics Papers 2013-W08, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    12. Jay Pil Choi & Seung-Hyun Hong & Seonghoon Jeon, 2013. "Local Identity and Persistent Leadership in Market Share Dynamics: Evidence from Deregulation in the Korean Soju Industry," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 29, pages 267-304.
    13. Sergi Jiménez-Martín & Antonio Ladrón de Guevara-Martínez, 2009. "A state-dependent model of hybrid behavior with rational consumers in the attribute space," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 33(3), pages 347-383, September.
    14. Daniel Fleder & Kartik Hosanagar, 2009. "Blockbuster Culture's Next Rise or Fall: The Impact of Recommender Systems on Sales Diversity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 697-712, May.
    15. Victor Aguirregabiria & Jesus Carro, 2021. "Identification of Average Marginal Effects in Fixed Effects Dynamic Discrete Choice Models," Working Papers tecipa-701, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    16. Abramson, Charles & Buchmueller, Thomas & Currim, Imran, 1998. "Models of health plan choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 228-247, December.
    17. Ramkumar Janakiraman & Shantanu Dutta & Catarina Sismeiro & Philip Stern, 2008. "Physicians' Persistence and Its Implications for Their Response to Promotion of Prescription Drugs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(6), pages 1080-1093, June.
    18. Linda Thunström, 2010. "Preference Heterogeneity and Habit Persistence: The Case of Breakfast Cereal Consumption," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 76-96, February.
    19. Richard Paap & Philip Hans Franses, 2000. "A dynamic multinomial probit model for brand choice with different long-run and short-run effects of marketing-mix variables," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 717-744.
    20. Jean-Pierre Dubé, 2004. "Multiple Discreteness and Product Differentiation: Demand for Carbonated Soft Drinks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 66-81, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fda:fdaddt:2007-02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Carmen Arias (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.fedea.net .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.