IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20020097.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Dynamic Utility Maximization Model for Product Category Consumption

Author

Listed:
  • Rutger van Oest

    (Tilburg University)

  • Philip Hans Franses

    (Faculty of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Richard Paap

    (Faculty of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

It is conceivable that the "whether to buy" and "how much tobuy" decisions in the purchasing process of households areinfluenced by the inventory process. In this paper we thereforeput forward a model for consumption, where we rely on establishedeconomic theory. We incorporate this model in a model forpurchase behavior. Our consumption specification, which isderived from utility maximization principles, is more flexiblethan an ad hoc approach, which has recently been proposed inthe literature. We illustrate our model for yogurt purchases,and show that our model yields important additional and usefulinsights. One such insight is that promotion anticipationbehavior turns out not only to occur in the purchasing process,but also in the consumption process.

Suggested Citation

  • Rutger van Oest & Philip Hans Franses & Richard Paap, 2002. "A Dynamic Utility Maximization Model for Product Category Consumption," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-097/4, Tinbergen Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20020097
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/02097.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Füsun Gönül & Kannan Srinivasan, 1996. "Estimating the Impact of Consumer Expectations of Coupons on Purchase Behavior: A Dynamic Structural Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 262-279.
    2. Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 1993. "Investigating Purchase Incidence, Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Decisions of Households," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 184-208.
    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. Tülin Erdem & Susumu Imai & Michael Keane, 2003. "Brand and Quantity Choice Dynamics Under Price Uncertainty," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 5-64, March.
    2. Jie Zhang & Lakshman Krishnamurthi, 2004. "Customizing Promotions in Online Stores," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 561-578, June.
    3. Sulin Ba & Yuan Jin & Xinxin Li & Xianghua Lu, 2020. "One Size Fits All? The Differential Impact of Online Reviews and Coupons," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(10), pages 2403-2424, October.
    4. Jean-Pierre Dubé, 2004. "Multiple Discreteness and Product Differentiation: Demand for Carbonated Soft Drinks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 66-81, September.
    5. Harald J. van Heerde & Peter S. H. Leeflang & Dick R. Wittink, 2004. "Decomposing the Sales Promotion Bump with Store Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 317-334, December.
    6. Pradeep Chintagunta & Tülin Erdem & Peter E. Rossi & Michel Wedel, 2006. "Structural Modeling in Marketing: Review and Assessment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 604-616, 11-12.
    7. Zhang, Qin & Seetharaman, P.B. & Narasimhan, Chakravarthi, 2012. "The Indirect Impact of Price Deals on Households’ Purchase Decisions Through the Formation of Expected Future Prices," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 88-101.
    8. Baohong Sun, 2005. "Promotion Effect on Endogenous Consumption," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 430-443, July.
    9. David R. Bell & Jeongwen Chiang & V. Padmanabhan, 1999. "The Decomposition of Promotional Response: An Empirical Generalization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 504-526.
    10. Pradeep Chintagunta & Jean-Pierre Dubé & Vishal Singh, 2003. "Balancing Profitability and Customer Welfare in a Supermarket Chain," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 111-147, March.
    11. Jaehwan Kim & Greg M. Allenby & Peter E. Rossi, 2002. "Modeling Consumer Demand for Variety," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 229-250, December.
    12. Christopher Hansman & Harrison Hong & Áureo de Paula & Vishal Singh, 2020. "A Sticky-Price View of Hoarding," NBER Working Papers 27051, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Raj Sethuraman & V. Srinivasan & Doyle Kim, 1999. "Asymmetric and Neighborhood Cross-Price Effects: Some Empirical Generalizations," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 23-41.
    14. Navdeep S. Sahni & Dan Zou & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2017. "Do Targeted Discount Offers Serve as Advertising? Evidence from 70 Field Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(8), pages 2688-2705, August.
    15. Bhat, Chandra R., 2005. "A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model: formulation and application to discretionary time-use decisions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 679-707, September.
    16. Andrew Ching & Susumu Imai & Masakazu Ishihara & Neelam Jain, 2012. "A practitioner’s guide to Bayesian estimation of discrete choice dynamic programming models," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 151-196, June.
    17. Michael Lewis & Yanwen Wang & Chunhua Wu, 2019. "Season Ticket Buyer Value and Secondary Market Options," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 973-993, November.
    18. Eva Ascarza & Bruce G. S. Hardie, 2013. "A Joint Model of Usage and Churn in Contractual Settings," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 570-590, July.
    19. Gonca P. Soysal & Lakshman Krishnamurthi, 2012. "Demand Dynamics in the Seasonal Goods Industry: An Empirical Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 293-316, March.
    20. Erdem, Tulin & Broniarczyk, Susan & Charavarti, Dipankar & Kapferer, Jean-Noel & Keane, Michael & Roberts, John & Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict & Swait, Joffre & Zettelmeyer, Florian, 1999. "Brand Equity, Consumer Learning and Choice," MPRA Paper 53022, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    consumption function; inventory; utility maximization; promotion anticipation.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C51 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Construction and Estimation
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis

    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:tin:wpaper:20020097. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    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.