This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Investigating Behavioral Explanations for Asymmetric Price Competition

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Makoto Abe (Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo)
Abstract

Asymmetric price competition in consumer packaged goods is a well-known phenomenon. Researchers have proposed three behavioral explanations: (1) heterogeneity in consumer preference, (2) the income effect, and (3) the reference and loss-aversion effects. These explanations have been offered independently by different researchers using different types of data with different methodology. Despite the interest in asymmetric price competition by the marketing community, no attempt has been made to compare across the three explanations and draw an inference on which one is most likely. The objectives of this paper are three-folds. Firstly, important factors when studying asymmetric price competition are discussed. These include, (1) confounding of the supply-side and demand-side factors when analyzing aggregate data, such as market share, and (2) an appropriate measure for asymmetric price competition as the change in market share of a brand for a unit price change of a competing brand. Second, based on these considerations, theoretical arguments against previous explanations are provided. (1) The Heterogeneity Effect: Aggregate data is analyzed and cross-price elasticity is used. The explanation is inferred indirectly. (2) Income effect: Infinite divisibility of goods is assumed. (3) Loss-aversion effect: Household heterogeneity is not well accounted for. These claims are then supported empirically using scanner-panel data from four categories. Third, an alternative explanation is proposed to show that a basic assumption of consumer utility in Microeconomic theory, the diminishing-marginal-return effect in price, results in asymmetric competition. It was shown that the concavity (i.e., the diminishing-marginal-return effect) in price was stronger than that of logarithm in all four product categories.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cirje/research/dp/2001/2001cf125.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo in its series CIRJE F-Series with number CIRJE-F-125.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 55 pages
Date of creation: Jul 2001
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:tky:fseres:2001cf125

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cirje/index.htm

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().

Related research
Keywords:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Winer, Russell S, 1986. " A Reference Price Model of Brand Choice for Frequently Purchased Products," Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(2), pages 250-56, September.
  2. Abe, Makoto, 1999. "A Generalized Additive Model for Discrete-Choice Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 17(3), pages 271-84, July.
  3. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. McCulloch, Robert & Rossi, Peter E., 1994. "An exact likelihood analysis of the multinomial probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-2), pages 207-240. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 1998. "Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 57-78, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Kalyanaram, Gurumurthy & Little, John D C, 1994. " An Empirical Analysis of Latitude of Price Acceptance in Consumer Package Goods," Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(3), pages 408-18, December.
  7. Mayhew, Glenn E & Winer, Russell S, 1992. " An Empirical Analysis of Internal and External Reference Prices Using Scanner Data," Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(1), pages 62-70, June.
  8. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-61, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Hauser, John R. & Shugan, Steven., 1981. "Defensive marketing stategies," Working papers 1243-81., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management. [Downloadable!]
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? All RePEc services are meant to be be free forever, as they are all run by volunteers.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-3.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.