IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uta/papers/2018_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Advertising Economics Under Uncertainty: An Alternative Approach

Author

Listed:
  • James P. Gander

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to present an alternative approach to analyzing firm advertising under uncertainty. The approach considers the simultaneity (orduality) of two effects of advertising, one effect on the probability associated with the bundle of goods the typical buyer purchases and the other effect on the probability associated with the time the buyer spends in the store making the purchases. While bundle and time are well explored in the literature, our simultaneity approach to determine the optimum level (and type) of advertising results in implications that are not present in the literature. The novelty of this alternative approach is that it shows that there can be the possibility of an equivalent dual optimal advertising effect on the expected value of the bundle and the expected value of the time spent. The implications of such an equivalence (or lack thereof) for advertising decision making are then explored.

Suggested Citation

  • James P. Gander, 2018. "Advertising Economics Under Uncertainty: An Alternative Approach," Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, University of Utah 2018_01, University of Utah, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:uta:papers:2018_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://economics.utah.edu/research/publications/2018_01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary S. Becker & Kevin M. Murphy, 1993. "A Simple Theory of Advertising as a Good or Bad," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(4), pages 941-964.
    2. Nichols, Len M, 1985. "Advertising and Economic Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(1), pages 213-218, March.
    3. Avinash Dixit & Victor Norman, 1978. "Advertising and Welfare," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, Spring.
    4. Harlam, Bari A. & Krishna, Aradhna & Lehmann, Donald R. & Mela, Carl, 1995. "Impact of bundle type, price framing and familiarity on purchase intention for the bundle," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 57-66, May.
    5. Du, Rong & Hu, Qiying & Ai, Shizhong, 2007. "Stochastic optimal budget decision for advertising considering uncertain sales responses," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(3), pages 1042-1054, December.
    6. Franklin M. Fisher & John J. McGowan, 1979. "Advertising and Welfare: Comment," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(2), pages 726-727, Autumn.
    7. A. Aykac & M. Corstjens & D. Gautschi & I. Horowitz, 1989. "Estimation Uncertainty and Optimal Advertising Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 42-50, January.
    8. Dung Nguyen, 1985. "An Analysis of Optimal Advertising Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 622-633, May.
    9. Park, C Whan & Iyer, Easwar S & Smith, Daniel C, 1989. "The Effects of Situational Factors on In-Store Grocery Shopping Behavior: The Role of Store Environment and Time Available for Shopping," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(4), pages 422-433, March.
    10. Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
    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. Nils‐Henrik M. von der Fehr & Kristin Stevik, 1998. "Persuasive Advertising and Product Differentiation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 113-126, July.
    2. Wang, Shinn-Shyr & Stiegert, Kyle W., 2006. "The Duopolistic Firm with Endogenous Risk Control: Case of Persuasive Advertising and Product Differentiation," Staff Paper Series 496, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    3. Subhadip Chakrabarti & Hans Haller, 2011. "An Analysis Of Advertising Wars," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 79(1), pages 100-124, January.
    4. Wang, Shinn-Shyr & Stiegert, Kyle W., 2006. "The Duopolistic Firm with Endogenous Risk Control: Case of Persuasive Advertising and Product Differentiation," Staff Papers 12606, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    5. Cardon, James H. & Pope, Rulon D., 2003. "Agricultural Market Structure, Generic Advertising, and Welfare," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Richard E. Just & Rulon D. Pope, 2017. "The many conditions under which monopolistic advertising can differ from the social optimum," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 41(3), pages 421-440, July.
    7. Azamat Valei, 2017. "Advertising Response to New Entry," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp588, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    8. Bester, Helmut & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 1995. "Price competition and advertising in oligopoly," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 1075-1088, June.
    9. ÖRS, Evren, 2006. "The Role of Advertising in Commercial Banking," CEPR Discussion Papers 5461, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay & Victor J. Tremblay, 2021. "Confidence bias and advertising in imperfectly competitive markets," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(4), pages 885-897, June.
    11. Justin P. Johnson & David P. Myatt, 2006. "On the Simple Economics of Advertising, Marketing, and Product Design," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 756-784, June.
    12. Carlos E. Carpio & Olga Isengildina-Massa, 2016. "Does Government-sponsored Advertising Increase Social Welfare? A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 239-259.
    13. Anderson, Simon P. & Gabszewicz, Jean J., 2006. "The Media and Advertising: A Tale of Two-Sided Markets," Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, in: V.A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 18, pages 567-614, Elsevier.
    14. Siqueira, Kevin Jay, 1998. "Issues of collective action: common agency, partial cooperation, and clubs," ISU General Staff Papers 1998010108000013526, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Serafin Grundl & You Suk Kim, 2019. "Consumer mistakes and advertising: The case of mortgage refinancing," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 161-213, June.
    16. Stivers, Andrew & Tremblay, Victor J., 2005. "Advertising, search costs, and social welfare," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 317-333, July.
    17. Just, Richard E. & Pope, Rulon D., 2012. "Second-best optimality of advertising when monopoly is sanctioned," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 393-398.
    18. Serafin J. Grundl & You Suk Kim, 2017. "Consumer Mistakes and Advertising : The Case of Mortgage Refinancing," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2017-067, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    19. Nelson Sá, 2015. "Market concentration and persuasive advertising: a theoretical approach," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 127-151, March.
    20. Nick Vikander, 2011. "Targeted Advertising and Social Status," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-016/1, Tinbergen Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Advertising; Uncertainty; Bundle; Time Spent; Equivalence JEL Classification: 022; 024; 511; 541;
    All these keywords.

    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:uta:papers:2018_01. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deuutus.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.