IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Bias and Systematic Change in the Parameter Estimates of Macro-Level Diffusion Models

  • Christophe Van den Bulte

    (The Wharton School, 1400 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6371)

  • Gary L. Lilien

    (Smeal College of Business Administration, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)

Registered author(s):

    Studies estimating the Bass model and other macro-level diffusion models with an unknown ceiling feature three curious empirical regularities: (i) the estimated ceiling is often close to the cumulative number of adopters in the last observation period, (ii) the estimated coefficient of social contagion or imitation tends to decrease as one adds later observations to the data set, and (iii) the estimated coefficient of social contagion or imitation tends to decrease systematically as the estimated ceiling increases. We analyze these patterns in detail, focusing on the Bass model and the nonlinear least squares (NLS) estimation method. Using both empirical and simulated diffusion data, we show that NLS estimates of the Bass model coefficients are biased and that they change systematically as one extends the number of observations used in the estimation. We also identify the lack of richness in the data compared to the complexity of the model (known as ill-conditioning) as the cause of these estimation problems. In an empirical analysis of twelve innovations, we assess how the model parameter estimates change as one adds later observations to the data set. Our analysis shows that, on average, a 10% increase in the observed cumulative market penetration is associated with, roughly, a 5% increase in estimated market size , a 10% decrease in the estimated co-efficient of imitation , and a 15% increase the estimated co-efficient of innovation . A simulation study shows that the NLS parameter estimates of the Bass model change systematically as one adds later observations to the data set, even in the absence of model misspecification. We find about the same effect sizes as in the empirical analysis. The simulation also shows that the estimates are biased and that the amount of bias is a function of (i) the amount of noise in the data, (ii) the number of data points, and (iii) the difference between the cumulative penetration in the last observation period and the true penetration ceiling (i.e., the extent of right censoring). All three conditions affect the level of ill-conditioning in the estimation, which, in turn, affects bias in NLS regression. In situations consistent with marketing applications, can be underestimated by 20%, underestimated by the same amount, and overestimated by 30%. The existence of a downward bias in the estimate of and an upward bias in the estimate of , and the fact that these biases become smaller as the number of data points increases and the censoring decreases, can explain why systematic changes in the parameter estimates are observed in many applications. A reduced bias, though, is not the only possible explanation for the systematic change in parameter estimates observed in empirical studies. Not accounting for the growth in the population, for the effect of economic and marketing variables, or for population heterogeneity is likely to result in increasing and decreasing as well. In an analysis of six innovations, however, we find that attempts to address possible model misspecification problems by making the model more flexible and adding free parameters result in larger rather than smaller systematic changes in the estimates. The bias and systematic change problems we identify are sufficiently large to make long-term predictive, prescriptive and descriptive applications of Bass-type models problematic. Hence, our results should be of interest to diffusion researchers as well as to users of diffusion models, including market forecasters and strategic market planners.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.16.4.338
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Marketing Science.

    Volume (Year): 16 (1997)
    Issue (Month): 4 ()
    Pages: 338-353

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:16:y:1997:i:4:p:338-353
    Contact details of provider: Postal: 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA
    Phone: +1-443-757-3500
    Fax: 443-757-3515
    Web page: http://www.informs.org/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:16:y:1997:i:4:p:338-353. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.