IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v18y1999i2p95-114.html

The “Shopping Basket”: A Model for Multicategory Purchase Incidence Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Puneet Manchanda

    (Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

  • Asim Ansari

    (Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027)

  • Sunil Gupta

    (Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027)

Abstract

Consumers make multicategory decisions in a variety of contexts such as choice of multiple categories during a shopping trip or mail-order purchasing. The choice of one category may affect the selection of another category due to the complementary nature (e.g., cake mix and cake frosting) of the two categories. Alternatively, two categories may co-occur in a shopping basket not because they are complementary but because of similar purchase cycles (e.g., beer and diapers) or because of a host of other unobserved factors. While complementarity gives managers some control over consumers' buying behavior (e.g., a change in the price of cake mix could change the purchase probability of cake frosting), co-occurrence or co-incidence is less controllable. Other factors that may affect multi-category choice may be (unobserved) household preferences or (observed) household demographics. We also argue that not accounting for these three factors simultaneously could lead to erroneous inferences. We then develop a conceptual framework that incorporates complementarity, co-incidence and heterogeneity (both observed and unobserved) as the factors that could lead to multi-category choice. We then translate this framework into a model of multi-category choice. Our model is based on random utility theory and allows for simultaneous, interdependent choice of many items. This model, the multi probit model, is implemented in a Hierarchical Bayes framework. The hierarchy consists of three levels. The first level captures the choice of items for the shopping basket during a shopping trip. The second level captures differences across households and the third level specifies the priors for the unknown parameters. We generalize some recent advances in Markov chain Monte Carlo methods in order to estimate the model. Specifically, we use a substitution sampler which incorporates techniques such as the Metropolis Hit-and-Run algorithm and the Gibbs Sampler. The model is estimated on four categories (cake mix, cake frosting, fabric detergent and fabric softener) using multicategory panel data. The results disentangle the complementarity and co-incidence effects. The complementarity results show that pricing and promotional changes in one category affect purchase incidence in related product categories. In general, the cross-price and cross-promotion effects are smaller than the own-price and own-promotions effects. The cross-effects are also asymmetric across pairs of categories, i.e., related category pairs may be characterized as having a “primary” and a “secondary” category. Thus these results provide a more complete description of the effects of promotional changes by examining them both within and across categories. The co-incidence results show the extent of the relationship between categories that arises from uncontrollable and unobserved factors. These results are useful since they provide insights into a general structure of dependence relationships across categories. The heterogeneity results show that observed demographic factors such as family size influence the intrinsic category preference of households. Larger family sizes also tend to make households more price sensitive for both the primary and secondary categories. We find that price sensitivities across categories are not highly correlated at the household level. We also find some evidence that intrinsic preferences for cake mix and cake frosting are more closely related than preferences for fabric detergent and fabric softener. We compare our model with a series of null models using both estimation and holdout samples. We show that both complementarity and co-incidence play a significant role in predicting multicategory choice. We also show how many single-category models used in conjunction may not be good predictors of joint choice. Our results are likely to be of interest to retailers and manufacturers trying to optimize pricing and promotion strategies across many categories as well as in designing micromarketing strategies. We illustrate some of these benefits by carrying out an analysis which shows that the “true” impact of complementarity and co-incidence on profitability is significant in a retail setting. Our model can also be applied to other domains. The combination of item interdependence and individual household level estimates may be of particular interest to database marketers in building customized “cross-selling” strategies in the direct mail and financial service industries.

Suggested Citation

  • Puneet Manchanda & Asim Ansari & Sunil Gupta, 1999. "The “Shopping Basket”: A Model for Multicategory Purchase Incidence Decisions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 95-114.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:18:y:1999:i:2:p:95-114
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.18.2.95
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.18.2.95
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.18.2.95?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter E. Rossi & Robert E. McCulloch & Greg M. Allenby, 1996. "The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 321-340.
    2. Neeraj Arora & Greg M. Allenby & James L. Ginter, 1998. "A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 29-44.
    3. Menon, Satya & Kahn, Barbara E, 1995. "The Impact of Context on Variety Seeking in Product Choices," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(3), pages 285-295, December.
    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.
    5. Jagmohan S. Raju, 1992. "The Effect of Price Promotions on Variability in Product Category Sales," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 207-220.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Andrew Ainslie & Peter E. Rossi, 1998. "Similarities in Choice Behavior Across Product Categories," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 91-106.
    9. David R. Bell & James M. Lattin, 1998. "Shopping Behavior and Consumer Preference for Store Price Format: Why “Large Basket” Shoppers Prefer EDLP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 66-88.
    10. Swinyard, William R, 1993. "The Effects of Mood, Involvement, and Quality of Store Experience on Shopping Intentions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(2), pages 271-280, September.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Peter E. Rossi & Greg M. Allenby, 2003. "Bayesian Statistics and Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 304-328, July.
    4. Greg M. Allenby & Thomas S. Shively & Sha Yang & Mark J. Garratt, 2004. "A Choice Model for Packaged Goods: Dealing with Discrete Quantities and Quantity Discounts," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 95-108, June.
    5. Kim, Chul & Jun, Duk Bin & Park, Sungho, 2018. "Capturing flexible correlations in multiple-discrete choice outcomes using copulas," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 34-59.
    6. Bradlow, Eric T. & Gangwar, Manish & Kopalle, Praveen & Voleti, Sudhir, 2017. "The Role of Big Data and Predictive Analytics in Retailing," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 79-95.
    7. Nitin Mehta, 2007. "Investigating Consumers' Purchase Incidence and Brand Choice Decisions Across Multiple Product Categories: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 196-217, 03-04.
    8. Sanjog Misra, 2005. "Generalized Reverse Discrete Choice Models," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 175-200, June.
    9. Lynd Bacon & Peter Lenk, 2012. "Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 453-474, December.
    10. Kwangpil Chang & S. Siddarth & Charles B. Weinberg, 1999. "The Impact of Heterogeneity in Purchase Timing and Price Responsiveness on Estimates of Sticker Shock Effects," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 178-192.
    11. Jie Zhang & Lakshman Krishnamurthi, 2004. "Customizing Promotions in Online Stores," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 561-578, June.
    12. Glady, Nicolas & Lemmens, Aurélie & Croux, Christophe, 2015. "Unveiling the relationship between the transaction timing, spending and dropout behavior of customers," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 78-93.
    13. Ashutosh Prasad & Brian T. Ratchford & Sonika Singh, 2021. "Consumer Choice and Multi-Store Shopping: an Empirical Investigation," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 7(3), pages 74-89, October.
    14. Ji Yan & Kun Tian & Huw D. Dixon & Saeed Heravi & Peter Morgan, 2014. "Shop Around and You Pay More," CESifo Working Paper Series 4940, CESifo.
    15. Natter, Martin & Feurstein, Markus, 2002. "Real world performance of choice-based conjoint models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 448-458, March.
    16. Ashutosh Prasad & Brian T. Ratchford & Sonika Singh, 2020. "Consumer Choice and Multi-Store Shopping: an Empirical Investigation," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 7(3), pages 74-89, October.
    17. repec:tiu:tiutis:52e91e47-4a2d-4e7b-bb23-3926b842ae30 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Jaehwan Kim & Greg M. Allenby & Peter E. Rossi, 2002. "Modeling Consumer Demand for Variety," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 229-250, December.
    19. Dennis Fok & Richard Paap & Philip Hans Franses, 2014. "Incorporating Responsiveness to Marketing Efforts in Brand Choice Modeling," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-25, February.
    20. Makoto Abe & Yasemin Boztug & Lutz Hildebrandt, 2004. "Investigating the competitive assumption of Multinomial Logit models of brand choice by nonparametric modeling," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 635-657, December.
    21. Neeraj Arora & Ty Henderson, 2007. "Embedded Premium Promotion: Why It Works and How to Make It More Effective," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 514-531, 07-08.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:inm:ormksc:v:18:y:1999:i:2:p:95-114. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.