IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v18y1999i4p569-583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Analyst Overconfidence About the Functional Form of Demand Models Can Lead to Overpricing

Author

Listed:
  • Alan L. Montgomery

    (Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213-3890)

  • Eric T. Bradlow

    (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1464 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6371)

Abstract

Generally, profit predictions are made conditional upon a particular functional form. The typical caveat offered is that this is not the “true” demand model, but is instead some reasonable approximation. We show how the notion of an approximation can be explicitly represented using a random coefficient model. Our model nests the usual situation of complete model certainty as a special case. We go on to show how ignoring the uncertainty in functional form induced by approximation will lead to erroneous pricing decisions that may frequently lead to overpricing. For example, an inelastic, double-log demand model implies infinite optimal prices. This is clearly a nonsensical, analyst recommendation. We propose a more general form of the double-log model that allows for high confidence in the observed price range, but incorporates increased uncertainty about the adequacy of the double-log approximation as prices move beyond the observed range. The optimal pricing solutions for this new model are lower than those for the usual case with complete certainty. In fact, we find well-defined optimal pricing solutions even for inelastic double-log demand models. This is a finding of great practical importance, given that aggregate demand models tend to be inelastic for grocery categories, and that log demand models are frequently used (Hoch et al. 1995). We argue that the lack of recognizing uncertainty in the modeling process may partially account for why there is a seeming disparity between observed retail prices and the optimal prices implied by maximizing total category profits using estimated demand models (Little and Shapiro 1980). The problems of making optimal pricing decisions using double-log demand models calibrated with store-level scanner data have been recognized. Previous solutions are to constrain the results to achieve reasonable solutions (Reibstein and Gatignon 1984, Montgomery 1997) or to avoid these models altogether in favor of household choice models aggregated to the store-level (Vilcassim and Chintagunta 1995). Our assessment of the problem is that it is not necessarily an issue of model specification, but one of inference. In other words, double-log models fit well, but optimization leads to out-of-range predictions. Our suggestion is that inferences from an estimated demand model need to be approached with some caution. Specifically, uncertainty about predictions will always exist. If this uncertainty is incorporated into models such as the double-log form, then much better inferences can be made. It is our hope that this research will encourage others to think not only about model specification and estimation, but also inference.

Suggested Citation

  • Alan L. Montgomery & Eric T. Bradlow, 1999. "Why Analyst Overconfidence About the Functional Form of Demand Models Can Lead to Overpricing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 569-583.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:18:y:1999:i:4:p:569-583
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.18.4.569
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ratchford, Brian T & Ford, Gary T, 1976. "A Study of Prices and Market Shares in the Computer Mainframe Industry," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(2), pages 194-218, April.
    2. Metwally, M M, 1975. "Advertising and Competitive Behaviour of Selected Australian Firms," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 57(4), pages 417-427, November.
    3. Blattberg, Robert C & George, Edward I, 1992. "Estimation under Profit-Driven Loss Functions," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(4), pages 437-444, October.
    4. Lester G. Telser, 1962. "Advertising and Cigarettes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70, pages 471-471.
    5. Becker, Gary S & Grossman, Michael & Murphy, Kevin M, 1994. "An Empirical Analysis of Cigarette Addiction," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 396-418, June.
    6. Maddala, G S, et al, 1997. "Estimation of Short-Run and Long-Run Elasticities of Energy Demand from Panel Data Using Shrinkage Estimators," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 15(1), pages 90-100, January.
    7. Rajiv Lal, 1990. "Price Promotions: Limiting Competitive Encroachment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 247-262.
    8. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard, 1986. "Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 728-741, September.
    9. Little, John D C & Shapiro, Jeremy F, 1980. "A Theory for Pricing Nonfeatured Products in Supermarkets," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 199-209, July.
    10. Makoto Abe, 1995. "A Nonparametric Density Estimation Method for Brand Choice Using Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 300-325.
    11. Alan L. Montgomery, 1997. "Creating Micro-Marketing Pricing Strategies Using Supermarket Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 315-337.
    12. Greg M. Allenby, 1989. "A Unified Approach to Identifying, Estimating and Testing Demand Structures with Aggregate Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 265-280.
    13. Kirthi Kalyanam, 1996. "Pricing Decisions Under Demand Uncertainty: A Bayesian Mixture Model Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 207-221.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Günter J. Hitsch, 2006. "An Empirical Model of Optimal Dynamic Product Launch and Exit Under Demand Uncertainty," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 25-50, 01-02.
    2. 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.
    3. James, Gareth M. & Sood, Ashish, 2006. "Performing hypothesis tests on the shape of functional data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 50(7), pages 1774-1792, April.
    4. George E. Monahan & Nicholas C. Petruzzi & Wen Zhao, 2004. "The Dynamic Pricing Problem from a Newsvendor's Perspective," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 73-91, September.
    5. Anett Weber & Winfried J. Steiner & Stefan Lang, 2017. "A comparison of semiparametric and heterogeneous store sales models for optimal category pricing," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(2), pages 403-445, March.
    6. Jin Gyo Kim & Ulrich Menzefricke & Fred M. Feinberg, 2007. "Capturing Flexible Heterogeneous Utility Curves: A Bayesian Spline Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(2), pages 340-354, February.
    7. Peter E. Rossi & Greg M. Allenby, 2003. "Bayesian Statistics and Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 304-328, July.
    8. Hongju Liu & Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Ting Zhu, 2010. "Complementarities and the Demand for Home Broadband Internet Services," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 701-720, 07-08.
    9. Marcel Goi'{c} & Kinshuk Jerath & Kannan Srinivasan, 2011. "Cross-Market Discounts," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 134-148, 01-02.
    10. repec:spr:infsem:v:16:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10257-017-0356-9 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:4:p:569-583. 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: (Matthew Walls). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.