IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Endogeneity and Heterogeneity in a Probit Demand Model: Estimation Using Aggregate Data

Listed author(s):
  • Pradeep K. Chintagunta


    (Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, 1101 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

Two issues that have become increasingly important while estimating the parameters of aggregate demand functions to study firm behavior are the of marketing activities (typically, price) and across consumers in the market under consideration. Ignoring these issues in the estimation of the demand function parameters can lead to biased and inconsistent estimates for the effects of marketing activities. Endogeneity and heterogeneity have achieved prominence in large measure because of the increasing popularity of logit models to characterize demand functions using data. The logit model accounts for purchase incidence and brand choice by including a “no-purchase” alternative in the consumer's choice set. This allows for category sales to change as a function of the marketing activities of brands in the category. There are three issues with using the logit model with the no-purchase option to characterize demand when studying competitive interactions among firms. (1) The marketing literature dealing with brand choice behavior at the consumer level has found that the IIA restriction is not appropriate, as each brand in the choice set is more similar to some brands than it is to others. (2) Studies have found that the purchase incidence decision is distinct from the brand choice decision. Hence, it may not be appropriate to model the no-purchase decision as just another alternative in the choice set with the IIA restriction holding across all brands and the no-purchase option. (3) Even if the distinction between the purchase incidence and brand choice decisions is accounted for via, for example, a nested logit specification, accounting for the purchase incidence decision with aggregate data requires assumptions for computing the share of the no-purchase alternative which is otherwise unobserved. In this paper, we propose a probit model as an alternative to the logit model to specify the aggregate demand functions of firms competing in oligopoly markets. The probit model avoids the IIA property that affects the logit model at the individual consumer level. Furthermore, the probit model can naturally account for the distinction between the purchase incidence and brand choice decisions due to the general covariance structure assumed for the utilities of the alternatives. We demonstrate how the parameters of the proposed model can be estimated using aggregate time series data from a product market. In the estimation, we account for the endogeneity of marketing variables as well as for heterogeneity across consumers. Our results indicate that both endogeneity as well as heterogeneity need to be accounted for even after allowing for a non-IIA specification at the individual consumer level. Specific to our data, we also find that ignoring endogeneity has a bigger impact on the estimated price elasticities than ignoring the effects of heterogeneity. A comparison of the elasticities obtained from the probit model with those from the corresponding logit specification indicates that the of elasticities obtained from the probit model across brands is larger than that obtained from the logit. The results have implications for issues such as firm-level pricing. In addition to specifying a probit model and providing comparisons with the logit model, the paper also addresses the third issue raised above. We propose a simple alternative to the purchase incidence/brand choice specification by decomposing the demand for a brand into a category demand equation and a conditional brand choice share equation. We provide a comparison of results from this specification to those from the specification that includes the no-purchase alternative and find that estimated elasticities are sensitive to the specification used. We also estimate the demand function parameters using a traditional specification such as the double-logarithmic model. Here, we find that the estimated elasticities could be signed in such a manner as to be not useful for firm-level pricing decisions. One of the key limitations of the proposed model is that while it accounts for the purchase incidence and brand choice decisions of households, it does not account for differences across consumers in their purchase quantities. The model and analysis are best suited for product categories in which consumers typically make single-unit purchases. Another limitation is more practical in nature. While recent advances have been made in computing probit probabilities, it could nevertheless be a challenge to do so when the number of alternatives is large.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Marketing Science.

Volume (Year): 20 (2001)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
Pages: 442-456

in new window

Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:20:y:2001:i:4:p:442-456
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:

More information through EDIRC

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.:

in new window

  1. K. Sudhir, 2001. "Competitive Pricing Behavior in the Auto Market: A Structural Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 42-60, January.
  2. Nevo, Aviv, 2001. "Measuring Market Power in the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 307-342, March.
  3. Jain, Dipak C & Vilcassim, Naufel J & Chintagunta, Pradeep K, 1994. "A Random-Coefficients Logit Brand-Choice Model Applied to Panel Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 12(3), pages 317-328, July.
  4. David Besanko & Sachin Gupta & Dipak Jain, 1998. "Logit Demand Estimation Under Competitive Pricing Behavior: An Equilibrium Framework," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(11-Part-1), pages 1533-1547, November.
  5. Hajivassiliou, Vassilis & McFadden, Daniel & Ruud, Paul, 1996. "Simulation of multivariate normal rectangle probabilities and their derivatives theoretical and computational results," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1-2), pages 85-134.
  6. Kim, Byung-Do & Blattberg, Robert C & Rossi, Peter E, 1995. "Modeling the Distribution of Price Sensitivity and Implications for Optimal Retail Pricing," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(3), pages 291-303, July.
  7. K. Sudhir, 2001. "Competitive Pricing Behavior in the US Auto Market: A Structural Analysis," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm228, Yale School of Management.
  8. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
  9. Vrinda Kadiyali, 1996. "Entry, Its Deterrence, and Its Accommodation: A Study of the U.S. Photographic Film Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(3), pages 452-478, Autumn.
  10. J. Miguel Villas-Boas & Russell S. Winer, 1999. "Endogeneity in Brand Choice Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(10), pages 1324-1338, October.
  11. Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 1993. "Investigating Purchase Incidence, Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Decisions of Households," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 184-208.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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:20:y:2001:i:4:p:442-456. 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.