IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v25y2006i6p633-634.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

—Commentary on Structural Modeling in Marketing: Review and Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Tat Y. Chan

    (John M. Olin School of Business, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130)

Abstract

Chintagunta, Erdem, Rossi, and Wedel (2006) (CERW) discuss many different issues related to the use of structural models in marketing. They use examples of structural models that involve both consumer demand and supply-side competition to provide a critical assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of structural modeling and its future in marketing. While they have done a very nice job, the purpose of this commentary is to provide additional discussion of the three issues raised in their paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Tat Y. Chan, 2006. "—Commentary on Structural Modeling in Marketing: Review and Assessment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 633-634, 11-12.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:25:y:2006:i:6:p:633-634
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1060.0232
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0232
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1060.0232?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. Ariel Pakes, 2003. "Common Sense and Simplicity in Empirical Industrial Organization," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 23(3), pages 193-215, December.
    2. Patrick Bajari & Ali Hortacsu, 2005. "Are Structural Estimates of Auction Models Reasonable? Evidence from Experimental Data," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(4), pages 703-741, August.
    3. Jean-Pierre Dubé, 2004. "Multiple Discreteness and Product Differentiation: Demand for Carbonated Soft Drinks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 66-81, September.
    4. Pradeep Chintagunta & Tülin Erdem & Peter E. Rossi & Michel Wedel, 2006. "Structural Modeling in Marketing: Review and Assessment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 604-616, 11-12.
    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. Kevin Chung, 2020. "Incorporating a “Better” Behavioral Bias for Both Consumers and Firms in Rebate Programs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(4), pages 1627-1646, April.
    2. Leigh McAlister, 2016. "Rigor versus method imperialism," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 565-567, September.
    3. Xiaojing Dong & Pradeep Chintagunta & Puneet Manchanda, 2011. "A new multivariate count data model to study multi-category physician prescription behavior," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 301-337, September.

    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. Patrick Bajari & Stephanie Houghton & Steven Tadelis, 2004. "Bidding for Incompete Contracts," Working Papers 2004.141, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    2. Baohong Sun, 2006. "—Dynamic Structural Consumer Models and Current Marketing Issues," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 625-628, 11-12.
    3. Liang Guo, 2006. "—Removing the Boundary Between Structural and Reduced-Form Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 629-632, 11-12.
    4. Hernán A. Bruno & Naufel J. Vilcassim, 2008. "—Structural Demand Estimation with Varying Product Availability," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 1126-1131, 11-12.
    5. Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Harikesh S. Nair, 2011. "Structural Workshop Paper --Discrete-Choice Models of Consumer Demand in Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 977-996, November.
    6. Tobias Salz & Emanuel Vespa, 2020. "Estimating dynamic games of oligopolistic competition: an experimental investigation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(2), pages 447-469, June.
    7. Matthew Gentzkow, 2007. "Valuing New Goods in a Model with Complementarity: Online Newspapers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 713-744, June.
    8. Liran Einav & Ephraim Leibtag & Aviv Nevo, 2010. "Recording discrepancies in Nielsen Homescan data: Are they present and do they matter?," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 207-239, June.
    9. Nianqing Liu & Yao Luo, 2017. "A Nonparametric Test For Comparing Valuation Distributions In First‐Price Auctions," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(3), pages 857-888, August.
    10. Nicholas Economides & Katja Seim & V. Brian Viard, 2008. "Quantifying the benefits of entry into local phone service," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 699-730, September.
    11. Tian Xia & Richard Sexton, 2010. "Brand or Variety Choices and Periodic Sales as Substitute Instruments for Monopoly Price Discrimination," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 36(4), pages 333-349, June.
    12. Philippe Jehiel & Laurent Lamy, 2015. "On absolute auctions and secret reserve prices," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(2), pages 241-270, June.
    13. Bhat, Chandra R., 2005. "A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model: formulation and application to discretionary time-use decisions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 679-707, September.
    14. Sofia Berto Villas‐Boas, 2009. "An empirical investigation of the welfare effects of banning wholesale price discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(1), pages 20-46, March.
    15. Luo, Yao, 2020. "Unobserved heterogeneity in auctions under restricted stochastic dominance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 354-374.
    16. Robert Brooks & Robert Faff & Daniel Mulino & Richard Scheelings, 2009. "Deal or No Deal, That is the Question: The Impact of Increasing Stakes and Framing Effects on Decision‐Making under Risk," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 9(1‐2), pages 27-50, March.
    17. Ewing, Michael T. & Jevons, Colin P. & Khalil, Elias L., 2009. "Brand death: A developmental model of senescence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 332-338, March.
    18. Yupin Yang & Mengze Shi & Avi Goldfarb, 2009. "Estimating the Value of Brand Alliances in Professional Team Sports," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 1095-1111, 11-12.
    19. Brasil, Eric Universo Rodrigues & Postali, Fernando Antonio Slaibe, 2014. "Informational rents in oil and gas concession auctions in Brazil," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 93-101.
    20. Philip A. Haile & Ali Hortaçsu & Grigory Kosenok, 2008. "On the Empirical Content of Quantal Response Equilibrium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 180-200, March.

    More about this item

    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:25:y:2006:i:6:p:633-634. 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.