IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Heterogeneous Learning and the Targeting of Marketing Communication for New Products

Listed author(s):
  • Sridhar Narayanan

    ()

    (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305)

  • Puneet Manchanda

    ()

    (Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)

Registered author(s):

    New product launches are often accompanied by extensive marketing communication campaigns. Firms' allocation decisions for these marketing communication expenditures have two dimensions—across consumers and over time. This allocation problem is different relative to the problem of allocation of resources for existing products. In the case of new products, consumers are uncertain about their quality and learn about the products through marketing communication. Furthermore, different consumers may have different rates of learning about product quality; i.e., there may be heterogeneous learning. Thus, consumer responsiveness to marketing communication could vary along two dimensions. For each consumer, this responsiveness would vary over time, as she learns about product quality. Across consumers, there would be differences in responsiveness in each time period. For optimal allocation of marketing communication across both consumers and time, firms would need estimates of how consumer responsiveness varies across consumers and over time. Past studies have typically focused on one of these two dimensions in which responsiveness varies. They have either looked at heterogeneity in responsiveness across agents or the variation in responsiveness over time. In the context of new products, past research has looked at how consumer learning about product quality causes responsiveness to vary over time. In this study, we build a model that allows for heterogeneous learning rates and obtain individual-level learning parameters for each consumer. We use a novel and rich panel data set that allows us to estimate these model parameters. To obtain individual-level estimates of learning, we add a hierarchical Bayesian structure to the Bayesian learning model. We exploit the natural hierarchy in the Bayesian learning process to incorporate it in the hierarchical Bayesian model. We use data augmentation, coupled with the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, to make inferences about individual-level parameters of learning. We conduct this analysis on a unique panel data set of physicians where we observe prescription decisions and detailing (i.e., sales-force effort) at the individual physician level for a new prescription drug category. Our results show that there is significant heterogeneity across physicians in their rates of learning about the quality of new drugs. We also find that there are asymmetries in the temporal evolution of responsiveness of physicians to detailing—physicians who are more responsive to detailing in early periods are less responsive later on and vice versa. These findings have interesting implications for the targeting of detailing across physicians and over time. We find that firms could increase their revenue if they took these temporal and cross-sectional differences in responsiveness into account while deciding on allocations of detailing.

    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.1080.0410
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Marketing Science.

    Volume (Year): 28 (2009)
    Issue (Month): 3 (05-06)
    Pages: 424-441

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:28:y:2009:i:3:p:424-441
    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

    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.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Hurwitz, Mark A & Caves, Richard E, 1988. "Persuasion or Information? Promotion and the Shares of Brand Name and Generic Pharmaceuticals," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 299-320, October.
    2. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 2000. "Customer Poaching and Brand Switching," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(4), pages 634-657, Winter.
    3. Leffler, Keith B, 1981. "Persuasion or Information? The Economics of Prescription Drug Advertising," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 45-74, April.
    4. Puneet Manchanda & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2004. "Responsiveness of Physician Prescription Behavior to Salesforce Effort: An Individual Level Analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 15(2_3), pages 129-145, July.
    5. Stoneman, P, 1981. "Intra-Firm Diffusion, Bayesian Learning and Profitability," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(362), pages 375-388, June.
    6. John H. Roberts & Glen L. Urban, 1988. "Modeling Multiattribute Utility, Risk, and Belief Dynamics for New Consumer Durable Brand Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 167-185, February.
    7. Gary L. Lilien & Ambar G. Rao & Shlomo Kalish, 1981. "Bayesian Estimation and Control of Detailing Effort in a Repeat Purchase Diffusion Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 493-506, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 1996. "Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20.
    10. Gregory S. Crawford & Matthew Shum, 2005. "Uncertainty and Learning in Pharmaceutical Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1137-1173, July.
    11. Gary L. Lilien, 1974. "A Modified Linear Learning Model of Buyer Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(7), pages 1027-1036, March.
    12. Daniel A. Ackerberg, 2003. "Advertising, learning, and consumer choice in experience good markets: an empirical examination," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(3), pages 1007-1040, August.
    13. Robert J. Meyer & Arvind Sathi, 1985. "A Multiattribute Model of Consumer Choice During Product Learning," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(1), pages 41-61.
    14. Wagner A. Kamakura & Bruce S. Kossar & Michel Wedel, 2004. "Identifying Innovators for the Cross-Selling of New Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(8), pages 1120-1133, August.
    15. Coscelli, Andrea & Shum, Matthew, 2004. "An empirical model of learning and patient spillovers in new drug entry," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 213-246, October.
    16. Rizzo, John A, 1999. "Advertising and Competition in the Ethical Pharmaceutical Industry: The Case of Antihypertensive Drugs," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 89-116, April.
    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:28:y:2009:i:3:p:424-441. 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.