IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v70y2024i6p3398-3416.html

A Direct Utility Model for Access Costs and Economies of Scope

Author

Listed:
  • Dong Soo Kim

    (Department of Marketing and Logistics, Fisher College of Business, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210)

  • Sanghak Lee

    (Department of Marketing, W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287)

  • Taegyu Hur

    (Department of Marketing, Ivy College of Business, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011)

  • Jaehwan Kim

    (Korea University Business School, Korea University, Seoul 02841, South Korea)

  • Greg M. Allenby

    (Department of Marketing and Logistics, Fisher College of Business, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210)

Abstract

Consumers encounter costs and inconvenience in the purchase and consumption of goods. Time, effort, training, and expertise, also referred to as access costs, are examples of factors that constrain the ability of consumers to derive utility from offerings beyond the price of a good. Economies of scope exist when household production of these factors share commonalities among choice alternatives, making it more likely that some products would be purchased and consumed in conjunction with others. For example, consumers planning out-of-town travel might consider visiting multiple tourist attractions during their trip, and course offerings might appeal more to students who are already in the mindset of taking courses. We develop a model with economies of scope that captures a leveraging effect where the purchase of one good makes the purchase of other goods more likely. Our model offers an alternative explanation of complementary purchases that are driven by cost reductions rather than utility enhancements. The model is applied to four conjoint datasets where we find that economies of scope and access costs play an important role in consumer purchases and have high economic value relative to the role played by price.

Suggested Citation

  • Dong Soo Kim & Sanghak Lee & Taegyu Hur & Jaehwan Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2024. "A Direct Utility Model for Access Costs and Economies of Scope," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(6), pages 3398-3416, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:70:y:2024:i:6:p:3398-3416
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2023.4841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4841
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4841?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. Paul Klemperer, 1987. "Markets with Consumer Switching Costs," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(2), pages 375-394.
    2. Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Junhong Chu & Javier Cebollada, 2012. "Quantifying Transaction Costs in Online/Off-line Grocery Channel Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 96-114, January.
    3. Nancy E. Bockstael & Ivar E. Strand & W. Michael Hanemann, 1987. "Time and the Recreational Demand Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 69(2), pages 293-302.
    4. Jean‐Pierre Dubé & Günter J. Hitsch & Peter E. Rossi, 2010. "State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 417-445, September.
    5. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 1999. "Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(1), pages 62-72, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Takuya Satomura & Jaehwan Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2011. "Multiple-Constraint Choice Models with Corner and Interior Solutions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 481-490, 05-06.
    8. 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.
    9. Matthew Stephens, 2000. "Dealing with label switching in mixture models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 62(4), pages 795-809.
    10. 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.
    11. Klemperer, Paul D, 1987. "Entry Deterrence in Markets with Consumer Switching Costs," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(388a), pages 99-117, Supplemen.
    12. Paul R. Messinger & Chakravarthi Narasimhan, 1997. "A Model of Retail Formats Based on Consumers' Economizing on Shopping Time," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23.
    13. Sanghak Lee & Jaehwan Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2013. "A Direct Utility Model for Asymmetric Complements," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 454-470, May.
    14. Ian E. Gorman, 1985. "Conditions for Economies of Scope in the Presence of Fixed Costs," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(3), pages 431-436, Autumn.
    15. Giovanni Fraquelli & Massimiliano Piacenza & Davide Vannoni, 2004. "Scope and scale economies in multi-utilities: evidence from gas, water and electricity combinations," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(18), pages 2045-2057.
    16. Bart J. Bronnenberg, 2015. "The provision of convenience and variety by the market," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(3), pages 480-498, 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. Jean-Pierre H. Dubé, 2018. "Microeconometric Models of Consumer Demand," NBER Working Papers 25215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Greg Allenby, 2025. "Advancing the science of marketing," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 205-214, June.
    3. Koray Cosguner & Tat Y. Chan & P. B. (Seethu) Seetharaman, 2018. "Dynamic Pricing in a Distribution Channel in the Presence of Switching Costs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1212-1229, March.
    4. Javier D. Donna, 2021. "Measuring long‐run gasoline price elasticities in urban travel demand," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(4), pages 945-994, December.
    5. Donna, Javier D., 2018. "Measuring Long-Run Price Elasticities in Urban Travel Demand," MPRA Paper 90059, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Yufeng Huang, 2022. "Tied Goods and Consumer Switching Costs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(1), pages 93-114, January.
    7. Dong Soo Kim & Roger A. Bailey & Nino Hardt & Greg M. Allenby, 2017. "Benefit-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 54-69, January.
    8. Kate Ho & Joseph Hogan & Fiona Scott Morton, 2017. "The impact of consumer inattention on insurer pricing in the Medicare Part D program," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(4), pages 877-905, December.
    9. Mitsukuni Nishida, 2018. "A Structural Analysis of Entry Order, Performance, and Geography: The Case of the Convenience-Store Industry in Japan," KIER Working Papers 993, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    10. Ludovic Stourm & Raghuram Iyengar & Eric T. Bradlow, 2020. "A Flexible Demand Model for Complements Using Household Production Theory," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(4), pages 763-787, July.
    11. Mitsukuni Nishida, 2025. "Entry Order, Performance, And Geography: The Case Of The Convenience‐Store Industry In Japan," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 66(2), pages 787-822, May.
    12. Steve Berry & Ahmed Khwaja & Vineet Kumar & Andres Musalem & Kenneth Wilbur & Greg Allenby & Bharat Anand & Pradeep Chintagunta & W. Hanemann & Przemek Jeziorski & Angelo Mele, 2014. "Structural models of complementary choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 245-256, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Aljoscha Janssen, 2022. "Price dynamics of Swedish pharmaceuticals," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 313-351, December.
    15. Javier D. Donna & Pedro Pereira, 2024. "Structural Presumptions for Non-horizontal Mergers in the 2023 Merger Guidelines: A Primer and a Path Forward," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 65(1), pages 303-345, August.
    16. Janssen, Aljoscha, 2020. "Price Dynamics of Swedish Pharmaceuticals," Working Paper Series 1325, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    17. Ruiz-Aliseda, Francisco, 2016. "When do switching costs make markets more or less competitive?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 121-151.
    18. Bloomfield, Matthew & Gipper, Brandon & Kepler, John D. & Tsui, David, 2021. "Cost shielding in executive bonus plans," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2).
    19. repec:tiu:tiutis:52e91e47-4a2d-4e7b-bb23-3926b842ae30 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Sanghak Lee & Sunghoon Kim & Sungho Park, 2022. "A sequential choice model for multiple discrete demand," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 141-178, June.
    21. Stefan Weiergraeber, 2022. "Network Effects And Switching Costs In The U.S. Wireless Industry," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(2), pages 601-630, May.

    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:ormnsc:v:70:y:2024:i:6:p:3398-3416. 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.