IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/qjecon/v130y2015i4p1669-1726.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Pharmacists Buy Bayer? Informed Shoppers and the Brand Premium

Author

Listed:
  • Bart J. Bronnenberg
  • Jean-Pierre Dubé
  • Matthew Gentzkow
  • Jesse M. Shapiro

Abstract

We estimate the effect of information and expertise on consumers’ willingness to pay for national brands in physically homogeneous product categories. In a detailed case study of headache remedies, we find that more informed or expert consumers are less likely to pay extra to buy national brands, with pharmacists choosing them over store brands only 9 percent of the time, compared to 26 percent of the time for the average consumer. In a similar case study of pantry staples such as salt and sugar, we show that chefs devote 12 percentage points less of their purchases to national brands than demographically similar nonchefs. We extend our analysis to cover 50 retail health categories and 241 food and drink categories. The results suggest that misinformation and related consumer mistakes explain a sizable share of the brand premium for health products, and a much smaller share for most food and drink products. We tie our estimates together using a stylized model of demand and pricing. JEL Codes: D12, D83, L66.

Suggested Citation

  • Bart J. Bronnenberg & Jean-Pierre Dubé & Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2015. "Do Pharmacists Buy Bayer? Informed Shoppers and the Brand Premium," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(4), pages 1669-1726.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:qjecon:v:130:y:2015:i:4:p:1669-1726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/qje/qjv024
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven D. Levitt & Chad Syverson, 2008. "Market Distortions When Agents Are Better Informed: The Value of Information in Real Estate Transactions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(4), pages 599-611, November.
    2. Gary S. Becker & Kevin M. Murphy, 1993. "A Simple Theory of Advertising as a Good or Bad," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(4), pages 941-964.
    3. Ali Hortaçsu & Chad Syverson, 2004. "Product Differentiation, Search Costs, and Competition in the Mutual Fund Industry: A Case Study of S&P 500 Index Funds," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 403-456.
    4. Avi Goldfarb & Qiang Lu & Sridhar Moorthy, 2009. "Measuring Brand Value in an Equilibrium Framework," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 69-86, 01-02.
    5. Bart J. Bronnenberg & Jean-Pierre H. Dube & Matthew Gentzkow, 2012. "The Evolution of Brand Preferences: Evidence from Consumer Migration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2472-2508, October.
    6. Erin M. Johnson & M. Marit Rehavi, 2016. "Physicians Treating Physicians: Information and Incentives in Childbirth," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 115-141, February.
    7. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Michael D. Smith & Erik Brynjolfsson, 2001. "Consumer Decision-making at an Internet Shopbot: Brand Still Matters," NBER Chapters, in: E-commerce, pages 541-558, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & David H. Reiley, 2010. "What Happens in the Field Stays in the Field: Exploring Whether Professionals Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1413-1434, July.
    10. David A. Matsa, 2011. "Competition and Product Quality in the Supermarket Industry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(3), pages 1539-1591.
    11. repec:feb:artefa:0094 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Steven Levitt & John List & David Reiley, 2010. "What happens in the field stays in the field: Professionals do not play minimax in laboratory experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00080, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. 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.
    14. Caves, Richard E. & Greene, David P., 1996. "Brands' quality levels, prices, and advertising outlays: empirical evidence on signals and information costs," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 29-52.
    15. Michele Piccione & Ran Spiegler, 2012. "Price Competition Under Limited Comparability," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 97-135.
    16. Bergès-Sennou, Fabian & Hassan, Daniel & Monier-Dilhan, Sylvette & Raynal, Helene, 2007. "Consumers' Decision between Private Labels and National Brands in a Retailer's Store: A Mixed Multinomial Logit Application," 103rd Seminar, April 23-25, 2007, Barcelona, Spain 9407, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Michael D. Smith & Erik Brynjolfsson, 2001. "Consumer Decision-making at an Internet Shopbot: Brand Still Matters," NBER Chapters, in: E-commerce, pages 541-558, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Domenighetti, Gianfranco & Tomamichel, Michele & Gutzwiller, Felix & Berthoud, Silvio & Casabianca, Antoine, 1991. "Psychoactive drug use among medical doctors is higher than in the general population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 269-274, January.
    19. Glenn Ellison & Alexander Wolitzky, 2012. "A search cost model of obfuscation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(3), pages 417-441, 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. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, January.
    2. Samir Mamadehussene, 2020. "The Interplay Between Obfuscation and Prominence in Price Comparison Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4843-4862, October.
    3. Stephen McDonald & Colin Wren, 2018. "Multibrand pricing as a strategy for consumer search obfuscation in online markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 171-187, June.
    4. Michael Dinerstein & Liran Einav & Jonathan Levin & Neel Sundaresan, 2018. "Consumer Price Search and Platform Design in Internet Commerce," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(7), pages 1820-1859, July.
    5. Michael Grubb, 2015. "Failing to Choose the Best Price: Theory, Evidence, and Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 303-340, November.
    6. Bronnenberg, Bart & Dube, Jean-Pierre, 2016. "The Formation of Consumer Brand Preferences," CEPR Discussion Papers 11648, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Ioana Chioveanu & Jidong Zhou, 2013. "Price Competition with Consumer Confusion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(11), pages 2450-2469, November.
    8. Bart J. Bronnenberg & Jean-Pierre H. Dube & Matthew Gentzkow, 2012. "The Evolution of Brand Preferences: Evidence from Consumer Migration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2472-2508, October.
    9. Yiquan Gu & Tobias Wenzel, 2014. "Strategic Obfuscation and Consumer Protection Policy," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 632-660, December.
    10. Bart J. Bronnenberg & Jean-Pierre H. Dubé, 2016. "The Formation of Consumer Brand Preferences," NBER Working Papers 22691, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Gu, Yiquan & Wenzel, Tobias, 2020. "Curbing obfuscation: Empower consumers or regulate firms?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    12. Byrne, David P. & Martin, Leslie A., 2021. "Consumer search and income inequality," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    13. Hämäläinen, Saara, 2018. "Competitive search obfuscation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 38-63.
    14. Chakraborty, Ratula & Dobson, Paul W. & Seaton, Jonathan S. & Waterson, Michael, 2015. "Pricing in inflationary times: The penny drops," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 71-86.
    15. Justine Hastings & Ali Hortaçsu & Chad Syverson, 2017. "Sales Force and Competition in Financial Product Markets: The Case of Mexico's Social Security Privatization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85(6), pages 1723-1761, November.
    16. Timothy J. Richards & Gordon J. Klein & Celine Bonnet & Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache, 2020. "Strategic Obfuscation and Retail Pricing," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 57(4), pages 859-889, December.
    17. Wilson, Chris M., 2010. "Ordered search and equilibrium obfuscation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 496-506, September.
    18. Kenan Kalaycı, 2016. "Confusopoly: competition and obfuscation in markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(2), pages 299-316, June.
    19. Michael Grubb, 2015. "Behavioral Consumers in Industrial Organization: An Overview," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 247-258, November.
    20. Ernst Fehr & Keyu Wu, 2021. "Obfuscation in competitive markets," ECON - Working Papers 391, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Feb 2023.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • L66 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Food; Beverages; Cosmetics; Tobacco

    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:oup:qjecon:v:130:y:2015:i:4:p:1669-1726. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/qje .

    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.