Increasing sales by introducing non-salable items
Rationality implies that adding 'irrelevant' and, in particular, inferior alternatives to the opportunity set cannot increase the choice probability of some other alternative. In this study, we propose a novel approach that can rationalize an intended addition of such alternatives because it strictly increases the choice probability of some existing alternative. The driving force behind the existence and extent of such an increase is the random nature of individual preferences, that implies intransitivity, and the random nature of the applied choice procedures. We study the case of a firm interested in increasing the sales of some of its existing products by introducing a new and inferior (non-salable) product. Our main results focus on the feasibility and potential advantage of a successful such strategy. We first establish necessary and sufficient conditions for an increase in the sale probability and then derive the maximal possible absolute and relative increase in this probability, when the firm has extremely limited information on the characteristics of the consumers. We then derive analogous results, assuming that the existing line of products consists of just two items and that the firm has accurate information on the consumers' stochastic preferences over the existing products. These later results are illustrated using some experimental evidence. The applicability of the approach is finally briefly discussed in the context of branding policy. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Volume (Year): 27 (2006)
Issue (Month): 8 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/7976|
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.:
- Raymond J. Deneckere & R. Preston McAfee, 1996.
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 149-174, 06.
- Osborne, M-J & Rubinstein, A, 1997.
"Games with Procedurally Rational Players,"
4-97, Tel Aviv.
- Canoy, Marcel & Peitz, Martin, 1997.
"The Differentiation Triangle,"
Journal of Industrial Economics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 305-28, September.
- Shmuel Nitzan & Eyal Baharad, 2000. "Extended preferences and freedom of choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 17(4), pages 629-637.
- Bandyopadhyay, Taradas & Dasgupta, Indraneel & Pattanaik, Prasanta K., 1999. "Stochastic Revealed Preference and the Theory of Demand," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 95-110, January.
- Sen, A., 1996.
"Maximisation and the Act of Choice,"
270, Banca Italia - Servizio di Studi.
- Amartya Sen, 1996. "Maximization and the Act of Choice," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1766, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Klemperer, Paul, 1992. "Equilibrium Product Lines: Competing Head-to-Head May Be Less Competitive," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 740-55, September.
- Justin P. Johnson & David P. Myatt, 2003.
"Multiproduct Quality Competition: Fighting Brands and Product Line Pruning,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 748-774, June.
- David P. Myatt & Justin P. Johnson, 2002. "Multiproduct Quality Competition: Fighting Brands and Product Line Pruning," Economics Series Working Papers 105, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:27:y:2006:i:8:p:631-641. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.