IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea09/49557.html

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Generic Advertising Help or Hurt Brand Advertising?

Author

Listed:
  • Suh, Daeseok
  • Chung, Chanjin

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the generic advertising helps or hurts the brand advertising within the differentiated product environments. We develop an analytical model that includes both generic and brand advertising expenditures considering vertical product differentiation. Then the analysis is devoted to examine how marginal effects of expenditure affect each other under product differentiation. To help examine the relationship, we also include a new variable, the degree of product differentiation. Analytical results show that when the generic advertising increases the product differentiation, the high quality brand tends to take benefits while the low quality brand loses. When generic advertising includes messages that do not differentiate quality attributes, the high quality brand loses while the low quality brand takes benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Suh, Daeseok & Chung, Chanjin, 2009. "Does Generic Advertising Help or Hurt Brand Advertising?," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49557, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea09:49557
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.49557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/49557/files/AAEA%202009-Suh%20_%20Chung_OK%20State%20Univ.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.49557?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. John Crespi & Stéphan Marette, 2002. "Generic Advertising and Product Differentiation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(3), pages 691-701.
    2. Hunnicutt, Lynn & Israelsen, L. Dwight, 2003. "Incentives to Advertise and Product Differentiation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Nirvikar Singh & Xavier Vives, 1984. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 546-554, Winter.
    4. Chakravarti, Amitav & Janiszewski, Chris, 2004. "The Influence of Generic Advertising on Brand Preferences," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(4), pages 487-502, March.
    5. Crespi John M., 2007. "Generic Advertising and Product Differentiation Revisited," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    7. Frank M. Bass & Anand Krishnamoorthy & Ashutosh Prasad & Suresh P. Sethi, 2005. "Generic and Brand Advertising Strategies in a Dynamic Duopoly," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 556-568, February.
    8. Isariyawongse Kosin & Kudo Yasushi & Tremblay Victor J., 2007. "Generic and Brand Advertising in Markets with Product Differentiation," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-17, 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. Roma Paolo & Perrone Giovanni, 2010. "Generic Advertising, Brand Advertising and Price Competition: An Analysis of Free-Riding Effects and Coordination Mechanisms," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-29, October.
    2. Roma, Paolo & Perrone, Giovanni, 2016. "Cooperation among competitors: A comparison of cost-sharing mechanisms," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 172-182.
    3. Yuanfang Lin & Sandeep Krishnamurthy, 2017. "Generic and Brand Advertising Strategies Under Inter-Industry Competition," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 4(1), pages 18-27, September.
    4. Daniela Benavente, 2010. "The Economics of Geographical Indications: GIs Modelled As Club Assets," IHEID Working Papers 10-2010, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies.
    5. Daniela Benavente, 2010. "Geographical Indications: The Economics of Claw-Back," IHEID Working Papers 11-2010, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies.
    6. Bhatt, Meghana A., 2012. "Evaluation and associations: A neural-network model of advertising and consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 236-255.
    7. Sylvie Tchumtchoua & Ronald W. Cotterill, 2010. "Optimal Brand and Generic Advertising Policies in a Dynamic Differentiated Product Oligopoly," Food Marketing Policy Center Research Reports 126, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    8. Alberto Galasso & Mihkel Tombak, 2014. "Switching to Green: The Timing of Socially Responsible Innovation," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 669-691, September.
    9. Emanuele Bacchiega & Olivier Bonroy & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2018. "Contract contingency in vertically related markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 772-791, October.
    10. Ya‐chin Wang & Leonard F.s. Wang, 2009. "Equivalence Of Competition Mode In A Vertically Differentiated Duopoly With Delegation," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 77(4), pages 577-590, December.
    11. Keisuke Hattori & Keisaku Higashida, 2012. "Misleading advertising in duopoly," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 45(3), pages 1154-1187, August.
    12. Yu, Lili & He, Xiuli & Zhang, Juan & Xu, Chuanyong, 2021. "Horizontal cooperative advertising with advertising threshold effects," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    13. Lambertini, Luca & Tampieri, Alessandro, 2012. "Vertical differentiation in a Cournot industry: The Porter hypothesis and beyond," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 374-380.
    14. Ghosh, Arghya & Morita, Hodaka, 2008. "An economic analysis of platform sharing," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 164-186, June.
    15. Samira Rousselière & Shyama V. Ramani & Damien Rousselière, 2021. "The organizational choice of technology transfer mode: Theory and application to the genetically modified plant industry," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(6), pages 1466-1476, September.
    16. Martínez-Sánchez, Francisco, 2021. "Price versus quantity in a duopoly of vertical differentiation with loss-averse consumers," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 1-6.
    17. Ngo Van Long & Zhuang Miao, 2020. "Multiple‐quality Cournot oligopoly and the role of market size," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 932-952, October.
    18. Joaquín Andaluz & Gloria Jarne, 2016. "Stability of vertically differentiated Cournot and Bertrand-type models when firms are boundedly rational," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 238(1), pages 1-25, March.
    19. Malcolm Brady, 2022. "Asymmetric Horizontal Differentiation under Advertising in a Cournot Duopoly," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-14, May.
    20. Sharma, Ajay, 2019. "Misleading Advertising in Mixed Markets: Consumer-orientation and welfare outcomes," MPRA Paper 96189, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Marketing;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea09:49557. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.