IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Strategic Interaction With Multiple Tools: A New Empirical Model

  • Richards, Timothy J.
  • Patterson, Paul M.

The Lanchester model of strategic interaction typically considers only two-firm rivalry and one strategic tool. This paper presents an alternative that considers rivalry among several firms using multiple tools. Marketing decisions are dynamically optimal and use equations of motion for market share that are consistent with optimal consumer choice. Using a single-market case study that consists of five years of monthly data on ready to eat cereal sales, advertising, product development investments and new product introductions, we test our model against a similar Lanchester specification. Non-nested specification tests fail to reject the proposed model, but reject the Lanchester alternative.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Arizona State University, Morrison School of Agribusiness and Resource Management in its series Working Papers with number 28545.

in new window

Date of creation: 2002
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:asumwp:28545
Contact details of provider: Phone: (480) 727-1585
Web page:

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. Ronald W. Cotterill, 1999. "High cereal prices and the prospects for relief by expansion of private label and antitrust enforcement," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 229-245.
  2. Hausman, Jerry A, 1978. "Specification Tests in Econometrics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(6), pages 1251-71, November.
  3. Eric Maskin & Jean Tirole, 2010. "A Theory of Dynamic Oligopoly, 1: Overview and Quantity Competition with Large Fixed Costs," Levine's Working Paper Archive 397, David K. Levine.
  4. Chintagunta, Pradeep K & Jain, Dipak C, 1995. "Empirical Analysis of a Dynamic Duopoly Model of Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(1), pages 109-31, Spring.
  5. Aviv Nevo, 2003. "Measuring Market Power in the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry," Microeconomics 0303006, EconWPA.
  6. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1980. "An Almost Ideal Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 312-26, June.
  7. Ronald W. Cotterill & William P. Putsis Jr. & Ravi Dhar, 2000. "Market Share and Price Setting Behavior For Private Labels and National Brands," Food Marketing Policy Center Research Reports 051, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
  8. repec:cdl:agrebk:440237 is not listed on IDEAS
  9. Moschini, GianCarlo & Vissa, Anuradha, 1992. "A Linear Inverse Demand System," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(02), December.
  10. Engelbert Dockner & Steffen Jørgensen, 1988. "Optimal Pricing Strategies for New Products in Dynamic Oligopolies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 315-334.
  11. Slade, Margaret E, 1995. "Product Rivalry with Multiple Strategic Weapons: An Analysis of Price and Advertising Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(3), pages 445-76, Fall.
  12. Gustav Feichtinger & Richard F. Hartl & Suresh P. Sethi, 1994. "Dynamic Optimal Control Models in Advertising: Recent Developments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(2), pages 195-226, February.
  13. Gasmi, Farid & Laffont, Jean-Jacques & Vuong, Quang, 1992. "Econometric Analysis of Collusive Behavior in a Soft Drink Market," IDEI Working Papers 16, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
  14. Gary M. Erickson, 1992. "Empirical Analysis of Closed-Loop Duopoly Advertising Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(12), pages 1732-1749, December.
  15. Pollak, Robert A & Wales, Terence J, 1980. "Comparison of the Quadratic Expenditure System and Translog Demand Systems with Alternative Specifications of Demographic Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(3), pages 595-612, April.
  16. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G, 1981. "Several Tests for Model Specification in the Presence of Alternative Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(3), pages 781-93, May.
  17. Barry L. Bayus & William P. Putsis, Jr., 1999. "Product Proliferation: An Empirical Analysis of Product Line Determinants and Market Outcomes," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 137-153.
  18. Roberts, M.J. & Samuelson, L., 1988. "An Empirical Analysis Of Dynamic, Non-Price Competition In An Oligopolistic Industry," Papers 3-88-14, Pennsylvania State - Department of Economics.
  19. Kalai, Ehud & Stanford, William, 1985. "Conjectural variations strategies in accelerated cournot games," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 133-152, June.
  20. Moschini, GianCarlo & Vissa, A., 1992. "Linear Inverse Demand System, A," Staff General Research Papers 11250, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  21. Heien, Dale & Wessells, Cathy Roheim, 1990. "Demand Systems Estimation with Microdata: A Censored Regression Approach," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 8(3), pages 365-71, July.
  22. Pollak, R.A. & Wales, T.J., 1990. "The Likelihood Dominance Criterion: A New Approach To Model Selection," Working Papers 90-10, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
  23. Sorger, Gerhard, 1989. "Competitive dynamic advertising : A modification of the Case game," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 55-80, January.
  24. Gasmi, F. & Vuong, Q.H., 1988. "An Econometric Analysis Of Some Duopolistic Games In Prices And Advertising," Papers m8903, Southern California - Department of Economics.
  25. Gary M. Erickson, 1997. "Note: Dynamic Conjectural Variations in a Lanchester Oligopoly," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(11), pages 1603-1608, November.
  26. Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Vithala R. Rao, 1996. "Pricing Strategies in a Dynamic Duopoly: A Differential Game Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1501-1514, November.
  27. Karp, Larry & Perloff, Jeffrey M, 1990. "A Dynamic Model of Oligopoly in the Coffee Export Market," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt6m80c6nx, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
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:ags:asumwp:28545. 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: (AgEcon Search)

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.