IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/asumwp/28545.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategic Interaction With Multiple Tools: A New Empirical Model

Author

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

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Richards, Timothy J. & Patterson, Paul M., 2002. "Strategic Interaction With Multiple Tools: A New Empirical Model," Working Papers 28545, Arizona State University, Morrison School of Agribusiness and Resource Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:asumwp:28545
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/28545
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ronald Cotterill & William Putsis, 2000. "Market Share and Price Setting Behavior for Private Labels and National Brands," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 17(1), pages 17-39, August.
    2. Larry S. Karp & Jeffrey M. Perloff, 1993. "A Dynamic Model of Oligopoly in the Coffee Export Market," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(2), pages 448-457.
    3. Gasmi, F & Laffont, J J & Vuong, Q, 1992. "Econometric Analysis of Collusive Behavior in a Soft-Drink Market," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(2), pages 277-311, Summer.
    4. Nevo, Aviv, 2001. "Measuring Market Power in the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 307-342, March.
    5. Mark J. Roberts & Larry Samuelson, 1988. "An Empirical Analysis of Dynamic, Nonprice Competition in an Oligopolistic Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(2), pages 200-220, Summer.
    6. Moschini, GianCarlo & Vissa, A., 1992. "Linear Inverse Demand System, A," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11250, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G, 1981. "Several Tests for Model Specification in the Presence of Alternative Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(3), pages 781-793, May.
    8. 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 445-476, Fall.
    9. 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 365-371, July.
    10. Maskin, Eric & Tirole, Jean, 1988. "A Theory of Dynamic Oligopoly, I: Overview and Quantity Competition with Large Fixed Costs," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(3), pages 549-569, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Hausman, Jerry, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    13. Pollak, Robert A. & Wales, Terence J., 1991. "The likelihood dominance criterion : A new approach to model selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2-3), pages 227-242, February.
    14. 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.
    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. 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 109-131, Spring.
    17. Gasmi, F. & Vuong, Q.H., 1988. "An Econometric Analysis Of Some Duopolistic Games In Prices And Advertising," Papers m8903, Southern California - Department of Economics.
    18. Gary M. Erickson, 1997. "Note: Dynamic Conjectural Variations in a Lanchester Oligopoly," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(11), pages 1603-1608, November.
    19. Moschini, GianCarlo & Vissa, Anuradha, 1992. "A Linear Inverse Demand System," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(02), December.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1980. "An Almost Ideal Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 312-326, June.
    23. Engelbert Dockner & Steffen Jørgensen, 1988. "Optimal Pricing Strategies for New Products in Dynamic Oligopolies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 315-334.
    24. Gary M. Erickson, 1992. "Empirical Analysis of Closed-Loop Duopoly Advertising Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(12), pages 1732-1749, December.
    25. 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.
    26. repec:cdl:agrebk:440237 is not listed on IDEAS
    27. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/msasuus.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.