No abstract

The authors develop, calibrate, and test a disaggregate model of customer brand choice with customers’ price expectations as the mediating construct. They use a two-stage modeling procedure. The first stage is the determination of how expected prices are formed. In the second stage, brand choice is assumed to depend on the brand's retail price and whether or not that price compares favorably with the brand's expected price. The authors also test the hypothesis of symmetry in customer response to positive deviations (“losses”) and negative deviations (“gains”) of the retail price from the expected price. Analysis of scanner-panel data in the coffee market reveals that the brand choice model in which customers are assumed to respond to retail prices by comparing them with the corresponding expected prices provides a significantly better fit than a traditional brand choice model. Consistent with prospect theory, customers are found to react more strongly to price losses than to price gains. Results from the calibration of the expected price model indicate that expected price is not only dependent on past prices, but is also affected by the frequency with which a brand is promoted, economic conditions, customer characteristics, and the type of store shopped.

The authors report results from a controlled experiment designed to investigate the impact of a brand's price promotion frequency and the depth of promotional price discounts on the price consumers expect to pay for that brand. A key feature of the work is that expected prices elicited directly from respondents in the experiment are used in the analysis, as opposed to the latent or surrogate measures of expected prices used in previous studies. As hypothesized, both the promotion frequency and the depth of price discounts are found to have a significant impact on price expectations. Evidence also supports a region of relative price insensitivity around the expected price, such that only price changes outside that region have a significant impact on consumer brand choice. Further, the authors find that consumer expectations of both price and promotional activities should be considered in explaining consumer brand choice behavior. Specifically, the presence of a promotional deal when one is not expected or the absence of a promotional deal when one is expected may have a significant impact on consumer brand choice. Finally, as in the case of price expectations, consumer response to promotion expectations is found to be asymmetric in that losses loom larger than gains.

The authors propose a taxonomic framework for defining and measuring alternate forms of variety-seeking and reinforcement behavior. This framework is composed of seven simple and testable models that capture the spirit of most of the models offered in the marketing literature in this area. The models are tested on panel data for 16 brands in five separate product categories. In addition, simulations are run to examine the effects of violations of the modeling assumptions. The analyses provide insights about variety-seeking and reinforcement tendencies which may be of benefit to the marketing manager.

Recently, there has been a growing trend toward long-term relationships between manufacturers and their suppliers. Although much as been written about the benefits of this shift to manufacturers, little is known about the benefits to supplier firms. In this study, we empirically assess the impact of long-term relationships with specific customers on the performance of supplier firms using cross-sectional and longitudinal information available in the Compustat collection of data bases and the Compact Disclosure data base. Our results indicate that maintaining long-term relationships with select customers does not come at the expense of the rate of sales growth. Suppliers in long-term relationships are able to achieve the same level of growth as firms that employ a transactional approach to servicing their customers. These suppliers are able to reduce costs over time through better inventory utilization; however, this reduction in cost seems to be bargained away by their customers through lower prices over time. Finally, the supplier firms in long-term relationships achieve higher profitability by differentially reducing their discretionary expenses such as selling, general, and administrative overhead costs to a greater extent than their counterparts who use a transactional approach to servicing their customers.