2006
DOI: 10.1509/jmkr.43.3.443
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Hierarchical Bayes Error Correction Model to Explain Dynamic Effects of Price Changes

Abstract: AND KEYWORDS AbstractThe authors put forward a sales response model to explain the differences in immediate and dynamic effects of promotional prices and regular prices on sales. The model consists of a vector autoregression rewritten in error-correction format which allows to disentangle the immediate effects from the dynamic effects. In a second level of the model, the immediate price elasticities, the cumulative promotional price elasticity and the long-run regular price elasticity are correlated with vario… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
57
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
(161 reference statements)
6
57
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As indicated in Table 7, the three series were found to be evolving in the single-break tests, implying that all shocks would have a steady-state effect (given by Campbell and Mankiw's regular shock persistency in the final column of Table 7), as opposed to our finding that only a limited number of known major events have an impact on the series' steady-state performance. Conceptually, the latter is a more appealing scenario, as also argued in Deleersnyder et al (2002) and Fok et al (2006). As for the impact of our focal event, we found a structural break in the slope of two of these three series, while this was not the case with the single-break tests.…”
Section: Benchmarkingsupporting
confidence: 65%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As indicated in Table 7, the three series were found to be evolving in the single-break tests, implying that all shocks would have a steady-state effect (given by Campbell and Mankiw's regular shock persistency in the final column of Table 7), as opposed to our finding that only a limited number of known major events have an impact on the series' steady-state performance. Conceptually, the latter is a more appealing scenario, as also argued in Deleersnyder et al (2002) and Fok et al (2006). As for the impact of our focal event, we found a structural break in the slope of two of these three series, while this was not the case with the single-break tests.…”
Section: Benchmarkingsupporting
confidence: 65%
“…However, recent marketing studies have questioned how realistic it is to assume that all shocks can have a permanent effect (see e.g. Deleersnyder et al, 2002or Fok, Horváth, Paap, & Franses, 2006. In a TS model without breaks, in contrast, none of the events that took place during the time span under investigation has a long-run effect.…”
Section: Testing Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To allow for dynamic effects and if data availability permits, one may also include lagged prices and/or lagged sales (see Fok et al 2006). We let the error term i t be independently distributed N 0 2 i .…”
Section: Representation Of the Sales Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fok et al (2004), for example, develop a Hierarchical Bayes Error Correction Model to study the dynamic effects of price promotions, while Litterman (1984) argues that Bayesian VAR models are less susceptible to the aforementioned Lucas Critique.…”
Section: Challenge 3: Broadening the Scope Of Techniques And Marketinmentioning
confidence: 99%