Advertising and the stability of consideration sets over multiple purchase occasions

Mitra, Anusree

doi:10.1016/0167-8116(95)00007-o

Cited by 49 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The point estimates for Tchibo and Jacobs are not significant, but we also only have 47 data points per brand. Overall, this first look at the data confirms previous findings that choice sets are not fixed but can be influenced by the marketing mix (Allenby & Ginter 1995, Mitra 1995, Siddarth et al 1995.…”

Section: Datasupporting

confidence: 76%

“…Moreover, as consumers differ in their propensity to search for products and learn about brands, the size and composition of choice sets will be different for different consumers (Shocker, Ben-Akiva, Boccara & Nedungadi 1991). Of particular interest to marketers is that choice sets are not fixed but can be influenced by the marketing mix (Allenby & Ginter 1995, Mitra 1995, Siddarth et al 1995. This further increases the heterogeneity in choice sets because different consumers respond differently to marketing activities and because these activities vary over time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Choice Set Heterogeneity and the Role of Advertising: An Analysis with Micro and Macro Data

Draganska

Klapper

2011

Journal of Marketing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We show how to use micro-level survey data from a tracking study on brand awareness in conjunction with data on sales and advertising expenditures to improve the specification, estimation, and interpretation of aggregate demand systems. We depart from the commonly made full information assumption and incorporate limited information in the form of choice sets to capture the fact that consumers may not be aware of all available brands at purchase time. The detailed modeling of the processes by which advertising influences brand choice and ultimately sales improves our understanding of how advertising works and thus enhances our ability to make policy recommendations. In addition, we are able to show that advertising has a direct effect on brand awareness (inclusion in choice set) in addition to its effect on consumer preferences (increase in utility).

show abstract

Section: Datasupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice Set Heterogeneity and the Role of Advertising: An Analysis with Micro and Macro Data

Draganska

Klapper

2011

Journal of Marketing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consideration sets are interesting from a marketing perspective because they vary across households (Alba and Chattopadhyay, 1985;Belonax and Mittelstaedt, 1978;Chiang et al, 1999;Roberts and Lattin, 1991) and are sensitive to marketing instruments such as promotions (Siddarth et al, 1995) and advertising (Mitra, 1995). Ignoring consideration sets in models of choice may lead one to underestimate the impact of marketing control variables (Bronnenberg and Vanhonacker, 1996;Chiang et al, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieving Unobserved Consideration Sets from Household Panel Data

Nierop

Bronnenberg

Paap

et al. 2010

Journal of Marketing Research

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a new model to describe consideration, consisting of a multivariate probit model component for consideration and a multinomial probit model component for choice, given consideration. The approach allows one to analyze stated consideration set data, revealed consideration set (choice) data or both, while at the same time it allows for unobserved dependence in consideration among brands. In addition, the model accommodates different effects of the marketing mix on consideration and choice, an error process that is correlated over time, and unobserved consumer heterogeneity in both processes.We attempt to establish the validity of existing practice to infer consideration sets from observed choices in panel data. To this end, we collect data in an on-line choice experiment involving interactive supermarket shelves and post-choice questionnaires to measure the choice protocol and stated consideration levels. We show with these experimental data that underlying consideration sets can be reliably retrieved from choice data alone.Next, we estimate the model on IRI panel data. We have two main results. First, compared with the single-stage multinomial probit model, promotion effects are larger when they are included in the consideration stage of the two-stage model. Second, we find that consideration of brands does not covary greatly across brands once we account for observed effects.

show abstract

“…Marketers use two-staged models of consideration to study the determinants of consideration sets, such as advertising (Allenby and Ginter, 1995;Mitra, 1995;Sovinsky, 2008;Draganska and Klapper, 2011;Honka, Hortaçsu and Vitorino, 2017), promotions (Siddarth, Bucklin and Morrison, 1995), or search costs (Mehta, Rajiv and Srinivasan, 2003;De los Santos, Hortaçsu and Wildenbeest, 2012;Seiler, 2013).…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Inference of Consumer Consideration Sets

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Inference of Consumer Consideration SetsAnna Lu * AbstractWhen consumers face a large number of alternatives, they tend to simplify the decision problem by reducing the number of available alternatives to a subset of relevant alternatives, i.e. a consideration set. Since consideration sets are typically unobserved, most studies in the demand literature have to assume a consideration model. If these consideration models are misspecified, the demand estimates can be biased. In this paper, we develop an approach to formally test any two competing models of consideration against one another in order to determine which model fits the data best. Our test follows the intuition of a menu approach and uses supplemental data on marginal cost-shifters to construct overidentifying restrictions. We show an application to German retailing of coffee and milk. We find that consideration sets are fundamentally different for coffee and milk, and relate our findings to differences in demand and supply conditions of the two product categories. JEL: D12, L13, M31

show abstract

Advertising and the stability of consideration sets over multiple purchase occasions

Cited by 49 publications

References 15 publications

Choice Set Heterogeneity and the Role of Advertising: An Analysis with Micro and Macro Data

Choice Set Heterogeneity and the Role of Advertising: An Analysis with Micro and Macro Data

Retrieving Unobserved Consideration Sets from Household Panel Data

Inference of Consumer Consideration Sets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About