2008
DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1070.0305
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Category Pricing with State-Dependent Utility

Abstract: There is substantial literature documenting the presence of state-dependent utility with packaged goods data. Typically, a form of brand loyalty is detected whereby there is a higher probability of purchasing the same brand as has been purchased in the recent past. The economic significance of the measured loyalty remains an open question. We consider the category pricing problem and demonstrate that the presence of loyalty materially affects optimal pricing. The prices of higher quality products decline relat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
43
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
(20 reference statements)
2
43
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An increase in the competitive intensity within a product category tends to promote a growing number of competing options, cause a decline in differentiation, and ultimately create a climate for firms to compete on price [12,15,16]. Consistent with this expectation, the meta-analysis on firm growth finds that competitive intensity has a significant negative impact on growth [3].…”
Section: Main Effectsmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…An increase in the competitive intensity within a product category tends to promote a growing number of competing options, cause a decline in differentiation, and ultimately create a climate for firms to compete on price [12,15,16]. Consistent with this expectation, the meta-analysis on firm growth finds that competitive intensity has a significant negative impact on growth [3].…”
Section: Main Effectsmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…First, inertia is modeled as an incremental cost paid conditional on switching plans (following, e.g., Handel 2013;Shum 2004;or Dube et al 2008). This implies that, on average, for a family to switch at t they must prefer an alternative option by $η more than their default.…”
Section: B Baseline Model With Inertiamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Erdem (1996), Roy, Chintagunta, and Haldar (1996), Keane (1997), Seetharaman, Ainslie, and Chintagunta (1999), Seetharaman 2004 andDubé et al (2006)). Of course, switching costs can come from a variety of sources including product adoption costs, shopping/search costs, and psychological sources.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%