What drives brands’ price response metrics? An empirical examination of the Chinese packaged goods industry

Ewijk, Bernadette van; Gijsbrechts, Els; Steenkamp, Jan‐Benedict E. M.

doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.10.005

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two key conclusions emerge. First, the average advertising elasticities are small (.031, p < .01), in line with much recent work (e.g., Sethuraman, Tellis, and Briesch 2011;Shapiro, Hitsch, and Tuchman 2021;Van Ewijk, Gijsbrechts, and Steenkamp 2021;Van Ewijk et al2021;Van Heerde et al 2013). Second, the estimates for the elasticities of line length, price, and distribution when advertising is included do not differ (p > .10) from the estimates obtained when advertising is excluded.…”

Section: Model Extensionssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Might the United States respond more strongly to price than the Indo-Pacific Rim countries? Consider in this respect the low price elasticity for China (−.612) found by Van Ewijk, Gijsbrechts, and Steenkamp (2021). Future research could update the meta-analysis of Bijmolt, Van Heerde, and Pieters with more recent and more geographically diverse findings and explore the differences between national-level and store-level price elasticities.…”

Section: Implications For Marketing Theorymentioning

confidence: 95%

“…If countries with a lower income per capita on average hold a stronger price-quality schema (as argued in Zielke and Komor 2015), this can also explain the negative effect we observe in our study. To explore this idea, at least initially, we correlated the country average on price-quality schema for 28 countries reported by Van Ewijk, Gijsbrechts, and Steenkamp (2021) with GDP per capita (for the year 2010, following the operationalization of GDP per capita as reported in Table 1). The correlation is −.82.…”

Section: Implications For Marketing Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cross-National Differences in Market Response: Line-Length, Price, and Distribution Elasticities in 14 Indo-Pacific Rim Economies

Datta¹,

Heerde²,

Dekimpe³

et al. 2022

Journal of Marketing Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our field’s knowledge of marketing-mix elasticities is largely restricted to developed countries in the North-Atlantic region, even though other parts of the world—especially the Indo-Pacific Rim region—have become economic powerhouses. To better allocate marketing budgets, firms need to have information about marketing-mix elasticities for countries outside the North-Atlantic region. We use data covering over 1,600 brands from 14 product categories collected in 7 developed and 7 emerging Indo-Pacific Rim countries across more than 10 years to estimate marketing elasticities for line length, price, and distribution, and examine which brand, category, and country factors influence these elasticities. Averaged across brands, categories, and countries, line-length elasticity is .459, price elasticity is -.422, and distribution elasticity is .368, but with substantial variation across brands, categories, and countries. Contrary to what has been suggested, we find no systematic differences in marketing responsiveness between emerging and developed economies. Instead, the key country-level factor driving elasticities is societal stratification, with Hofstede’s measure of power inequality (power distance) as its cultural manifestation and income inequality as its economic manifestation. As the effects of virtually all brand, category, and country factors differ across the three marketing-mix instruments, the field needs new theorizing that is contingent on the marketing-mix instrument studied.

show abstract