The Impact of Heterogeneity in Purchase Timing and Price Responsiveness on Estimates of Sticker Shock Effects

The notion that individuals have an internal reference price against which they compare observed prices is well supported by several psychological theories. Empirically, several papers in the marketing literature, employing scanner panel data, have modeled the impact of reference prices on brand choice via the sticker shock formulation, in which consumers evaluate choice alternatives using differences between shelf prices and reference prices. Most of the studies reported thus far have not accounted for heterogeneity in price response among consumers and have typically imputed reference prices from the shelf prices of brands that a consumer is supposed to have "observed" on previous purchases in the category. Since category marketing activity can differentially affect the purchase timing of households, we argue that this measure of reference price may follow certain systematic patterns across consumers and, when combined with unaccounted for price response heterogeneity, may result in a spurious sticker shock effect. Specifically, we show that estimates of sticker shock are biased upward if households that are price-sensitive in the brand choice decision are also more responsive to category promotion activity in their purchase timing decision. We discuss some general conditions under which the bias occurs and conduct a simulation experiment to confirm our specific hypotheses. Our simulation results show that changes in purchase timing are a critical determinant of the bias in the sticker shock effect. We also show that unaccounted for price response heterogeneity can in itself result in a biased sticker shock parameter; however, this requires very large differences in price sensitivities across consumers, far greater than what is normally observed. We develop a hierarchical Bayes version of the nested logit model, which models heterogeneity via individual-level parameters in a continuous random effects framework. We estimate the model on scanner panel data from the yogurt and ketchup categories. We find, in both categories, that the 95% probability interval of the posterior distribution of the mean sticker shock coefficient contains the value zero. Therefore, at least for the data used in this study, there is no evidence for the sticker shock effect at the aggregate level. In contrast, the corresponding coefficient from a standard model which ignores this heterogeneity is highly significant and supports the existence of a possibly spurious sticker shock effect. Consistent with our explanation of the underlying cause of the bias, households that are more price-sensitive in the choice decision are also found to be more responsive to category promotion activity in their decision to purchase in the category. The results highlight the measurement problems associated with imputing reference prices from past prices. Since the frequency, duration, and price level of a retailer's promotional program depend on its size and prevalence, accurate estimates of the sticker shock effect are essential for formulating optimal promotion strategies. An adequate accounting of consumer heterogeneity is critical to this effort.

[1]  David Draper,et al.  Assessment and Propagation of Model Uncertainty , 2011 .

[2]  Sherwin Rosen Studies in Labor Markets , 1981 .

[3]  Pradeep K. Chintagunta,et al.  Investigating Purchase Incidence, Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Decisions of Households , 1993 .

[4]  Manohar U. Kalwani,et al.  A Price Expectations Model of Customer Brand Choice , 1990 .

[5]  L. Tierney Markov Chains for Exploring Posterior Distributions , 1994 .

[6]  Lakshman Krishnamurthi,et al.  A comparative analysis of reference price models , 1997 .

[7]  Sunil Gupta,et al.  Brand Choice, Purchase Incidence, and Segmentation: An Integrated Modeling Approach , 1992 .

[8]  Adrian F. M. Smith,et al.  Sampling-Based Approaches to Calculating Marginal Densities , 1990 .

[9]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  Modeling Household Purchase Behavior with Logistic Normal Regression , 1994 .

[10]  B. Carlin,et al.  Bayesian Model Choice Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods , 1995 .

[11]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  On the Heterogeneity of Demand , 1998 .

[12]  Siddhartha Chib,et al.  Markov chain Monte Carlo and models of consideration set and parameter heterogeneity , 1998 .

[13]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[14]  S. Siddarth,et al.  Determining Segmentation in Sales Response across Consumer Purchase Behaviors , 1998 .

[15]  Randolph E. Bucklin,et al.  The Role of Internal Reference Points in the Category Purchase Decision , 1999 .

[16]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  Similarities in Choice Behavior Across Product Categories , 1998 .

[17]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing , 1996 .

[18]  D. Bell,et al.  Looking for Loss Aversion in Scanner Panel Data: The Confounding Effect of Price Response Heterogeneity , 2000 .

[19]  David C. Schmittlein,et al.  Analyzing Duration Times in Marketing: Evidence for the Effectiveness of Hazard Rate Models , 1993 .

[20]  P. Green Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination , 1995 .

[21]  J. Heckman Heterogeneity and State Dependence , 1981 .

[22]  Sunil Gupta Impact of Sales Promotions on when, what, and how Much to Buy , 1988 .

[23]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand , 1998 .

[24]  J. Little,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of Latitude of Price Acceptance in Consumer Package Goods , 1994 .

[25]  S. Chib,et al.  Understanding the Metropolis-Hastings Algorithm , 1995 .

[26]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity , 1998 .

[27]  P. Kopalle,et al.  Asymmetric Reference Price Effects and Dynamic Pricing Policies , 1996 .

[28]  Füsun F. Gönül,et al.  Modeling Multiple Sources of Heterogeneity in Multinomial Logit Models: Methodological and Managerial Issues , 1993 .

[29]  E. Greenleaf The Impact of Reference Price Effects on the Profitability of Price Promotions , 1995 .

[30]  A. Raftery,et al.  How Many Iterations in the Gibbs Sampler , 1991 .

[31]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  An exact likelihood analysis of the multinomial probit model , 1994 .

[32]  Donald Geman,et al.  Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images , 1984 .

[33]  Russell S. Winer,et al.  A reference price model of brand choice for frequently purchased products. , 1986 .

[34]  J. Q. Smith,et al.  1. Bayesian Statistics 4 , 1993 .

[35]  Bruce G. S. Hardie,et al.  Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice , 1993 .

[36]  G. Tellis,et al.  Contextual and Temporal Components of Reference Price , 1994 .

[37]  R. Bucklin,et al.  Reference Effects of Price and Promotion on Brand Choice Behavior , 1989 .

[38]  H. Helson,et al.  Adaptation-level theory , 1964 .

[39]  G. Tellis The Price Elasticity of Selective Demand: A Meta-Analysis of Econometric Models of Sales , 1988 .

[40]  C I HOVLAND,et al.  Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring stimuli on judgments. , 1958, Journal of experimental psychology.

[41]  Naufel J. Vilcassim,et al.  Investigating Household Purchase Timing Decisions: A Conditional Hazard Function Approach , 1991 .

[42]  Pradeep K. Chintagunta,et al.  Estimating a Multinomial Probit Model of Brand Choice Using the Method of Simulated Moments , 1992 .

[43]  Russell S. Winer,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of Internal and External Reference Prices Using Scanner Data , 1992 .

[44]  S. E. Hills,et al.  Illustration of Bayesian Inference in Normal Data Models Using Gibbs Sampling , 1990 .