Asymmetric and Neighborhood Cross-Price Effects: Some Empirical Generalizations

This paper provides some empirical generalizations regarding how the relative prices of competing brands affect the cross-price effects among them. Particular focus is on the asymmetric price effect and the neighborhood price effect. The asymmetric price effect states that a price promotion by a higher-priced brand affects the market share of a lower-priced brand more so than the reverse. The neighborhood price effect states that brands that are closer to each other in price have larger cross-price effects than brands that are priced farther apart. The main objective of this paper is to test if these two effects are generalizable across product categories, and to assess which of these two effects is stronger. While the neighborhood price effect has not been rigorously tested in past research, the asymmetric price effect has been validated by several researchers. However, these tests of asymmetric price effect have predominantly used elasticity as the measure of cross-price effect. The cross-price elasticity measures the percentage change in market share or sales of a brand for 1% change in price of a competing brand. We show that asymmetries in cross-price elasticities tend to favor the higher-priced brand simply because of scaling effects due to considering percentage changes. Furthermore, several researchers have used logit models to infer asymmetric patterns. We also show that inferring asymmetries from conventional logit models is incorrect. To account for potential scaling effects, we consider the absolute cross-price effect defined as the change in market share percentage points of a target brand when a competing brand's price changes by one percent of the product category price. The advantage of this measure is that it is dimensionless hence comparable across categories and it avoids scaling effects. We show that in the logit model with arbitrary heterogeneity in brand preferences and price sensitivities, the absolute cross-price effect is symmetric. We develop an econometric model for simultaneously estimating the asymmetric and neighborhood price effects and assess their relative strengths. We also estimate two alternate models that address the following questions: i If I were managing the ith highest priced brand, which brand do I impact the most by discounting and which brand hurts me the most through price discounts? ii Who hurts whom in National Brand vs. Store Brand competition? Based on a meta-analysis of 1,060 cross-price effects on 280 brands from 19 different grocery product categories, we provide the following empirical generalizations: 1. The asymmetric price effect holds with cross-price elasticities, but tends to disappear with absolute cross-price effects. 2. The neighborhood price effect holds with both cross-price elasticities and absolute cross-price effects, and is significantly stronger than the asymmetric price effect on both measures of cross-price effects. 3. A brand is affected the most by discounts of its immediately higher-priced brand, followed closely by discounts of its immediately lower-priced brand. 4. National brands impact store brands more so than the reverse when the cross-effect is measured in elasticities, but the asymmetric effect does not hold with absolute effects. Store brands hurt and are, in turn, hurt the most by the lower-priced national brands that are adjacent in price to the store brands. 5. Cross-price effects are greater when there are fewer competing brands in the product category, and among brands in nonfood household products than among brands in food products. The implications of these findings are discussed.

[1]  K. Sivakumar,et al.  Quality Tier Competition: How Price Change Influences Brand Choice and Category Choice , 1997 .

[2]  Gary J. Russell,et al.  Implications of Market Structure for Elasticity Structure , 1988 .

[3]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  Modeling the Distribution of Price Sensitivity and Implications for Optimal Retail Pricing , 1995 .

[4]  Albert C. Bemmaor,et al.  Measuring the Short-Term Effect of In-Store Promotion and Retail Advertising on Brand Sales: A Factorial Experiment , 1991 .

[5]  Gary J. Russell,et al.  A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure , 1989 .

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

[7]  Greg M. Allenby A Unified Approach to Identifying, Estimating and Testing Demand Structures with Aggregate Scanner Data , 1989 .

[8]  Gary J. Russell A model of latent symmetry in cross price elasticities , 1992 .

[9]  Jan Kmenta,et al.  Elements of econometrics , 1988 .

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

[11]  Identifying multiple preference segments from own- and cross-price elasticities , 1993 .

[12]  R. Rao Pricing and Promotions in Asymmetric Duopolies , 1991 .

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

[14]  Frank M. Bass,et al.  Empirical Generalizations and Marketing Science: A Personal View , 1995 .

[15]  Randolph E. Bucklin,et al.  Determining Interbrand Substitutability through Survey Measurement of Consumer Preference Structures , 1991 .

[16]  Robert C. Blattberg,et al.  How Promotions Work , 1995 .

[17]  Bart J. Bronnenberg,et al.  Asymmetric Promotion Effects and Brand Positioning , 1996 .

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

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

[20]  A. Buse,et al.  Elements of econometrics , 1972 .

[21]  G. Siomkos Managing product-harm crises , 1989 .

[22]  Dominique M. Hanssens,et al.  Modeling Asymmetric Competition , 1988 .

[23]  J. Farley,et al.  How Advertising Affects Sales: Meta-Analysis of Econometric Results , 1984 .

[24]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  Quality perceptions and asymmetric switching between brands , 1991 .

[25]  V. Padmanabhan,et al.  The "84/14/2" rule revisited : what drives choice, incidence and quantity elasticities? , 1997 .

[26]  Raj Sethuraman,et al.  A meta-analysis of national brand and store brand cross-promotional price elasticities , 1995 .

[27]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings , 1991 .

[28]  Lee G. Cooper Competitive Maps: The Structure Underlying Asymmetric Cross Elasticities , 1988 .

[29]  Robert C. Blattberg,et al.  Sales Promotion: Concepts, Methods, and Strategies , 1990 .

[30]  P. Naert,et al.  Optimal marketing behavior in oligopoly , 1975 .

[31]  Gerard J. Tellis,et al.  An Analysis of the Tradeoff between Advertising and Price Discounting , 1991 .

[32]  Robert C. Blattberg,et al.  Price-Induced Patterns of Competition , 1989 .

[33]  Robert P. Leone,et al.  Implicit Price Bundling of Retail Products: A Multiproduct Approach to Maximizing Store Profitability , 1991 .

[34]  Ruth N. Bolton The Relationship Between Market Characteristics and Promotional Price Elasticities , 1989 .

[35]  R. Sethuraman A Model of how Discounting High-Priced Brands Affects the Sales of Low-Priced Brands , 1996 .