The authors develop an approach to determine and analyze choice set restriction on the basis of secondary source information on consumer purchase histories. Individual-level choice sets are estimated using a Bayesian updating procedure in conjunction with the multinomial logit model. The authors apply the procedure to scanner panel data for the liquid laundry detergent category. An analysis of estimated choice sets across panelists reveals that market share does not “go hand-in-hand” with choice set share (the percentage of choice sets in which a brand is a member). Examining choice set membership patterns, such as the cooccurrence of brands in the same product line, also provides insight into sister-brand cannibalization. Estimation results also show that promotions can expand choice sets, providing excluded brands a means to gain entry and long-term sales benefits.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenbyGreg M. (1989), “A Unified Approach to Identifying, Estimating and Testing Demand Structures With Aggregate Scanner Data,”Marketing Science, 8(Summer), 265–80.
2.
AllenbyGreg M., and GinterJames L. (1994), “The Effects of In-Store Displays and Feature Advertising on Consideration Sets,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, forthcoming.
3.
AndrewsRick L., and SrinivasanT. C. (1995), “Studying Consideration Effects in Empirical Choice Models Using Scanner Panel Data,”Journal of Marketing Research, 32(February), 30–41.
4.
BawaKapil (1990), “Modeling Inertia and Variety Seeking Tendencies in Brand Choice Behavior,”Marketing Science, 9(Summer), 263–78.
5.
Ben-AkivaMoshe (1977), “Choice Models with Simple Choice Set Generating Processes,” working paper, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
6.
BucklinRandolph E., and LattinJames M. (1991), “A Two-State Model of Purchase Incidence and Brand Choice,”Marketing Science, 10(Winter), 24–39.
DodsonJoe A., TyboutAlice M., and SternthalBrian (1978), “Impact of Deals and Deal Retraction on Brand Switching,”Journal of Marketing Research, 15(February), 72–81.
9.
FaderPeter S., and McAlisterLeigh (1990), “An Elimination by Aspects Model of Consumer Response to Promotion Calibrated on UPC Scanner Data,”Journal of Marketing Research, 27(August), 322–32.
10.
GaudryMarc J. I., and DagenaisMarcel G. (1979), “The Dogit Model,”Transportation Research B, 13B (June), 105–11.
11.
GoodhardtG. J., EhrenbergA. S. C., and ChatfieldC. (1984), “The Dirichlet: A Comprehensive Model of Buying Behavior,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 147(Part 5), 621–55.
12.
GenschDennis H., and SoofiEhsan S. (1994), “Information Theoretic Estimation of Individual Choice Sets,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, forthcoming.
13.
GuadagniPeter, and LittleJohn D.C. (1983), “A Logit Model of Brand-Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data,”Marketing Science, 2(Summer), 203–38.
14.
HauserJohn R. (1978), “Testing the Accuracy, Usefulness, and Significance of Probabilistic Choice Models: An Information-Theoretic Approach,”Operations Research, 26(3), 406–21.
15.
HauserJohn R., and WernerfeltBirger (1990), “An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets,”Journal of Consumer Research, 16(March), 393–408.
16.
InmanJeffrey J., McAlisterLeigh, and HoyerWayne D. (1990), “Promotion Signal: Proxy for a Price Cut?,”Journal of Consumer Research, 17(June), 74–81.
17.
KanetkarVinay, and NedungadiPrakash (1992), “Brand Consideration and a Two-Stage Model of Choice,” C2MIT Working Paper No. 9212-A, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
18.
LattinJames M., and BucklinRandolph E. (1989), “Reference Effects of Price and Promotion on Brand Choice Behavior,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26(August), 299–310.
19.
ManskiC. (1977), “The Structure of Random Utility Models,”Theory and Decisions, 8, 229–54.
20.
MeyerRobert J., and KahnBarbara E. (1991), “Probabilistic Models of Consumer Choice Behavior,” in Handbook of Consumer Behavior, RobertsonT. S., and KassarjianH. H., eds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 85–123.
21.
NedungadiPrakash (1990), “Consideration Sets: A Brief Review of Issues,” working paper, Faculty of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
22.
ParkinsonThomas L., and ReillyMichael (1978), “An Information Processing Approach to Evoked Set Formation,”Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 227–31.
23.
PayneJohn W. (1976), “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision Making: An Information Search and Protocol Analysis,”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366–87.
24.
RaoVithala R., and SabavalaDarius J. (1981), “Inference of Hierarchial Choice Processes from Panel Data,”Journal of Consumer Research, 8(June), 85–96.
25.
RobertsJohn H. (1989), “A Grounded Model of Consideration Set Size and Composition,”Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 749–57.
26.
RobertsJohn H., and LattinJames M. (1991), “Development and Testing of a Model of Consideration Set Composition,”Journal of Marketing Research, 28(November), 429–41.
27.
ShockerAllan D., Ben-AkivaMoshe, BoccaraBruno, and NedungadiPrakash (1991), “Consideration Set Influences on Consumer Decision Making and Choice; Issues Models and Suggestions,”Marketing Letters, 2(3), 181–98.
28.
SilkAlvin J., and UrbanGlen L. (1978), “Pre-Test-Market Evaluation of New Packaged Goods: A Model and Measurement Methodology,”Journal of Marketing Research, 15(May), 171–91.
29.
SwaitJoffre, and Ben-AkivaMoshe (1985), “Constraints on Individual Travel Behavior in a Brazilian City,”Transportation Research Record, 1085, 75–85.
30.
SwaitJoffre, and Ben-AkivaMoshe (1987), “Incorporating Random Constraints in Discrete Models of Choice Set Generation,”Transportation Research B, 21B(2), 91–102.
31.
TellisGerard J. (1988), “Advertising Exposure, Loyalty and Brand Purchase: A Two-Stage Model of Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research, 25(May), 134–44.
32.
VanhonackerWilfred R. (1993), “A New Brand Choice Model Incorporating A Choice Set Formation Process,” Working Paper No. MKTG 94.001, School of Business and Management, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
33.
WinerRussell S. (1986), “A Reference Price Model of Brand Choice for Frequently Purchased Products,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(Spring), 250–56.
34.
WinerRussell S. (1989), “A Multi-Stage Model of Choice Incorporating Reference Prices,”Marketing Letters, 2(1), 27–36.
35.
PeterWright, and WeitzBarton (1977), “Time Horizon Effects on Product Evaluation Strategies,”Journal of Marketing Research, 14(November), 429–43.
