An Empirical Investigation of the Dynamic Effect of Marlboro's Permanent Pricing Shift

References

• Ailawadi K. L., Neslin S. A. The effect of promotion on consumption: Buying more and consuming it faster. J. Marketing Res. (1998) 35(3):390–398Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allenby G. M., Rossi P. E. Quality perceptions and asymmetric switching between brands. Marketing Sci. (1991) 10(3):185–204Link, Google Scholar
• Arcidiacono P., Siege H., Sloan F. Living rationally under the volcano? An empirical analysis of heavy drinking and smoking. Internat. Econom. Rev. (2007) 48(1):37–65Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baltagi B. H., Griffin J. M. A dynamic demand model for liquor: The case for pooling. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1995) 77(3):545–554Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baltagi B. H., Levin D. Estimating dynamic demand for cigarettes using panel data: The effects of bootlegging, taxation and advertising, reconsidered. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1986) 68(1):148–155Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker G. S., Murphy K. M. A theory of rational addiction. J. Political Econom. (1988) 96(4):675–700Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell D. R., Lattin J. M. Shopping behavior and consumer preference for store price format: Why “large basket” shoppers prefer EDLP. Marketing Sci. (1998) 17(1):66–88Link, Google Scholar
• Blattberg R. C., Neslin S. A. Sales promotion: The long and the short of it. Marketing Lett. (1989) 1(1):81–97Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blattberg R. C., Wisniewski K. J. Price-induced patterns of competition. Marketing Sci. (1989) 8(4):291–309Link, Google Scholar
• Bronnenberg B. J., Wathieu L. Asymmetric promotion effects and brand positioning. Marketing Sci. (1996) 15(4):379–394Link, Google Scholar
• Chaloupka F., Grossman M. Price, tobacco control policy and youth smoking. J. Health Econom. (1997) 16(3):359–373Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chintagunta P., Erdem T., Rossi P. E., Wedel M. Structural modeling in marketing: Review and assessment. Marketing Sci. (2006) 25(6):604–616Link, Google Scholar
• Coppejans M., Gilleskie D. B., Sieg H., Strumpf K. S. Consumer demand under price uncertainty: Empirical evidence from the market for cigarettes. (2006) . National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Dekimpe M. G., Hanssens D. M., Silva-Risso J. M. Long-run effects of price promotions in scanner markets. J. Econometrics (1999) 89(1-2):269–291Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erdem T. An empirical analysis of umbrella branding. J. Marketing Res. (1998) 35(3):339–351Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erdem T., Keane M. P. Decision-making under uncertainty: Capturing dynamic brand choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets. Marketing Sci. (1996) 15(1):1–20Link, Google Scholar
• Erdem T., Swait J. Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. J. Consumer Res. (2004) 31(1):191–198Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erdem T., Imain S., Keane M. P. Brand and quality choice dynamics under price uncertainty. Quant. Econom. Marketing (2003) 1(1):5–64Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erdem T., Keane M. P., Sun B. A dynamic model of brand choice when price and advertising signal product quality. Marketing Sci. (2008) 27(6):1111–1125Link, Google Scholar
• Erdem T., Zhao Y., Valenzuela A. Performance of store brands: A cross-country analysis of consumer store-brand preferences, perceptions, and risk. J. Marketing Res. (2004) 41(1):86–100Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erdem T., Keane M. P., Oncu T. S., Strebel J. Learning about computers: An analysis of information search and technology choice. Quant. Econom. Marketing (2005) 3(3):207–247Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans W., Farrelly M. C. The compensating behavior of smokers: Taxes, tar, and nicotine. RAND J. Econom. (1998) 29(3):578–595Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishbein M.Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement (1967) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Foekens E. W., Leeflang P. S. H., Wittink D. R. Varying parameter models to accommodate dynamic promotion effects. J. Econometrics (1999) 89:249–268Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gönül F., Srinivasan K. Estimating the impact of consumer expectations of coupons on purchase behavior: A dynamic structural model. Marketing Sci. (1996) 15(3):262–279Link, Google Scholar
• Gordon B., Sun B. Implications of self-control of vice goods on price and promotion effects. (2008) . Working paper, Carnegie Mellon Univeristy, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
• Gruber J. Youth smoking in the 1990s: Why did it rise and what are the long run implications? Amer. Econom. Rev. (2001) 91(2):85–90Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haaijer R., Wedel M. Habit persistence in time series models of discrete choice. Marketing Lett. (2001) 12(1):25–35Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hamilton J. The demand for cigarettes: Advertising, the health scare and the cigarette advertising ban. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1972) 54(4):401–411Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoch S. J. How should national brands think about private labels. Sloan Management Rev. (1996) 37(2):89–102Google Scholar
• Kamakura W. A., Russell G. J. A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. J. Marketing Res. (1989) 26(4):379–390Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kay J. Price wars. Financial Times (1996) July 5):11Google Scholar
• Keane M. P., Wolpin K. I. The solution and estimation of discrete choice dynamic programming models by simulation and interpolation: Monte Carlo evidence. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1994) 76(4):648–672Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kitagawa G., Akaike H. Retail a procedure for the modeling of non-stationary time series. Annuals Inst. Statist. Math. (1978) 30(1):351–363Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kopalle P. K., Mela C. F., Marsh L. The dynamic effect of discounting on sales: Empirical analysis and normative pricing implications. Marketing Sci. (1999) 18(3):317–332Link, Google Scholar
• Lancaster K. J. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Political Econom. (1966) 70(2):132–57Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewit E. M., Coate D. The potential for using excise taxes to reduce smoking. J. Health Econom. (1982) 1(2):121–145Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mela C. F., Gupta S., Lehmann D. R. The long-term impact of promotion and advertising on consumer brand choice. J. Marketing Res. (1997) 34(2):248–261Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mela C. F., Gupta S., Jedidi K. Assessing long-term promotional influences on market structure. Internat. J. Res. Marketing (1998) 15(2):89–107Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mela C. F., Jedidi K., Bowman D. The long-term impact of promotions on consumer stockpiling behavior. J. Marketing Res. (1998) 35(2):250–262Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mehta N., Rajiv S., Srinivasan K. Price uncertainty and consumer search: A structural model of consideration set formation. Marketing Sci. (2003) 22(1):58–84Link, Google Scholar
• Nijs V. R., Srinivasan S., Pauwels K. Retail-price drivers and retailer profits. Marketing Sci. (2007) 26(4):473–487Link, Google Scholar
• Osborne M. Consumer learning, habit formation, and heterogeneity: A structural examination. (2006) . Working paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
• Papatla P., Krishnamurthi L. Measuring the dynamic effects of promotions on brand choice. J. Marketing Res. (1996) 33(1):20–35Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pauwels K., Srinivasan S. Who benefits from store brand entry? Marketing Sci. (2004) 23(3):364–390Link, Google Scholar
• Pauwels K., Hanssens D. M., Siddarth S. The long-term effects of price promotions on category incidence, brand choice, and purchase quantity. J. Marketing Res. (2002) 39(4):421–439Crossref, Google Scholar
• Philip Morris 1993 Annual Report. (1994) (Philip Morris Companies Inc., New York) Google Scholar
• Roberts M., Samuelson L. An empirical analysis of dynamic, nonprice competition in an oligopolistic industry. RAND J. Econom. (1988) 19(2):200–220Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saffer H., Chaloupka F. The effect of tobacco advertising bans on tobacco consumptions. J. Health Econom. (2000) 19(6):1117–1137Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmalensee R.The Economics of Advertising (1972) (North Holland, Amsterdam) Google Scholar
• Shapiro E. Price cut on Marlboro upsets rosy notions about tobacco profits. Wall Street J. (1993) April 5):A1A10Google Scholar
• Siegel M., Nelson D. E., Peddicord J. P., Merritt R. K., Giovino G. A., Eriksen M. P. The extent of cigarette brand and company switching: Results from the adult use-of-tobacco survey. Amer. J. Preventative Medicine (1996) 12(1):14–16Crossref, Google Scholar
• Silk A. J., Isaacson B. Philip Morris: Marlboro Friday (A). (1995) . HBS Case 9-596-001, Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
• Sriram S., Chintagunta P. K., Neelamegham R. Effects of brand preference, product attributes, and marketing mix variables in technology product markets. Marketing Sci. (2006) 25(5):440–456Link, Google Scholar
• Stigler G. J., Becker G. S. De gustibus non est disputandum. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1977) 67(2):76–90Google Scholar
• Sun B. Promotion effect on endogenous consumption. Marketing Sci. (2005) 24(3):430–443Link, Google Scholar
• Sun B., Neslin S. A., Srinivasan K. Measuring the impact of promotions on brand switching when consumers are forward looking. J. Marketing Res. (2003) 40(4):389–405Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tellis J. G. The price elasticity of selective demand: A meta-analysis of econometric models of sales. J. Marketing Res. (1988) 25(4):331–341Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Heerde H. J., Gupta S., Wittink D. R. Is 3/4 of the sales promotion bump due to brand switching? No it is 1/3. J. Marketing Res. (2003) 40(4):481–491Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wierenga B. Motion pictures: Consumers, channels, and intuition. Marketing Sci. (2006) 5(6):674–677Link, Google Scholar