Pennies for Your Thoughts: Costly Product Consideration and Purchase Quantity Thresholds

References

• Allenby GM, Shively TS, Yang S, Garratt MJ (2004) A choice model for packaged goods: Dealing with discrete quantities and quantity discounts. Marketing Sci. 23(1):95–108.Link, Google Scholar
• Berry S, Levinsohn J, Pakes A (1995) Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica 63(4):841–890.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blattberg RC, Briesch R, Fox EJ (1995) How promotions work. Marketing Sci. 14(3):G122–G132.Link, Google Scholar
• Briesch RA, Chintagunta PK, Matzkin RL (2002) Semiparametric estimation of brand choice behavior. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 97(460):973–982.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bronnenberg BJ, Kruger MW, Mela CF (2008) Database paper—The IRI marketing data set. Marketing Sci. 27(4):745–748.Link, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Dean M (2015) Revealed preference, rational inattention, and costly information acquisition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(7):2183–2203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chan TY (2006) Estimating a continuous hedonic-choice model with an application to demand for soft drinks. RAND J. Econom. 37(2):466–482.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clerides S, Courty P (2017) Sales, quantity surcharge, and consumer inattention. Rev. Econom. Statist. 99(2):357–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dehmamy K, Otter T (2018) On the distinction between consideration and utility. Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2433145.Google Scholar
• Della Bitta AJ, Monroe KB (1981) A multivariate analysis of the perception of value from retail price advertisements. NA Adv. Consumer Res. 8:161–165.Google Scholar
• Diamond PA (1971) A model of price adjustment. J. Econom. Theory 3(2):156–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Draganska M, Klapper D (2011) Choice set heterogeneity and the role of advertising: An analysis with micro and macro data. J. Marketing Res. 48(4):653–669.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dubé J-P (2004) Multiple discreteness and product differentiation: Demand for carbonated soft drinks. Marketing Sci. 23(1):66–81.Link, Google Scholar
• Dubé J-P, Hitsch GJ, Manchanda P (2005) An empirical model of advertising dynamics. Quant. Marketing Econom. 3(2):107–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dzyabura D, Hauser JR (2011) Active machine learning for consideration heuristics. Marketing Sci. 30(5):801–819.Link, Google Scholar
• Gentzkow MA (2007) Valuing new goods in a model with complementarity: Online newspapers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(3):713–744.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbride TJ, Allenby GM (2004) A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Marketing Sci. 23(3):391–406.Link, Google Scholar
• Goeree M (2008) Limited information and advertising in the us personal computer industry. Econometrica 76(5):1017–1074.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gupta S, Cooper LG (1992) The discounting of discounts and promotion thresholds. J. Consumer Res. 19(3):401–411.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haviv A (2015) Does purchase without search explain counter-cyclic pricing? Working paper, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
• Hendel I (1999) Estimating multiple-discrete choice models: An application to computerization returns. Rev. Econom. Stud. 66(2):423–446.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hendel I, Nevo A (2006) Sales and consumer inventory. RAND J. Econom. 37(3):543–561.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahn BE, Kalwani MU, Morrison DG (1986) Measuring variety-seeking and reinforcement behaviors using panel data. J. Marketing 23(2):89–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kawaguchi K, Uetake K, Watanabe Y (2016) Identifying consumer attention: A product-availability approach. Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2529294.Google Scholar
• Kim J, Allenby GM, Rossi PE (2002) Modeling consumer demand for variety. Marketing Sci. 21(3):229–250.Link, Google Scholar
• Manski CF, Lerman SR (1977) The estimation of choice probabilities from choice based samples. Econometrica 45(8):1977–1988.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McAlister L (1982) A dynamic attribute satiation model of variety seeking behavior. J. Consumer Res. 9(2):141–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nevo A, Hatzitaskos K (2006) Why does the average price paid fall during high demand periods? CSIO Working Paper 0086, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Google Scholar
• Seiler S, Pinna F (2017) Estimating search benefits from path-tracking data: Measurement and determinants. Marketing Sci. 36(4):565–589.Link, Google Scholar
• Ranjan B, Ellickson P, Lovett M (2016) The effect of location and assortment on category consideration, learning, and choice. Working paper, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
• Roberts JH, Lattin JM (1991) Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition. J. Marketing Res. 28(4):429–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seiler S (2013) The impact of search costs on consumer behavior: A dynamic approach. Quant. Marketing Econom. 11(2):155–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shugan SM (1980) The cost of thinking. J. Consumer Res. 7(2):99–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Heerde HJ, Leeflang PSH, Wittink DR (2001) Semiparametric analysis to estimate the deal effect curve. J. Marketing Res. 38(2):197–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Nierop E, Bronnenberg B, Paap R, Wedel M, Franses PH (2010) Retrieving unobserved consideration sets from household panel data. J. Marketing Res. 47(1):63–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Villas-Boas SB (2007) Vertical relationships between manufacturers and retailers: Inference with limited data. Rev. Econom. Stud. 74(2):625–652.Crossref, Google Scholar