Is 3/4 of the Sales Promotion Bump Due to Brand Switching? No it is 1/3

H.J. van Heerde, S. Gupta, D.R. Wittink

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

1103 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Several researchers have decomposed sales promotion elasticities based on household scanner panel data.A key result is that the majority of the sales promotion elasticity, about 74 percent on average, is attributed to secondary demand effects (brand switching) and the remainder to primary demand effects (timing acceleration and quantity increases).We demonstrate that this result does not imply that if a brand gains 100 units in sales during a promotion the other brands in the category lose 74 units (74 percent).We offer a complementary decomposition measure based on unit sales.This measure shows the ratio of the current cross-brand unit sales loss to the current own-brand unit sales gain during promotion, and we report empirical results for this measure.We also derive analytical expressions that transform the elasticity decomposition into a decomposition of unit sales effects.These expressions show the nature of the difference between the two decompositions.To gain insight into the magnitude of the difference, we apply these expressions to previously reported elasticity decomposition results.We find that on average about one third of the unit sales increase is attributable to losses incurred by other brands in the same category (i.e., they lose 33 units).Thus, secondary demand effects account for a far smaller percent of the unit sales promotion effect than has been inferred from elasticity decomposition results.We find that the difference is due to the manner in which the two decomposition measures deal with the category expansion that occurs during a promotion.One interpretation is that the elasticity decomposition yields a gross measure of brand switching, in the sense that category sales are held constant.The unit sales decomposition yields a net measure of brand switching: it accommodates the category expansion effect that applies to both promoted and nonpromoted brands in the models.
Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationTilburg
PublisherMarketing
Number of pages29
Volume2003-5
Publication statusPublished - 2003

Publication series

NameCentER Discussion Paper
Volume2003-5

Fingerprint

Decomposition
Brand switching
Sales promotion
Elasticity
Scanner panel data
Empirical results
Household

Keywords

  • sales
  • panel data
  • demand curves
  • brand choice
  • purchasing
  • elasticity

Cite this

van Heerde, H. J., Gupta, S., & Wittink, D. R. (2003). Is 3/4 of the Sales Promotion Bump Due to Brand Switching? No it is 1/3. (CentER Discussion Paper; Vol. 2003-5). Tilburg: Marketing.
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. Tilburg : Marketing, 2003. (CentER Discussion Paper).
@techreport{c3c61e8f85d44afc93a5f0337fb835e1,
title = "Is 3/4 of the Sales Promotion Bump Due to Brand Switching? No it is 1/3",
abstract = "Several researchers have decomposed sales promotion elasticities based on household scanner panel data.A key result is that the majority of the sales promotion elasticity, about 74 percent on average, is attributed to secondary demand effects (brand switching) and the remainder to primary demand effects (timing acceleration and quantity increases).We demonstrate that this result does not imply that if a brand gains 100 units in sales during a promotion the other brands in the category lose 74 units (74 percent).We offer a complementary decomposition measure based on unit sales.This measure shows the ratio of the current cross-brand unit sales loss to the current own-brand unit sales gain during promotion, and we report empirical results for this measure.We also derive analytical expressions that transform the elasticity decomposition into a decomposition of unit sales effects.These expressions show the nature of the difference between the two decompositions.To gain insight into the magnitude of the difference, we apply these expressions to previously reported elasticity decomposition results.We find that on average about one third of the unit sales increase is attributable to losses incurred by other brands in the same category (i.e., they lose 33 units).Thus, secondary demand effects account for a far smaller percent of the unit sales promotion effect than has been inferred from elasticity decomposition results.We find that the difference is due to the manner in which the two decomposition measures deal with the category expansion that occurs during a promotion.One interpretation is that the elasticity decomposition yields a gross measure of brand switching, in the sense that category sales are held constant.The unit sales decomposition yields a net measure of brand switching: it accommodates the category expansion effect that applies to both promoted and nonpromoted brands in the models.",
keywords = "sales, panel data, demand curves, brand choice, purchasing, elasticity",
author = "{van Heerde}, H.J. and S. Gupta and D.R. Wittink",
note = "Pagination: 29",
year = "2003",
language = "English",
volume = "2003-5",
series = "CentER Discussion Paper",
publisher = "Marketing",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "Marketing",

}

van Heerde, HJ, Gupta, S & Wittink, DR 2003 'Is 3/4 of the Sales Promotion Bump Due to Brand Switching? No it is 1/3' CentER Discussion Paper, vol. 2003-5, Marketing, Tilburg.

Is 3/4 of the Sales Promotion Bump Due to Brand Switching? No it is 1/3. / van Heerde, H.J.; Gupta, S.; Wittink, D.R.

Tilburg : Marketing, 2003. (CentER Discussion Paper; Vol. 2003-5).

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

TY - UNPB

T1 - Is 3/4 of the Sales Promotion Bump Due to Brand Switching? No it is 1/3

AU - van Heerde, H.J.

AU - Gupta, S.

AU - Wittink, D.R.

N1 - Pagination: 29

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - Several researchers have decomposed sales promotion elasticities based on household scanner panel data.A key result is that the majority of the sales promotion elasticity, about 74 percent on average, is attributed to secondary demand effects (brand switching) and the remainder to primary demand effects (timing acceleration and quantity increases).We demonstrate that this result does not imply that if a brand gains 100 units in sales during a promotion the other brands in the category lose 74 units (74 percent).We offer a complementary decomposition measure based on unit sales.This measure shows the ratio of the current cross-brand unit sales loss to the current own-brand unit sales gain during promotion, and we report empirical results for this measure.We also derive analytical expressions that transform the elasticity decomposition into a decomposition of unit sales effects.These expressions show the nature of the difference between the two decompositions.To gain insight into the magnitude of the difference, we apply these expressions to previously reported elasticity decomposition results.We find that on average about one third of the unit sales increase is attributable to losses incurred by other brands in the same category (i.e., they lose 33 units).Thus, secondary demand effects account for a far smaller percent of the unit sales promotion effect than has been inferred from elasticity decomposition results.We find that the difference is due to the manner in which the two decomposition measures deal with the category expansion that occurs during a promotion.One interpretation is that the elasticity decomposition yields a gross measure of brand switching, in the sense that category sales are held constant.The unit sales decomposition yields a net measure of brand switching: it accommodates the category expansion effect that applies to both promoted and nonpromoted brands in the models.

AB - Several researchers have decomposed sales promotion elasticities based on household scanner panel data.A key result is that the majority of the sales promotion elasticity, about 74 percent on average, is attributed to secondary demand effects (brand switching) and the remainder to primary demand effects (timing acceleration and quantity increases).We demonstrate that this result does not imply that if a brand gains 100 units in sales during a promotion the other brands in the category lose 74 units (74 percent).We offer a complementary decomposition measure based on unit sales.This measure shows the ratio of the current cross-brand unit sales loss to the current own-brand unit sales gain during promotion, and we report empirical results for this measure.We also derive analytical expressions that transform the elasticity decomposition into a decomposition of unit sales effects.These expressions show the nature of the difference between the two decompositions.To gain insight into the magnitude of the difference, we apply these expressions to previously reported elasticity decomposition results.We find that on average about one third of the unit sales increase is attributable to losses incurred by other brands in the same category (i.e., they lose 33 units).Thus, secondary demand effects account for a far smaller percent of the unit sales promotion effect than has been inferred from elasticity decomposition results.We find that the difference is due to the manner in which the two decomposition measures deal with the category expansion that occurs during a promotion.One interpretation is that the elasticity decomposition yields a gross measure of brand switching, in the sense that category sales are held constant.The unit sales decomposition yields a net measure of brand switching: it accommodates the category expansion effect that applies to both promoted and nonpromoted brands in the models.

KW - sales

KW - panel data

KW - demand curves

KW - brand choice

KW - purchasing

KW - elasticity

M3 - Discussion paper

VL - 2003-5

T3 - CentER Discussion Paper

BT - Is 3/4 of the Sales Promotion Bump Due to Brand Switching? No it is 1/3

PB - Marketing

CY - Tilburg

ER -

van Heerde HJ, Gupta S, Wittink DR. Is 3/4 of the Sales Promotion Bump Due to Brand Switching? No it is 1/3. Tilburg: Marketing. 2003. (CentER Discussion Paper).