, Volume 30, Issue 2–3, pp 311–345 | Cite as

Demand sensing in e-business

  • K. Ravikumar
  • Atul Saroop
  • H. K. Narahari
  • Pankaj Dayama


In this paper, we identify various models from the optimization and econometrics literature that can potentially help sense customer demand in the e-business era. While modelling reality is a difficult task, many of these models come close to modelling the customer's decision-making process. We provide a brief overview of these techniques, interspersing the discussion occasionally with a tutorial introduction of the underlying concepts.


Demand sensing discrete choice models reinforcement learning latent demand modelling econometrics fuzzy sets 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews R L, Srinivasan T C 1991 Studying consideration effects in empirical choice models using scanner panel data.J. Marketing Res. 32: 30–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachi A, Saroop A 2003Internet auctions: Some issues and problems, (Springer-Verlag) Lecture Notes in Computer Science (eds) G Goos, J Hartmanis, J van Leeuwen, vol. LNCS-2918, pp 112–119Google Scholar
  3. Bapna R, Goes P, Gupta A, Karuga G 2002 Predictive caliberation of online multi-unit ascending auctions.Proc. WITS-2002, Twelfth Annual Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell D E, Raiffa H 1979 Managerial value and intrinsic risk aversion. Working Paper, Technical Report 79-65, Harvard Business School, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Akiva M, Boccora B 1995 Discrete choice models and latent choice sets.Int. J. Res. Marketing 12: 9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertsekas D P 1995Nonlinear programming (Belmont, MA: Athena Scientific)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyd J, Mellman J 1980 The effect of fuel economy standards on the US automotive market: A hedonic demand analysis.Transportation Res. A14: 367–378Google Scholar
  8. Bronnenberg, Bart J, Vanhonacker W 1996 Limited choice sets, local price response and implied measures of price competition.J. Marketing Res. 33: 163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardell S, Dunbar F 1980 Measuring the societal impacts of automobile downsizing.Transportation Res. A14: 423–434Google Scholar
  10. Chiang J, Chib S, Narasimhan C 1999 Markov chain Monte Carlo and models of consideration set and parameter heterogeneity.J. Econometrics 89: 223–248MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chintagunta P K, Jain D C, Vilcassim N J 1991 Investigating heterogeneity in brand preferences in logit models for panel data.J. Marketing Res. 28: 417–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chipman J 1960 The foundations of utility.Econometrica 28: 193–224CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Dempster A, Laird N, Rubin D 1977 Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm.J. R. Stat. Soc. 39: 1–38MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Fortheringham A S 1988 Consumer store choice and choice set definition.Marketing Sci. 7: 299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guadagni P M, Little J D C 1983 A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data.Marketing Sci. 2: 203–238Google Scholar
  16. Haab T, McConnell K 1996 Count data models and the problem of zeros in recreation demand analysis.Am. J. Agri. Econ. 78: 89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huberman B A, Hogg T, Swami A 2000 Using unsuccessful auction bids to identify latent demand. Downloaded from Scholar
  18. Hulland J S 1992 An emprical investigation of consideration set formation.Adv. Consumer Res. 19: 253–254Google Scholar
  19. Kamakura W A, Russell G 1989 A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure.J. Marketing Res. 26: 379–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lange K 1999Numerical analysis for statisticians (New York: Springer)MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee H, Padmanabhan P, Whang S 1997 The paralyzing curse of the bull whip effect in a supply chain.Sloan Manage. Rev.: 93–102Google Scholar
  22. Manski C 1977 The structure of random utility models.Theor. Decision 8: 229–254MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Marschak J 1960Stanford symposium on mathematical methods in the social sciences (ed.) K Arrow, (Stanford, CA: University Press) pp 312–329Google Scholar
  24. McFadden, Daniel 1978 Estimation techniques for the elasticity of substitution and other production parameters.Production economics: A dual approach to theory and applications (eds) M Fuss, D McFadden, (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, North-Holland) vol. 2 pp. 73–124Google Scholar
  25. McFadden D, Train K 1996 Consumers' evaluation of new products: Learning from self and others.J. Polit. Econ. 104: 683–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McFadden D, Train K 2000 Mixed MNL models for discrete response.J. Appl. Econometrics 15: 447–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McLachlan G, Krishnan T 1997The EM algorithm and extensions (New York: Wiley)MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitra, Anusree 1995 Advertising and the stability of consideration sets over multiple purchase occasions.Int. J. Res. Marketing 12: 81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oliver K, Moeller L, Lakenan B 2004 Smart customization: Profitable growth through tailored business streams. Downloaded from Scholar
  30. Pindyck R S, Rubinfeld D 2000Microeconomics (Englebert cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall)Google Scholar
  31. Raju C V L, Narahari Y, Ravikumar K 2004a Learning dynamic prices in electronic retail markets with customer segmentation.Ann. Oper. Res. 41 (to appear)Google Scholar
  32. Raju C V L, Narahari Y, Ravikumar K 2004b Learning nonlinear dynamic prices in electronic markets with price sensitive customers, stochastic demands, and inventory replenishments.Electron. Commerce Res. (communicated) ( Scholar
  33. Raju C V L, Narahari Y, Ravikumar K 2004c Learning nonlinear dynamic prices in multi-seller electronic markets with price sensitive customers, stochastic demands, and inventory replenishments.IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernetics (communicated)Google Scholar
  34. Ravikumar K, Sundar D K, Batra G, Saluja R 2004 Learning in dynamic pricing games of electronic service markets.Mach. Learning (communicated) ( Scholar
  35. Roberts J H, Lattin J 1991 Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition.J. Marketing Res. 28: 429–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roberts J H, Urban G 1988 Modelling multiattribute utility, risk and belief dynamics for new consumer durable brand choice.Manage. Sci. 34: 167–185Google Scholar
  37. Rusmevichientong P, Salisbury J, Truss L T, Roy B, Glynn P 2004 Opportunities and challenges in using online preference data for vehicle pricing: A case study at general motors.J. Revenue Pricing Manage, (communicated)Google Scholar
  38. Saroop A, Bagchi A 2000 Decision support system for timed bids in internet auctions.Proc. WITS-2000, Tenth Annu. Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Brisbane, Australia, pp 229–234Google Scholar
  39. Saroop A, Bagchi A 2002 Artificial neural networks for predicting final prices in eBay auctions.Proc. WITS-2002, Twelfth Annu. Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Barcelona, Spain, pp 19–24Google Scholar
  40. Shocker A, Ben-Akiva M, Boccara B, Nedungadi P 1991 Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, models and suggestions.Marketing Lett. 2: 181–197Google Scholar
  41. Siddarth S, Bucklin R, Morrison D 1995 Making the cut: Modelling and analysing choice set restriction is scanner panel data.J. Marketing Res. 32: 255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thurstone L 1927 A law of comparative judgement,Psychol. Rev. 34: 273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Train K E 2003Discrete choice methods with simulation. (Cambridge: University Press)MATHGoogle Scholar
  44. von Haefen R H 2003 Latent consideration sets and continuous demand system models. Downloaded from Scholar
  45. Wales T, Woodland A 1983 Estimation of consumer demand systems with binding non-negativity constraints.J. Econometrics 21: 263–285MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Watkins C, Dayan P 1992Q-learning, machine learning 8: 279–292MATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Wu J, Rangaswamy A 2003 A fuzzy set model of search and consideration with an application to an online market.Marketing Sci. 22: 411–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

©  Indian Academy of Sciences 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Ravikumar
    • 1
  • Atul Saroop
    • 1
  • H. K. Narahari
    • 1
  • Pankaj Dayama
    • 1
  1. 1.General Motors India Science LaboratoryInternational Technology ParkBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations