Advertisement

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 12, Issue 1–2, pp 85–105 | Cite as

The effect on sales of changes in a “push” marketing strategy in a marketing channel context

  • Michael Levy
  • George W. Jones
Article

Abstract

Marketing managers must determine what level of salient marketing mix variables should be provided within a marketing channel. This paper describes a number of previously used methods and presents a different approach which determines a customer's sales response to different levels of promotion and distribution activities using a variant conjoint analysis approach. The results of this sales dollar estimation procedure are compared with those derived from conventional conjoint analysis using rank order preference data. Differences in the two analyses are examined which could lead to different strategic decisions.

Keywords

Conjoint Analysis Financial Term Marketing Channel Holdout Sample Cooperative Advertising 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acito, Franklin (1977), “An Investigation of Some Data Collection Issues in Conjoint Measurement”, inContemporary Marketing Thought, Educator's Conference Proceedings, B.A. and D. N. Bellenger, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association.Google Scholar
  2. — and Arun K. Jain (1980), “Evaluation of Conjoint Analysis Results: A Comparison of Methods”,Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold, Steven F. (1980), “Asymptotic Validity of F Tests for the Ordinary Linear Model and the Multiple Correlation Model”,Journal of the American Statistical Society, 75 (December), 890–894.Google Scholar
  4. Cattin, Philippe and Dick R. Wittink (1976) “A Monte Carlo Study of Metric and Non-Metric Estimation Methods for Multiattribute Models”, Research Paper No. 341, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  5. Carmone, Frank J., Paul E. Green and Arun K. Jain (1978), “Robustness of Conjoint Analysis: Some Monte Carlo Results”,Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 300–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cunningham, M.T. and D.A. Roberts (1974), “The Role of Customer Service in Industrial Marketing”,European Journal of Marketing, (Spring) 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Currim, Imran S. and Dick R. Wittink (1980), “Issues in the Development of a Marketing Decision Support System Using Segment-Based Consumer Preference Models”,Market Measurement and Analysis Proceedings of ORSA/TIMS Conference, David B. Montgomery and Dick R. Wittink, eds., Marketing Science Institute, 386–96.Google Scholar
  8. Darmon, René Y. (1979), “Setting Sales Quotas with Conjoint Analysis”,Journal of Marketing Research, 16, (February), 133–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, Richard H. (1980), “Choice Criteria Revisited”,Journal of Marketing, 44 (Winter), 55–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. French, John R.P. and Bertram Raven (1959), “The Bases of Social Power”, in Darwin Cartwright, ed.,Studies in Social Power Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 150–67.Google Scholar
  11. Gilmour, Peter (1977), “Customer Service, Differentiating by Market Segment”,International Journal of Physicial Distribution, 7, No. 3, 141–8.Google Scholar
  12. — (1979), “Development of a Demand Response Function”,Journal of Business Logistics, 1, No. 2, 83–102.Google Scholar
  13. Green, Paul E. (1974), “On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives”,The Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 61–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. — and V. Srinivasan (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Behavior; Issues and Outlook”,Journal of Consumer of Research, 5 (September), 103–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huber, Joel C. and William L. Moore (1979), “A Comparison of Alternative Ways to Aggregate Individual Conjoint Analyses”,1979 Educators' Conference Proceedings, Neil E. Beckwithet al., eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 64–8.Google Scholar
  16. Jain, Arun K., Franklin Acito, Naresh K. Malhotra, and Vijay Mahajan (1979), “A Comparison of the Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decomposition Multiattribute Preference Models”,Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 313–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. —,Naresh K. Malhotra, andVijay Mahajan (1979), “Aggregating Conjoint Data: Some Methodological Considerations and Approaches”, Educators' Conference Proceedings, Neil E. Beckwithet al., eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 74–7.Google Scholar
  18. Kruskal, Joseph B. (1963), “Analysis of Factorial Experiments by Estimating Monotone Transformations of the Data”,Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 27, 251–63.Google Scholar
  19. LaLonde, B.J. and Paul H. Zinszer (1976),Customer Service: Meaning and Measurement, Chicago: National Council of Physical Distribution Management.Google Scholar
  20. Lehmann, Donald R. and John O'Shaughnessy (1974), “Difference in Attribute Importance for Different Industrial Products”,Journal of Marketing, 38 (April), 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levy, Michael (1981), “Toward an Optimal Customer Service Policy”,Journal of Business Logistics, 2, No. 2, 87–111.Google Scholar
  22. Montgomery, David B. and Dick R. Wittick (1980), “The Predictive Validity of Conjoint Analysis for Alternative Aggregation Schemes”,Market Measurement and Analysis Proceedings ORSA/TIMS Conference, David B. Montgomery and Dick R. Wittink, eds., Marketing Science Institute, 298–309.Google Scholar
  23. Moore, William L. (1980), “Levels of Aggregation in Conjoint Analysis: An Empirical Comparison”,Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 516–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morrison, Donald F. (1976),Multivariate Statistical Methods, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  25. Page, Ellis B. (1963), “Ordered Hypotheses for Multiple Treatments: A Significance Test for Linear Ranks”,Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 216–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parker, Barnett R. and V. Srinivasan (1976), “A Consumer Preference Approach to the Planning of Rural Primary Health Care Facilities”,Operations Research, 24, (1976): 991–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perreault, William D., Jr. and Frederick A. Russ (1977), “Improving Physical Distribution Service Decisions with Trade-Off Analysis”,International Journal of Physical distribution, 7, No. 3, 17–27.Google Scholar
  28. —— (1976), “Physical Distribution Service in Industrial Purchase Decisions”,Journal of Marketing, 40 (April), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pessimier, Edgar A., Philip Burger, Richard Teach, and Douglas Tigert (1971), “Using Laboratory Brand Preference Scales to Predict Consumer Brand Purchases”,Management Science, 17, B371–85.Google Scholar
  30. Scott, Jerome E. and Peter Wright (1976), “Modeling an Organizational Buyer's Product Evaluation Strategy: Validity and Procedural Considerations”,Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 221–4.Google Scholar
  31. Simon, Leonard S. (1965), “Measuring the Market Impact of Technical Services”,Journal of Marketing Research, 2, (February), 32–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Levy
    • 1
  • George W. Jones
    • 2
  1. 1.Southern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA
  2. 2.Mostek CorporationCarrolltonUSA

Personalised recommendations