Quantitative Marketing and Economics

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 85–126 | Cite as

How long has it been since the last deal? Consumer promotion timing expectations and promotional response



When modeling consumers’ forward-looking behavior using choice data on frequently purchased products, the common approach assumes that consumers have rational expectations about future promotions. Previous studies modeled such expectations using a first-order Markov (FOM) process. However, empirical evidence from several categories suggest that inter-promotion intervals can last several weeks implying that a FOM process that conditions future expectations of prices only on current-period prices can be limiting. We utilize a Proportional Hazard model (PHM) to characterize consumers’ rational expectation of future price promotion. We first show that estimating a dynamic structural model that uses a FOM specification for rational expectations can bias estimates of promotion effects with both simulation analysis and scanner panel data from four consumer packaged goods product categories. Secondly, we empirically show that a structural model employing a PHM specification for promotion expectations fits the data better than ones that assume only a FOM price or promotion expectation. Lastly, we show using an analysis of promotion policy changes that a structural model with a FOM expectation can lead to suboptimal managerial decisions.


Promotion Promotion expectations Dynamic discrete choice model Hazard model Stockpiling 

JEL Classification

M3 C23 C25 



The authors acknowledge several useful comments from the Editor and anonymous reviewers as well as from Pradeep Chintagunta.


  1. Ailawadi, K. L., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2001). Market response to a major policy change in the marketing mix: Learning from procter & gamble’s value pricing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 44–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assuncao, J. L., & Meyer, R. (1993). The rational effect of price promotions on sales and consumption. Management Science, 39, 517–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bronnenberg, B. J., Kruger, M. W., & Mela, C. F. (2008). Database paper: The IRI marketing data set. Marketing Science, 27(4), 745–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chan, T., Narasimhan, C., & Zhang, Q. (2008). Decomposing promotional effects with a dynamic structural model of flexible consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(4), 487–498.Google Scholar
  5. Ching, A., Erdem, T., & Keane, M. (2009). The price consideration model of brand choice. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 24(3), 393–420.Google Scholar
  6. Ching, A., Erdem, T., & Keane, M. (2013). A simple approach to estimate the roles of learning, inventory and experimentation in consumer choice. Working paper, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  7. Conlisk, J., Gerstner, E., & Sobel, J. (1984). Cyclic pricing by a durable goods monopolist. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99, 489–505.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dhar, S. K., & Hoch, S. J. (1996). Price discrimination using in-store merchandising. Journal of Marketing, 60(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erdem, T., Imai, S., & Keane, M. P. (2003). Brand and quantity choice: Dynamics under price uncertainty. Quantitative Economic and Marketing, 1, 5–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erdem, T., Keane, M. P., Sabri Oncu, T., & Stribel, J. (2005). Learning about computers: An analysis of information search and technology choice. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 3, 207–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang, H., & Wang, Y. (2013). Estimating dynamic discrete choice models with hyperbolic discounting, with an application to Mammography decision. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  13. Geweke, J., & Keane, M. P. (2000). Bayesian inference for dynamic discrete choice models without theneed for dynamic programming. In S. Mariano & Weeks (Eds.), Simulation based inference and econometrics: Methods and applications (pp. 100–131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gönül, F., & Srinivasan, K. (1996). Impact of consumer expectations of coupons on purchase behavior. Marketing Science, 15, 262–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guadagni, P. M., & Little, J. D. C. (1983). A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data. Marketing Science, 2, 203–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gupta, S. (1988). Impact of sales promotions on when, what, and how much to buy. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 342–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hendel, I., & Nevo, A. (2006). Measuring the implications of sales and consumer stockpiling behavior. Econometrica, 74(6), 1637–1673.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jedidi, K., Mela, C. F., & Gupta, S. (1999). Managing advertising and promotion for long-run profitability. Marketing Science, 18(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keane, M. P., & Wolpin, K. I. (1994). Solution and estimation of dynamic programming models by simulation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 684–672.Google Scholar
  20. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing management (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Krishna, A. (1992). The normative impact of consumer price expectations for multiple brands on consumer purchase behavior. Marketing Science, 11(3), 266–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krishna, A., Currim, I. C., & Shoemaker, R. W. (1991). Consumer perceptions of promotional activity. Journal of Marketing, 55(April), 4–16.Google Scholar
  23. Lucas, R. (1976). Econometric policy evaluation: A critique. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 1, 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Magnac, T., & Thesmar, D. (2002). Identifying dynamic discrete decision processes. Econometrica, 70(2), 801–816.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manski, C. F. (2004). Measuring expectation. Econometrica, 72(5), 1329–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mela, C. F., Jedidi, K., & Bowman, D. (1998). The long-term impact of promotions on consumer stockpiling behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(May), 250–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyer, R. J., & Assuncao, J. (1990). The optimality of consumer stockpiling strategies. Marketing Science, 9, 18–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mulhern, F. J., & Leone, R. P. (1991). Implicit price bundling of retail products: A multiproduct approach to maximizing store profitability. Journal of Marketing, 55(October), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Osborne, M. (2010). Frequency versus Depth: How changing the temporal process of promotions impacts demand for a storable good. Working paper.Google Scholar
  30. Rust, J. (1994). Structural estimation of markov decision processes. In R. F. Engle & D. L. McFadden (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics, vol. IV. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  31. Saha, A., & Hilton, L. (1997). Expo-power: A flexible hazard function for duration data models. Economics Letters, 54, 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seetharaman, P. B., & Chintagunta, P. (2003). The PHM for purchase timing: A comparison of alternative specifications. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 21, 368–382.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seiler, S. (2013). The impact of search costs on consumer behavior: A dynamic approach. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 11, 155–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sobel, J. (1984). The timing of sales. Review of Economic Studies, 51(3), 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sun, B. (2005). Promotion effect on endogenous consumption. Marketing Science, 24(3), 430–443.Google Scholar
  36. Sun, B., Neslin, S. A., & Srinivasan, K. (2003). Measuring the impact of promotions on brand switching when consumers are forward looking. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 389–405.Google Scholar
  37. Wall Street Journal. (2002). Kimberly-Clark: Paper Tiger? CEO Falk to Give Forecast Amid Multiple Challenges, Rivalries. December 11.Google Scholar
  38. Yao, S., Mela, C. F., Chiang, J., & Chen, Y. (2012). Determining consumers’ discount rates with field studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(Dec), 822–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mays Business SchoolTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Krannert Graduate School of ManagementPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations