Product Structure, Brand Width and Brand Share

  • Juin-Kuan Chong
  • Teck-Hua Ho
  • Christopher S. Tang
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 10)


Most brand managers believe that a brand that has more products should have a higher brand share because it offers more options to customers. We utilize the underlying structure of the products (within a brand) to develop three measures of brand width: the number of stock keeping units (SKUs), the number of distinct feature levels, and the number of distinct products. To examine the impact of brand width on brand share, we develop a logit model and estimate the sensitivities of brand share to our brand width measures using panel data of eight food product categories. Our logit model suggests that the brand width measures provide explanatory and predictive power. In addition, our latent-class analysis implies that different segments have different (brand choice) responses to different measures of brand width. We also use the estimated model to simulate the impact of stock-out and delayed new product introduction on brand share. Our simulation results suggest: (1) stock-out will lower the brand share in a long run and its impact is more severe when the stock-out duration lengthens; and (2) delayed new product introduction will lower the brand share initially but has minimal impact on the brand share in a long run.


Brand Share Brand Choice Product Variety Logit Model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bailey, E.E. and A.F. Friedlaender, “Market Structure and Multiproduct Industries,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 20, pp. 1024–1048.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Akiva, Moshe and Steven R. Lerman, Discrete Choice Analysis, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, (1985).Google Scholar
  3. Chiang, J., “A Simultaneous Approach to The Whether, What and How Much To Buy Questions,” Marketing Science, Vol. 10, No. 4, (Fall 1991), pp. 297–315.Google Scholar
  4. Chiang, J. and Ronald T. Wilcox, “A Cross-Category Analysis of Shelf-Space Allocation, Product Variety and Retail Margins,” Marketing Letters, Vol. 8, No. 2, (1997), pp. 183–191.Google Scholar
  5. Chintagunta, Pradeep K., “Investigating Purchase Incidence, Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Decisions of Households,” Marketing Science, Vol. 12, No. 2, (Spring 1993), pp. 184–208.Google Scholar
  6. Chintagunta, Pradeep K., Dipak C. Jain and Naufel J. Vilcassim, “Investigating Heterogeneity in Brand Preferences in Logit Models for Panel Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 (Nov. 1991), pp. 417–428.Google Scholar
  7. Coombs, C. and Avrunin, G.S., “Single Peaked Preference Functions and Theory of Preference,” Psychological Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, (1977), pp. 216–230.Google Scholar
  8. Dobson, G. and Kalish, S., “Positioning and Pricing A Product Line,” Marketing Science, Vol. 7, No. 2, (Spring 1988), pp. 107–125.Google Scholar
  9. Fader, Peter S. and Bruce G.S. Hardie, “Modeling Consumer Choice Among SKU’s,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33, (Nov 1996), pp. 442–452.Google Scholar
  10. Green, Paul E. and Krieger, Abba M., “Models and Heuristics For Product Line Selection,” Marketing Science, Vol. 4, No. 1, (Winter 1985), pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  11. Grover, R. and V. Srinivasan, “A Simultaneous Approach to Market Segmentation and Market Structuring,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 (May 1987), pp. 139–153.Google Scholar
  12. Guadagni, Peter M. and John D.C. Little, “A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data,” Marketing Science, Vol. 2, No. 3, (Summer 1983), pp. 203–238.Google Scholar
  13. Gupta, Sunil, “Impact of Sales Promotions on When, What, and How Much to Buy,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, (Nov 1988), pp. 342–355.Google Scholar
  14. Kahn, Barbara E., Manohar U. Kalwani and Donald G. Morrison, “Measuring Variety-Seeking and Reinforcement Behaviors Using Panel Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23 (May. 1986), pp. 89–100.Google Scholar
  15. Kamakura, W.A. and G. J. Russell, “A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, (Nov. 1989), pp. 379–390.Google Scholar
  16. Kannan, P.K. and Gordon P. Wright, “Modeling and Testing Structured Markets: A Nested Logit Approach,” Marketing Science, Vol. 10, No. 1, (Winter 1991), pp. 58–82.Google Scholar
  17. Kekre, S. and Srinivasan, K., ‘Broader Product Line: A Necessity to Achieve Success?’ Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 10, (Oct. 1990), pp. 1216–1230.Google Scholar
  18. Krishnamurthi, Lakshman and S.P. Raj, “A Model of Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Price Sensitivities,” Marketing Science, Vol. 7, No. 1, (1988), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  19. Lancaster, Kelvin, “The Economics of Product Variety: A Survey,” Marketing Science, Vol. 9, No. 3, (1990), pp. 189–206.Google Scholar
  20. Lattin, James M., “A Model of Balanced Choice Behavior,” Marketing Science, Vol. 6 (Winter 1987), pp.48–65.Google Scholar
  21. McAlister, Leigh, “A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 (September 1982), pp. 141–150.Google Scholar
  22. McBride, R.D. and Zufryden, F.S., “An Integer Programming Approach to the Optimal Product Line Selection Problem,” Marketing Science, Vol. 7, No. 2, (Spring 1988), pp. 126–140.Google Scholar
  23. McFadden, D., “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior,” in Frontiers in Econometrics, P. Zarembka, ed., Academic Press, New York, (1974), pp. 105–142.Google Scholar
  24. Moore, William L., Edgar A. Pessemier and Donald R. Lehmann, “Hierarchical Representations of Market Structures and Choice Processes Through Preference Trees,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 14, No. 5 (Oct. 1986), pp. 371–386.Google Scholar
  25. Quelch, J. and Kenny, D., “Extend Profits, Not the Product Lines,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72, (Sep–Oct, 1994), pp. 153–160.Google Scholar
  26. Simonson, Itamar, “The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27, (May 1990), pp. 150–162.Google Scholar
  27. Tversky, Amos and Shmuel Sattath, “Preference Trees,” Psychological Review, Vol. 86, No. 6, (1979), pp. 542–573.Google Scholar
  28. Wagner, Udo and Alfred Taudes, “A Multivariate Polya Model of Brand Choice and Purchase Incidence,” Marketing Science, Vol. 5, No. 5, (Summer 1986), pp. 219–244.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juin-Kuan Chong
    • 1
  • Teck-Hua Ho
    • 2
  • Christopher S. Tang
    • 1
  1. 1.Anderson SchoolUCLAUSA
  2. 2.The Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations