Skip to main content
Log in

The relationship between the marketing mix and share of category requirements

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A criticism of purchase-based brand loyalty measures is that they are confounded by the marketing mix variables that affect brand choice. This paper investigates the magnitude and direction of the associations for share of category requirements (SCR), defined as each brand's share among the group of households who bought the brand at least once during the time period under consideration. We discuss the theoretical foundations for the relationships between SCR and a set of marketing mix variables (price, promotions, retail distribution) and conduct a latent structure regression analysis of brand-level data to test these relationships. We find that, although the relationship between the marketing mix variables and SCR is statistically significant, in real terms the magnitude of the association is fairly low.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allenby, Greg M., and Peter E. Rossi. (1991). “Quality Perceptions and Asymmetric Switching Between Brands.”Marketing Science 10 (Summer), 185–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blattberg, Robert C., and Kenneth J. Wisniewski. (1989). “Price Induced Patterns of Competition.”Marketing Science 8 (Fall), 291–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Scott, J. Jeffrey Inman, and Leigh McAlister. (1992). “Promotion Has a Negative Effect on Brand Evaluation Or Does It? Additional Disconfirming Evidence.”Journal of Marketing Research 29 (February), 143–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, Wayne S., and William L. Cron. (1988). “A Conditional Mixture Maximum Likelihood Methodology for Clusterwise Linear Regression.”Journal of Classification 5, 249–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, Wayne S., and Michel Wedel. (1995). “A Review of Latent Structure Regression Methods.” In Richard Bagozzi (ed.),Advanced Marketing Research. Blackwell: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodson, Joe A., Alice Tybout, and Brian Sternthal. (1978). “Impact of Deals and Deal Retraction of Brand Switching.”Journal of Marketing Research 15 (February), 72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Kathy Hammond, and Gerald J. Goodhardt. (1994). “The After-Effects of Price-Related Consumer Promotions.”Journal of Advertising Research (July–August) 11–21.

  • Etgar, Michael, and Naresh K. Malhotra. (1981). “Determinants of Price Dependency: Personal and Perceptual Factors.”Journal of Consumer Research 8 (September), 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fader, Peter S., and David C. Schmittlein. (1993). “Triple Jeopardy: Excess Behavioral Loyalty Experienced by High-Share Brands.”Journal of Marketing Research 30 (November), 478–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley, John U. (1964). “Why Does Brand Loyalty Vary Over Products.”Journal of Marketing Research 1 (November), 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris, Paul, James Olver, and Cornelisde Kluyver. (1989). “The Relationship Between Distribution and Market Share.”Marketing Science 8 (Spring), 107–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabor, Andre, and Clive W.J. Granger. (1966). “Price as an Indicator of Quality: Report on an Enquiry.”Economica 46 (February), 43–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guadagni, Peter M., and John D.C. Little. (1983). “A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data.”Marketing Science 2 (Summer), 203–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, Scott. (1992). “Brand Loyalty Steady.”Advertising Age, March 2, p. 19.

  • Information Resources, Inc. (1988).InfoScan Supermarket Review. Chicago: Information Resources, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Information Resources, Inc. (1988).The Marketing Factbook Annual Report, January–December 1988. Chicago: Information Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, Jacob, and Robert W. Chestnut. (1978).Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Tod. (1984). “The Myth of Declining Brand Loyalty.”Journal of Advertising Research 24 (February–March), 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Tod. (1991). “Seventeen Years of Brand Loyalty Trends: What Do They Tell Us.” Paper presentated to the Promotion Marketing Association of Advertising, March.

  • Kahn, Barbara E., and Therese A. Louie. (1990). “Effects of Retraction of Price Promotions on Brand Choice Behavior for Variety-Seeking and Last-Purchase-Loyal Consumers.”Journal of Marketing Research 27 (August), 279–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalwani, Manohar U., Chi Kin Yim, Heikki J. Rinne, and Yoshi Sugita. (1990). “A Price Expectations Model of Customer Brand Choice.”Journal of Marketing Research 27 (August), 251–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, Aradhna. (1991). “Effect of Dealing Patterns on Consumer Perceptions of Deal Frequency and Willingness to Pay.”Journal of Marketing Research 28 (November), 441–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnamurthi, Lakshman, and S.P. Raj. (1988). “A Model of Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Price Sensitivities.”Marketing Science 7 (Winter), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattin, James M. (1990). “Measuring Preference from Scanner Panel Data: Filtering Out the Effects of Price and Promotion.” Unpublished working paper, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.

  • Lattin, James M., and Randolph E. Bucklin. (1989). “Reference Effects of Price and Promotion on Brand Choice Behavior.”Journal of Marketing Research 26 (August), 299–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, John D.C., and Eric Anderson. (1994). “A Product Choice Model with Marketing, Filtering and Purchase Feedback.” Unpublished working paper, MIT Sloan School of Management.

  • Monroe, Kent B. (1973). “Buyers' Subjective Perceptions of Price.”Journal of Marketing Research 10 (February), 70–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neslin, Scott A., and Robert W. Shoemaker. (1989). “An Alternative Explanation for Lower Repeat Rates After Promotion Purchases.”Journal of Marketing Research 26 (May), 205–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortmeyer, Gwen, James M. Lattin, and David B. Montgomery. (1991). “Individual Differences in Response to Consumer Promotions.”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8 (September), 169–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, Venkataram, Wayne S. DeSarbo, David J. Reibstein, and William T. Robinson. (1993). “An Empirical Pooling Approach for Estimating Marketing Mix Elasticities with PIMS Data.”Marketing Science 12 (Winter), 103–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Gary J. (1994). “Averaging Over the Past: When Simple Loyalty Measures Work.” Paper presented at the Marketing Science Conference, University of Arizona.

  • Russell, Gary J., and Wagner A. Kamakura. (1994). “Understanding Brand Competition Using Micro and Macro Scanner Data.”Journal of Marketing Research 31 (May), 289–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V., and Thomas Kibarian. (1989). “Purchase Event Feedback: Fact or Fiction?” Paper presented at the Marketing Science Conference, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.

  • Winer, Russell S. (1986). “A Reference Price Model of Brand Choice for Frequently Purchased Products.”Journal of Consumer Research 13 (September), 250–256.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bhattacharya, C.B., Fader, P.S., Lodish, L.M. et al. The relationship between the marketing mix and share of category requirements. Market Lett 7, 5–18 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00557307

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00557307

Key words

Navigation