Is 75% of the Sales Promotion Bump Due to Brand Switching? No, Only 33% Is

By H. V. van Heerde, Sachin Gupta, D. Wittink. 2003

246 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Marketing, Strategy and Management

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Marketing

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Promotion Profitability for a Retailer: The Role of Promotion, Brand, Category, and Store Characteristics (2006, background): “The median percentage of the lift that is attributed to switching is much closer to the 35% that Van Heerde, Gupta, and Wittink (2003) report than the 75%–80% that Gupta (1988) and Bell, Chiang, and Padmanabhan (1999), among others, report in their elasticity decompositions.”
When Do Price Thresholds Matter in Retail Categories (2007, background): “This result logically follows from the definition of price elasticity, as high-share brands need stronger price changes to affect their base price elasticity (van Heerde et al. 2003).”
Retailer, Manufacturers, and Individual Consumers: Modeling the Supply Side in the Ketchup Marketplace (2005, unknown): “For a discussion of the possibility of multiple purchases without this assumption and its implications for the results, see Gupta (1988), Chiang (1991), Chintagunta (1993), Dubé (2004), Guo (2003), and Van Heerde, Gupta, and Wittink (2003).”
Decomposing the Promotional Revenue Bump for Loyalty Program Members versus Nonmembers (2005, methodology): “More- over, deeper discounts can cause deeper prepromotion dips if the depth can be anticipated (Van Heerde, Leeflang, and Wittink 2000).”
Own-Brand and Cross-Brand Retail Pass-Through (2005, background): “The brandswitching fraction of sales increases induced by consumer promotions has been found to vary strongly across categories (Van Heerde et al. 2003).”