Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Dynamics of Price Elasticity of Demand in The
The Dynamics of Price Elasticity of Demand in The
The Dynamics of Price Elasticity of Demand in The
net/publication/225270551
CITATIONS READS
38 6,769
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Arieh Gavious on 17 May 2014.
Arieh Gavious
Oded Lowengart
Ben Gurion University
of price elasticity along the product life cycle (Mickwitz occurred, when reference price effects have become negli-
1959; Simon 1979; Liu and Hanssens 1981; Lilien and gible. Long-term elasticity is, therefore, equal to regular
Yoon 1988). price elasticity (i.e., elasticity in the absence of the refer-
Research in the area of reference price effects on con- ence price). We show that immediate-term price elastic-
sumer behavior has investigated various aspects of these ity is always greater than regular price elasticity (Sec-
effects. One stream of research is aimed at exploring refer- tion 4). In fact, we explicitly calculate the relative change
ence price effects on demand. In this context, the main in immediate-term elasticity (RCIE) and show that it is
objective is deriving optimal pricing strategies in the pres- equal to the relative effect of the reference price on
ence of reference price effects. In a recent study, Fibich, demand, compared with that of the actual price (equation
Gavious and Lowengart (2003) studied retailers’ pricing (9)).
strategies in the presence of asymmetric effects of refer- There is no explicit time scale in the discrete model that
ence price over a finite or infinite planning horizon. Their can be used to quantify the terms immediate term and long
findings indicate that the optimal pricing strategy would term. We can get this quantification, however, by using a
be a penetration or skimming at the introductory stage and continuous model for reference price formation. In addi-
a constant price afterward. Observing current retailers’ tion, with this approach, we derive a general expression for
pricing practices in the marketplace, it can be seen that the the price elasticity of demand with reference price effects
high-low pricing strategy is being used quite often. Thus, it (equation (17)), which depends both on price and length of
would be very useful to examine the dynamics of price time elapsed since the price change, such that the expres-
elasticity. The findings of the present study reveal large sions derived under the discrete approach for immediate-
differences between the elasticities of a price increase and and long-term elasticities correspond to its two extreme
a price decrease and the time dependence of these results. cases (Section 6.2).
Furthermore, our results suggest that the reference price The theoretical distinction between short- and long-
can have a considerable effect on price elasticity. For term price elasticities of demand has practical conse-
example, by applying our analysis to empirical data, we quences for the estimation of elasticity values. In Section
show that during the first few weeks after a price change, 9, we show how to determine efficiently these elasticities
reference price effects on the price elasticity of demand for by using a specific sampling scheme based on separating
peanut butter are higher than price effects. the sampling data of quantity demanded into two sets: the
Reference price can be defined as the price consumers first consisting of sampling shortly after a price
have in mind and to which they compare the shelf price of a change and the second consisting of sampling long after
specific product (Winer 1986, 1989; Mayhew and Winer the price change. With this approach, price and reference
1992; Kalwani, Rinne, and Sugita 1990). Differences price effects are separated, allowing one to determine
between the reference price r and the shelf price p affect price elasticity more accurately (i.e., not mixing immedi-
the demand for that brand: when r > p, consumers are ate- and long-term elasticities) and with less effort (i.e.,
likely to sense a gain that will increase demand for this fewer sampling points).
brand, and when r < p, consumers are likely to sense a loss We extend our analysis to competitive situations, in
that will negatively affect demand. Consumers construct which demand for product A is also dependent on the price
their internal reference price through their shopping expe- of the other products in the category and vice versa. The
riences with the product over time. Consequently, when a results show that reference price effects on price elasticity
retailer changes its price, there is a time lag until consum- are the same as in a monopoly case. As reference price
ers adjust their reference price to the new price. During effects constitute the transactional utility component of
this time lag, the existence of gain or loss evaluations promotional elasticity (Blattberg and Neslin 1989),
affects demand for the product. With time, however, these immediate-term elasticity equals promotional elasticity in
effects decrease, and quantity demanded is less affected by the case of a monopoly (Section 12). Even in competitive
reference price evaluations. As a result, the price elasticity situations, in which brand switching accounts for most of
of demand depends not only on price but also on whether the increase in promotional elasticity, transactional utility
we are interested in the demand level immediately still exists and has the same impact on promotional elastic-
following a price change or much later in time. ity as in the monopoly situation. Other extensions to the
We start our analysis with a discrete model of reference basic model include multiple price changes (Section 11)
price formation, which we use to derive expressions for and consumers’ heterogeneity (Section 13). In all cases,
immediate- and long-term price elasticities. Immediate- we show that there is no difference in the qualitative results
term price elasticity corresponds to the change in demand of the general model and the extended cases.
right after the price change occurred, when reference price To depict the relevance of our theoretical develop-
effects are maximal. Long-term price elasticity corre- ment to real-life marketing situations, we provide an em-
sponds to the change in demand long after the price change pirical illustration of determining immediate- and long-
68 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE WINTER 2005
term elasticities (Section 5). We also show how to deter- In the presence of reference price effects, the demand
mine the time scale parameter TRP, which distinguishes be- function1 is given by (e.g., Greenleaf 1995)
tween immediate- and long-term time durations (Sec-
tion 7). Q = Qno-ref(p) – γ(p – r). (3)
In sum, the lack of research that examines the price
elasticity of demand in the presence of the reference price, The effects of losses and gains on consumer demand are
in general, and its asymmetric effects, in particular, is the separated by using the asymmetric model,
main drive for this research. Furthermore, since reference
⎧γ p ≤r
price formation modeling approaches are based on con- γ = ⎨ gain , (4)
sumers’ memory-decaying process of past prices, there is ⎩ γ loss p >r
a clear need to identify the time scale for this process and
explore the dynamics of price elasticity. Such identifica- where γgain and γloss are positive constants.
tion will enable modelers to better understand reference
price effects on consumer behavior over time.
This article, therefore, addresses these two main issues. 3. PRICE ELASTICITY IN THE
We derive an expression for the price elasticity of demand PRESENCE OF REFERENCE PRICE
in the presence of reference price effects that have not been EFFECTS (DISCRETE APPROACH)
identified before. This identification can enable marketers
to better estimate price elasticity for their products by To simplify the presentation, we begin with the case of
understanding the asymmetric nature and the contribu- a monopoly and a single price change,
tion of gains (losses) to this estimation. Furthermore, we j<n
⎧ pold
propose an efficient method to sample data to get price pj = ⎨ .
⎩ pnew j≥n
elasticity estimations. Noting that reference price effects
are time dependent, we derive a characterization of these
Our results can be extended to a competitive situation
effects over time. This formulation enables us to make
(Section 10) and for multiple price changes (Section 11).
the distinction between the short- and long-term effects of
To calculate the price elasticity of demand in the pres-
reference price on demand. To show the applicability
ence of reference price effects, we note that from (2) and
and relative ease of use of our analytical approach, we
(3), it follows that
use published data to illustrate the calculation of price
elasticities. Qn = Qno − ref ( pn ) − γpn +
(5)
γ(1 − η)[ pn − 1 + ηpn − 2 + η2 pn − 3 + ⋅⋅⋅].
2. MODELING REFERENCE PRICE
In the absence of reference price effects (γ = 0), the price
In this section, we give a short review of discrete refer- elasticity of demand is given by
ence price modeling (for more details, see Greenleaf 1995;
′ p
Kopalle, Rao, and Assunção 1996). ε no − ref ( p ) = Qno − ref ( p ) , (6)
Qno − ref ( p )
The process of establishing an internal reference price
is constructed by consumers through personal experiences
such as purchasing, observing, or being exposed to inten- where
tional and unintentional price information. Since previous d
′
exposures have decaying weights in consumer evaluation, Qno − ref ( p ) = Qno − ref ( p ).
dp
this process can be modeled by (e.g., Kalyanaram and Lit-
tle 1994; Lattin and Bucklin 1989)
When retailers plan a short-term price change (e.g., price
rn = ηrn − 1 + (1 − η) pn − 1 , (2) promotion), the relevant elasticity information is the im-
2
mediate change in demand following a price change. In
where pn and rn are shelf and reference prices at the nth buy, light of equation (5), this immediate change is given by
respectively, and η is a discrete “memory” parameter that
∂Qn ′
depends on the product category. = Qno − ref ( p n ) − γ.
∂p n
To model reference price effects on consumer purchas-
ing quantity, we use the common model in the literature for
Therefore, the general expression for immediate-term
aggregate reference price effects (e.g., Kopalle and Winer
price elasticity is given by
1996; Kopalle et al. 1996) and denote market demand in
the absence of reference price effects by Qno-ref(p).
Fibich et al. / PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND 69
effect of ( p − r ) on demand
Let us consider first a case in which previous price changes RCIE = .
effect of p on demand
have occurred sufficiently long ago, so that just before the
current price change, p ≈ r. Thus, pold = r (but not pnew = r).
3. As reference price effects are asymmetric (equa-
Just after the price change, however, the difference be- tion 4), the relative increase in immediate-term
tween the new price pnew and r is maximal, corresponding price elasticity for a price increase and decrease
3
to the case of immediate-term elasticity, thus resulting in is not equal:
′ P (8) ⎧ γ loss
ε immediate − term ( p ) = [Qno − ref ( p ) − γ] . for a price increase,
Qno − ref ( p ) ⎪ −Q′
⎪ no − ref ( p )
RCIE = ⎨ .
γ gain
In contrast, when retailers plan on maintaining the price ⎪ for a price decrease.
⎪⎩ −Qno
′ − ref ( p )
change constant for a long time period, a more relevant
parameter is the long-term effect of the price change on
demand (i.e., long-term price elasticity). In this case, con- This observation is consistent with the large body of
sumers are exposed to the new price level long enough so empirical evidence that the price elasticity of demand for a
that there is a minimal gap between their reference price price increase and a price decrease is different.
and the new price, namely, p ≈ r. Consequently, reference
price effects are minimal, and Q ≈ Qno-ref. Therefore, long- 4.1. Linear Demand Function
term price elasticity is equal to price elasticity in the
absence of reference price effects: For completeness, we present the results for the case in
which the demand function decreases linearly in p,
ε long − term = ε no − ref .
Qno-ref(p) = a – δp, a, δ > 0. (10)
−δ − γ −δ
From now on, we focus on immediate-term price elas- ε immediate − term = p, ε long − term = p = ε no − ref .
ticity, in which reference price effects are most important. a − δp a − δp
The importance of reference price effects in the price elas-
ticity of demand can be characterized by the relative As already observed, the relative change in immediate-
change in immediate-term price elasticity (RCIE) due to term elasticity is equal to the relative effect of the reference
the reference price effect: price on demand, compared with that of the actual price:
where p is measured in dollar/ounces, and Q is measured that was found in Greenleaf (1995), which, in this
case, was such that γloss < γgain. One explanation for the
4
in ounces. The average price is pav = $2.57/(28-ounce jar).
We estimate εimmediate-term for a price increase using equa- counterintuitive relation between gains and losses at the
tion (8) with γ = γloss: aggregate-level analysis can be attributed to the idea that
price promotions might have a larger effect on demand for
1,878.9 + 2, 088.4 the low-usage rate and high-price sensitivity consumer
ε loss
immediate − term ( p ) = p.
308.3 − 1,878.9p segment than for the less-price-sensitive segment. As a
result, a larger impact will be observed for gains than
Thus, at p = pav, losses at the aggregate-level analysis, even though each
household will exhibit a greater effect for losses than gains
ε loss
immediate − term ( p av ) = 2.68. (Greenleaf 1995).
It should be noted that the analytical elasticity formula-
Similarly, we can estimate εimmediate-term for a price decrease tions that were obtained in this study are not dependent on
using equation (8) with γ = γgain: the nature of the data that are used for calculating elastici-
ties. The stability of the prices, for example, would not
1,878.9 + 11330
,
ε gain
immediate − term ( p ) = p. have an effect on these calculations; rather, it would be
308.3 − 1,878.9p reflected in the time duration between price changes, as
reflected in equation (23).
Therefore,
ε gain
immediate − term ( p av ) = 8.93.
6. CONTINUOUS FORMULATION
Finally, we estimate εno-ref using equation (6):
The expressions for immediate- and long-term price
1,878.9 elasticities correspond to the two extreme cases of changes
ε no − ref ( p ) = p.
308.3 − 1,878.9 p in demand: immediately after a price change, when refer-
5
ence price effects are maximal, and long after the price
Therefore, change, when reference price effects have disappeared.
There is, however, no time scale in these expressions that
εno-ref(pav) = 1.27. would allow us to know, for example, whether the change
in demand 2 months after a price change is characterized
We thus see that
by immediate-term or long-term price elasticities. To
⎧ 2, 088.4 answer this question, we derive an expression for price
= 111% for a price increase, elasticity using a continuous-time model for a reference
⎪
RCIE = ⎨ 1,878.9 . price formation. This expression depends continuously on
, 0
1133
⎪ = 603% for a price decrease.
⎩ 878.9
1 , the time that elapsed from the price change, such that the
expressions for immediate- and long-term price elastici-
This empirical illustration shows that the effect of ties correspond to its two limiting cases. As a result, we
reference price on immediate-term price elasticity can can quantify the terms immediate-term and long-term
be quite large. In fact, immediately after a price price elasticity of demand.
change, reference price effects are larger than price
effects, both for a price decrease and even more so for a 6.1. Reference Price Formation:
price increase. Another implication is the large difference Continuous Formulation
between immediate-term price elasticity for the price
increase and decrease, which comes from the differential Following Sorger (1988) and Kopalle and Winer
effect of losses and gains. (1996), a reference price formation can be modeled using
Our analytical approach yields general results and can a continuous-time formulation:
accommodate any relation between gains and losses. In
particular, our model does not determine whether consum-
r( t ) = e − β (t − t0 ) ⎡rt0 + β ∫ e β (s − t0 ) p( s ) ds ⎤ t0 ≤ t,
t (12)
ers are loss aversive. Furthermore, it does not determine
whether elasticity is larger for price increases or decreases. ⎣⎢ t0 ⎦⎥
These issues are determined by the empirical data that
serve as an input to our model, namely, the values of γloss where rt0 : = r(t 0 ) is the reference price at time t0, and β is
and γgain. Thus, the results in our empirical illustration the continuous “memory” parameter. As we shall see, it is
merely reflect the relation between loss and gain effects convenient to replace β with
Fibich et al. / PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND 71
FIGURE 1
Dynamics of Price (Equation (13)), Reference Price (Equation (14)), and Demand (Equation (15))
1 Q( t ) =
TRP = ,
β ⎧ Qno − ref ( pold ) t < t0 (15)
⎨ − ( t − t o )/ TRP .
⎩Qno − ref ( pnew ) − γ( pold − pnew )e t ≥ t0
which is the characteristic time scale for reference price The dynamics of p(t), r(t), and Q(t) are shown in Figure 1,
effects (see Section 7). where the lighter and darker gray areas represent the con-
As with the discrete formulation, we begin by consider- tribution of price and reference price to the change in
ing the case of a single price change at time t0, that is, demand, respectively. We can see that TRP is the character-
istic time scale for reference price effects; that is, TTP repre-
sents the time frame (days/weeks/months) for the new
⎧p t < t0 price pnew to take hold as the new reference price and for the
p( t ) = ⎨ old . (13)
reference price effect on demand to disappear.
⎩ pnew t ≥ t0
Combining (1) and (16), we have that the price elasticity lim ε( p; t − to ) = ε long − term .
t→ ∞
of demand in the presence of reference price effects is
given by
6 In addition, definition (17) shows that the time scale for
immediate and long term is given by TRP since
′ − ( t − t 0 )/ TRP p
ε = [Qno − ref ( p ) − γe ] . (17) ⎧ε immediate − term 0 ≤ t − t0 << TRP
Qno − ref ( p ) ε⎨ .
⎩ ε long − term t − to >> TRP
ln( 1 η) Tinterpurchase
It is because of this t dependence of Qnew that ε is time β= and TRP = . (21)
Tinterpurchase ln( 1 η)
dependent. Therefore, ε(p, t – t0) is a measure of the change
between demand levels just before the price change, and t
time units after the price change. TRP is the characteristic times scale for reference price
Definition (17) is a general form for the price elasticity effects. A good analogy for TRP would be the half lifetime
of demand in the presence of reference price effects. The of radioactive materials. Thus, if the half lifetime of a
expressions derived earlier, using the discrete formulation, material is 1 week, then after 1 day, almost no material
correspond to the two extreme cases of (17). For example, would be lost, whereas after 4 weeks, most of the material
elasticity immediately after a price change (i.e., t → t0+) is would have disintegrated. Similarly, if the TRP of a product
equal to the (discrete) immediate-term elasticity: is, say, 5 weeks, then marketers can conclude that 1 week
after a price change, consumers would not have time to
lim ε ( p; t − to ) = ε immediate − term . “absorb” the new price, whereas after 15 weeks, consum-
t→ t 0+ ers would have fully adopted the new price as their new
Fibich et al. / PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND 73
FIGURE 2 Recall that the time scale for reference price effects,
ε(p, t – t0) for Peanut Butter TRP, is dependent on the product category (i.e., exposure to
price information that is related to the frequency of pur-
chasing this category, Tinterpurchase) and consumers’ memory
capability (i.e., decaying over time, η). We can obtain a
more realistic identification of the short- and long-term
effects of price on consumer behavior. We used data from
Briesch et al. (1997) to calculate the relevant time intervals
(i.e., t < TRP/2 for short term and t > 2TRP for long term) for
different product categories. These results are presented in
Table 1.
9. IMPLICATION TO
ELASTICITY MEASUREMENT
TABLE 1
Identification of Short- and Long-Term Price Effects for Various Product Categories
Category Tinterpurchase (Weeks) η TRP (Weeks) Short Term (Weeks) Long Term (Weeks)
Liquid detergent 11.40 0.57 20.28 10.14 40.56
Tissue 5.20 0.65 12.07 6.04 24.14
Peanut butter 8.70 0.47 11.52 5.76 23.04
Ground coffee 6.50 0.57 11.56 5.78 23.12
FIGURE 3
Separation of Data Points Used for Estimating Immediate-Term (*) and Long-Term (o) Elasticities
These estimates are relatively close to the values calcu- Therefore, the effect of the reference price on the price
lated in Section 5 and capture the differences between elasticity of demand is the same as in the monopoly case:
immediate- and long-term elasticities, as well as between
gain and losses (see Figure 3). ⎡ ∂Qno
A
− ref
⎤ pA
ε Aimmediate − term ≈ ⎢ − γ⎥ A ,
⎣ ∂p
A
⎦ Qno − ref
∂Qno
A
− ref pA
10. COMPETITION ε lAong − term ≈ = ε Ano − ref
∂p A A
Qno − ref
Our analysis can be extended to competitive situations.
We use a demand function with an additive form for prices and
and brand-specific reference price effects.8 For simplicity,
we discuss the duopoly case (i.e., Firm A and Firm B) in ε Aimmediate − term − ε Ano − ref γ
RCIE = = =
which demand for the product of Firm A is given by ε Ano − ref ∂Qno
A
− ref
−
∂p A
QA = Qno
A
− ref ( p , p ) − γ( p − r ).
A B A A
effect of ( p A − r A ) on demand
.
A
Here,Qno effect of p Aon demand
−ref is market demand in the absence of reference
ε promotion − ε no − ref γ
and ≈ ′
.
ε no − ref −Qno − ref ( p )
ε( p, r, t − t0 ) =
p (23) In a competitive environment, where brand switching does
′ − ( t − t 0 )/ TRP
[Qno − ref ( p ) − γe ] , occur, the above relation gives the relative contribution of
Qno − ref ( p ) − γ( p − r )
transaction utility to the increase in promotional elasticity,
and it accounts for some of the “missing 20 percent.”
respectively. However, when the previous price change
occurs more than 2TRP time units before the current
change, one can safely assume that r ≈ pold and use expres-
sions (8) and (17). Therefore, one needs to work with the 13. HETEROGENEITY
modified expressions (22) and (23) only when the previ-
ous price change occurs less than 2TRP time units. In that Our analysis so far has treated the market as one group
case, although the calculations are somewhat more com- of homogeneous consumers. The literature, however, sug-
plex, the overall scenario remains the same. gests that different consumers might have a different refer-
At the extreme case of unstable prices, reference price ence price in mind. They also might have different evalua-
effects on demand will still be determined by the exposure tions of gains and losses. To capture such heterogeneity
time and depth of price changes. That is, if there is a con- and examine whether it affects our modeling results, we
tinuous monotonic price change, consumers will not have introduce a heterogeneity analysis. We derive this analysis
enough time to adjust to the new price level. The resulting by allowing different memory parameters, β, and different
effect on price elasticity is, therefore, depending on the TRP weights of gains and losses, γ, for different groups of
for the product category. If price changes are made in very consumers.
short time intervals, << TRP/2, then consumers will not We consider a market with n groups of different con-
absorb the new price each time it has been changed and sumers with different demand function parameters. Each
will consider the aggregate change as a single price of the n groups has a certain proportion in the population,
wi, i = 1, 2, . . ., n, such that ∑ i =1 w i = 1. If each consumer
n
change. As for the Qno-ref component, it can be estimated
through a demand function that ignores reference price has a different reference price (i.e., n groups of size = 1),
effects. The multiple price changes case has an effect only then w i = 1 n. Similarly, let us define the reference price for
on the stability of the effects of the reference price on each group as ri, i = 1, . . ., n. The demand for each group i
demand and elasticity. is, therefore, given by
76 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE WINTER 2005
Qi ( p ) = Qno
i
− ref − γ i ( p − ri ). 14. FINAL REMARKS
It is easy to verify that except for the additional notations, where Gain and Loss are the gain and loss parameters, and
there are no qualitative changes between the results α is an indication function for positive and negative devia-
obtained in the heterogeneity case (equation (26)) and the tions between the actual price, p, that consumer i has
general case (equation (17)). In sum, the general results observed for brand k at purchase occasion n and the refer-
also hold for the case of consumers’ heterogeneity in the ence price, r, of consumer i for brand k at purchase occa-
reference price. sion n as follows:
Fibich et al. / PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND 77
Mickwitz, Costa. 1959. An Investigation of Reference Price Segments. ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Helsinfors, Finland: Central Tryckeriet.
Putler, Daniel S. 1992. “Incorporating Reference Price Effects Into a The-
ory of Consumer Choice.” Marketing Science 11:287-309. Gadi Fibich (fibich@math.tau.ac.il) is an associate professor in
Simon, Hermann. 1979. “Dynamics of Price Elasticity and Brand Life the Department of Applied Mathematics at Tel Aviv University.
Cycles: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Marketing Research 16:439- This research grew out of his interest in applications of mathe-
452.
Sorger, Gerhard. 1988. “Reference Price Formation and Optimal Pricing
matical modeling to economics and management science. He is
Strategies.” In Optimal Control Theory and Economic Analysis 3. Ed. currently working on auction theory.
G. Feichtinger. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 97-120.
Tellis, Gerard J. 1988. “The Price Elasticity of Selective Demand: A Arieh Gavious (ariehg@bgumail.bgu.ac.il) is a senior lecturer
Meta-Analysis of Econometric Models of Sales.” Journal of Market- in the Department of Industrial Engineering at Ben Gurion Uni-
ing Research 24:331-341.
Thaler, Richard. 1985. “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice.” versity, Israel. His interest is in application of game theory to eco-
Marketing Science 4:199-214. nomics and management science problems. His current interest
Winer, Russel S. 1986. “A Reference Price Model of Brand Choice for is in auction theory.
Frequently Purchased Products.” Journal of Consumer Research
13:250-256. Oded Lowengart (odedl@bgumail.bgu.ac.il) is a senior lecturer
⎯⎯⎯. 1989. “A Multi-Stage Model of Choice Incorporating Reference
Price.” Marketing Letters 1:27-36.
in the Department of Business Administration at Ben Gurion
University, Israel. His research interests are in the areas of mod-
eling pricing effects on consumer behavior at both aggregate and
disaggregate levels, product positioning, and market share fore-
casting and diagnostics.