Advertising strategy in the presence
of reviews: an empirical analysis Co-authors: Brett Hollenbeck, Davide
Proserpio Marketing Science, forthcoming. We study
the relationship between online reviews and advertising spending in the hotel industry.
Combining a dataset of TripAdvisor reviews with other datasets describing
these hotels’
advertising expenditures, we show, first, that online ratings have a causal
demand-side effect on
ad spending. Second, this effect is negative: hotels with higher ratings
spend less on
advertising than hotels with lower ratings. This suggests that hotels treat
TripAdvisor ratings
and advertising spending as substitutes, not
complements. Third, the relationship is stronger
for independent hotels than for chains, and stronger in less differentiated
markets than in
more differentiated markets. The former suggests that a strong brand name
continues to
provide some immunity to reviews and the latter that the advertising response
is stronger when
ratings are more likely to be pivotal. Finally, we show that the relationship
between online
ratings and advertising has strengthened over time,
just as TripAdvisor has become more
popular, implying that firms respond to online reviews if and only if
consumers respond to them. |
Sharing
economy: Review of current research and future directions Co-authors: Chakravarthi
Narasimhan, Purushottam Papatla, Baojun Jiang,
Praveen K. Kopalle, Paul R. Messinger, Davide
Proserpio, Upender Subramanian, Chunhua Wu, Ting Zhu Customer Needs and Solutions, 5 (March 2018): 93-106. The sharing economy, in which ordinary consumers also
act as sellers, is attracting much interest from scholars and practitioners.
The rapid growth of this sector of the economy and the emergence of several
large brands like Uber and Airbnb raise several interesting questions that
need to be researched. We therefore review and summarize the extant research
on this sector and suggest several additional directions for future research. |
Selling your
product through competitors’ outlets: channel strategy when consumers
comparison shop Co-authors: Yongmin
Chen, Shervin Shahrokhi Tehrani Marketing Science, 37 (January-February 2018): 138-152. This paper develops a new rationale for decentralization
in distribution channels: providing a one-stop comparison shopping experience
for consumers. In our duopoly model, when consumers are knowledgeable about
their brand preferences, each manufacturer would distribute through
vertically-integrated retail outlets only. When some consumers are unsure
about their brand preferences, however, it may be optimal for one of the
manufacturers to also distribute through its competitor's outlets. The
resulting equilibrium has several interesting properties. First, only one of
the manufacturers chooses to add competitor-outlet distribution, not
both---even when the manufacturers are symmetric. Second, the manufacturer
distributing through its competitor's outlets also distributes through its
own outlets, i.e., its distribution strategy is a hybrid strategy, combining
vertical integration and decentralization. Third, when the manufacturers'
brands are asymmetric, it is the weaker brand that has a stronger incentive
to pursue hybrid distribution. Fourth, the competitor's outlets in question
welcome the new brand, even when no consumer would actually buy the new
brand---a case of pure showrooming. These results highlight the linkages between
distribution strategy, shopping efficiency, and retail formats. Shopping costs and consumers' uncertainty
about their own brand preferences create a demand for multi-brand retailing,
and in pursuing this demand, manufacturers may eschew the efficiency
advantages of vertical integration in favor of a hybrid distribution
strategy. However, the fact that only one of the manufacturers chooses to do
so suggests that this strategy also has weaknesses, which we discuss in the
paper. |
||
Advertiser
prominence effects in search advertising Co-author: Przemek Jeziorski Management Science, 64 (March 2018): 1365-1383. Search advertising is the ordered list of advertisements that appears when a user searches in an online search engine. By construction, these ads differ in prominence: ads higher up the list are more prominent than ads lower down the list. However, search ads also differ in prominence in another way: prominence of advertiser. This paper examines how these two types of prominence interact in determining the click-through-rate of search ads. Using individual-level click-stream data from Microsoft's Live Search platform, and measures of advertiser prominence from Alexa.com, we find that ad position and advertiser prominence are substitutes. Specifically, in searches for camera brands, a retailer not in the Top-100 of Alexa rankings has a 30-50% higher click-through-rate (CTR) in position one than in position two, whereas a retailer in the Top-100 of Alexa rankings has only a 0-13% higher CTR for the same position improvement. Qualitatively similar results are obtained for several other search strings. These findings demonstrate, first, that advertiser brand matters even for search ads, and, second, the way it matters, is the opposite of what is usually assumed in the theoretical literature on search advertising. |
||
Measuring and
understanding brand value in a dynamic model of brand management Co-authors: Ron Borkovsky, Avi
Goldfarb, and Avery Haviv Marketing Science, 36 (July-August 2017): 471-499. We develop a structural model of brand management to estimate the value of a brand to a firm. In our framework, a brand's value is the expected net present value of future cash flows accruing to a firm due to its brand; our brand value measure recognizes that a firm can change its brand equity by investing in advertising. We estimate quarterly brand values in the stacked chips category for the period 2001-2006, and explore how those values change over time. Comparing our brand value measure to its static counterpart, we find that a static measure, which ignores advertising and its ability to affect brand equity dynamics, yields brand values that are artificially high and that fluctuate too much over time. We also explore how changing the ability to build and sustain brand equity affects brand value. At our estimated parameterization, when brand equity depreciates more slowly, or when advertising becomes more effective at building brand equity, brand value increases. However, counterintuitively, we find that when the effectiveness of advertising is sufficiently high, increasing the rate at which brand equity depreciates increases the value of a firm's brand, even as it reduces the value of the firm overall. |
||
|
||
|