Commentary--Reexamining Bayesian Model-Comparison Evidence of Cross-Brand Pass-Through

Jason A. Duan (), Leigh McAlister () and Shameek Sinha ()
Additional contact information
Jason A. Duan: Department of Marketing, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712
Leigh McAlister: Department of Marketing, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712
Shameek Sinha: Department of Marketing, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712

Marketing Science, 2011, vol. 30, issue 3, 550-561

Abstract: Using the Bayes factor estimated by harmonic mean [Newton, M. A., A. E. Raftery. 1994. Approximate Bayesian inference by the weighted likelihood bootstrap. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B. 56(1) 3-48] to compare models with and without cross-brand pass-through, Dubé and Gupta [Dubé, J.-P., S. Gupta. 2008. Cross-brand pass-through in supermarket pricing. Marketing Sci. 27(3) 324-333] found that, in the refrigerated orange juice category, a model with cross-brand pass-through was selected 68% of the time. However, Lenk [Lenk, P. J. 2009. Simulation pseudo-bias correction to the harmonic mean estimator of integrated likelihoods. J. Comput. Graph. Statist. 18(1) 941-960] has demonstrated that the infinite variance harmonic mean estimator often exhibits simulation pseudo-bias in favor of more complex models. We replicate the results of Dubé and Gupta in the refrigerated orange juice category and then show that any of three more stable finite variance estimators select the model with cross-brand pass-through less than 1% of the time. Relaxing the assumption that model errors are distributed normally eliminates all instances in which the cross-brand pass-through model is selected. In 10 additional categories, the harmonic-mean-estimated Bayes factor selects the model with cross-brand pass-through 69% of the time, whereas a finite variance estimator of the Bayes factor selects the model with cross-brand pass-through only 5% of the time. Applying arguments in McAlister [McAlister, L. 2007. Cross-brand pass-through: Fact or artifact? Marketing Sci. 26(6) 876-898], these 5% of cases can be attributed to capitalization on chance. We conclude that Dubé and Gupta should not be interpreted as providing evidence of cross-brand pass-through.

Keywords: cross-brand pass-through; promotion; retail and wholesale price; scanner data; Bayes factor; model comparison; Bayesian nonparametric (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1100.0611 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:30:y:2011:i:3:p:550-561

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Marketing Science from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().