Reply to Farris and Buzzell's Comment on ADVISOR 2 Paper

Gary L. Lilien
Additional contact information
Gary L. Lilien: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Management Science, 1980, vol. 26, issue 1, 101-105

Abstract: Farris and Buzzell's (Farris, Paul W., Robert D. Buzzell. A comment on modeling the marketing mix decision for industrial products. Management Sci. this issue.) comment on my (Liuen, Gary L. 1979. ADVISOR 2: Modeling the marketing mix decision for industrial products. Management Sci. 25 191--204.) paper on the ADVISOR studies and its relationship to their work with the PIMS data calls for clarification of the methodology, objectives and results of both studies. We will show that the ADVISOR models present strong evidence in favor of a descriptive model of advertising/sales expenditures that is not constant with the dollar level of sales. This directly addresses the contention by Farris and Buzzell that modeling the A/S ratio as a constant is theoretically and empirically valid. We then explore some of the differences between the Farris-Buzzell analyses and ADVISOR that are important in understanding where and why the results differ. Next we elaborate on some of the validation analyses done for ADVISOR. Finally, we discuss in more detail the reasons for handling product profitability through a variable called product plans in the ADVISOR model.

Keywords: industrial; marketing (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1980
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.26.1.101 (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:ormnsc:v:26:y:1980:i:1:p:101-105

Access Statistics for this article

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