This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Naik, P. A. Articles by Winer, R. S. Search for Related Content

Planning Marketing-Mix Strategies in the Presence of Interaction Effects

University of California Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616
Loughborough Business School, Loughborough University, Ashby Road, Loughborough, Leicestershire, United Kingdom LE11 3TU
Stern School of Business, New York University, 44 West 4th Street, New York, New York 10012
panaik{at}ucdavis.edu
k.raman{at}lboro.ac.uk
rwiner{at}stern.nyu.edu

Companies spend millions of dollars on advertising to boost a brand's image and simultaneously spend millions of dollars on promotion that many believe calls attention to price and erodes brand equity. We believe this paradoxical situation exists because both advertising and promotion are necessary to compete effectively in dynamic markets. Consequently, brand managers need to account for interactions between marketing activities and interactions among competing brands. By recognizing interaction effects between activities, managers can consider interactivity trade-offs in planning the marketing-mix strategies. On the other hand, by recognizing interactions with competitors, managers can incorporate strategic foresight in their planning, which requires them to look forward and reason backward in making optimal decisions. Looking forward means that each brand manager anticipates how other competing brands are likely to make future decisions, and then by reasoning backward deduces one's own optimal decisions in response to the best decisions to be made by all other brands. The joint consideration of interaction effects and strategic foresight in planning marketing-mix strategies is a challenging and unsolved marketing problem, which motivates this paper.

This paper investigates the problem of planning marketing mix in dynamic competitive markets. We extend the Lanchester model by incorporating interaction effects, constructing the marketing-mix algorithm that yields marketing-mix plans with strategic foresight, and developing the continuous-discrete estimation method to calibrate dynamic models of oligopoly using market data. Both the marketing-mix algorithm and the estimation method are general, so they can be applied to any other alternative model specifications for dynamic oligopoly markets. Thus, this dual methodology augments the decision-making toolkit of managers, empowering them to tackle realistic marketing problems in dynamic oligopoly markets.

We illustrate the application of this dual methodology by studying the dynamic Lanchester competition across five brands in the detergents market, where each brand uses advertising and promotion to influence its own market share and the shares of competing brands. Empirically, we find that advertising and promotion not only affect the brand shares (own and competitors') but also exert interaction effects, i.e., each activity amplifies or attenuates the effectiveness of the other activity. Normatively, we find that large brands underadvertise and overspend on promotion, while small brands underadvertise and underpromote. Finally, comparative statics reveal managerial insights into how a specific brand should respond optimally to the changes in a competing brand's situation; more generally, we find evidence that competitive responsiveness is asymmetric.

Key Words: continuous-discrete estimation; dynamic competition; interaction effects; marketing-mix planning; strategic foresight; two-point boundary value problem
History: Received: June 19, 2001;

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. D. Jap and P. A. Naik BidAnalyzer: A Method for Estimation and Selection of Dynamic Bidding Models Marketing Science, November 1, 2008; 27(6): 949 - 960. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. I. Bruce Pooling and Dynamic Forgetting Effects in Multitheme Advertising: Tracking the Advertising Sales Relationship with Particle Filters Marketing Science, July 1, 2008; 27(4): 659 - 673. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. A. Naik, A. Prasad, and S. P. Sethi Building Brand Awareness in Dynamic Oligopoly Markets Management Science, January 1, 2008; 54(1): 129 - 138. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. M. Shugan Editorial It's the Findings, Stupid, Not the Assumptions Marketing Science, July 1, 2007; 26(4): 449 - 459. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. M. Bass, N. Bruce, S. Majumdar, and B. P. S. Murthi Wearout Effects of Different Advertising Themes: A Dynamic Bayesian Model of the Advertising-Sales Relationship Marketing Science, March 1, 2007; 26(2): 179 - 195. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Sriram and M. U. Kalwani Optimal Advertising and Promotion Budgets in Dynamic Markets with Brand Equity as a Mediating Variable Management Science, January 1, 2007; 53(1): 46 - 60. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. L. Keller and D. R. Lehmann Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities Marketing Science, November 1, 2006; 25(6): 740 - 759. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Sriram, P. K. Chintagunta, and R. Neelamegham Effects of Brand Preference, Product Attributes, and Marketing Mix Variables in Technology Product Markets Marketing Science, September 1, 2006; 25(5): 440 - 456. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Horsky The Changing Architecture of Advertising Agencies Marketing Science, July 1, 2006; 25(4): 367 - 383. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Divakar, B. T. Ratchford, and V. Shankar Practice Prize Article--CHAN4CAST: A Multichannel, Multiregion Sales Forecasting Model and Decision Support System for Consumer Packaged Goods Marketing Science, January 1, 2005; 24(3): 334 - 350. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. E. Krider, T. Li, Y. Liu, and C. B. Weinberg The Lead-Lag Puzzle of Demand and Distribution: A Graphical Method Applied to Movies Marketing Science, January 1, 2005; 24(4): 635 - 645. [Abstract] [PDF]