Marketing Science
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


MARKETING SCIENCE
Vol. 25, No. 6, November-December 2006, pp. 633-634
DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1060.0232
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chan, T. Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content

Invited Commentary—Commentary on Structural Modeling in Marketing: Review and Assessment

Tat Y. Chan

John M. Olin School of Business, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130
chan{at}olin.wustl.edu

Chintagunta, Erdem, Rossi, and Wedel (2006) (CERW) discuss many different issues related to the use of structural models in marketing. They use examples of structural models that involve both consumer demand and supply-side competition to provide a critical assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of structural modeling and its future in marketing. While they have done a very nice job, the purpose of this commentary is to provide additional discussion of the three issues raised in their paper.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by INFORMS.