An agent-based model of consumer choice. An evaluation of the strategy of pricing and advertising

• Authors: KOT Michał
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The authors develop an agent-based model of the market where firms and consumers exchange products. Consumers in the model are heterogeneous in terms of features, such as risk-aversion or owned assets, which impact their individual decisions. Consumers constantly learn about products’ features through personal experience, word-of-mouth, or advertising, update their expectations and share their opinions with others. From the supply-side of the model, firms can influence consumers with two marketing tools: advertising and pricing policy. Series of experiments have been conducted with the model to investigate the relationship between advertising and pricing and to understand the underlying mechanism. Marketing strategies have been evaluated in terms of generated profit and recommendations have been formulated.

Keywords

EN

consumer choice; agent-based model; learning consumers

• Publisher: Politechnika Wrocławska. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej
• Journal: Operations Research and Decisions
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 32
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 73-95

Contributors

author

KOT Michał

• SGH Warsaw School of Economics, al. Niepodległości 162, 02-554 Warsaw, Poland

References

• ANDERSON E.W., FORNELL C., LEHMANN D.R., Customer satisfaction, market share, profitability: findings from Sweden, J. Market., 1994, 58 (3), 53–66.
• ARROW K.J., Utilities, attitudes, choices. A review note, Econom., 1958, 26 (1), 1–23.
• BEZANSON J., EDELMAN A., KARPINSKI S., SHAH V.B., Julia: a fresh approach to numerical computing, SIAM Rev., 2017, 59 (1), 65–98.
• BIJWAARD G.E., Regularity in individual shopping trips: Implications for duration models in marketing, J. Appl. Stat., 2010, 37 (11), 1931–1945.
• BUCKLIN R.E., LATTIN J.M.A., Two-state model of purchase incidence and brand choice, Market., Sci. 1991, 10 (1), 24–39.
• CAYWOOD C., SCHULTZ D.E., WANG P., Integrated marketing communications, Northwestern University, Medill School of Journalism, 1991.
• CHAN T.Y., LI J., PIERCE L., Learning from peers: Knowledge transfer and sales force productivity growth, Market. Sci., 2014, 33 (4), 463–484.
• CHE H., ERDEM T., ONCU T.S., Consumer learning and evolution of consumer brand preferences, Quant. Market. Econ., 2015, 13 (3), 173–202.
• CHING A., ERDEM T., KEANE M.P., The price consideration model of brand choice, J. Appl. Econ., 2009, 24 (3), 393–420.
• CHING A.T., ERDEM T., KEANE M.P., A simple method to estimate the roles of learning, inventories and category consideration in consumer choice, J. Choice Model., 2014, 13, 60–72.
• CHING A.T., ERDEM T., KEANE M.P., Empirical models of learning dynamics: A survey of recent developments, [In:] B. Wierenga, R. van der Lans (Eds.), Handbook of Marketing Decision Models, 2017, 223–257.
• CHUTANI A., SETHI S.P., Optimal advertising and pricing in a dynamic durable goods supply chain, J. Optim. Theor. Appl., 2012, 154 (2), 615–643.
• DEGROOT M.H., Optimal Statistical Decisions, Wiley, 2004.
• DORFMAN R., STEINER P.O., Optimal advertising and optimal quality, Am. Econ. Rev., 1954, 44 (5), 826–836.
• ERDEM T., An empirical analysis of umbrella branding, J. Mark. Res., 1998, 35 (3), 339–351.
• ERDEM T., KEANE M.P., Decision-making under uncertainty: Capturing dynamic brand choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets, Market. Sci., 1996, 15 (1), 1–20.
• ERDEM T., KEANE M.P., SUN B., A dynamic model of brand choice when price and advertising signal product quality, Market. Sci., 2008, 27 (6), 1111–1125.
• ERDOS P., RENYI A., On random Graphs I, Publ. Math., 1959, 6, 290–297.
• FEICHTINGER G., LUHMER A., SORGER, G., Optimal price and advertising policy for a convenience goods retailer, Market. Sci., 1988, 7 (2), 187–201.
• FU M.C., Handbook of Simulation Optimization, Springer, 2015.
• GARIFULLIN M., BORSHCHEV A., POPKOV T., Using anylogic and agent-based approach to model consumer market, [In:] B. Zupancic, R. Karba, S. Blazic (Eds.), Proc. 6th EUROSIM Congress on Modelling and Simulation, 2007, 1–5.
• GENSCH D.H., WELAM U.P., Optimum budget allocation model for dynamic, Interacting Market Segments, Manage. Sci., 1973, 20 (2), 179–190.
• GENSCH D.H., WELAM U.P., Optimal price and promotion for interdependent market segments, Oper. Res., 1974, 22 (4), 746–755.
• GUADAGNI P.M., LITTLE J.D.C., A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data, Market. Sci., 1983, 2 (3), 203–238.
• IFRACH B., MAGLARAS C., SCARSINI M., ZSELEVA A., Bayesian social learning from consumer reviews, Oper. Res., 2019, 67 (5), 1209–1221.
• IZQUIERDO S.S., IZQUIERDO L.R., The impact of quality uncertainty without asymmetric information on market efficiency, J. Bus. Res., 2007, 60 (8), 858–867.
• KALISH S.A., New product adoption model with price, advertising, and uncertainty, Manage. Sci., 1985, 31 (12), 1569–1585.
• KARAKAYA C., BADUR B., AYTEKIN C., Analysing the effectiveness of marketing strategies in the presence of word of mouth: Agent-based modelling approach, J. Market. Res. Case Stud., 2011, 1–17.
• KEANE M.P., Modelling heterogeneity and state dependence in consumer choice behaviour, J. Bus. Econ. Stat., 1997, 15 (3), 310–327.
• KITCHEN P.J., BURGMANN I., Integrated marketing communication, [In:] J. Sheth, N. Malhotra (Eds.), Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing, Wiley, 2010.
• KOT M., KAMINSKI B., Agent based model of cross media reach of advertising, [In:] P. Ahrweiler, M. Neumann (Eds.), Advances in Social Simulation, Proc. 15th Social Simulation Conference, Springer, 2021, 45–57.
• KRISHNAMOORTHY A., PRASAD A., SETHI S.P., Optimal pricing and advertising in a durable-goods duopoly, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2010, 200 (2), 486–497.
• KRISHNAMURTHI L., RAJ S.P., A model of brand choice and purchase quantity price sensitivities, Market. Sci., 1988, 7 (1), 1–20.
• KUHAR A., JUVANCIC L., Determinants of purchasing behaviour for organic and integrated fruits and vegetables in Slovenia, Agric. Econ. Rev., 2010, 11, 70–83.
• LEE J.Y., BELL D.R., Neighbourhood social capital and social learning for experience attributes of products, Market. Sci., 2013, 32 (6), 960–976.
• LEITER D., REILLY J., Using an agent-based model to test institutional variation: Creating a counterfactual world, SAGE Res. Meth. Cases Part 2, 2019.
• LIU X., KAGEL J.H., LEE L.F., Learning from peers in signalling game experiments, J. Appl. Econ., 2012, 27 (7), 1037–1058.
• LV H.R., BAI X.X., YIN W.J., DONG J., Simulation-based sales forecasting on retail small stores, [In:] S. Mason, R. Hill, L. Monch, O. Rose (Eds.), Proc. 40th Conference on Winter Simulation, 2008, 1711–1716.
• MACAL C., NORTH M., Introductory tutorial: Agent-based modelling and simulation, [In:] S. Buckley (Ed.), Proc. Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE Press, 2014, 6–20.
• MANGOLD W.G., SMITH K.T., Selling to Millennials with online reviews, Business. Hor., 2012, 55 (2), 141–153.
• MARKOWITZ H., The utility of wealth, J. Pol. Econ., 1952, 60 (2), 151–158.
• MCCARTHY J.E., Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, Homewood, III, R.D. Irwin, 1960.
• MCFADDEN D., Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour, [in:] P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, 1973, 105–142.
• MELA C.F., GUPTA S., LEHMANN D.R., The long-term impact of promotion and advertising on consumer brand choice, J. Marketing Research, 1997, 34 (2), 248–261.
• MENDEZ-SUAREZ M., MONFORT A., The amplifying effect of branded queries on advertising in multichannel retailing, J. Bus. Res., 2020, 112, 254–260.
• NERLOVE M., ARROW K.J., Optimal advertising policy under dynamic conditions, Economica, 1962, 29 (114), 129–142.
• OSBORNE M., Consumer learning, switching costs, and heterogeneity: A structural examination, Quant. Market. Econ., 2011, 9 (1), 25–70.
• ROBERTS J.H., URBAN G.L., Modelling multiattribute utility, risk, and belief dynamics for new consumer durable brand choice, Manage. Sci., 1988, 34 (2), 167–185.
• SCHRAMM M.E., TRAINOR K.J., SHANKER M., HU M.Y., An agent-based diffusion model with consumer and brand agents, Dec. Supp. Syst., 2010, 50 (1), 234–242.
• SERRANO E., IGLESIAS C.A., Validating viral marketing strategies in Twitter via agent-based social simulation, Exp. Syst. Appl., 2016, 50, 140–150.
• SETHI S.P., PRASAD A., HE X., Optimal advertising and pricing in a new-product adoption model, J. Opt. Theor. Appl., 2008, 139 (2), 351–360.
• SHEN B., LIU S., ZHANG T., CHOI T.M., Optimal advertising and pricing for new green products in the circular economy, J. Clean. Prod., 2019, 233, 314–327.
• STONEDAHLT F., RAND W., WILENSKY U., Evolving viral marketing strategies, [In:] M. Pelikan (Ed.), Proc. 12th Annual Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Association for Computing Machinery 2010, 1195–1202.
• TENG J.T., THOMPSON G.L., Optimal strategies for general price-advertising models, [In:] G. Feichtinger (Ed.), Optimal Control Theory and Economic Analysis 2, Elsevier, 1985, 183–195.
• THOMPSON G.L., TENG J.T., Optimal pricing and advertising policies for new product oligopoly models, Market. Sci., 1984, 3 (2), 148–168.
• TOMSE D., SNOJ B., Marketing communication on social networks. Solution in the times of crisis, Market. Sci., 2014, 45(2), 131–138.
• VARIAN H.R., Intermediate microeconomics: A modern approach: ninth international student edition, WW Norton and Company, 2014.
• ZHANG T., ZHANG D., Agent-based simulation of consumer purchase decision-making and the decoy effect, J. Bus. Res., 2007, 60 (8), 912–922

Identifiers

DOI

10.37190/ord220104