html5-img
1 / 50

Expectancy-Value Model For Market Share Prediction and Price Setting

Expectancy-Value Model For Market Share Prediction and Price Setting. Ted Mitchell. Your Job is to Predict . 1) Which Brand the customer will buy? 2) What is the Maximum Price the customer will pay for it? 3) What your relative Market share should be?

gary
Télécharger la présentation

Expectancy-Value Model For Market Share Prediction and Price Setting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Expectancy-Value ModelFor Market Share Predictionand Price Setting Ted Mitchell

  2. Your Job is to Predict • 1) Which Brand the customer will buy? • 2) What is the Maximum Price the customer will pay for it? • 3) What your relative Market share should be? • 4) How can you improve the Probability of the Customer Buying your product?

  3. RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE WEIGHT ? ? ? ? ? POWER WEIGHT ? ? ? ? ? Capacity WEIGHT ? ? ? ? ? COMFORT WEIGHT ? ? ? ? ?

  4. RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% ? ? ? ? POWER 20% ? ? ? ? PRICE 15% ? ? ? ? COMFORT 35% ? ? ? ?

  5. Approach to Prediction • Compensatory Models Seek an overall score for prediction of choice • Non-compensatory Models assume a decision in the process of evaluation

  6. All Models Start With The Premise That if a product is scored best on all attributes by a customer then it will be purchased by that customer That is to say: The Dominance Model Of Choice is Universal

  7. Brand X is the dominant choice because it is best on all attributes. BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND X STYLE 30% 1 2 5 6 POWER 20% 6 3 4 7 Capacity 15% 3 4 2 5 COMFORT 35% 5 6 4 7

  8. When there is no dominant brand, then Compensatory explanations

  9. Compensatory Looks For BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 1 2 5 6 POWER 20% 6 3 4 5 Capacity 15% 3 4 2 5 COMFORT 35% 5 6 4 2 OVERALL SCORE ? ? ? ?

  10. Non-compensatory: Lexicographic Identify Most Important attribute, then BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 1 2 5 6 POWER 20% 6 3 4 5 Capacity 15% 3 4 2 5 COMFORT 35% 5 6 4 2

  11. Non-compensatory: Lexicographic Identify Most Important attribute, then BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 1 2 5 6 POWER 20% 6 3 4 5 Capacity 15% 3 4 2 5 COMFORT 35% 5 6 4 2 Choose the brand with the best score on that attribute.

  12. Types of Non-compensatory Models • Conjunctive • Must meet a minimum level on all attributes or drop • Disjunctive • Be greater than a specific level on a few of the important attributes • Lexicographic • Highest on most important attribute, go to second most important attribute only to break a tie.

  13. Compensatory: Expectancy Value Model BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 1 2 5 6 POWER 20% 6 3 4 5 Capacity 15% 3 4 2 5 COMFORT 35% 5 6 4 2 OVERALL SCORE ? ? ? ?

  14. RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% .3 (1) =.3 .3(2) = 0.6 .3(5) = 1.5 .3(6) = 1.8 POWER 20% .2(6) =1.2 .2(3) = 0.6 .2(4) = 0.8 .2(5) = 1.0 Capacity 15% .15(3) = .45 .15(4) = 0.6 .15(2) = 0.3 .15(5) =0.75 COMFORT 35% .35(5) = 1.75 .35(6) = 2..1 .35(4) = 1.4 .35(2) = 0.7 OVERALL SCORE ? ? ? ?

  15. RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 0.3 0.6 1.5 1.8 POWER 20% 1.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 Capacity 15% .45 0.6 0.3 0.75 COMFORT 35% 1.75 2..1 1.4 0.7 OVERALL SCORE ? ? ? ?

  16. RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 0.3 0.6 1.5 1.8 POWER 20% 1.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 Capacity 15% .45 0.6 0.3 0.75 COMFORT 35% 1.75 2..1 1.4 0.7 OVERALL SCORE 0.3 + 1.2 +.45 + 1.75 = 3.75 ? ? ?

  17. RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 0.3 0.6 1.5 1.8 POWER 20% 1.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 Capacity 15% .45 0.6 0.3 0.75 COMFORT 35% 1.75 2..1 1.4 0.7 OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25

  18. BRAND D STYLE 30% 1.8 RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 IN A SIMPLE EXPECTANCY VALUE MODEL PREDICT HE WILL PURCHASE BRAND D BRAND A BRAND B 0.3 0.6 POWER 20% 1.0 1.2 0.6 Capacity 15% 0.75 .45 0.6 COMFORT 35% 0.7 1.75 2..1 OVERALL SCORE 4.25

  19. RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 1 2 5 6 POWER 20% 6 3 4 5 Capacity 15% 3 4 2 5 COMFORT 35% 5 6 4 2 OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25

  20. Why Is this Basic Model so popular? • Forces us to be explicit about advertising/product decisions • It allows us to think about probabilities of purchase and using them as a measure of intention strength • Use the probabilities in pricing and market share

  21. Basic Weakness of The Compensatory Model • Weights are constant, beliefs are stable • Attributes are constant across products and across usage situations. • Attributes are not necessarily independent • safety & power, quality and price, • “Bigger is always better” • Evaluation and Articulation are not the same. • New products can cause new dimensions

  22. Not Weaknesses of ModelWeaknesses • There is nothing statistical about the model per se. (no statistical weakness.... sample size etc. • Failure to include an attribute is not a weakness of the model (zero weight) • “You don’t know if the model has the right attributes.” • Using wrong model is not a weakness of the model (wrongly used lexicographic) • Subjectivity is not a weakness! Lack of consistency is a potential problem.

  23. Implications for Changing Strategy • Modify the product (real positioning) • Alter beliefs about amount of attributes • Alter beliefs about competitor’s amount • Alter importance weights • Call attention to neglected attributes • Shift the buyers’ ideals

  24. Assume your are the manager of Brand B BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 1 2 5 6 POWER 20% 6 3 4 5 Capacity 15% 3 4 2 5 COMFORT 35% 5 6 4 2 OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25

  25. Use promotion to change beliefs about amount of attribute in your brand. BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 1 2 5 6 POWER 20% 6 3 4 5 Capacity 15% 3 4 2 5 COMFORT 35% 5 6 4 2 OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25

  26. Use promotion to change beliefs about amount of attribute in your Competitor’s brand. BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 1 2 5 6 POWER 20% 6 3 4 5 Capacity 15% 3 4 2 5 COMFORT 35% 5 6 4 2 OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25

  27. Change the importance Weights BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 1 2 5 6 POWER 20% 6 3 4 5 Capacity 15% 3 4 2 5 COMFORT 35% 5 6 4 2 OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25

  28. Talk About Neglected Attributes BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D SMOOTH RIDE 1 9 1 1 STYLE 30% 1 2 5 6 POWER 20% 6 3 4 5 Capacity 15% 3 4 2 5 COMFORT 35% 5 6 4 2 OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25

  29. Probabilities of Purchase • Highest value takes all the market? Unrealistic! • A high score reflects a high probability of Purchase is more realistic • A probability of purchase on an individual basis implies a market share percentage over the total market

  30. What is the market share that is anticipated for each of the four brands?

  31. RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 1 2 5 6 POWER 20% 6 3 4 5 Capacity 15% 3 4 2 5 COMFORT 35% 5 6 4 2 OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25

  32. RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25

  33. RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25 Probability of A

  34. Repeat for each brand BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25 Probability of Purchase 23.6% 24.5% 25.2% 26.7% Probability of Purchase implies Market Share

  35. Implications for Changing Strategy • Modify the product (real positioning) • alter beliefs about amount of attributes • alter beliefs about competitor’s amount • alter importance weights • call attention to neglected attributes • What degree of shift in beliefs about power is necessary to give us a 1% increase in market share? • What will it cost to gain this increase in beliefs? • Will the increase in Market share pay for the effort? • We Can Set a price based on Relative Quality!

  36. The Overall Scores reflect the Quality that the customer(s) places on the 4 Brands

  37. RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D STYLE 30% 1 2 5 6 POWER 20% 6 3 4 5 Capacity 15% 3 4 2 5 COMFORT 35% 5 6 4 2 OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25

  38. RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25 Total Score Reflects the Total Quality Score

  39. RESULTS FROM RESPONDENT 2135 BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25 Percentage of Total Quality Score for Brand A

  40. Repeat for each brand BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25 % Share of Total Quality 23.6% 24.5% 25.2% 26.7% Share of Total Quality Score for Each Brand

  41. The Average % Score for the Four brands is? • 1/N = ¼ = 25% • Relative Quality Score = Brand Score/Average • Relative Quality for Brand A = 24.58%/25% • Relative Quality for Brand A = 94.32%

  42. Relative to Average Percent of Total Quality of 25% BRAND A BRAND B BRAND C BRAND D OVERALL SCORE 3.75 3.9 4.0 4.25 % Share of Total Quality 23.6% 24.5% 25.2% 26.7% Relative Quality 94.32% 98% 101% 1.07%

  43. The Maximum Price for Brand D • The average price in the market for the four Brands is $200 each • IF the price is set to reflect relative quality, then what is the most that Brand D can charge • Brand D has a 107% of the relative quality, It can charge a maximum of 107% of the average price! • Brand D’s price = 107% x $200 = $214

  44. # 2 If everything in your marketing mix is identical to the competitor’s mix • There is a total of Five firms in the industry • What is the average market share? • 1/N = 1/5 = 20% • What is you market share? • 20%

  45. #3 If everything in your marketing mix is identical to the competitor’s mix • Except Your Relative Product Quality is 120% above the average. • There is a total of Five firms in the industry. • What is the average share? • 1/N = 1/5 = 20% • What do you expect your market share to be? • S = 1.20 x 20% = 24%

  46. #4 If everything in your marketing mix is almost identical to the competitor’s mix • Except Your Relative Product Quality is Ur =120% above the average. • What do you expect your relative market share to be? • Ur = Sr = 120% • However your relative share is actually measured to be 108% • How efficient, E, is your marketing system at converting Relative product quality into Relative market Share • Sr = E x Ur • Sr = Sr/Ur x Ur • Sr = 108%/120% x Ur • Sr = 90% x Ur • E = 90%

  47. #5 If everything in your marketing mix is identical to the competitor’s mix • Except Your Relative Product Quality is 120% above the average. • The average price in the market is $300 • What is the highest price you can charge based on your relative quality • P = 1.20 x $300= $360

  48. #6 If everything in your marketing mix is identical to the competitor’s mix • Except Your Relative PRICE is 150% above the average PRICE • The average price in the market is $300 • WHAT PRICE ARE YOU CHARGING • P = 1.50 x $300= $450 • WHAT RELATIVE MARKET SHARE DO YOU ANTICIPATE? • NOT 150% OF AVERAGE • Sr = 1/Pr = 1/1.50 = 66.67% of the average share

  49. Market Share Theorem • Predicts Your Relative Market Share based on your Relative Marketing Effort. • Your relative product quality is 120% • Your relative price is 150% of average • What do you predict will be your relative market share? • Sr = Ur x 1/Pr • Sr = Ur/Pr = 120%/150% = 80% of the average

  50. Any Questions on • 1) The use of Relative Quality to predict Relative Market Share • 2) The use of Relative Quality to set a selling price • 3) The Use of the Relative Quality and Relative Market Share to measure conversion efficiency • 4) The Use of Relative Value as the Inverse of Relative Price to Predict Market Share

More Related