The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Market Response to a Major Policy Change in the Marketing Mix: Learning from Procter & Gamble's Value Pricing Strategy
Abstract
Much research has focused on how consumers and competitors respond to short-term changes in advertising and promotion. In contrast, the authors use Procter & Gamble's (P&G's) value pricing strategy as an opportunity to study consumer and competitor response to a major, sustained change in marketing-mix strategy. They compile data across 24 categories in which P&G has a significant market share, covering the period from 1990 to 1996, during which P&G instituted major cuts in deals and coupons and substantial increases in advertising. The authors estimate an econometric model to trace how consumers and competitors react to such changes. For the average brand, the authors find that deals and coupons increase market penetration and surprisingly have little impact on customer retention as measured by share-of-category requirements and category usage. For the average brand, advertising works primarily by increasing penetration, but its effect is weaker than that of promotion. The authors find that competitor response is related to how strongly the competitor's market share is affected by the change in marketing mix and the competitor's own response and to structural factors such as market share position and multi-market contact. The net impact of these consumer and competitor responses is a decrease in market share for the company that institutes sustained decreases in promotion coupled with increases in advertising.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage
Barney, J. (1991) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639101700108 · Cited by 48,334
Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors
(1980) · Journal of Sustainable Competitive Intelligence · doi:10.24883/iberoamericanic.v2i2.38 · Cited by 16,592
Hsiao, C. (2014) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139839327 · Cited by 7,869
How advertising works: what do we really know?
Vakratsas, D., & Ambler, T. (1999) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299906300103 · Cited by 1,436
Cited by
New Empirical Generalizations on the Determinants of Price Elasticity
Bijmolt, T. H. A., Van Heerde, H. J., & Pieters, R. G. M. (2005) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.42.2.141.62296 · Cited by 440
Rising from the Ashes: How Brands and Categories Can Overcome Product-Harm Crises
Cleeren, K., van Heerde, H. J., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2013) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.10.0414 · Cited by 339
Bohlmann, J. D., Golder, P. N., & Mitra, D. (2002) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.9.1175.175 · Cited by 180
Metadata
- Authors
- Ailawadi, K. L., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-01
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 44-61
- ISSN
- 0022-2429 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7185
- OpenAlex
- W2174214635
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 47.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Market Response to a Major Policy Change in the Marketing Mix: Learning from Procter & Gamble's Value Pricing Strategy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1509/jmkg.65.1.44.18130
- The paper
- Ailawadi, K. L., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2001). Market Response to a Major Policy Change in the Marketing Mix: Learning from Procter & Gamble's Value Pricing Strategy. Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.1.44.18130
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.