Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I
n recent years, there has been a plethora of line and brand that there is little documentation of the existence of adver-
extensions. Between 1977 and 1984, 40% of the 120 to tising spillover effects in academic literature in spite of the
175 new brands introduced each year in supermarkets availability of high-quality, single-source scanner panel
were extensions (Aaker 1990). One commonly advanced data. In the only field research known to us, Sullivan (1990)
rationale for this proliferation of extensions is companies' studies the effect on the demand of used Jaguar models aris-
motivation to leverage the equity in established brands and ing from the introduction of a new Jaguar model. Her results
develop profitable products relatively easily (Morein 1975). can be interpreted as somewhat mixed. Although she found
A second motivation for extensions is to affect the image of that the event of introduction of the new model increased
the umbrella brand favorably, which thereby influences demand for used Jaguar models (positive spillover), adver-
sales in other categories. Aaker (1996) offers several exam- tising of the new Jaguar model depressed demand for used
ples in which existing products obtain this reciprocal bene- Jaguars (negative spillover). If the event of product intro-
fit from brand extensions. He suggests that Gallo opted to duction is considered an "information shock" and advertis-
attach its name with a "jug-wine" reputation to its line of ing represents a more steady flow of information, similar
upscale, corked wines, Ernest and Julio Gallo Varietals, to effects for both forms of information should be expected.
improve the quality perception of its low-end wine product. However, Sullivan does not find such a result. A possible
In another example, Contadina, which was perceived as a reason is that Sullivan does not separate the negative substi-
strong canned-foods brand with an authentic Italian her- tution effect that arises from a brand extension, depressing
itage, was revitalized by its entry into fresh refrigerated pas- sales of existing products from a likely positive spillover
tas and sauces. effect. Thus, unlike the spillover effect of information shock
If introduction of a brand extension can produce such caused by a product introduction, spillover effects from
(reciprocal) spillover benefits to existing products, it can be ongoing advertising may not be strong enough to over-
expected that advertising of the brand extension will also whelm a substitution effect.
have a positive spillover effect on sales of existing products. In this article, we separate the substitution and spillover
For example, Aaker (1996) suggests that advertising of the effects by estimating demand at the disaggregate level using
brand extension Hidden Valley Honey Dijon Ranch salad ACNielsen's single-source scanner panel data. We find that
dressing made the advertising for the Hidden Valley brand the advertising of brand extensions produces significant rec-
group more effective. Such advertising spillover effects iprocal spillover that favorably affects the choice of the par-
would also have implications for allocation of advertising ent brand. Thus, we find empirical support for the anecdotal
budget among the new brand extension and existing prod- evidence presented previously. Our separation of spillover
ucts with the same brand name. However, it is surprising and substitution effects may enable us to find a positive
spillover effect of advertising, in contrast to Sullivan (1990)
Subramanian Balachander is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Krannert
who finds a negative spillover effect for Jaguar advertising.'
Graduate School of Management, Purdue University. Sanjoy Ghose is
Professor of Marketing, School of Business Administration, University of 'Category differences (yogurt is a category we analyze) proba-
Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of bly account for some of the differences between Sullivan's (1990)
Dennis Gensch, Jugal Ghorai, PK. Kannan, Manohar Kalwani, Vithala results and ours. In a category such as yogurt, a consumer can pur-
Rao, and Brian Ratchford and a seminar at Carnegie Mellon University for chase both parent (low-fat yogurt) and extension (non-fat yogurt),
sparking this inquiry. Part of this research was conducted when the sec- as a result of complementarity or variety-seeking behavior. In such
ond author was a Senior Visiting Fellow at the National University of a case, positive spillover effects may be enhanced. We thank an
Singapore. anonymous reviewer for suggesting the role of category
differences.
Journal of Marketing
4 / Journal of Marketing, January 2003 Vol. 67 (January 2003), 4-13
In contrast to our use of disaggregate data, Sullivan uses less advertising expenditure for each product. In a similar
aggregate data from published sources. Tellis and Weiss vein, Morein (1975) suggests that economies of information
(1995) suggest that aggregation may lead to bias iti estimat- are realized because an advertised product produces a "halo
ing the effects of advertisitig. Our use of disaggregate data effect" that increases sales of other umbrella-branded prod-
also provides a strong test for the existence of advertising ucts. Thus, we expect both reciprocal and forward spillover
spillover effects because advertising effects have been diffi- effects to be positive because of economies of information.
cult to establish with such data (Tellis and Weiss 1995). Iti a Although the economies of information argument is
laboratory study, Morrin (1999) finds that advertising of a intuitively reasonable, the specific mechanism through
brand extension facilitates recall of the parent brand. How- which advertising spillover or halo occurs is not clear. Wern-
ever, our research focuses on brand choice and examines the erfelt's (1988) analysis of umbrella branding suggests one
advertising effect of both a brand and its extension in a field such mechanism. Using a signaling model, Wernerfelt theo-
setting. rizes that umbrella-branded products are perceived to offer
In the remainder of this article, we present the concep- higher quality because profits from other umbrella-branded
tual background that pertains to spillover effects. We then products act as a "performance bond" for the quality of any
develop the empirical models and present the analysis and of the umbrella-branded products. In other words, if a low-
results. Finally, we discuss the managerial implications of quality product is offered with an umbrella brand name, it
our findings and limitations of our study and offer a brief leads consumers to conclude that all other products with the
conclusion. same brand name are also of low quality, which thus threat-
ens the profits from these other products. Therefore, a firm
would optimally extend an established brand name only to
Conceptual Background high-quality products, thus rendering consumers' percep-
Spillover Advertising Effect tions (that umbrella-branded products are of high quality)
accurate. Wernerfelt's analysis offers a mechanism by which
Advertising spillover becomes relevant when a brand name
advertising can spill over and enhance sales for other
is used on two or more products that are separately adver-
umbrella-branded products.2 Essentially, the advertising of
tised. Consider two products, A and B, that carry an
other products with the same brand name makes consumers
umbrella brand name in common (e.g., Yoplait yogurt and
aware of the performance bond at stake for the firm, thereby
Yoplait non-fat yogurt). We conceptualize a spillover effect
increasing quality perceptions of unadvertised products and
as the impact of Product A's (B's) advertising on the utility
enhancing their sales. In summary, the theory of economies
to the consumer of Product B (A). In general, the spillover
of information suggests positive reciprocal and forward
effects between products may not be symmetric. In particu-
spillover effects.
lar, we distinguish between the spillover effects from adver-
tising of the parent (the product that originally used the Second, Anderson (1983) offers a consumer memory-
brand name) and those from advertising of the child or based explanation for the existence of reciprocal spillover
extension (the line or brand extension). We refer to the for- effects with the associative network theory. Brand associa-
mer effect as the forward spillover effect and the latter effect tions in consumer memory are a key component of brand
as the reciprocal spillover effect. The definition of parent as equity and brand-related effects (Aaker 1996). The associ-
the product that originally used the brand name is similar to ated network theory has been particularly useful in analyz-
the definition of "core" brand in Keller and Aaker's (1992) ing the effect of brand associations (see, e.g., Herr, Far-
study. In a more theoretical sense, we consider the parent as quhar, and Fazio 1996; John, Loken, and Joiner 1998; Keller
the product most closely associated with the umbrella brand 1993; Morrin 1999). This theory conceptualizes knowledge
name in the consumer's mind (Farquhar, Herr, and Fazio about a brand as being a network of nodes (or concepts) con-
1990; Morrin 1999). This perspective is similar to the con- nected by links, which represent associations between the
cept of a flagship product used by John, Loken, and Joiner concepts. Moreover, the strength of a link is a measure of the
(1998) or "instance dominance" used by Herr, Farquhar, and association strength between the concepts. Thus, the brand
Fazio (1996). (e.g., Yoplait), the parent (e.g., Yoplait [regular] yogurt), and
We offer several commercial examples in which a posi- the brand or line extension (e.g., Yoplait non-fat yogurt), as
tive reciprocal spillover effect is anticipated. There are two well as beliefs about the brand, are conceptualized as nodes
main theoretical reasons to expect such a positive reciprocal in a knowledge network, and the links between the nodes
spillover effect. First, a positive spillover eflect would be vary in strength. A consumer retrieves a particular piece of
consistent with the existence of economies of information in knowledge from memory when the corresponding node is
advertising when an umbrella or "range" brand is applied to activated above a threshold level, through priming by exter-
different products (Aaker 1996; Morein 1975). Indeed, in an nal cues such as advertising or by "spreading" activation
empirical study. Smith (1992) finds that advertising expen- from other linked nodes. The extent of spreading activation
ditures for umbrella-branded products are lower, which is to a new node increases with the strength of the link between
consistent with economies of information. As Aaker (1996,
p. 295) notes, such economies are realized because "the 2ln experimental studies, Dacin and Smith (1994) find that con-
fixed cost of maintaining a brand name can be spread across sumers' evaluation of the quality of an umbrella-branded product
different businesses." The implication of this rationale is that increases with the number of products using the same brand name.
Because several products using the same brand name imply a big-
umbrella-branded products benefit one another with their ger performance bond, the result appears to support Wernerfelt's
advertising because of positive spillover effects, resulting in (1988) analysis. See also Erdcm (1998).
•''We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out the different focus on brand choice because, using coffee data, Gupta
predictions of the two theories regarding the relative magnitudes of (1988) finds that brand-switching accounts for 84% of the overall
the forward and reciprocal spillover effects. sales increase due to promotions.
TABLE 1
Yogurt Brands: Descriptive Statistics
and Weiss, we considered a household to have been exposed utility function measured stock of advertising exposures of
to an advertisement if the television set was tuned to the product j's children for household i at purchase occasion t.
advertisement for more than half the advertisement's dura- In both cases, the stock variable was an exponentially
tion. Let ASjj t be the stock of own-advertising exposures for weighted average of past stock and current exposures as in
product j for household i at purchase occasion t. As in Tellis Equation 5 with the same smoothing constant X as was used
and Weiss's (1995) study, ASy [ is given by for own advertising.
Although the spillover advertising variables capture
spillover effects in our model, the own-advertising variable
captures the substitution effect from a brand's advertising.
The element ASjjt _ i is the advertising stock for product
Thus, we separately estimate the substitution and spillover
j , household i, and purchase occasion t - 1. The parameter X
effects by including both advertising variables in our model
is a smoothing constant to be determined.
and using household scanner-panel data. In contrast, Sulli-
Spillover advertising: We examined the order of entry of van (1990) could not distinguish between these two effects
products that share the same brand name and designated the in her measurement of spillover effects: Her data show the
product that originally used the brand name as the parent. aggregate impact of both effects.
We inferred introduction dates of products on the basis of
the earliest date the product occurred in the data set. In cases Consumer sales promotion: We employed two separate
in which the products were available from the beginning of 0/1 (absence/presence) variables. They were features and in-
the data collection period, we consulted trade magazines to store displays.
ascertain the order of introduction of products. Tables 1 and List price: As in Tellis and Weiss's (1995) study, this
2 give estimated introduction dates of umbrella-branded variable represents the price before coupons for the product
products. at purchase occasion t and is expressed in dollars per ounce.
In all cases, the parents identified in this manner appear
Coupon value: The data provide information on the
to be the product that is most closely associated with the
value of coupons redeemed with purchase, but they have no
brand name, consistent with our theoretical perspective. The
information on coupon availability to households. As do
relatively high market shares of the parent in all cases also
Gonul and Srinivasan (1993), we assume that if a manufac-
supports this view. For example, in the Dannon brand fam-
turer's coupon was redeemed for a brand in a particular
ily, Dannon low-fat yogurt was deemed the parent, and Dan-
week, it is available to all households during that week. For
non mini-pack, Dannon non-fat, and Dannon fresh flavors as
store coupons, we assume that if a store coupon was
its children. In the other case of multiple products with a
redeemed for a brand in a week, that coupon was available
common brand name in the yogurt data, Yoplait yogurt was
to all households shopping that store during that week.
considered the parent of Yoplait non-fat yogurt. The remain-
ing three products in yogurt data are stand-alone products Brand loyalty: When we estimated the model given by
with no parent or children. In the powdered detergent data, Equation 2, we used brand loyalty given by Equation 3 as an
none of the six brands had significant extensions in the same explanatory variable. We used the first five purchases of a
category; however, some benefited from spillover advertis- household or all of a household's purchase before the esti-
ing of branded relatives in the liquid detergent category. In mation period (whichever was larger) for calibrating the loy-
this case, all powder brands were considered parents. For alty measure for each household.
example. Tide Liquid is the child of Tide Powder (the
parent).
In product j ' s utility function, a parent spillover adver- Analysis and Results
tising variable measured stock of exposures of household i As do Tellis and Weiss (1995), we estimated different logit
to advertising of the parent of product j at purchase occasion models using values of the advertising carryover parameter
t. Similarly, a child spillover exposure variable in product j's X that varied from 0 to I in increments of. I. We found that
TABLE 3
Brand Loyalty Models—Yogurt Brands
Parameter Estimates (t-Ratio)
Choice Elasticity of
TABLE 6 Parent Brand
K-R Heterogeneity Model—Detergent Brands
Parent's Spillover
Variables Parameters t-Ratio Own Child-
Parent Brand Advertising Advertising
Display 1.4875 5.179
Feature .9402 3.553 Dannon low-fat .057 .144
List price -136.0419 -12.161 [-.046, .171] [.043, .255]
Coupon value 166.0217 17.020 Yoplait .041 .079
Own advertising .0959 .496 [-.027, .093] [.017, .144]
Child-advertising 1.4658 2.089 Notes: 95% confidence intervals are in brackets.
mal allocation of advertising spending may favor the line ducing line or brand extensions (Aaker 1990). This strategic
extensions in the case of both Dannon and Yoplait.'^ benefit may be distinguished from and may supplement the
Analogous productivity comparisons for detergent commonly advanced rationale for line or brand extensions,
advertising (Table 8) yield conclusions similar to that for which is to satisfy new market segments profitably by lever-
Yoplait advertising. The main difference between the deter- aging existing brand equity. Proliferation of brand exten-
gent and the yogurt results is the somewhat higher magni- sions may have another strategic benefit, which is to crowd
tude of the reciprocal spillover elasticities for detergents. We the product space and deter entry (Schmalensee 1978).
believe that this outcome may be due to the presence of The information in Tables 7 and 8, when combined with
fewer brands in the detergent category, which makes adver- the introduction dates from Tables 1 and 2, yields the fol-
tising exposures more productive. However, consistent with lowing interesting observation: The superiority of reciprocal
the yogurt results, the reciprocal spillover has a greater spillover advertising in comparison with a brand's own
impact on the purchase share of parents than the respective advertising is greatest for recently introduced brand exten-
parent's own advertising, for all three extended brands of sions and, at least within a given product category, tends to
powdered detergents. The apparent managerial implication diminish more or less monotonically with age of the exten-
is that these brands are better off devoting relatively more sion. This conclusion is consistent with the intuitive expec-
advertising spending to the newer brand extensions. Morrin tation that with passage of time, the child's advertising may
(1999) reaches the opposite conclusion that shifting of provide less by way of new information that may influence
advertising funds to extensions may hurt the parent. How- the choice of the parent. Also, as time passes, the child may
ever, she studies the effect of brand extension advertising on gain a stronger presence in the consumer's mind and be less
recall and recognition of the parent rather than its choice. It likely to evoke the parent with its advertising. The associ-
is possible that advertising of the child may change beliefs ated network theory predicts that such inhibition of the par-
about the parent and thus influence its overall evaluation and ent in consumers' memories will result from a strengthening
choice, without affecting recall or recognition. For example, of the link between the brand and child nodes. A caveat to
advertising of the extension may increase perceptions of our previous conclusion regarding the relation between the
parent quality (Dacin and Smith 1994; Wernerfelt 1988) or spillover effect and age of the child is that it comes from a
parent innovativeness. In such a case, a strong reciprocal cross-brand comparison and not a within-brand comparison.
spillover effect on a parent's evaluation may more than com- Further research might examine this issue with more exten-
pensate for a weaker spillover effect on recall of the parent sive longitudinal data. Overall, it is important to note that a
(as Morrin finds), resulting in a overall spillover elasticity positive and statistically significant reciprocal spillover
that is greater than the parent's own-advertising elasticity (as effect was observed over a wide variety of relative introduc-
we find). The different conclusions between our studies may tion times of the parent and child in the two categories.
also be due to the attention to advertising that was forced on
subjects in Morrin's laboratory study, while it is possible Methodological Advantages and Limitations of
that advertising of newer brand extensions command greater the Study
attention from the audience in real-world settings (Pieters,
Rosbergen, and Wedel 1999). The advantage offered by the high quality of scanner panel
data is well known. However, the household-level data also
The existence of beneficial spillover effects from brand
help mitigate the problem of reverse causality faced with
extensions suggests an additional strategic benefit of intro-
advertising studies using aggregate data. This problem
arises because managers might set advertising budgets as a
'OA more formal analysis of the implication of spillover effects
for advertising allocation, using an analytical model, can be percentage of sales or market share. As Tellis (1988, p. 142)
obtained directly from the authors on request. points out, "it is unlikely that managers set advertising
exposures in expectation of purchases at such disaggregate
TABLE 8 levels" (individual household levels). Tellis also indicates
Productivity Comparison of Own and Spiiiover that between-brand analysis with such data provides greater
Advertising for Detergents power and efficiency than a separate analysis for each brand.
As with typical econometric studies, the conclusions
Choice Elasticity of from our study should be considered tentative subject to
Parent Brand replication by other studies using different models or
methodologies or by replication in other product-markets.
Parent's Spillover Furthermore, our results may be sensitive to the level of
Own Child- advertising by competing brands observed in the categories
Parent Brand Advertising Advertising and markets we examined." Although we used a variety of
Cheer n.s. .600 tests to verify that a few influential observations did not
[.160, 1.273] affect the pattern of our findings, it would nevertheless be
Surf n.s. .893 worthwhile to replicate our analysis with categories having
[.236, 1.956] a greater number of advertising exposures. Future studies
Tide n.s. .145
[.056, .229]
Notes: 95% confidence intervals are in brackets, n.s. = not slgnifi- "We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this
canfly different from zero. limitation.
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. (1990), "Brand Extensions: The Good, the Bad, Kanetkar, Vinay, Charles B. Weinberg, and Doyle L. Weiss (1992),
and the Ugly," Sloan Management Review, 31 (Summer), 47-56. "Price Sensitivity and Television Advertising Exposures: Some
(1996), Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Empirical Findings," Marketing Science, 11 (4), 359-71.
Press. Keller, Kevin (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing
Ailawadi, Kusum L., Karen Gedenk, and Scott A. Neslin (1999), Customer-Based Brand Equity," Journal of Marketing, 57 (Jan-
"Heterogeneity and Purchase Event Feedback in Choice Mod- uary), 1-22.
els: An Empirical Analysis with Implications for Model Build- and David A. Aaker (1992), 'The Effects of Sequential
ing," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16 (Sep- Introduction of Brand Extensions," Journal of Marketing
tember), 177-98. Research, 29 (February), 35-50.
Anderson, John R. (1983), "A Spreading Activation Theory of Krishnamurthi, Lakshman and S.P Raj (1985), "The Effect of
Memory," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22 Advertising on Consumer Price Sensitivity," Marketing Sci-
(3), 261-95. ence,! (,1), 1-20.
Blattberg, Robert D., Gary D. Eppen, and Joshua Lieberman (1981), and (1988), "A Model of Brand Choice and Pur-
"A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Price Deals for Con- chase Quantity Price Sensitivity," Marketing Science, 7 (1),
sumer Nondurables," Journal of Marketing, 45 (Winter), 116-29. 1-20.
Calder, Bobby J. and Brian Stemthal (1980), 'Television Commer- and (1991), "An Empirical Analysis of the Rela-
cial Wearout: An Information Processing View," Journal of tionship Between Brand Loyalty and Consumer Price Elastic-
Marketing Research, 17 (May), 173-86. ity," Marketing Science, 10 (Spring), 172-83.
Chintagunta, Pradeep K. (1993), "Investigating Purchase Inci- Montgomery, Alan L. (1997), "Creating Micro-Marketing Pricing
dence, Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Decisions of Strategies Using Supermarket Scanner Data, Marketing Sci-
Households," Marketing Science, 12 (2), 184-208. ence, 16(4), 315-37.
, Dipak C. Jain, and Naufel J. Vilcassim (1991), "Investi- Morein, Joseph A. (1975), "Shift from Brand to Product Line Mar-
gating Heterogeneity in Brand Preferences in Logit Models for keting," Harvard Business Review, 53 (September-October),
Panel Data," Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (November), 56-64.
417-28. Morrin, Maureen (1999), 'The Impact of Brand Extensions on Par-
Dacin, Peter A. and Daniel C. Smith (1994), 'The Effect of Brand ent Brand Memory Structures and Retrieval Processes," Journal
Portfolio Characteristics on Consumer Evaluations of Brand of Marketing Research, 36 (November), 517-25.
Extensions," Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May), 229-42. Pieters, Rik, Edward Rosbergen, and Michel Wedel (1999), "Visual
Erdem, Tulin (1998), "An Empirical Analysis of Umbrella Brand- Attention to Repeated Print Advertising: A Test of Scanpath The-
ing," Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (August), 339-51. ory," Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (November), 424-38.
Farquhar, Peter H., Paul M. Herr, and Russell H. Fazio (1990), "A Raj, S.P (1982), "The Effects of Advertising on High and Low
Relational Model for Category Extensions of Brands," in Loyalty Consumer Segments," Journal of Consumer Research,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, Marvin E. Goldberg, 9(0,77-89.
Gerald Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay, eds. Provo, UT: Associa- Sawyer, Alan (1973), "The Effects of Repetition of Refutational
tion for Consumer Research, 856-60. and Supportive Advertising Appeals," Journal of Marketing
Gensch, Dennis H. (1987), "Empirical Evidence Supporting the Research, 10 (February), 23-33.
Use of Multiple Choice Models in Analyzing a Population," Schmalensee, Richard (1978), "Entry Deterrence in the Ready-to-
Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (May), 197-207. Eat Breakfast Cereal Industry," Bell Journal of Economics, 9
Gonul, Fusun F. and Kannan Srinivasan (1993), "Modeling Multi- (2), 305-27.
ple Sources of Heterogeneity in Multinomial Logit Models: Schwarz, Gideon (1978), "Estimating the Dimension of a Model,"
Methodological and Managerial Issues, Marketing Science, 12 The Annals of Statistics, 6 (2), 461-64.
(3), 213-29. Smith, Daniel C. (1992), "Brand Extension and Advertising Effi-
Guadagni, Peter M. and John D.C. Little (1983), "A Logit Model ciency: What Can and Cannot Be Expected" Journal of Adver-
of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Sci- tising Research, 32 (November-December), 11-20.
ence, 2 (Summer), 203-38. Sullivan, Mary (1990), "Measuring Image Spillovers in Umbrella-
Gupta, Sunil (1988), "Impact of Sales Promotions on When, What, branded Products," Journal of Business, 63 (3), 309-29.
and How Much to Buy," Journal of Marketing Research, 25 Tellis, Gerard J. (1988), "Advertising Exposure, Loyalty, and
(November), 342-55. Brand Purchase: A Two-Stage Model of Choice," Journal of
Herr, Paul M., Peter H. Farquhar, and Russell H. Fazio (1996), Marketing Research, 25 (May), 134—44.
"Impact of Dominance and Relatedness on Brand Extensions," and Doyle L. Weiss (1995), "Does TV Advertising Really
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5 (2), 135-59. Affect Sales? The Role of Measures, Models, and Data Aggre-
John, Deborah Roedder, Barbara Loken, and Christopher Joiner gation," Journal of Advertising, 24 (3), 1-12.
(1998), 'The Negative Impact of Extensions: Can Flagship Prod- Wernerfelt, Birger (1988), "Umbrella Branding as a Signal of New
ucts Be Diluted?" Journal of Marketing, 62 (January), 19-32. Product Quality: An Example of Signalling by Posting a Bond,"
Kamakura, Wagner A. and Gary J. Russell (1989), "A Probabilistic Rand Journal of Economics, 19 (Autumn), 458-66.
Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Struc-
ture," Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (November), 379-90.