Click on the PDF link for the complete article.
ABSTRACT
For more than 40 years, Andrew Ehrenberg and others have demonstrated the value of the Dirichlet and related distributions as a method for modeling typical brand performance measures (BPMs) in markets. This work has led to trenchant critiques of many attitudinal measures related to branding—specifically, brand strength, differentiation, and persuasion. Using panel data, we show that though the Dirichlet leads to accurate BPMs for fixed time-slices, its assumptions about individual behavior are wrong. We therefore challenge the way the law-of-double-jeopardy theorists use patterns identified by the Dirichlet to generalize about brand performance, the psychology of consumer preference, and the role of advertising. Far from being problematic, attitudinal measures may be the only path to the successful understanding of the effects of marketing initiatives.
- © Copyright 2010 The ARF. All rights reserved.
ARF MEMBERS
If you are a member of the Advertising Research Foundation, you can access the content by logging in here
Log In
Pay Per Article - You may access this article (from the computer you are currently using) for 30 days for US$20.00
Regain Access - You can regain access to a recent Pay per Article purchase if your access period has not yet expired.