MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169931118 · doi:10.1287/inte.1070.0332

Chrysler and J. D. Power: Pioneering Scientific Price Customization in the Automobile Industry

2008· article· en· W2169931118 on OpenAlexaff
Jorge Silva‐Risso, William V. Shearin, Irina Ionova, Alexei Khavaev, Deirdre Borrego

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeaseEconomicsProduct (mathematics)Market powerIncentivePricing strategiesMultinomial logistic regressionIndustrial organizationBusinessMicroeconomicsFinanceMonopolyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pricing is a critical component in the marketing-mix plans of automobile manufacturers. Because they tend to keep their manufacturer's suggested retail prices (MSRPs) and wholesale prices fixed throughout the model year, they customize pricing to reflect supply and demand by using incentives; in the US market, they represent approximately $45 billion per year. In addition, variations in capacity utilization have immediate and substantial effects on profitability. This, together with legacy costs and inflexible labor contracts, makes the effectiveness and efficiency of price-customization decisions particularly vital for the industry. Chrysler, a pioneer in using science in its pricing decisions, engaged J. D. Power and Associates (JDPA) to implement an incentive planning model. The approach used is based on a random-effects multinomial nested logit model of product (vehicle model), acquisition (cash, finance, lease), and program-type (e.g., consumer cash rebates, reduced interest-rate financing, cash/reduced interest-rate combinations, lease-support) selection. The model uses sales transaction data that are collected daily from approximately 10,000 dealerships. It uses a hierarchical Bayes modeling structure to capture response heterogeneity at the local market level. This specification allows users to apply the model to pricing decisions at the local, regional, and national market levels. Based on implementing this model, Chrysler learned that, for any given price level, the pricing structure (e.g., a combination of retail price, interest rates, or rebates) is important. The set of the most efficient pricing structures for each price level constitutes an efficient frontier; efficient pricing structures vary across products, price levels, and markets. The system provides three alternative approaches to identify efficient (and effective) pricing programs: (a) what-if-scenario simulations, (b) a batch scenario generator that allows users to identify and examine the profit-share/volume efficient frontier, and (c) an optimizer that, given an objective and a set of constraints, allows users to search for incentive programs rapidly. The Chrysler Corporate Economics Office estimates that Chrysler's annual savings from implementing the model are approximately $500 million.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFORMS Journal on Applied AnalyticsSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207