MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509872621 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2496

Measuring the Efficiency of Category-Level Sales Response to Promotions

2016· article· en· W2509872621 on OpenAlexaff
Minakshi Trivedi, Dinesh K. Gauri, Yu Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersInnovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsStock (firearms)Competition (biology)EconometricsMarketingBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we focus on measuring the efficiency of category-level sales response to promotions across various categories and stores. Our heterogeneous stochastic frontier model allows us to attribute portions of this efficiency to specific characteristics of the stores and categories. Using our full PEM (promotional efficiency frontier) model, we analyze the efficiency of 20 frequently bought categories of a supermarket retailer and apply it to store-category-level data. We find that the average efficiency of category and store sales response across all categories and stores is 84.34%, with low values in categories such as spreads and fresh seafood and high values in categories such as frozen entrées and meat. We find that the variation in efficiency of this sales response can be attributed to specific store and category characteristics such as selling area of store, distance to competition, number of stock-keeping units in the category, and average interpurchase time. Unobserved heterogeneity is captured by the latent class approach that provides support for the existence of three segments. An understanding of the roles played by these characteristics in the efficiency of sales response can aid managers in devising a strategy that maximizes sales. This paper was accepted by Pradeep Chintagunta, marketing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207