Measuring the Efficiency of Category-Level Sales Response to Promotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".