LECTUREPEDIA - Ajarn Paul Tanongpol, J.D.; M.B.A.;B.A.; CBEST
|
LECTUREPEDIA - Ajarn Paul Tanongpol, J.D.; M.B.A.;B.A.; CBEST
|
|
|
Dr. Paul TANONGPOL Sales Management Lecture Note - Summer 2007
This Supplemental Note is part of the lecture materials for the Summer Semester. All students are held responsible for mastering all materials contained in this Supplemental Note. All materials contained herein are part of the quantitative section of the course materials. All charts and formulas in this Note are derived from various sources. A bibliography is provided at the end of this Note for references and further reading.
Marketing Mix££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ Marketing mix[1] is defined as the combination of product, price, place, and promotion. Success in sales is a result of the right combination of these four elements of marketing mix. The effort spent on each of the marketing mix depends on internal and external factors faced by the company. Internally, the company must gauge the product it has on hand; the location where the product will be distributed; and the tools and budgets used in promoting the products. Different products in different location may require different pricing structure and promotional approaches. Sony, for instance, manufactures and sells electronic products. It promotion and pricing structure may be different for markets in the U.S. and Asia. In the U.S. where consumers have more disposable income and demands higher quality and functions in household electronics, the company may have to sell at a high price because of additional costs spend on intense quality control and management. Externally, the marketing mix is also influenced by changes in the social, economic, cultural, and political conditions in the targeted country. Following through with the example of Sony selling electronic products, the Super Bowl season in the U.S., for instance, would see an increase in sales of television sets. It has been an established fact that most American stay home and have their eyes glued on television sets during the weekends in football season. Distributors of televisions would respond by heavily investing more money into promotion for the sales of television set. The example illustrates that marketing mix differs by internal and external circumstances under which the marketer operates.
P1 = Product P2 = Price P3 = Place P4 = Promotion Marketing mix as discussed above had been criticized for being outdated. The current market condition no longer resembles that of the past. During the time when Kotler spoke of the marketing mix, the 4Ps may have been functional; however, with the introduction of computer in1970-80s, and the advent of the Internet in mid 1990s, marketing concept evolved into a new stage of development and requires different tool of analysis.[2] Peter Doyle, for instance, also criticizes 4Ps for having led companies to unprofitable operations because 4Ps do not focus on increasing shareholder’s value and financial objectives of the company.[3] Commodity, cost, communication, and channel are the new marketing mix proposed by the new marketers.[4] Despite the new introduction of marketing mix, students are still taught the old 4Ps approach as an introductory materials, if not for historical treatment. The overall objective in sales is revenue. The level of revenue is a function of advertising and sales promotion. The optimum level of sales revenue depends on the correct mix of advertising and promotion, known as the constant-mix line. The constant-mix depends on the company’s budget. These two conditions: constant-mix between promotion and advertising costs and budget constraint, determines the success or failure of the company’s marketing campaign. Other issues, such as the status of the sales organization, i.e. whether it is a wholesaler or retailers, are secondary because revenue production depends on this two-factor constraint.[5]
Figure: 1.0: Revenue Level as a Product of Advertisement and Sales Promotion. Source: Philip Kotler, Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control, 6th ed. (Prentice-Hall International Edition, 1998), p. 94. Graphic rendering by Paul T. Louangrath (Summer 2007).
Profit£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ Sale is the means for revenue production. We must make a distinction between income and revenue. Income comprises of all monetary value in-flow for the company, including earnings from investment and liquidation of current or long-term assets. Income cannot be used for purposes of calculating profit in the context of sales analysis because the value contain in income include other items other than those derived directing from marketing efforts. Therefore, revenue is the key focus for purposes of our marketing studies. Revenue is a component of income. Revenue refers to the production of current assets derived from the reduction of inventory by injecting it directly into the market or through distribution channels. Revenue is associated with inventory turnover. Inventory turn-over is the means through which the company derived income by producing revenue. If the term “income” is to be used interchangeably, we must denote that “Y” represents income and “y” income from revenue or “R.” Knowing revenue alone does not give the marketer an ability to gauge the company’s performance without knowing costs. Generally, in accounting and finance, the term cost or costs refers to variable cost and fixed cost. However, in the context of sales management, the cost component is allocated into unit costs. Variable cost, for instance, must include all its components, such as allowance per unit, distribution cost and discretionary marketing cost. As for fixed cost, when determining profit for each unit, the fixed cost component must also be allocated into per unit basis. Therefore, profit is revenue less costs as expressed by equation [2].
where: Z = Profit R = Revenue C = Costs
Figure: 2.0: Profit Analysis from Revenue Production Curve.
where: R = Revenue P’ = Net price Q = Unit sales
Income from sales is the product of price multiplied by quantity: y = PQ. However, this definition is not restrictive enough for us to gauge the company’s financial performance because in order to produce y (sale), there are costs involved. Moreover, into addition to the fixed and variable costs involved in the sales production, company may also allocate certain amount for marketing expenses and allowance per unit. Therefore, the more accurate definition that we should use to calculate profit is revenue. Revenue is defined as the product of net price multiplied by quantity of units sold. Price is the amount posted on the product. It tells customers how much they have to pay for it. This price may not be fixed. It may be full price or it may be a reduced price, in a case where the product is put on sale. Therefore, the price term used in calculation of revenue must account for these adjustment; we must use net price to calculate revenue. Net price is defined as the unit price less allowance per unit. The allowance may be a form of freight cost, pilferage, and other types of costs that may reduce the price of the unit. This allowance is denoted by a constant k.[6] As the result of k being component costs, i.e. series of costs, we can rewrite equation [3] as:
The Q element of the equation is straight forward. There is no special treatment; Q is a whole used to multiply the net price. It is important to reemphasize that the price term in the revenue equation is net price; whereas, in the income equation, the price element may be full price. Even so, the term “full price” is still not adequate to describe derivation of income because most income are derived from sale, except income from investment. Most sales involved some kind of price discount and marketing allowances. Therefore, we are left with net price as the key indicator for revenue calculation.
where: P’ = Net price P = Price k = Allowance per unit
In net price, there is an element of allowance. Allowance is the discounting of price for purposes of stimulating sales. There is a distinction between promotion and allowances. The money spent on marketing campaigns, such as advertising, is promotion. The purpose of these expenditures is to promote the sales of the product. In large companies, these expenses have allocated budget. For accounting purposes, these expenses are accounting in the Chart of Accounts. Allowance, on the other hand, is more of an operational discretion than financial or accounting allocation. It is a tool used to achieve sales target. If sales target is financial target, then allowance is also a tool used to achieve financial targets. Allowance in a form of price discount, for instance, is used to generate or increase sales volume. Allowance affects revenue because allowance decreases net price of the product. By giving the more allowance the company gives, the more net price will be discounted. The net price (P’) is directly connected with revenue because revenue is a product of net price multiplied by quantity. Therefore, more allowance leads to smaller net price and, therefore, the smaller the revenue. If this conclusion is correct, why then do companies use sales allowance to stimulate sales revenue? For each unit of revenue raised through sales, with or without marketing allowance, there is a profit built into it already. By discounting prices, sales will be stimulated; even though the per unit revenue may be smaller than that without allowance, the over all increase in sales volume as the result of discount allowance will produce more revenue and profit more than the company would make in revenue and profit with undiscounted price. Selling at a high price with small quantity sold is not better than selling at a discounted price with larger quantity. This assumption holds true so long as the discounting or marketing allowance does not sunk more than profit level. Profit level is defined as revenue exceeding variable costs.
Z = Total profits P = List price k = Allowance per unit, i.e. freight allowances, commission, discount C = Production and distribution variable cost Q = Number of unit sold F = Fixed costs, i.e. salaries, rents, electricity M = Discretionary marketing costs
Figure 3.0: Break-Even Chart for Price Determination. SOURCE: Philip Kotler, Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control, 6th ed. (Prentice-Hall International Edition, 1998), p. 506. Graphic rendering by Paul T. Louangrath (Summer 2007).
The shaded area (A) is the shutdown point. Assume that the demand curve is completely horizontal, the company may continue to operate so long as the price of the product is sold at or above the variable cost. However, if the price drops below the variable cost (A), the company should shutdown operations.[7]
Sales££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
where:
where: P = Price k = Allowances c = Variable cost M = Marketing budget
Where: A = Advertising S = Sales promotion D = Sales force R = Marketing research
Z = Profits after tax t = Tax rate m = Contribution margin to fixed costs and profit Q = Sales in units F = Fixed manufacturing and marketing costs D = Depreciation
L = Cash flow after tax Z = Profit after tax D = Depreciation W = Working capital in dollars, i.e. working capital as percent of sales, times Wholesale price, times sales in units I = New investment expenditure
Company Demand£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
The materials presented thus far represent the general concept of sales management in general. We now want to pursue the subject matter further by focusing on the company operation itself. In this section, we begin our examination with the company demand function.
where: Qi = Company i’s demand si = Company i’s market share Q = Total market demand
Company demand, like market demand, is a function. This function is called company demand function or sales-response function. It is subject to all determinants of market demand plus determinants of company market share.
The market share of a company is proportional to its marketing-effort shares. This is called the fundamental theorem of market-share determination. It is expressed as:
where: Mi = Company i’s marketing effort
The expression may be rewritten as follows if there are more than one company. Suppose the companies differ in the effectiveness with which they spend marketing budget. The equation may be rewritten as:
where: ai = Marketing effectiveness of a budget spent by company i (with a = 1.00 for average effectiveness) aiMi = Company i’s marketing effort.
Recall that marketing effectiveness was first introduced with the revenue production chart showing the revenue curve produced by the combination of sales promotion and advertising. That chart is reproduced below:
Figure 3.0: Reproduced.
Note that effectiveness in marketing effort is shown by how much responsive is the revenue production function responds to various combination levels between advertisement and sales promotion. We are using the constant budget line as the reference point. Any combination outside of the constant budget line is considered wasteful or a commission of economic waste.
Figure 4.0: Product Life cycle and Revenue Behavior.
Although Figure 3.0 shows how revenue responds to the constant budget mix between sales promotion and advertising, this picture is not that clear without the examination of the product life cycle (PCL). Figure 4.0 shows how revenue is produced throughout the PLC. Figure 3.0 shows revenue production at the birth and growth periods of the PLC. However, at the maturity period, the shape of the revenue curve may look different depending on how effective the marketing expenses are managed. Therefore, we have to keep in mind that the caveat for the graphical representation of the figures presented in this Lecture Note should be read by reference to the PLC.
Equation [15] is too restriction because it assumes that there will always be a proportional returns from marketing effort of company i; however, in the real world, there may be a case of diminishing returns on marketing effort, i.e. after a certain level, there will be a marginal rate of return on the company’s marketing effort. In such a case, equation [15] must be modified as:
where: 0 < emi < 1
Estimating Current Demand
Total Market Potential£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
where: Q = Total market potential n = Number of buyers in the specific product/market under the given assumption. q = Quantity purchased by an average buyer p = price of an average unit
When assessing the company’s market potential, there are two major methods available: market-buildup method and multiple-factor index methods.
Market-Buildup Method Identify all potential buyers in the market, and estimate their potential purchases. This method is straightforward if we have a list of potential buyers and a good estimate of what each will buy. Unfortunately, one or both is lacking.
Multiple-factor Index Methods
where: Bi = Percentage of total national buying power found in area i yi = Percentage of national disposable personal income originating in area i ri = Percentage of national retail sales in area i pi = Percentage of national population located in area i a, b, c = Index from industry
Alternative Decision Process Used by Consumers to Evaluate Brand
Expectancy-Value Model
where: Ajk = Consumer’s k’s attitude score for brand Wjk = The importance weight assigned by consumer k to attribute i Bijk = Consumer k’s belief as the amount of attribute I offered by brand j n = Number of important attributes in the selection of a given brand
A consumer’s belief about a brand is multiplied by the respective importance weights and summed to derive an attribute score. Consumers expect certain attributes to a certain product or brand. Secondly, consumers put importance weights on such attributes.[8] Thirdly, the consumer attaches a certain brand beliefs also known as brand image to a particular brand. The beliefs maybe at variance with the true attributes due to his experience and the effect of selective perception, selective distortion, and selective retention. Fourthly, the consumer is assumed to have a utility function for each attribute. Fifth, the consumer arrives at attitudes (judgments, preferences) towards the brand alternatives through some evaluation procedures.[9]
Ideal-Brand Model Consumer holds an image of an ideal brand and compares actual brands with this ideal. The closer the actual brand comes to this ideal, the more it will be preferred. However, if there are attributes or price of the given brand does not fit the consumer’s ideal, the consumer will be dissatisfied with the brand. The dissatisfaction is expressed by:
where: Djk = Consumer k’s dissatisfaction with brand j Ijk = Consumer k’s ideal level of attribute i The Twenty-Eighty Rule (20/80)
where: Y = Cumulative fraction of sales. X = Cumulative fraction of items. A = A constant to be determined.
There is an alternative modeling of 20/80 Rule offered by Paul Bender:[10]
Yi and Xi are individual data pairs in the total sample size N. The value of A is determined through successive approximations. This is known as the least-square curve-fitting approach.
Taguchi Loss Function
Inconsistency in product and services result in expense, waste, loss of good will, and loss opportunity whenever the quality target is not met.
Figure 5.0: Taguchi Loss Function.
where: L = Loss in dollars per unit (cost penalty). y = Value of the quality variable. m = Target value of quality variable y. k = A constant that depends on the financial importance of quality variable.
Single-Facility Location Minimize Transportation Cost
In order to drive down cost, we seek to minimize the sum of the volume at point multiplied by the transportation rate to ship to the point multiplied by the distance to the point, which is the total transportation cost.
where: TC = Total transportation cost. Vi = Volume at point i. Ri = Transportation rate to point i. di = Distance to point I from facility to be located.
The facility location is found by solving two equations for the coordinates of the location. These center of gravity coordinates are:
and
The distance
Where K represents a scaling factor to convert one unit of coordinate index to a more common distance measure, such as miles or kilometers. The solution process involves following steps:
1. Determine X, Y coordinate points for each source of demand point, along with point volumes and linear transportation rate.
2.
Approximate the initial location from the center-of-gravity formulas by
omitting the distance term
and
3.
Using
4.
Substitute
5.
Recalculate
6.
Repeat steps 4 and 5 until either
7. Finally, calculate the total cost for the best location, if desired, by using equation [4].
Cournot Competition
The Cournot Competition is used to described industry structure. The model is named after its proponent and discoverer, Antoine Augustin Cournot (1801-1877). The model was construction from Cournot’s observation of sales competition in a spring water duopoly. The model requires the following requisites:
Under the Cournot Model, each firm attempts to maximize profits based on the belief that its output decision does not have any effect upon output decisions of its rivals. Price is a commonly known function of total output. All firms know the number of firms (N) in the market, and assume the output of others as given. The cost function of each firm is expressed as ci(qi). The cost function is a common knowledge and does not need to be proven. The cost function may be the same of different among firms. The price is set at a level such that demand equals total output of all firms. Each firm takes the quantity set by its competitors as a given, evaluates its residual demand, and then behave as a monopoly.
Figure 6.0: Cournot Duopoly Equilibrium.
The Model assumes two firms competition and the marginal cost is constant (C). The equilibrium price is:
where: p1 = Firm 1 price, p2 = firm 2 price; q1 = Firm 1 quantity; q2 = firm 2 quantity; and c = Marginal cost, identical for both firms.
The expression and conditions above implies that Firm 1’s profit is given by:
Firm 1 Residual Demand Suppose firm 1 believes that firm 2 is producing quantity q2. What is firm 1’s optimal quantity? Consider Figure 6.0. If firm 1 decides to produce nothing, then price is given by P(0+q2) = P(q2). If firm 1 decides to produce q1’ then price is given by P(q1 + q2). In general, for each quantity that firm 1 decides to produce, price is given by the curve d1(d2). The curve d1(q2) is called firm 1’s residual demand. It gives all possible combinations of firm 1’s quantity and price for a given value of q2.
Firm 1 Optimum Output In order to determine firm 1’s optimum output, first find the equilibrium points between revenue and marginal cost. In Figure 6.0, marginal cost (c) is assumed to be constant. Marginal revenue is a curve: r1(q2), with twice the slope of d1(q2) and with the same vertical intercept. The point at which the two curves (c and r(1’’(q2)) intersect corresponds to quantity q1’’(q2). Firm 1’s optimum q1’’(q2), depends on what it believes firm 2 is doing. To find the equilibrium, we derived firm 1’s optimum for other possible values of q2. Figure 7.0 considers two possible values of q2. If q2 = 0, then the first firm’s residual demand is effectively the market demand, d1(0) = D. The optimal solution is for firm 1 to choose the monopoly quantity: q1’’(0) = qm where qm is monopoly quantity. If firm 2 were to choose the quantity corresponding to perfection, q2 = qc P(qc) = c, then the optimum would be for firm 1 to produce nil: q1’’(qc) = 0. This is the point at which marginal cost intercepts the marginal revenue corresponding to d1(qc).
Figure 7.0. Optimum Output.
It can be shown that, given the linear demand and constant marginal cost, the function q1’’(q2) is linear. Because we have two points, we can draw the entire function q1’’(q2). See Figure 8.0. The axis of the graph has changed. The function q1’’(q2) is firm 1’s reaction to function; it gives firm 1’s optimal choice for each possible choice by firm 2. It gives firm 1’s choice given what it believes firm 2 is doing.
Figure 8.0. Reaction function of Firm 1. The step in finding the Cournot equilibrium is to find firm 2’s reaction function. In this case, it is symmetrical to firm 1’s reaction function because they have the same cost function. The equilibrium is the interception point of the reaction curves. See Figure 8.0.
Figure 8.0: Cournot Equilibrium is the interception between reaction functions of firms 1 and 2.
Calculating the equilibrium At all points, let the price function (duopoly) industry by P(q1 + q2) and firm I have the cost structure Ci(qi). The assumption illustrated in Figure 8.0 assumes that firms will choose to produce an output level at Nash equilibrium. To calculate the nash equilibrium, the best response function of the firm must be calculated.
The profit of firm I is revenue minus cost. Revenue is the product of price and quantity and cost is given by the firm’s cost function; therefore, profit is written as:
The best response is to find the value of qi
that maximizes
In order to attain maximization, equation [33] is set to equal zero:
The values of
EXAMPLE:
Suppose the industry has the following price structure:
The maximization problem resolves to (from the general case):
Without losing generality, consider firm 1’s problem:
By symmetry:
These are the firms’ best response functions. For any
value of
The Nash equilibrium is at
Cournot Competition with Many Firms and the Cournot Theorem
For arbitrary number of firms, N>1, the quantities and price can be derived in a manner analogous to that given above. With linear demand and identical, constant marginal cost equilibrium values are as follows:
Equation [35] expresses each individual firm’s output. Therefore, the total industry output is:
Under the above condition, the market clearing price is expressed as:
In conclusion, the Cournot Theorem states that as the number of firms in the market, N, goes to infinity, the market output, Nq, goes to competitive level and the price converges to marginal cost or to state it another way: competition leads to cheap price.
For tending towards marginal cost, the marketing clearing price is:
Figure 9.0: Cournot Competition Model
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SALES & PROFITS: E. Jerome McCarthy, Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach (Homewood, Il: Richard D. Irwin, 1981). Albert Frey, Advertising, 3rd ed. (New York: Ronald Press, 1961), p.30. William Lazer and Eugene J. Kelly, Managerial Marketing: Perspective and Viewpoints, rev. ed. (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1962), p. 413. Peter F. Drucker, Management Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. 128. Doyle L. Weiss, “Determinants of Market Share,” Journal of Marketing Research, August 1968, pp. 290-95. Donald E. Sexton, Jr. “Estimating Marketing Policy Effects on Sales of a Frequently Purchased Product,” Journal of Marketing Research, August 1970, pp. 338-47. Jean-Jacques Lambin, “A Computer On-Line Marketing Mix Model,” Journal of Marketing Research, May 1972, pp. 119-26. Russel Ackoff and James R. Emshoff, “Advertising Research at Anheuser-Busch,” Sloan Management Review, Winter 1975, pp. 1-15. Philip Kotler, “A Guide to Gathering Expert Estimates,” Business Horizons, October 1970, pp. 79-87. Gary L. Lilien and Philip Kotler, Marketing Decision Making: A Model Building Approach, 2nd ed. (New York Harper & Row, 1983). Robert Ferber and P.J. Verdoorn, Research Methods in Economics and Business, (New York: McMillan, 1962), p. 535. Robert Dorfman and Peter O. Steiner, “Optimal Advertising and Optimal Quality,” American Economic Review, December 1954, pp. 826-36. Donald C. Marchner, Theory versus Practice in Allocating Advertising Money,” Journal of Business, July 1967, pp. 286-302. Paul Stonich, Zero-Base Planning and Budgeting: Improved Cost Control and Reseource Allocation (Homewood, Ill. Dow-Jones Irwin, 1977). John C. Coldwell, “Marketing and Management Science---A Marriage on Rock?” California Management Review, Summer 1968, pp. 3-12.
MEASURING AND FORECASTING MARKETS Theodore Levitt, “The New Market---Think Before You Leap,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1969, pp. 53-68. Gary Lilien and Philip Kotler, Marketing Decision Making: A Model-Building Approach Approach (New York: Harper & Row, 1983). David E. Bell, Ralph L. Keeney, and John D.C. Little, “A Market Share Theorem,” Journal of Marketing Research, May 1975, pp. 136-41. Russell L. Ackoff, A Concept of Corporate Planning (New York: Wiley Interscience, 1970), pp. 36-37. Bob Stone, Successful Direct Marketing Methods, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Crain Books, 1979). Jacob Gonik, “Tie Salesmen’s Bonus to Their Forecasts,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1979, pp. 116-23. Norman Dalkey and Olaf Helmer, “An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts,” Management Science, April 1963, pp. 458-67. Roger J. Best, “An Experiment in Delphi Estimation in Marketing Decision Making,” Journal of Marketing Research, November 1974, pp. 447-52.
[1] Kotler, Philip, Keller, Lane (2005) "Marketing Management", Prentice Hall, Barlon, Kimuli. (2006) "The concept of the marketing mix" Presentation on marketing management, vol 1, September, 2006, pp 2-7-Turku university -Finland - The same article can also be found in: Schwartz, G. (ed), Science in Marketing, John Wiley, New York, 1965, pp 386-397 - and also in: Enis, B. and Cox, K. (1991) Marketing Classics, A selection of influential articles, Allyn and Brown, Boston, 1991, pp 361-369; Bitner, J. and Booms, B. (1981) Marketing strategies and organizational structures for service firms, in Donnelly, J. and George, W. Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, 198. [2] Lauterborn, R (1990) "New Marketing Litany: 4 Ps Passe; C words take over", Advertising Age, October 1, 1990, pg 26; McCarthy EJ (1960) Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach. Homewood IL: Irwin; McCarthy, J. (1960 1st ed.), Basic Marketing: A managerial approach, 13th ed., Irwin, Homewood Il, 2001 [3] Peter Doyle (2000), Value-based Marketing, Wiley, Chichester. [4] Koichi Shimizu, "Advertising Theory and Strategies," 14th edition, Souseisha Book Company. 2005.(Japanese); Koichi Shimizu "Symbiotic Marketing Strategy,"4th edition, Souseisha Book Company, 2003 (Japanese); Professor Koichi Shimizu: Josai University Graduate School of Business Administration, Department of Business Administration (Japan). [5] Stuart Mitchell, "Resale price maintenance and the character of resistance in the conservative party: 1949-64," Canadian Journal of History 40, no. 2 (August 2005): 259-289. [6] The constant k in net price equation: P’ = P – k, may comprise of one, more than one, or series of costs or expenses that the company may incur in order to make the sale. Therefore, the term k can be expressed in a summation format:
[7] Luis M.B. Cabral. Introduction to Industrial Organisation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2000, pp. 84-85. [8] James H. Myers and Mark L. Alpert, “Semantic Confusion in Research: Salience vs. Importance vs. Determinance,” in Advance in Consumer Research (Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Association of Consumer Research, October 1976), IV, pp. 106-10. [9] See Paul E. Green and Yoram Wind, Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing: A Measurement Approach (Hinsdale, Ill.: Dryden Press, 1973), Chap. 2; and Leigh McAlister, “Choosing Multiple Items from a Product Class,” Journal of Consumer Research, December 1979, pp. 213-24. [10] Paul S. Bender, “Mathematical Modeling of the 20/80 Rule: Theory and Practice,” Journal of Business Logistics 2, no. 2 (1981): 139-157. |
|
