Substitution between Mass-Produced and High-End …aic.ucdavis.edu/cwe/McCluskey.pdf ·...
-
Upload
nguyencong -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
3
Transcript of Substitution between Mass-Produced and High-End …aic.ucdavis.edu/cwe/McCluskey.pdf ·...
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 1
Substitution between Mass-Produced
and High-End Beers
Daniel Toro-Gonzalez Ph.D. candidate, School of Economic Sciences (SES)
Jill J. McCluskey Visiting Professor, Cornell University and
Professor, SES, Washington State University and
Ron C. Mittelhammer Regents Professor, SES & Dept. of Statistics
Presented at Beeronomics Symposium UC Davis
November 3, 2011
2
Macro Brews Dominate many U.S.
Markets
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 2
However, This is Changing
•Mass producers’ market share
still represents the vast majority
of sales, but their sales are flat
or declining.
• Trend of consumers switching
from mass to craft beers.
•Consistent with general shift in
food preferences:
Increasing desire for variety,
taste, and local products.
We know that consumers shift from
macro to craft brews. Does it go the
other way?
• “…consumers are very loyal to craft
beers and not shifting to macro
from craft. In economics terms the
cross-price elasticity of craft and
macro brews appears to be very
inelastic, or that beer drinker do
not think of macro lagers as a good
substitute for micro brews.”
- “Beeronomics: Is Craft Beer Recession Proof After All ?” ,
The Oregon Economics Blog, Thursday, May 7, 2009.
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 3
Project Objectives
•Estimate demand for beer, which is a
differentiated product.
•Estimate the own-price, cross-price and income
elasticities.
Data
• Scanner data from 60
Dominick's supermarkets
in Chicago.
• Seven years of store-level
weekly sales data (1991
to 1997)
• 483UPCs for 343 brands.
• Product info and store
area sociodemographics
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 4
Market and Product Definition
• Oligopolistic differentiated product market.
• Each store is treated as an independent market.
• Each brand of beer is considered as a product.
Types of Beer
1. Mass produced beers are
defined as those with similar
characteristics of lightness,
same fermentation method
(bottom fermenting yeast) and
the use of adjuncts such as
corn or rice.
2. Import beers are those
produced abroad.
3. The rest of the beers are called
craft beers.
8
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 5
Number of Firms
• Long term secular decline in traditional breweries
• Rapid expansion in specialty breweries since 1980
Market Shares by Beer Type
Sample Averages for Dominick Stores
Type Share Price Per Bottle
Craft 5.3% 0.80
Mass 86.4% 0.54
Import 8.2% 0.95
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 6
Discrete Choice Model Issues
• Model weekly aggregate sales at each store, by
beer type
• Address dimensionality problem (large number
of underlying products) by projecting the
products onto a characteristics space.
• Market characterized by differentiated products.
• Prices may be correlated with unobserved
demand factors, causing endogeneity problem.
Discrete Choice Model
•
),,,,( dijjj vpxU
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 7
Observable Variables
Observed product characteristics:
–Size of the bottle
–Alcohol content
–Type (Mass, Craft, Import)
–Style (Ale, Fruit, Low Alcohol, Oktoberfest, Seasonal,
Smoked, Steam, Stout, Wheat)
Price
Observed consumer characteristics:
–Household income, home value, household size,
education (% college graduates), ethnicity (%
blacks+hispanics)
( , , )j j jx p
Discrete Choice Model
ij j j j iju z p
• Linear specification of utility
• where
• j is interpreted as the mean of consumers’
valuations of unobserved product characteristics
(product quality).
• Error term encompasses the distribution of
consumer preferences around j .
• Errors are i.i.d. with “extreme value” distribution,
resulting in a multinomial logit formulation.
j j jz x
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 8
Mean Utility Representation
• Simply using dj to represent the mean utility
for product j , which is defined as
everything other than the error term:
j j j jz pd
ij j iju d
Multinomial Logit
• The market share of product j is then
expressible in term of dj :
N
0k
δ
δ
j
k
j
e
es )(d
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 9
Multinomial Logit
•Assuming the relationship between
observed and predicted market shares is
invertible, with the mean utility of the
outside good (all other than beers)
normalized to zero,
•Prices and unobserved product attributes
are correlated Endogeneity.
0ln( ) ln( )j j j j js s z pd
Instrument for Prices
•Prices in other markets? (Hausman, 1996).
Prices of brand j in two markets will be
correlated due to the common marginal
cost.
But prices in other markets uncorrelated
with the market-specific unobserved
product characteristics.
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 10
Variable \ Method MNL MNL-IV
Price -9.10E-06 *** -0.283 ***
0.000 0.012
Size 9.11E-06 *** 0.054 ***
0.000 0.002
Alcohol -2.63E-06 *** 0.029 ***
0.000 0.010
Craft -1.77E-05 *** -0.319 ***
0.000 0.024
Import -1.74E-05 *** -0.202 ***
0.000 0.026
Ethnic 8.22E-06 0.139 ***
0.000 0.047
Education -2.51E-05 0.217
0.000 0.155
Household Size -7.90E-06 -0.179 ***
0.000 0.030
Incomes 6.85E-08 0.002 ***
0.000 0.000
Observations 12066 12066
R2 0.201 0.438
Legend: * p<.1; ** p<.05; *** p<.01.
MNL: Ignores
endogeneity
of prices.
MNL-IV: Prices in
other markets
as IV for
Price.
Problem with MNL
• Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA).
Example, if a consumer wants to try a beer that
is an American lager, he/she may consider
alternatives like Coors light or Bud Light, but
he will not consider any Stout type of beer.
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 11
Nested Logit Model
• The NL preserves the assumption that
consumer tastes are extreme value
distributed.
•Allows consumer tastes to be correlated
across products.
•More reasonable substitution patterns than
in the previous model (a priori).
Nested Logit Model
•We divide the products into g different
exhaustive and mutually exclusive
groups.
• is common to all products in group g.
• (1-σ) is the average correlation in the
random utility across products of the
same group.
ij j jg iju (1 )d
j j j jz pd
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 12
Nested Logit Model
• Berry (1994) shows that if the errors are
i.i.d. extreme value then:
it is also distributed as a extreme value.
jg ij(1 )
Nested Logit Model
•We can represent the NL model as:
where σ measures average similarity of
products within each group of beer types.
The new term is the log of the within group
share.
0 /ln( ) ln( ) ln( )j j j j j g js s z p sd
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 13
Variable / Method MNL MNL-IV NL-IV
Price -9.10E-06 *** -0.283 *** -0.229 ***
0.000 0.012 0.011
Size 9.11E-06 *** 0.054 *** 0.006 ***
0.000 0.002 0.001
Alcohol -2.63E-06 *** 0.029 *** 0.060 ***
0.000 0.010 0.008
Craft -1.77E-05 *** -0.319 *** -5.253 ***
0.000 0.024 0.040
Import -1.74E-05 *** -0.202 *** -5.122 ***
0.000 0.026 0.040
Ethnic 8.22E-06 0.139 *** 0.090 ***
0.000 0.047 0.035
Education -2.51E-05 0.217 -0.130
0.000 0.155 0.110
Household Size -7.90E-06 -0.179 *** -0.087 ***
0.000 0.030 0.022
Incomes 6.85E-08 0.002 *** 0.002 ***
0.000 0.000 0.000
σ(Average across g) 0.892 ***
0.000
Observations 12066 12066 12066
R2 0.201 0.438 0.716
Legend: * p<.1; ** p<.05; *** p<.01.
Price Elasticities
Mass Craft Import Over All
Mass -0.1223 0.0004 0.0002
Craft 0.0028 -0.3168 0.0013
Import 0.0004 0.0008 -0.1566
Over All -0.1715
Source: Dominik’s dataset, calculations by the authors.
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 14
Compare with Other Findings
Source: Table 2.2. Tremblay and Tremblay (2005).
Source Price Elasticity
Hogarty and Elzinga 1972 -0.889
Orstein and Hanssens 1985 -0.142
Tegene 1990 -0.768
Lee and Tremblay 1992 -0.583
Gallet and List 1998 -0.730
Nelson 1999 -0.200
Nelson 2003 -0.174
This study -0.172
Income Elasticities
Source: Dominik’s dataset,
calculations by the authors.
Elasticity
Mass 0.257
Craft 0.434
Import 0.460
Over All 0.260
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 15
Price Elasticities: Other Findings
Source: Table 2.2. Tremblay and Tremblay (2005).
Source Income Elasticity
Hogarty and Elzinga 1972 0.430
Orstein and Hanssens 1985 0.011
Tegene 1990 0.731
Lee and Tremblay 1992 0.135
Gallet and List 1998 -0.545
Nelson 1999 0.760
Nelson 2003 -0.032
This study 0.260
Conclusions
•Demand for beer is inelastic
with respect to prices.
•Cross-price elasticities are
very close to zero.
Mass and craft beers are not
close substitutes!
• From the income elasticities,
all of the types of beer (mass,
craft, and import) are normal
goods.
11/8/2011
Template C Plain-crimson-bright 16
Next Steps
•Estimate the model using a random
coefficients specification for utility.
•Allow for consumer heterogeneity.
•Consumer characteristics can interact with
product attributes.
•Examine other formulations/instruments to
tackle endogeneity between price and
unobserved product characteristics.
Thank you and Cheers!
Questions? (pictures from the
Beeronomics Conference, Belgium May 2009)