670 likes | 855 Views
Basic Price Optimization. Lecture 5. The Price Response Curve , d(p ). How demand for a product varies as a function of price A function for each element in the PRO cube – each combination of product , market-segment and channel Similar to market demand function in economics
E N D
Basic PriceOptimization Lecture 5
ThePriceResponseCurve, d(p) • Howdemandfora productvariesas a functionofprice • A functionforeach element inthe PRO cube – eachcombinationofproduct, market-segment and channel • Similarto market demandfunctionineconomics • E.g. differentbooksellers – effectivenessof marketing campaigns, perceivedcustomerdifferencesinquality, productdifferences, locationetc.
E.g. wheat – a commodity, indifferenceamongofferings, perfectknowledgeaboutprices and willbuyonlyfromthelowest-price seller • Each seller isrelativelysmall • Must onlyworryabouthowmuchtoproduce • No need forPricing and RevenueOptimization
Propertiesofprice-responsecurve • PRO decisionshavetimeassociatedwiththem – minutes/hoursinecommerce, days/weeksinretail, longerasinlong-termcontractpricing • Nonnegative • Continuous – no gapsorjumps, thusinvertible • Differentiable – cantake a derivative • Downwardsloping
Forthe rest wewillignore: • Giffengoods– a studentwithan $8 budgetperweekfordinner; burger $1 and steak $2, the latter beingeaten on Sundays; thepriceofburgergoesupto $1.1 – and itsdemandgoesupto 7; VERY rareinreality • Priceasanindicatorofquality– wine: a market withmanyalternatives and some „lazy“ buyers, whousepriceas a proxy • Conspicuousconsumption – a rock stardrinking $300 bottlesofCristalchampagne and driveBentleys
Pricesensitivity: slope, a localestimator • Semiconductors, currentprice $0.13 perchip, slope 1000 chips/weekpercent; 2 centincrease -= 2000 chipsperweek; 3 centdecrease+= 3000 chipsperweek; depends on units – pounds and cents vs. tons and dollars
Pricesensitivity: elasticity, a localestimator, arc and pointelasticity • Percentagechangeindemandtothepercentagechangeinprice; doesnotdepend on units
Semiconductors, currentprice $0.13 perchip, at 10000 chipspermonth; thinkshispriceelasticityis 1.5 • Thus, a 15% increaseinprice, from $0.13 to $0.15, wouldleadto a decreaseindemandofabout 1.5*15%=22.5%: from 10000 to 7750
Short and longrunelasticity • Gasoline – shortrun 0.2, longrun 0.7; similarmilk – 20c pricerise and longrunresponse • Durables (suchasautomobiles and washingmachines) – longrunelasticityislowerthanshort-run • Levelofanalysis – market orcompany
Willingnesstopay • Maximumforonecustomer–thereservationprice
A uniformwillingness-to-paydistributioncorrespondsto a linearprice-responsefunction
Partitionsthepriceresponsefunctioninto a total-demandcomponent and a willingness-to-paycomponent • E.g. totaldemandvariesseasonally, whilethewtpdistributionremainsconstantovertheperiodoftime • Wedecomposeourgoalintoestimatingtotaldemand and estimatingthepriceresponse • Anadvertisingcampaignwillnotincreasethetotalpopulation, butwillshiftwtpdistribution • Whenweopen a newstore, thetotaldemandwillbedeterminedbythepopulationserved, butwecanusewtpfromsimilardemographicspopulations
Wtpcanchange – e.g. temperaturesensitive Coca-Cola vendingmachines • A suddenwindfallor a bigraisemayincreaseanindividual’smaximumwtp – ifthese are uncorralatedpopulationwillbeunchangedas a whole, butsystematicchangeswillhavetheprice-responsefunctionshifting • Doesnotincorporateadditionalinduceddemand – pricereductionmayhaveonebuyingtwopairsofsocks • Wtpframeworkisbetterfor „bigticket“ consumeritems and industrialgoods
Linearwtp • Isnot a realisticglobalmodel • If a competitoroffers a closesubstitute, itwillonlyworkclosetothe market price
C is a parameter: d(1) = C Thesetwo– 3.10 fromabove, secondfromwtpslide nr 13
Constantelasticityprice-responsefunctions • Not a realisticglobalmodel – inrealityweexpectelisticitytochangeaspricechanges • If e<1 (inelasticdemand) R’(p)>0, seller canincreaserevenuebyincreasingprice • If e>1, seller canincreaserevenuebydecreasingprice • If e=1 thenpricechangedoesnotchangerevenue • Wtpfunctionishighlyconcentratednearzero • Assumes, thatthedistributionofwtp drops steadilyaspriceincreases, butonlyapproaches 0
Whatis a realisticprice-responsefunction? • Carwith market priceof $13000 • At $20k a fewloyalcustomerwillbuy • … and thereis no bigchangefrom $20k->$21k • Ifwe are selling at $9k, almosteveryone, whowantstobuy a compactcar, willbuyfromus (exceptthefewveryloyalto a competitor) • … and thereis no bigchangefrom $9k->$8k • But at aboutthe market price, elasticityishigh • At market price, manymorewillbuyfromus, whenwe are selling at $250 below, and evenmorewillshift, ifweask $500 belowthe market price
b =0.0005; 0.001; 0.01; p=$13000; • Pricesensitivityisthehighest at p^=-(a/b) • Wewillfix p^=$13000, thus a=-$13000*b • C isthe market size=20000 • As b grows, the market ismorepricesensitive, approachingperfectcompetition
Empiricalresearchhasshownthelogitfunctiontobe present on a wide range ofmarkets
Priceresponsewithcompetition • IncorporatingCompetitoninthePrice-ResponseFunction • Oftentheprices are notavailableat thetime • Inbusiness-to-businessmarketsthey are never made visibletothecompetition • Retailersdonothavethetimeorresourcestodoexhaustiveresearch on a dailybasis • BUT price-responsefunctionwillbebased on history and thusitalreadyincludes „typical“ competitivepricing
2) Consumer-ChoiceModeling • E.g. OnlinePetroleumInformation System • Differentgradesofpetroleumofferedbydifferentsellersin all major marketsin USA and Canada • Differentwtp’srepresentthevaluesthat are placed on features and „brandvalue“ associatedwitheachproduct • Surplusisthedifferencebetweentheprice and thewtp
Let p(p1,p2,..,pn) – vectorofprices • Letμi bethe market shareofproduct i • μi=fi(p) for all i • Eachalternativehas a sharebetween 0 and 1 • Eachbuyerchoosesoneproduct • Increaseinpricedecreasesthe market share • Increasingthepriceof a productincreasesthe market sharesof all competitors (substitutes)
Themultinominallogit, b beingpricesensitivity • NotethatKoshibaishighlysensitive and getsa low market sharewhencomparedtoCacophonia, whichistwiceasexpensive
Themultinominallogit and thelogitprice-responsefunction • Whenotherprices are constantthe MNL reducesto LPRF • Assumethatotherprices are constant, weset: • Wherea=ln(k) and weknowthat: 1/K=e^(-lnK)
Tostatetheimportant • Ifcompetitiveprices are stable MNL provideslittlepredictivevalueover LPRF • Thereis a vast literature on consumer-choicemodeling; Statisticalpackagessuchas SAS includeproceduresforestimatingtheparametersofthelogit and probitmarket-sharefunctions • Butthere are weaknesses, namely: ….
Weaknesses • Assumption: everyonepurchasesonealternative; whatifsomedon’tpurchase at all – sincetheirwtpisbelow all prices? Thuswecannotsaythat market size D isindependentofthepricesoffered: anaggressivediscountnotonlysiphonscustomersawayfromcompetitors, butwillalsomakesomeonepay, whomightnothavepurchased at all
Wetheoretically need information on all alternatives, whereasusuallyonlysome major competitors are considered • A solutionhereistoderive a competitiveindexpricebyweightingthepricesof major competitors and usingthisas a singlecompetitivepriceinmultinominallogit
Priceresponsewithcompetition3)Anticipating competitiveresponse • Morestrategically: ifwedrop a price, willthecompetitorsmatch; ifweraise a price – onceagain, whatwillthecompetitorsdo? • Theapproachesherefallunderdecisionanalysis and gametheory – and thereis a vast literature on theuseofgametheoryinstrategicpricing, butwe are concideringtacticaldecisionsof PRO
Forexampleifcustomersin a market choose a supplierbased on MNL priceresponsemodel, thenouractionistomaximizeourexpectedcontributiongiventhecompetitorspricesbysettingourprice • The philosophy of pricing and revenue optimization is to make money by many small adjustments, searching for and vacuuming up small and transient puddles of profit as they appear in the marketplace
Manyofthepriceadjustmentswillfallbelowthe radar screenofthecompetition, and willnottriggeranyexplicitresponse • Butpotentialretaliationsbycompetitorsshouldstillbeconsidered: e.g. Hertzintheearly 1990s bycommunicatingitsupcomingsophisticated PRO systeminthepricewareagercarrentalindustry – itwasabletogenerateadditionalrevenuethroughthousandsofsmalladjustmentstoprices, thatthecompetitorswereunabletomatch
Incrementalcosts • The incremental cost of a customer commitment is the difference between the total costs a company would experience if it makes the commitment and the total cost it would experience if it doesn’t.
Examples • Anairline: additionalmeal and fuelcost + commissionsor fees paid forbooking • A retailer – buying a stockoffashiongoods: zero • A drugstore – ordering a number ofbottlesofshampooweekly: wholesaleunitcost • A distributor – biddingfor a yearlycontractwith a hospital: expectedcostofpurchases, butalsocostofcustomerservice, operatingcosts and holding costsduetovarianceinorders and thereturns
Theincrementalcosts are (closelyrelatedto ABC): • Forward looking: somecosts are sunk, othershavestilltobe made • Marginal: made forthiscustomer, maynotbethesameastheaveragecostofsimilarpastcommitment • Notfullyallocated: nottheoverheadorfixedcostofstayinginbusiness • Candepend on thetype, size and durationofthecommitment: for a multiunit order setupcosts are allocatedacross all theunits • Maybeuncertain: Roadway Express, a truckingcompany – covering all thefreighttenderedbythecustomer at anagreed-ontariff
Thebasicpriceoptimizationproblem, tomaximizethemargin, m(p) totalcontribution; c isincrementalcost
Marginalrevenue (derivativeoftotalrevenuewithrespecttoprice) shouldequalmarginalcost (alwaysnegative) – totalcontributionismaximized
Price-responsefunction d(p)=10000-800p • Incrementalcost $5 • Marginalrevenue R’(p)=10000-1600p • Marginalcost = -$4000 • P*=$8.75
Ifmarginalrevenueisgreaterthanmarginalcost, contributioncanbeincreasedbyincreasingprice • Ifmarginalrevenueislowerthanmarginalcosts, priceshouldbedecreased – in order toincreasecontribution
Optimalcontributionmargin and elasticity • Wecanrewrite 3.17 as 3.20, wheree(p) ispointelasticity; sincethesecond term in 3.20 isalwayspositive: • Ifelasticity at ourpriceis <1, wecanincreasetotalcontributionbyincreasingprice