Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
over the past decades (e.g., Manchanda and Honka
2005
; Fischer and Albers
2010
).
In this chapter, we compile and analyze these relevant econometric studies over past
decades to provide up-to-date empirical generalizations about the magnitude and
determinants of detailing elasticity, a valuable quantitative measure of detailing
effectiveness.
The value of meta-analyses of the type we propose to theory development and
management is well established in the marketing literature (e.g., Farley et al.
1995
;
Hanssens
2009
; Henningsen et al.
2011
). The usefulness of deriving a meta-analytic
estimate of the
elasticity
, i.e., the ratio of the percentage change in output (say,
dollar or unit sales) to the corresponding percentage change in selling effort (e.g.,
dollar expenditures), as the metric of selling effectiveness is also well established.
Specifi cally, the elasticity measure is favored in such meta-analyses because it is
dimensionless and easily interpretable (Sethuraman et al.
2011
; Tellis
1988
, p. 332).
So far, however, research on drawing out generalized quantitative estimates of the
effectiveness of detailing from the body of past-related individual econometric
studies is limited. In a recent paper Albers et al. (AMS) (
2010
) conducted a meta-
analysis of personal selling elasticities from numerous econometric studies across
multiple industries including pharmaceuticals. Based on an analysis of their data,
they provide a rough estimate of mean detailing elasticity, uncorrected for methods
bias, of 0.245 in the pharma industry compared to a mean of 0.34 for personal sell-
ing elasticities from all-industry settings. The AMS (
2010
) work, however, was not
focused on the pharma industry and does not include several important studies of
pharma detailing effectiveness that have appeared since it was completed (e.g.,
Bhatia and Le
2011
; Dave and Saffer
2010
; Fischer et al.
2011
; Gönül and Carter
2010
; Kolsarici and Vakratsas
2010
; Nair et al.
2010
; Osinga et al.
2010
). Another
meta-analysis paper by Kremer et al. (
2008
) is focused on the pharma industry but
is concerned with several types of pharma promotions including detailing.
Furthermore, their meta-analytic estimates of detailing elasticity suffer from several
shortcomings that have been discussed by AMS (
2010
). Thus, there remains a need
for a comprehensive, up-to-date meta-analysis focused on pharma detailing elastici-
ties to develop empirical generalizations that can guide pharma industry sales exec-
utives as they rethink their promotion strategies today. In this chapter, we specifi cally
concentrate on empirical generalizations with respect to
current period
(or short-
term) detailing elasticity that can guide pharma executives' detailing investments in
different market settings.
The total number of current-period detailing elasticity estimates from past econo-
metric research compiled and analyzed in this chapter is 373, signifi cantly larger
than the number of 284 detailing elasticities included in the AMS (
2010
) analysis.
The major qualitative fi ndings from the focused meta-analysis in this chapter are
fairly consistent with the fi ndings of AMS (
2010
), but there are some exceptions
and signifi cant quantitative differences. In particular, the raw mean estimate of
detailing elasticity that we fi nd is about 0.21, perceptibly lower in magnitude than
the raw mean of 0.245 for personal selling in pharma settings reported by AMS
(
2010
). The seemingly small difference implies signifi cant differences in optimal
levels of detailing efforts—as shown later in this paper.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search