Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 20.1
(continued)
Model
Endogeneity
Heterogeneity
Type of data
Key fi ndings
Hahn et al. (
1994
)
Diffusion
Not accommodated
Accommodated
Monthly, 21 brands in
seven categories, US
Promotion is positively related to trial rate
for most brands. The size of the effect
is positively related to market growth
and product quality attributes
Kolsarici and
Vakratsas (
2010
)
Augmented
Kalman
fi lter
Not accommodated
Not relevant
Monthly, one drug in a new
category, non-US
Brand advertising messages are more
effective than category advertising
messages. Average elasticities are:
0.12 (detailing), 0.04 (physician
journal advertising), 0.05 (brand
advertising), 0.04 (category
advertising)
Leefl ang et al. (
1992
)
Regression
Not accommodated
Not relevant
Monthly, one drug in the
hypnotics and sedatives
category, UK
Detailing more effective than journal
advertising and direct mail
Leefl ang and
Wieringa (
2010
)
Regression
Not accommodated
Accommodated
Monthly, 49 brands in fi ve
categories, The
Netherlands
Large degree of heterogeneity in
promotional effects. Detailing effects
only signifi cant and positive for 10 %
of the brands, this percentage is 6 %
for journal advertising and 4 % for
direct mail. Marketing expenditures do
not affect the price elasticity
Leffl er (
1981
)
Regression
Not accommodated
Not accommodated
Cross-sectional data from
51 new products in 35
categories
Detailing has a signifi cant positive effect
on the entry success of therapeutically
important new drugs
Lilien et al. (
1981
)
Diffusion
Not accommodated
Accommodated
Quarterly, two drugs in
different categories, US
Heterogeneity in detailing effectiveness
among products; optimal level depends
on stage in life cycle
Search WWH ::
Custom Search