A reflection on analytical work in marketing: Three points of consensus

  • Raphael Thomadsen
  • , Robert Zeithammer
  • , Ganesh Iyer
  • , Dina Mayzlin
  • , Yesim Orhun
  • , Amit Pazgal
  • , Devavrat Purohit
  • , Ram Rao
  • , Michael Riordan
  • , Jiwoong Shin
  • , Monic Sun
  • , Miguel Villas-Boas

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    4 Scopus citations

    Abstract

    This article presents three points of consensus about game-theoretic work in marketing: First, equilibrium analysis is necessary for studying situations that have strategic interactions. In many cases, empirical examination of these strategic scenarios is difficult or impossible, at least without the guidance of an equilibrium model. Second, more general models are not necessarily "better," because institutional details matter. Thus, the appropriate compromise between generality and specificity depends on the scope of the research question. Finally, there should be a two-way road between theory and empirics-theory is necessary to interpret empirical results, while empirical findings should guide theoretical modeling choices.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)381-389
    Number of pages9
    JournalMarketing Letters
    Volume23
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jun 2012

    Keywords

    • Analytical work
    • Equilibrium analysis
    • Game theory
    • Marketing

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'A reflection on analytical work in marketing: Three points of consensus'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this