Do promotions benefit manufacturers, retailers or both ?.

While there has been strong managerial and academic interest in price promotions, much of the focus has been on the impact of such promotions on category sales, brand sales and brand choice. In contrast, little is known about the long-run impact of price promotions on manufacturer and retailer revenues and margins, although both marketing researchers and practitioners consider this a priority area (Marketing Science Institute 2000). Do promotions generate additional revenue and for whom? Which brand, category and market conditions influence promotional benefits and their allocation across manufacturers and retailers?To answer these questions, we conduct a large-scale econometric investigation of the effects of price promotions on manufacturer revenues, retailer revenues and margins. This investigation proceeds in two steps. First, persistence modeling reveals the short- and long-run effects of price promotions on these performance measures. Second, weighted least-squares analysis shows to what extent brand and promotion policies, as well as market-structure and category characteristics, influence promotional impact. A first major finding of our paper is that price promotions do not have permanent monetary effects for either party. Second, in terms of the cumulative, over-time, promotional impact on their revenues, we find significant differences between the manufacturer and retailer. Price promotions have a predominantly positive impact on manufacturer revenues, but their effects on retailer revenues are mixed. Retailer (category) margins, in contrast, are typically reduced by price promotions. Even when accounting for cross-category and store-traffic effects, we still find evidence that price promotions are typically not beneficial to the retailer. Third, our results indicate that manufacturer revenue elasticities are higher for promotions of small-share brands and for frequently promoted brands. Moreover, they are higher for storable products and lower in categories with a high degree of brand proliferation. Retailer revenue elasticities, in turn, are higher for brands with frequent and shallow promotions, for storable products and in categories with a low extent of brand proliferation. As such, from a revenue-generating point of view, manufacturer and retailer interests are often aligned in terms of which categories and brands to promote. Finally, retailer margin elasticities are higher for promotions of small-share brands and for brands with infrequent and shallow promotions. Thus, the implications with respect to the frequency of promotions depend upon the performance measure the retailer chooses to emphasize. The paper discusses the managerial implications of our results for both manufacturers and retailers and suggests various avenues for future research.

Do Promotions Benefit Manufacturers, Retailers or Both?

While there has been strong managerial and academic interest in price promotions, much of the focus has been on the impact of such promotions on category sales, brand sales and brand choice. In contrast, little is known about the long-run impact of price promotions on manufacturer and retailer revenues and margins, although both marketing researchers and practitioners consider this a priority area (Marketing Science Institute 2000). Do promotions generate additional revenue and for whom? Which brand, category and market conditions influence promotional benefits and their allocation across manufacturers and retailers?To answer these questions, we conduct a large-scale econometric investigation of the effects of price promotions on manufacturer revenues, retailer revenues and margins. This investigation proceeds in two steps. First, persistence modeling reveals the short- and long-run effects of price promotions on these performance measures. Second, weighted least-squares analysis shows to what extent brand and promotion policies, as well as market-structure and category characteristics, influence promotional impact. A first major finding of our paper is that price promotions do not have permanent monetary effects for either party. Second, in terms of the cumulative, over-time, promotional impact on their revenues, we find significant differences between the manufacturer and retailer. Price promotions have a predominantly positive impact on manufacturer revenues, but their effects on retailer revenues are mixed. Retailer (category) margins, in contrast, are typically reduced by price promotions. Even when accounting for cross-category and store-traffic effects, we still find evidence that price promotions are typically not beneficial to the retailer. Third, our results indicate that manufacturer revenue elasticities are higher for promotions of small-share brands and for frequently promoted brands. Moreover, they are higher for storable products and lower in categories with a high degree of brand proliferation. Retailer revenue elasticities, in turn, are higher for brands with frequent and shallow promotions, for storable products and in categories with a low extent of brand proliferation. As such, from a revenue-generating point of view, manufacturer and retailer interests are often aligned in terms of which categories and brands to promote. Finally, retailer margin elasticities are higher for promotions of small-share brands and for brands with infrequent and shallow promotions. Thus, the implications with respect to the frequency of promotions depend upon the performance measure the retailer chooses to emphasize. The paper discusses the managerial implications of our results for both manufacturers and retailers and suggests various avenues for future research.empirical generalizations;category management;long-term profitability;sales promotions;vector-autoregressive models

Do Promotions Benefit Manufacturers, Retailers or Both?

While there has been strong managerial and academic interest in price promotions, much of the focus has been on the impact of such promotions on category sales, brand sales and brand choice. In contrast, little is known about the long-run impact of price promotions on manufacturer and retailer revenues and margins, although both marketing researchers and practitioners consider this a priority area (Marketing Science Institute 2000). Do promotions generate additional revenue and for whom? Which brand, category and market conditions influence promotional benefits and their allocation across manufacturers and retailers? To answer these questions, we conduct a large-scale econometric investigation of the effects of price promotions on manufacturer revenues, retailer revenues and margins. This investigation proceeds in two steps. First, persistence modeling reveals the short- and long-run effects of price promotions on these performance measures. Second, weighted least-squares analysis shows to what extent brand and promotion policies, as well as market-structure and category characteristics, influence promotional impact. A first major finding of our paper is that price promotions do not have permanent monetary effects for either party. Second, in terms of the cumulative, over-time, promotional impact on their revenues, we find significant differences between the manufacturer and retailer. Price promotions have a predominantly positive impact on manufacturer revenues, but their effects on retailer revenues are mixed. Retailer (category) margins, in contrast, are typically reduced by price promotions. Even when accounting for cross-category and store-traffic effects, we still find evidence that price promotions are typically not beneficial to the retailer. Third, our results indicate that manufacturer revenue elasticities are higher for promotions of small-share brands and for frequently promoted brands. Moreover, they are higher for storable products and lower in categories with a high degree of brand proliferation. Retailer revenue elasticities, in turn, are higher for brands with frequent and shallow promotions, for storable products and in categories with a low extent of brand proliferation. As such, from a revenue-generating point of view, manufacturer and retailer interests are often aligned in terms of which categories and brands to promote. Finally, retailer margin elasticities are higher for promotions of small-share brands and for brands with infrequent and shallow promotions. Thus, the implications with respect to the frequency of promotions depend upon the performance measure the retailer chooses to emphasize. The paper discusses the managerial implications of our results for both manufacturers and retailers and suggests various avenues for future research

Do Promotions Benefit Manufacturers, Retailers or Both?

While there has been strong managerial and academic interest in price promotions, much of the focus has been on the impact of such promotions on category sales, brand sales and brand choice. In contrast, little is known about the long-run impact of price promotions on manufacturer and retailer revenues and margins, although both marketing researchers and practitioners consider this a priority area (Marketing Science Institute 2000). Do promotions generate additional revenue and for whom? Which brand, category and market conditions influence promotional benefits and their allocation across manufacturers and retailers? To answer these questions, we conduct a large-scale econometric investigation of the effects of price promotions on manufacturer revenues, retailer revenues and margins. This investigation proceeds in two steps. First, persistence modeling reveals the short- and long-run effects of price promotions on these performance measures. Second, weighted least-squares analysis shows to what extent brand and promotion policies, as well as market-structure and category characteristics, influence promotional impact. A first major finding of our paper is that price promotions do not have permanent monetary effects for either party. Second, in terms of the cumulative, over-time, promotional impact on their revenues, we find significant differences between the manufacturer and retailer. Price promotions have a predominantly positive impact on manufacturer revenues, but their effects on retailer revenues are mixed. Retailer (category) margins, in contrast, are typically reduced by price promotions. Even when accounting for cross-category and store-traffic effects, we still find evidence that price promotions are typically not beneficial to the retailer. Third, our results indicate that manufacturer revenue elasticities are higher for promotions of small-share brands and for frequently promoted brands. Moreover, they are higher for storable products and lower in categories with a high degree of brand proliferation. Retailer revenue elasticities, in turn, are higher for brands with frequent and shallow promotions, for storable products and in categories with a low extent of brand proliferation. As such, from a revenue-generating point of view, manufacturer and retailer interests are often aligned in terms of which categories and brands to promote. Finally, retailer margin elasticities are higher for promotions of small-share brands and for brands with infrequent and shallow promotions. Thus, the implications with respect to the frequency of promotions depend upon the performance measure the retailer chooses to emphasize. The paper discusses the managerial implications of our results for both manufacturers and retailers and suggests various avenues for future research

Solid feed provision reduces fecal clostridial excretion in veal calves

Enterotoxemia is characterized by a highly fatal hemorrhagic enteritis in cattle, caused by Clostridium perfringens. Production systems with intensive feeding, such as the veal industry, are predisposed. The primary objective of this study was to determine the effect of solid feed provision on fecal C. perfringens excretion in veal calves. Ten Holstein Friesian bull veal calves were randomly assigned to one of two test diets. Group I received solemnly milk replacer twice daily, while group 2 received milk replacer and a maximum of 300g solid feed/day, consisting of a mixture of 30% barley, 30% corn, 30% hulled wheat and 10% chopped straw. The number of C. perfringens per g feces or fecal clostridia! counts (FCC) were determined for all calves. Mean FCC were significantly lower in the calves fed milk replacer and solid feed, than in the calves fed solemnly milk replacer. Although the correlation between FCC and enterotoxemia risk remains to be determined, the provision of solid feed to veal calves reduced clostridial excretion, which might contribute to the prevention of this disease

Product innovations, advertising, and stock returns

Under increased scrutiny from top management and shareholders, marketing managers feel the need to measure and communicate the impact of their actions on shareholder returns. In particular, how do customer value creation (through product innovation) and customer value communication (through marketing investments) affect stock returns? This article examines, conceptually and empirically, how product innovations and marketing investments for such product innovations lift stock returns by improving the outlook on future cash flows. The authors address these questions with a large-scale econometric analysis of product innovation and associated marketing mix in the automobile industry. They find that adding such marketing actions to the established finance benchmark model greatly improves the explained variance in stock returns. In particular, investors react favorably to companies that launch pioneering innovations, that have higher perceived quality, that are backed by substantial advertising support, and that are in large and growing categories. Finally, the authors quantify and compare the stock return benefits of several managerial control variables. The results highlight the stock market benefits of pioneering innovations. Compared with minor updates, pioneering innovations have an impact on stock returns that is seven times greater, and their advertising support is nine times more effective as well. Perceived quality of the new car introduction improves the firm’s stock returns, but customer liking does not have a statistically significant effect.Promotional incentives have a negative effect on stock returns, indicating that price promotions may be interpreted as a signal of demand weakness. Managers can combine these return estimates with internal data on project costs to help decide the appropriate mix of product innovation and marketing investment.pre-prin

Stereotactic cyst aspiration directly followed by Gamma Knife radiosurgery for large cystic brain metastases

Background: Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) has been proven to be a successful primary treatment for metastatic brain tumors (BM). BM can come in cystic lesions and are often too large for GKRS. An alternative approach to treat cystic BM is stereotactic cyst aspiration (SCA) for volume reduction, making it suitable for GKRS afterwards. Objective: Our objective is evaluation of volumetric reduction after SCA, tumor control, and complications after SCA directly followed by GKRS. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent SCA directly followed by GKRS at the Gamma Knife Center of the Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital in Tilburg between 2002 and 2015. In total, 54 patients had undergone this combined approach. Two patients were excluded because of prior intracranial treatment. The other 52 patients were included for analysis. Results: SCA resulted in a mean volumetric reduction of 56.5% (range 5.50–87.00%). In 83.6% of the tumors (46 tumors), SCA led to sufficient volumetric reduction making GKRS possible. The overall local tumor control (OLTC) of the aspirated lesions post-GKRS was 60.9% (28 out of 46 tumors). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for all patients were 3 (range 5 days–14 months) and 12 months (range 5 days–58 months), respectively. Leptomeningeal disease was reported in 5 (9.6%) cases. Conclusion: SCA directly followed by GKRS is an effective and time-efficient treatment for large cystic BM in selected patients in which surgery is contraindicated and those with deeply located lesions