throbber
Market Share Rewards to Pioneering Brands: An Empirical Analysis and Strategic
`Market Share Rewards to Pioneering Brands: An Empirical Analysis and Strategic
`Implications
`Implications
`
`
`
`Glen L. Urban; Theresa Carter; Steven Gaskin; Zofia Mucha
`Glen L. Urban; Theresa Carter; Steven Gaskin; Zofia Mucha
`
`Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 6. (Jun., 1986), pp. 645-659.
`Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 6. (Jun., 1986), pp. 645-659.
`
`Stable URL:
`Stable URL:
`
`htt ://links.'stor.or /sici?sici=0025—1909%28198606%2932%3A6%3C645%3AMSRTPB%3E2.0.C0%3B2—8
`http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-1909%28198606%2932%3A6%3C645%3AMSRTPB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
`
`Management Science is currently published by INFORMS.
`Management Science is currently published by INFORMS.
`
`Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
`Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
`http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
`http://www.j stor.org/about/terms .ht1n1. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
`prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
`prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
`the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
`the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non—commercial use.
`
`Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
`Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
`http://www.jstor.org/journals/informs.html.
`http ://www .j stor.org/journals/informs.ht1n1.
`
`Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
`Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
`page of such transmission.
`page of such transmission.
`
`The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
`The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long—term preservation and access to leading academic
`journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
`journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
`and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
`and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not—for—profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
`advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
`advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@j stor.org.
`
`http://www.jstor.org
`http://www.jstor.org
`Sun Oct 21 15:50:18 2007
`Sun Oct 21 15:50:18 2007
`IMMUNOGEN 2248, pg. 1
`Phigenix v. Immunogen
`|PR2014-00676
`
`IMMUNOGEN 2248, pg. 1
`Phigenix v. Immunogen
`IPR2014-00676
`
`

`
`MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
`
`Vol. 32, No. 6, June 1986
`
`Prrnted in U.S.A.
`
`
`MARKET SHARE REWARDS TO PIONEERING BRANDS:
`
`AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
`
`AND STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS*
`
`
`GLEN L. URBAN, THERESA CARTER, STEVEN GASKIN
`
`AND ZOFIA MUCHA
`
`Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
`
`Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
`
`International Business Machines, Greensboro, North Carolina 27407
`
`Information Resources Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts 02254
`
`McKinsey & Co., New York, New York 10022
`
`
`An empirical analysis indicates that the order of entry of a brand into a consumer product
`category is inversely related to its market share. Market share is modeled as a log linear
`function of order of entry, time between entries, advertising, and positioning effectiveness. The
`coefficients of the entry, advertising, and positioning variables are significant in a regression
`analysis on an initial sample of 82 brands across 24 categories. These findings are confirmed
`by predictions on 47 not previously analyzed brands in 12 categories. Managerial implications
`for pioneers and later entrants are identified.
`(MARKETING; COMPETITION; NEW PRODUCTS)
`
`Introduction
`
`One strategy for new product development is based on innovation and the creation
`of new markets. It is expensive and risky to be a pioneering brand (Urban and Hauser
`1980). The costs of development are often large and the first firm in a market must
`allocate funds to make consumers aware of its product and convenience them to buy
`it. The risk of failure is high because the potential demand is not known with certainty.
`An alternative strategy is based on being the second (or later) entrant into the market.
`The costs may be lower since the innovator has created the primary demand and the
`basic product design exists; the risk also may be less because a proven demand exists.
`If an equal market share can be gained, this strategy could be more profitable. If, on
`the other hand, as a result of being the first entrant in a market, a dominant market
`share is achieved and maintained, the innovation strategy may be superior. The
`purpose of this paper is to investigate the market share effects of being a pioneering
`brand.
`If the market grants a long-run market share reward to early entrants, this would
`encourage innovation. From a public policy point of view, this would serve a similar
`function to that of patents by providing an additional reward to innovators. Although
`patents sometimes provide protection, in many cases they are ineffective because of
`difficulties of establishing and protecting the rights and the ability of other firms to
`"invent around" the patent as technology advance (von Hippel 1982). This difficulty
`of protecting an innovation is compounded by the fact that imitators generally take
`less time and require fewer funds to copy the innovation (Mansfield, Schwartz, and
`Wagner 1981). If pioneering brands earn a long-run market share advantage, the
`effectiveness of patent protection may be less critical in providing incentives for
`innovation and firms may be more willing to innovate without patent protection.
`
`*Accepted by John R. Hauser; received February 8, 1984. This paper has been with the authors 3 months
`for 1 revision.
`
`645
`
`0025-1909/86/3206/0645$01.25
`Copyright 0 1986, The Institute of Management Sciences
`
`IMMUNOGEN 2248, pg. 2
`Phigenix v. Immunogen
`IPR2014-00676
`
`

`
`646
`
`G. L. URBAN, T. CARTER, S. GASKIN AND Z.MUCHA
`
`Several authors have argued on theoretical grounds that such long lived advantages
`can exist. Early ideas by Bain (1956) indicated that existing products can have an
`advantage accruing from fundamental consumer traits that lead to stable preference
`patterns. If an experience curve is present, production costs for the pioneer may be
`lower because its cumulative production is likely to be greater than later entrants
`(Abell and Hammond 1979). If the pioneer can not only gain a cost advantage but
`also erect barriers to entry (Porter 1980), sales advantages may be even greater.
`Recent theoretical work by Schmalensee (1982) is based on the fundamental notion
`that once buyers use the first entrant's product, they will be willing to pay more for it,
`if it works, because they are not certain the second product will work. Based on a
`number of assumptions (e.g., products either work or do not work, second entrant
`objectively equal to first, no response by pioneer to new entrant, and no advertising
`effects) he shows that a long-run price advantage can persist for the pioneering brand.
`In this model, the second entrant must offer a price reduction to persuade consumers
`to try and learn about the product. This can imply higher profits for the pioneer. Lane
`and Wiggins (1981) also assume that consumers only know the exact quality of the
`products they have used. Their model is similar to Schmalensee's but includes
`advertising and some response by the pioneer to later entrants. After examining profit
`maximizing strategies they find "even with entry, the first entrant's advantage persist
`in the form of higher demand and profitability" (p. 3).
`Hauser and Shugan (1983) have formulated a defensive strategy model which uses
`the product positioning of the new entrant to determine share. In this model, the
`persistence of the sales levels of pioneering brands depends on how well the pioneer
`designed the product attributes to meet heterogeneous consumer preferences. If the
`"best" positioning was chosen by the first firm, later entrants may have lower market
`shares because, if they want to differentiate, they must adopt an inferior position.
`However, if the first brand to enter did not fully understand consumer preferences, the
`second entrant could get a preferential positioning advantage and earn a greater share.
`These theoretical models show the possibility of long-run market share rewards for
`pioneering brands and indicate these rewards also will be a function of the product
`positioning and pricing strategies of the new and old products.
`A limited amount of empirical analysis on the benefits of early entry has been
`reported. Biggadike (1976) studied 40 industrial product entries into new markets
`represented by large firms in the PIMS project. He found that after four years the
`average share of these entrants was 15 percent while the share of the largest existing
`competitor in each of the 40 businesses decreased from 47 percent to 28 percent when
`new entrants came on the market. These data suggest that although the share of the
`pioneering brand decreases as a result of subsequent entry, shares may not equalize.
`Robinson and Fornell (1985) studied the PIMS data for 371 consumer goods
`business units that were in the mature phase of their life cycle. In this sample firms
`designated themselves as "pioneers, early followers, or later entrants." "Pioneers" had
`an average share of 29 percent while "early followers" had 16 percent share and "later
`entrants" had 11 percent market share. The authors conducted an econometric
`analysis to uncover the mechanisms underlying the share differences. They found that
`pioneers tended to have higher quality products and a broader product line. In
`convenience goods, market pioneers gained additional advantages due to distribution
`effects. Pioneers also benefited in markets with low price and low purchase frequency.
`This cross-sectional study provides evidence of order of entry effects at the business
`unit level.
`Two longitudinal industry studies have been conducted which have information
`relevant to entry effects. The first is by Bond and Lean (1977) and reflects a study of
`two related prescription drugs (diuretics and antiaginals). A historical review and time
`
`IMMUNOGEN 2248, pg. 3
`Phigenix v. Immunogen
`IPR2014-00676
`
`

`
`MARKET SHARE REWARDS TO PIONEERING BRANDS
`
`647
`
`series regression analysis of the sales, entry and promotion in each of these markets led
`the authors to conclude for these prescription drugs that "the first firm to offer and
`promote a new type of product received a substantial and enduring sales advantage"
`(p. vi). Neither heavy promotional outlays nor low price dislodged the pioneers.
`However, later entrants that offered therapeutic novelty did achieve substantial sales
`volumes when backed by heavy promotional expenditures. They found that "large
`scale promotion of brands that offer nothing new is likely to go unrewarded" (p. vi).
`Another interpretative study of trends in seven cigarette submarkets by Whitten
`(1979) led to the finding that the "first entry brand received a substantial and enduring
`sales advantage" in six of the seven cigarette market segments (p. 41). She found,
`however, that later entry brands which were early in a growing market or which were
`significantly differentiated could gain a substantial share in the market or even
`dislodge the first entry brand from its dominant position.
`These theoretical and empirical analyses suggest order of entry may affect the
`market share potential of later entries and that this effect may be modified by the
`entrant's positioning, quality, pricing, and marketing strategy. This paper enlarges the
`body of empirical knowledge by a cross product analysis over many categories of
`frequently purchased brands of consumer goods. It includes effects of order of entry as
`well as advertising and product positioning. We begin by describing the data base and
`specifying the statistical model. Then we describe its fit to an initial data base of 82
`brands, assess its predictive ability on a new sample of 47 brands, and present a
`re-estimation of the model parameters based on the pooled data. We consider the
`strategic implications of our findings and close with a discussion of future research
`needs.
`
`Data
`Pre-test market assessment procedures have been widely used in the markets for
`frequently purchased brands of consumer products. One such system, called ASSES-
`SOR (Silk and Urban 1978), provides a rich data base for the study of order of entry
`effects. In this procedure, data on existing products are collected first and then new
`product response is measured. We are concerned here with only the data on existing
`products. Studies were carried out in the 1979-82 period. In each category studied, 300
`(or more) respondents were interviewed to determine their evoked set of brands, their
`preferences for these brands (constant sum paired comparisons across each consumer's
`evoked set), the last brand they purchased, and ratings of selected evoked brands on
`product attribute scales.' These data allow market shares to be estimated by the
`fraction of the sample which last purchased the brand. The preference and ratings data
`supply a basis of determining product positioning and differentiation. An initial
`sample of 24 categories was selected for exploratory analysis. 82 major brands existed
`across these categories. After the collection and analysis of the initial sample, data for
`47 different brands were made available. This second sample became the data for
`predictive testing. The products in these samples represented tightly defined categories
`of frequently purchased goods (e.g., liquid detergent, instant freeze dried coffee, fabric
`softener, anti-dandruff shampoo). The categories were well established. The average
`time in the market for second entrants was 25.9 years, third entrants 20.5 years, fourth
`entrants 15.2 years, fifth entrants 8.9 years, and sixth entrants 6.2 years. These data
`
`'The respondents were intercepted at a shopping mall, screened for category usage, and interviewed if
`they were within the age and demographic quotas established in the stratified sampling plan for each study.
`The evoking is based on positive unaided response to one of the following conditions: now using, ever used,
`on hand, would consider using, or would not consider using. Approximately 90% of evoking is associated
`with use experience.
`
`IMMUNOGEN 2248, pg. 4
`Phigenix v. Immunogen
`IPR2014-00676
`
`

`
`648
`
`G. L. URBAN, T. CARTER, S. GASKIN AND Z. MUCHA
`
`were supplemented by advertising expenditures obtained from the Leading National
`Advertisers published media audits. Although these audits may not report 100 percent
`of each brand's spending, they are useful in comparing advertising expenditures if we
`assume no biases in relative advertising. Since the brands considered had been on the
`market at least two years, these spending levels represent post-introductory expendi-
`tures.
`The order of entry was determined by identifying the time of national introduction
`for each brand. This was done by personally calling the firms which market each of
`these products and determining when it was introduced. In the few cases where the
`firms were not willing to provide this data, at least two competitors were asked to
`provide an estimate of the entry time and their average response was utilized.
`These data provided a cross sectional data base for the investigation of order effects.
`At the time of each study, the shares for the existing brands, the year of each product's
`entry into the market, the brand's recent advertising spending, and the relative product
`preferences are known.
`
`Statistical Model
`The dependent variable in this study is the ratio of the market share of the nth
`(second, third, fourth . . . ) brand to enter the market to that of the first product to
`enter. Since the number of brands in each category varies, the absolute shares also
`vary; the ratio allows a meaningful comparison of relative relationships of brands
`within and across categories. Brands are included in the analysis if
`they were
`advertised at a significant level (greater than one million dollars per year) and a
`reasonable share estimate could be obtained (at least 30 respondents reporting a
`specific brand as last brand purchased).
`The order of entry (first, second, third . . . ) is used as an independent variable. This
`variable can empirically reflect the theoretical long lived share advantages of pioneer-
`ing brands argued by Schmalensee (1982) and Lane and Wiggins (1981). If, as
`theorized, the early entrant becomes the standard of comparison and subsequent
`brands require consumers to make additional investments in learning, the order of
`entry variable will be negatively correlated to the share index. This variable is
`supplemented by another which is defined as the number of years between the nth
`entry and the one which immediately preceded it. Being the second brand in the
`category may have a different share effect if the lag between the pioneer is one year
`rather than two, three, or four years, Whitten (1979) stressed the importance of a firm
`being early after a new trend is established. Advertising is represented by the total
`advertising expenditure over the last three years by the nth brand to enter the category
`divided by that of the pioneering brand. This variable reflects the sustaining level of
`advertising spending and allows the order of entry effect to be modified by the
`application of marketing resources.
`Differential product positioning has been identified as another moderator of the
`effect of order of entry. The Bond and Lean (1977) and Whitten (1979) studies stress
`its significance. Robinson and Fornell (1985) and Hauser and Shugan (1983) also
`argue for its importance. One method of constructing a positioning variable is by
`combining the product attribute ratings to estimate the utility for a brand. (See Urban
`and Hauser (1980) or Shocker and Srinivasan (1979) for a review.) Many procedures
`exist and they usually reproduce stated preferences or choices well. Another method is
`to use stated preferences directly. This has the advantage of avoiding variance due to
`lack of fits between the attributes and preferences, but has the disadvantage of not
`linking the attributes to preferences. Because our primary purpose is to use the
`positioning variable as a covariate of order of entry in explaining share rather than
`
`IMMUNOGEN 2248, pg. 5
`Phigenix v. Immunogen
`IPR2014-00676
`
`

`
`MARKET SHARE REWARDS TO PIONEERING BRANDS
`
`649
`
`supporting the design of new products, we choose to use preference to construct the
`positioning variable. The constant sum preferences supplied by respondents over their
`evoked set reflect their overall evaluations of the brand's price and features. After
`scaling the preferences by least square procedures (see Silk and Urban 1978), we
`obtain a preference value for each evoked brand j, respondent i and category c (y?,).
`We define a relative preference for a brand for each consumer and average over all
`individuals who evoke the brand:
`
`yj, = preference value for respondent i and brand j in category c,
`1;, = number of respondents in category c who evoke brand j,
`p, = scale parameter for category c,
`R,, = relative preference of brand j in category c.
`The value of R,,
`is a measure of the consumers' evaluation of the product given that it
`is evoked. It reflects consumers' preferences that result from a specific multiattribute
`positioning. In most cases evoking occurs by use of the brand. If it performs well and
`price is low, R,, will be high; if it does not perform well and price is high, R,, will be
`low. The scale parameter
`is estimated by logit procedures (see Silk and Urban 1978,
`for details) and it empirically has values in the range of 1 to 3 with a median of about
`2. This scaling of preferences results in R,, approximating the probability of purchase
`of the brand given that it is evoked. The driving forces behind R,, are the measured
`preferences across the evoked set, but this scaling must be remembered when the
`statistical analysis is interpreted (see below).
`Another aspect to emphasize is that R,,
`is conditioned by evoking. The same market
`share (e.g., 10%) for a brand could be due to high preference conditioned on evoking
`and low evoking (e.g., 50% preference given evoking and 20% evoking), low condi-
`tioned preference and high evoking (e.g., 20% preference and 50% evoking) or
`moderate levels of both (e.g., 33% preference and 33% evoking). The variable RJc is not
`necessarily correlated to share. Before 1974, Tylenol had a low share, but pre-test
`market evaluations indicated high preference by those who had used it. After Tylenol
`advertised and promoted its product, its share increased dramatically as the fraction of
`the population evoking it increased.
`In our model we are interested in the positioning quality of later entrants relative to
`the pioneer, so we define the ratio of R,, for the nth brand to RJ, for the first brand to
`enter as the variable to represent the relative preference given evoking. If the later
`entrant is superior, the ratio is greater than one, and if less desirable, the ratio is less
`than one.
`The form of the model is nonlinear to reflect the hypothesis that the impact of the
`second brand to enter on the pioneer will be greater than the third or fourth brand.
`Considerable precedent exists for modelifig a nonlinear response to advertising (Little
`1979). Bond and Lean (1977) indicate an interaction between order, position, and
`marketing promotion and this can be captured in an elasticity function. Formally for
`brand n in category c:
`
`S,,, = EZ'P,"c"An",'LZ,
`
`S,,, = ratio of the market shares of the nth brand to enter category c to the market
`share of the first brand to enter the category,
`En, = order of entry of nth brand in category c (n = 1,2,3,4 . . . ),
`P,, = ratio of preference given evoking for nth brand to preference for first brand
`
`IMMUNOGEN 2248, pg. 6
`Phigenix v. Immunogen
`IPR2014-00676
`
`

`
`650
`
`G. L. URBAN, T. CARTER, S. GASKIN AND Z.MUCHA
`
`given evoking,
`Pnc= R,,/R,, where
`Rjc = preference for jth brand in category c conditioned by evoking (see Equation
`11,
`A,, = ratio of the last 3 years advertising for nth brand to enter to the last three
`years advertising for first brand,
`L,, = number of years between n and n - 1 brand entry plus one (L,, = 1 if entry is
`in the same year).
`This model captures some major theoretical phenomena. If a , is negative and
`significant, it supports the notion of an enduring share advantage for early entrants. If
`a, is positive and significant, it confirms the notion that the order of entry effect can
`be moderated by a product which is superior in price and features as reflected in the
`preferences of those who have it in their evoked set. If a, is positive and significant, it
`suggests advertising may modify the effect of later entry. If a, is negative and
`significant it would indicate a larger penalty for the nth entrant the later it arrives in
`the market. If the positioning (P,,) and advertising (A,,) indices have a value of one to
`reflect parity and entry is in the same year (L,, = I), equation (2) predicts the share
`ratio to be only a function of the order of entry. If En, is equal to two to reflect the
`second product in the market, in this case the ratio of its share to the first (S,,)
`is 2"3.
`Note that in equation (2) the share ratio takes a value of one when the first brand is
`considered (n = 1).
`Statistical analysis is based on a log transform of equation (2):
`
`where the primes denote the logs of the respective variables defined in equation two.
`Note that this is a linear regression with no additive constant term (a,). The constant
`would confound the interpretation of the magnitude of a's because with an additive
`constant in equation (3), the share index would not equal one for the first brand in the
`market as is required for logical consistency.
`
`Fitting
`
`The first application of the model is to the initial sample of 82 brands across 24
`categories. Regression is used to estimate the parameters in equation (3). These
`regression procedures are based on 58 data points because the first brand is not
`appropriate for inclusion in relative share formulation given in Equation (3) (i.e., all
`first brand variables would have values of o).' The resulting F(4,54) is 58.0 and it is
`significant at the one percent level. The t values also are significant at the one percent
`level (see Table 1) for order, positioning, and advertising. The order coefficient (a,) is
`negative as hypothesized indicating that subsequent entrants are associated with
`reduced shares relative to the pioneering brand. The positioning effect (a,) is positive,
`indicating good positioning is associated with larger shares. In this log-linear model the
`positioning effect increases share proportionately at each entry point. Therefore share
`for the nth entrant is reduced by the order effect (a,) and modified by the positioning
`effect (a,). It is possible for the nth entrant to earn a dominant share when its
`positioning is sufficiently superior to overcome the order effect penalty. The relative
`advertising coefficient (a,) is also positive and reflects another correlate to increased
`
`2 ~ nalternate approach is to include the additive constant in equation (3) and regress over the first and
`later entrants. This is not as theoretically attractive a procedure but the a, is driven toward zero by the
`number of first brands. Empirical application of this procedure led to an a, that was not significantly
`different from zero at the 10 percent level (a,= 0.12, t = 1.2).
`
`IMMUNOGEN 2248, pg. 7
`Phigenix v. Immunogen
`IPR2014-00676
`
`

`
`MARKET SHARE REWARDS TO PIONEERING BRANDS
`
`
`TABLE 1
`
`Statistical Fitting Results
`
`
`Variable
`
`Parameter
`
`Value
`
`t Statistic
`
`Order of Entry (E)
`Position (P)
`Advertising ( A )
`Lag Between Entry (L)
`
`at
`02
`
`a3
`
`a4
`
`- 0.48
`1.14
`0.27
`0.04
`
`-4.5*
`6.8*
`5.5*
`0.6
`
`*Values significant at 1% level. Critical value with 55 degrees of freedom
`and two tail test is t = 2.7.
`
`share when a brand is a late entrant. Superior positioning and aggressive advertising
`spending would be the most likely correlates of dominance in a category by a later
`entrant. The parameter reflecting the time between entry (a,) is not significantly
`different from zero.
`Appendix 1 shows the actual and predicted values for the share indexes plotted
`versus the order of entry variable for three representative categories along with the
`unadjusted order effect E Z . Recall the predictions are obtained from our multivariate
`model so any deviation from the declining effect of order of entry ( a , ) reflects
`positioning and/or advertising effects. For example the third entry in the antacid
`market (Rolaids) achieved a predicted share higher than the second entrant due to
`higher advertising and positioning values (A,,, of 1.6 and positioning value P,,, of 2.1).
`This more than compensated for the order of entry decline and the resulting predicted
`share is greater than the share of Digel or Tums.
`In assessing these fits, we calculate R 2 at 76 percent.3 Another measure of goodness
`of fit is to determine the proportion of the cases where the model prediction corre-
`sponds to the turns in the actual data exemplified in Appendix 1 . There are 58 turns
`and the direction of actual and fitted values agrees for 45 turns or 78 percent of them.
`Multicollinearity among the independent variables is low; five out of six of the
`pairwise correlations are less than 0.25 in absolute value. The sixth is the correlation
`between order of entry and the time between subsequent entries. In this data there is a
`moderate negative correlation of -0.37 indicating some tendency for shorter intervals
`between entrants as more brands enter the market. The parameter estimates are quite
`stable as variables are added to the regression. The order effect parameter is -0.61
`( t = -5.1) when it is the only independent variable, -0.53
`( t = -5.9) when the
`positioning variable (P) is added, -0.43 ( t = -5.7) when the advertising variable ( A )
`also is appended, and -0.48 ( t = -4.5) with all the variables.
`Examination of the residuals indicate that they are not significantly different from a
`normal di~tribution.~ Heteroscedasticity was not evident. The standard deviation in the
`residuals was not significantly different for second and third or later entrank5
`
` ecalculate R'
`in this case of regression with no constant by following the procedure suggested by
`
`
`~
`3
`Judge et al. (1980 p. 253):
`
`where Y, = actual values of dependent variable and P, = predicted value.
`4The residuals were rank ordered and divided into six approximately equally sized classes. The chi-
`squared statistic was calculated based on the actual frequency and the frequency expected from a normal
`distribution of the same mean and variance. X2 = 0.455, df = 3. This implies a 99 percent chance of
`observing a value this high or higher from a normal distribution.
`'The standard deviation of the residuals for brands of order of entry two was 0.537 and for order three
`0.54. These are not significantly different at the 10 percent level F(24, 15) = 1.01. Similarly, for second
`versus fourth or greater F(24,32) = 1.5.
`
`IMMUNOGEN 2248, pg. 8
`Phigenix v. Immunogen
`IPR2014-00676
`
`

`
`652
`
`G. L. URBAN, T. CARTER, S. GASKIN AND 2. MUCHA
`
`The estimates have been reviewed for adverse effect from the leverage of outlying
`data points (Belsley, Kuh and Welsh 1980). Three data points were identified as
`having high leverage (Tegrin, Datril and Ocean Blend Cat Food), but when they were
`removed, the significant parameters ( a , , a,, a,) changed less than 15 percent from
`their original values and the t's remained significant at the one percent level.
`A number of alternative forms (e.g., linear and exponential) and variable specifica-
`tions (e.g., advertising as a percentage of category spending and order of entry and lag
`time combined as one variable to reflect years from first to nth entry) were evaluated
`in the statistical analysis, but none were theoretically or empirically superior to the
`results reported here.
`In reviewing the regression results (see Table l), the positioning variable is most
`significant followed by the advertising and order of entry parameters. A stepwise
`regression shows the relative explanatory power of the order of entry variable. If the
`order of entry variable is the first to be included, 32 percent of the variation is
`explained. Adding positioning increased the R 2 to 62 percent and including the
`advertising variable raised it to 76 percent. In each case the incremental variance
`explained was significant at the 10 percent level.
`Some care must be exercised in interpretation of the advertising and positioning
`coefficients. Although the advertising index ( A ) correlates highly with the share index,
`this may not be due to advertising causing share changes. In fact if advertising budgets
`were set by a rule such as "advertising equals X % of sales," the causal relationship is
`one of advertising being dependent on sales. Although the interpretation of the
`advertising coefficient must be cautious, we assume our procedure removes a compo-
`nent of covariance and does not affect the interpretation of the order of entry
`coefficient (a,). We observe that the variables have relatively small intercorrelations
`and one may consider order as a significant explanatory v

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket