Web Appendix B: Dependence of Items, BAV Pillars, and ...



Web AppendixLeveraging Brand Equity for Effective Visual Product DesignJournal of Marketing ResearchMark HeitmannUniversity of HamburgMark.Heitmann@uni-hamburg.deJan R. LandwehrGoethe University Frankfurtlandwehr@wiwi.uni-frankfurt.deThomas F. SchreinerUniversity of HamburgThomas.Schreiner@uni-hamburg.deHarald J. van HeerdeUniversity of New South Walesh.vanheerde@unsw.edu.auWeb Appendix A: List of Considered Vehicles Including Market Segment and Year of Market Launch for Each GenerationSubcompact CarsChevrolet Aveo (2003, 2006), Daewoo Lanos (1999), Ford Fusion (2005), Honda Fit (2006, 2008), Honda Insight (2000), Mini Cooper (2002, 2007), Scion xA (2003), Suzuki Aerio (2002), Suzuki Esteem (1995), Suzuki Swift (1995), Suzuki SX4 (2006), Toyota Echo (2000), Toyota Yaris (2006, 2011)Compact CarsAudi A3 (2005), Chevrolet Cavalier (1995), Chevrolet Cobalt (2004), Chevrolet Metro (1999), Daewoo Nubira (1999), Dodge Caliber (2006), Dodge Neon (1999), Ford Focus (1999, 2007, 2011), Honda Civic (1996, 2001, 2005), Hyundai Accent (2000, 2006), Kia Rio (2000, 2005, 2011), Kia Sephia (1997), Kia Spectra (2000, 2005), Mazda Mazda3 (2003, 2008), Mazda Protégé (1998), Mercury Cougar (1998), Mitsubishi Lancer (2001, 2007), Mitsubishi Mirage (1997), Nissan Sentra (2000, 2006), Nissan Versa (2006, 2011), Plymouth Neon (1999), Pontiac G5 (2006), Pontiac Sunfire (1995), Pontiac Vibe (2002, 2008), Saab 9-2X (2004), Saturn Astra (2008), Saturn Ion (2002), Saturn S (1996), Scion xB (2003, 2007), Subaru Impreza (1993, 2001, 2007, 2011), Suzuki Forenza (2003), Toyota Corolla (1998, 2002, 2008), Toyota Matrix (2002, 2008), Toyota Prius (2000, 2003, 2009), Volkswagen Beetle (1998), Volkswagen Golf (1999, 2006, 2009), Volkswagen Jetta (1999, 2005, 2010), Volvo C30 (2007)Mid-size CarsAcura TL (1998, 2003), Acura TSX (2003), Audi A4 (1995, 2000, 2004, 2007), BMW 3 Series (1999, 2006, 2012), Buick Century (1997), Chevrolet Malibu (1997, 2003, 2007, 2012), Chevrolet Monte Carlo (2000, 2005), Chrysler Sebring (2000, 2006), Dodge Avenger (2007), Dodge Stratus (1995, 2000), Ford Contour (1998), Honda Accord (1997, 2002, 2008), Honda Prelude (1997), Hyundai Elantra (1995, 2000, 2006), Hyundai Sonata (1999, 2005), Hyundai Tiburon (1996, 2002), Infiniti G (1998, 2002, 2006), Jaguar X-Type (2001), Kia Optima (2000, 2006, 2010), Lexus IS (2000, 2005), Lincoln Continental (1998), Lincoln Zephyr (2005), Mazda 626 (1997), Mazda Mazda6 (2002, 2008), Mazda RX-8 (2003), Mercedes-Benz C-Class (1994, 2000, 2007), Mercury Milan (2005), Mercury Montego (2004), Mercury Mystique (1994), Mercury Sable (2000, 2007), Mitsubishi Eclipse (1999, 2006), Mitsubishi Galant (1998, 2003), Nissan Altima (1998, 2001, 2006), Oldsmobile Alero (1998), Oldsmobile Intrigue (1997), Pontiac G6 (2004), Pontiac Grand Am (1998), Pontiac Grand Prix (1996, 2003), Saab 9-3 (2002), Saturn Aura (2006), Saturn L (1999), Scion tC (2004, 2010), Subaru Legacy (1999, 2004, 2009), Subaru Outback (2009), Suzuki Verona (2003), Toyota Celica (2000), Volkswagen Passat (1997, 2005, 2011), Volvo S40 (1999, 2003), Volvo S60 (2010)Executive CarsAcura RL (1996, 2004), Audi A6 (1998, 2004, 2011), BMW 5 Series (1996, 2003, 2010), Buick Lacrosse (2004, 2010), Buick Regal (1997), Chevrolet Impala (1999, 2005), Chrysler 300 Series (1998, 2004), Chrysler Concorde (1998), Chrysler LHS (1998), Dodge Intrepid (1998), Dodge Magnum (2004), Hyundai Azera (2005), Hyundai XG 300 (2000), Infiniti I (2000), Infiniti M (2002, 2005), Jaguar S-Type (1999), Jaguar XF (2008), Kia Amanti (2003), Lexus ES (1997, 2001, 2006), Lexus GS (1998, 2005, 2012), Lincoln LS (1999), Mazda Millenia (1994), Mercedes-Benz E-Class (1996, 2002, 2009), Mitsubishi Diamante (1997), Nissan Maxima (2000, 2003, 2008), Pontiac Bonneville (2000), Pontiac G8 (2008), Saab 9-5 (1998, 2010), Toyota Avalon (2000, 2005), Toyota Camry (1997, 2001, 2006, 2011), Volvo V70 (1997, 2001, 2007), Volvo S80 (1998, 2006)Full-size CarsAudi A8 (1997, 2003, 2009), BMW 6 Series (2004, 2011), BMW 7 Series (1995, 2002, 2009), Buick LeSabre (1999), Buick Lucerne (2005), Buick Park Avenue (1996), Cadillac Catera (1997), Cadillac CTS (2002, 2007), Cadillac Deville (2000), Cadillac DTS (2005), Cadillac Eldorado (1992), Cadillac Seville (1998), Cadillac STS (2004), Dodge Charger (2005), Ford Crown Victoria (1998), Ford Five Hundred (2004), Ford Taurus (2000, 2007, 2009), Infiniti Q45 (2001), Jaguar XJ (1993, 2003, 2010), Lexus LS (2000, 2006), Lincoln MKX (2006), Lincoln Town Car (1998), Mercedes-Benz CL (2000, 2006), Mercedes-Benz CLS (2005, 2011), Mercedes-Benz S-Class (1999, 2005), Mercury Grand Marquis (1998, 2003), Mercury Monterey (2003), Mercury Villager (1999), Oldsmobile Aurora (2000), Volkswagen Phaeton (2003)SUVsAcura MDX (2000, 2006), Acura RDX (2006), Acura ZDX (2009), Audi Q7 (2006), BMW X3 (2004, 2010), BMW X5 (2000, 2006), Buick Enclave (2007), Buick Rainier (2003), Buick Rendezvous (2001), Cadillac Escalade (2001, 2006), Cadillac SRX (2003, 2009), Chevrolet Blazer (1995), Chevrolet Equinox (2004, 2009), Chevrolet Suburban (2000, 2006), Chevrolet Tahoe (2000, 2005), Chevrolet Tracker (1999), Chevrolet Trailblazer (2001), Chrysler Aspen (2006), Chrysler Pacifica (2003), Dodge Durango (1998, 2003), Dodge Nitro (2006), Ford Edge (2006), Ford Escape (2000, 2007), Ford Excursion (1999), Ford Expedition (1997, 2003, 2006), Ford Explorer (1995, 2005, 2010), Ford Freestyle (2004), GMC Acadia (2006), GMC Envoy (2001), GMC Jimmy (1995), GMC Terrain (2009), GMC Yukon (1999, 2005), Honda CR-V (1997, 2001, 2006, 2011), Honda Element (2002), Honda Passport (1998), Honda Pilot (2002), Hummer H1 (2000), Hummer H2 (2002), Hummer H3 (2005), Hyundai Santa Fe (2000, 2006), Hyundai Tucson (2004), Hyundai Veracruz (2007), Infiniti EX (2007), Infiniti FX (2003, 2008), Infiniti QX4 (1997), Infiniti QX56 (2004), Jeep Cherokee XJ (1997), Jeep Commander (2005), Jeep Compass (2006), Jeep Grand Cherokee (1999, 2004, 2010), Jeep Liberty (2001, 2007), Jeep Patriot (2007), Jeep Wrangler (1996, 2006), Kia Sorento (2002, 2010), Kia Sportage (1995, 2004, 2010), Land Rover Discovery (1999), Land Rover Freelander (2001), Land Rover LR2 (2007), Land Rover LR3 (2004), Land Rover Range Rover (1995, 2002), Land Rover Range Rover Sport (2005), Lexus GX (2002, 2010), Lexus LX (1998, 2008), Lexus RX (1998, 2003), Lincoln Aviator (2002), Lincoln Navigator (1997, 2003, 2006), Mazda CX-7 (2006), Mazda CX-9 (2007), Mazda Tribute (2000, 2007), Mercedes-Benz G-Class (2001), Mercedes-Benz GL (2006), Mercedes-Benz M-Class (1997, 2005, 2011), Mercedes-Benz R-Class (2005), Mercury Mariner (2004, 2007), Mercury Mountaineer (1996, 2001, 2005), Mitsubishi Endeavor (2003), Mitsubishi Montero (2000), Mitsubishi Montero Sport (1997), Mitsubishi Outlander (2006), Nissan Armada (2003), Nissan Murano (2002, 2008), Nissan Pathfinder (1996, 2004), Nissan Rogue (2007), Nissan Xterra (1999, 2005), Oldsmobile Bravada (1996, 2001), Pontiac Aztek (2000), Pontiac Torrent (2005), Porsche Cayenne (2003, 2010), Saab 9-7X (2005), Saturn Outlook (2006), Saturn Vue (2001, 2007), Subaru Forester (1997, 2003, 2008), Subaru Tribeca (2005), Suzuki Vitara (1998, 2005), Suzuki XL-7 (2001, 2006), Toyota 4Runner (1995, 2002, 2009), Toyota FJ Cruiser (2006), Toyota Highlander (2001, 2007), Toyota Land Cruiser (1998, 2007), Toyota RAV4 (2000, 2005), Toyota Sequoia (2000, 2007), Volkswagen Touareg (2003, 2010), Volvo XC90 (2002)Sports CarsAcura Integra (1994), Audi R8 (2007), BMW Z4 (2002, 2009), Cadillac XLR (2003), Chevrolet Camaro (2009), Chevrolet Corvette (1997, 2005), Chrysler Crossfire (2003), Dodge Viper (1996, 2002), Jaguar XK8 (1997), Mercedes-Benz CLK (2003), Mercedes-Benz SL (2008), Mercedes-Benz SLK (2004, 2011), Nissan 350Z (2002), Nissan 370Z (2009), Plymouth Prowler (1999), Pontiac Firebird (1993), Pontiac GTO (2003), Porsche Boxster (1997, 2005), Porsche Cayman (2006), Porsche 911 (1998, 2005, 2012)Web Appendix B: Dependence of Items, BAV Pillars, and Brand Equity Principal ComponentsCorrelationsaFactor LoadingsEsteemKnowledgeDifferentiationFactor 1 (RS)Factor 2 (ED)Relevance (relevanceb).57***.84***-.27***.92-.21Esteem(regardb, leaderc, reliablec, high qualityc).71***.26***.81.46Knowledge (familiarityb)-.16***.96-.05Differentiation(dynamicc, innovativec, distinctivec, uniquec, differentc)-.14.96Eigenvalue2.431.19Explained variance (sum = .91).61.30a. *p < .10; **p < .05; ***p < .01 (two-tailed).b. Item measured on 7-point-likert-scalec. Item measured on yes/no-scaleWeb Appendix C: Independence of Technical Newness and Segment TypicalityWe identified all models with a predecessor to have a technical reference point. Note, not all models have a predecessor since car manufacturers have also started new product lines (e.g., Audi A7, Toyota iQ).We identify a comprehensive list of 39 innovations in 7 subcategories, which were implemented during the observational period and mentioned on Wikipedia (see Table). We code which innovative features each car model contains and use the sum as a proxy for technical innovation (see Figure for the resulting empirical distribution).To be able to test both overall technical novelty as well as novelty in different technical dimensions, we compute all eight correlations with the proposed segment typicality measure and find no significant effects (p > .10). SubcategoryNew or Improved FeaturesCorrelation with Segment TypicalitySafety/securitySmart key, seatbelt safety system, fingerprint scanner, tire pressure monitoring system-.07Traction and handling systemEPS system, brakes, active rollover protection, traction control system, steering, terrain response system, drive by wire, AWD system, suspension-.04PerformanceEngine, start-stop system, transmission, exhaust system-.02Driver assistanceAttention assist, rain sensing windshield wipers, lane departure warning system, rear park assist, blind spot monitor, camera system, collision avoidance system, adaptive cruise control-.09InfotainmentHandsFreeLink system, audio system, media system, head up display-.10Navigation/comfortGPS navigation system, night vision system, voice recognition technology, power window switches, dual zone climate control, power folding third row seats, heated windshield wiper grid-.10Light systemLED lamps, adaptive headlights, interior light system .03Overall technical novelty-.12Web Appendix D: Computation of Segment Typicality Elasticity as a Function of Brand Typicality and RS for Proposed Attraction EquationεSegment typicalityit =?sit? Segment typicalityitSegment typicalityitsit =β2 + γ2Brand typicalityit+ γ3RSit+ γ5RSitBrand typicalityit Aitj=1JAjt j=1JAjt2 - Aitβ2 + γ2Brand typicalityit+ γ3RSit+ γ5RSitBrand typicalityit Aitj=1JAjt2 Segment typicalityitAitj=1JAjt =β2 + γ2Brand typicalityit+ γ3RSit+ γ5RSitBrand typicalityit Segment typicalityit j=1JAjt - Aitj=1JAjt =β2 + γ2Brand typicalityit+ γ3RSit+ γ5RSitBrand typicalityit Segment typicalityit 1-sit (1)and where Segment typicalityit:Segment typicality of model i in quarter tεSegment typicalityit: Segment typicality elasticity of model i in quarter tsit: Market share of model i in quarter tAit: Attraction of model i in quarter tWeb Appendix E: Model I, II and III with Full Set of Copula TermsModel IModel IIModel IIIExpectationβapVIFβapVIFβapVIFQuality+.039***.0004.32.038***.0004.82.040***.0004.82Price-.014***.0002.80-.014***.0003.08-.015***.0003.08AdStock+.143***.0057.19.144***.0047.32.143***.0047.35Dealer+.536***.0006.69.538***.0007.40.540***.0007.40Complexity+3.646.4643.986.744.1734.897.247.1444.99Segment typicality+-.006.8326.81.034.2858.40.034.2918.52Brand typicality+.047.1297.21.072**.0298.15.068**.0408.17Segment typicality x complexity+3.333***.0001.663.914***.0002.213.564***.0002.22Brand typicality x segment typicality+.018***.0002.65.021***.0002.91Time-.197***.0001.46-.202***.0001.47-.202***.0001.47Time2-.048***.0001.38-.048***.0001.39-.048***.0001.39Time x segment typicality-.009***.0071.55-.009**.0131.56-.008**.0231.56Time2 x segment typicality-.005***.0001.47-.005***.0001.51-.005***.0001.52Relevant stature+.538***.0003.87.501***.0004.34.559***.0004.63Relevant stature x brand typicality+.097***.0002.22.092***.0002.31Relevant stature x segment typicality-.060***.0092.08-.070***.0032.18Relevant stature x segment typicality x brand typicality-.017***.0012.39Energized differentiation+.103*.0772.85.104*.0873.08.136**.0293.32Energized differentiation x brand typicality+.017.2061.85.009.5152.09Energized differentiation x segment typicality.014.2852.08.005.7222.23Energized differentiation x segment typicality x brand typicality-.012***.0002.08Copula term quality-.042.5534.26-.046.5194.60-.052.4654.60Copula term price.100*.0812.66.098*.0892.96.099*.0852.97Copula term adstock.029.5056.62.020.6516.89.017.6886.94Copula term dealer-.120*.0906.48-.115.1016.56-.121*.0856.57Copula term segment typicality-.091.1334.08-.117*.0524.48-.120**.0474.54Copula term complexity .151***.0052.77.114**.0403.10.105*.0603.15Copula term brand typicality-.093*.0844.61-.114**.0464.88-.118**.0384.89Random effects for 456 car modelsIncluded (not shown for parsimony)Fixed effects for 7 car segments and 39 car brands Included (not shown for parsimony)R2.7775.7780.7784Log Likelihood-13,241.71b-13,219.86b-13,212.74b*p < .10; **p < .05; ***p < .01 (two-tailed).Indicates that the log likelihood differences are significant at .01 level:Model I versus Model II (df=5, LR=43.70), Model I versus Model III (df=7, LR=57.95), and Model II and Model III (df=2, LR=14.25).Web Appendix F: Model I, II and III Without Copula TermsModel IModel IIModel IIIBase Model2-Way-Interactions3-Way-InteractionsExpectationβapVIFβapVIFβapVIFQuality+.036***.0001.41.034***.0001.47.035***.0001.48Price-.009***.0011.76-.009***.0011.77-.010***.0001.77AdStock+.150***.0002.32.145***.0002.34.141***.0002.34Dealer+.473***.0003.42.475***.0003.90.475***.0003.91Complexity+-2.776.2491.42-1.640.4971.51-1.378.5681.51Segment typicality+.065***.0002.22.089***.0002.47.085***.0002.54Brand typicality+.001.9612.33.015.3992.63.008.6532.64Segment typicality x complexity+2.801***.0001.533.422***.0001.993.075***.0002.00Brand typicality x segment typicality+.017***.0002.17.020***.0002.34Time-.198***.0001.40-.204***.0001.41-.204***.0001.41Time2-.047***.0001.36-.048***.0001.37-.048***.0001.37Time x segment typicality-.008**.0171.53-.008**.0261.54-.007**.0421.54Time2 x segment typicality-.005***.0001.46-.005***.0001.49-.005***.0001.51Relevant stature+.540***.0003.72.502***.0004.14.559***.0004.42Relevant stature x brand typicality+.098***.0002.06.093***.0002.13Relevant stature x segment typicality-.062***.0072.03-.072***.0022.16Relevant stature x segment typicality x brand typicality-.016***.0022.34Energized differentiation+.105*.0772.63.100*.1002.93.132**.0363.16Energized differentiation x brand typicality+.018.1671.82.010.4652.06Energized differentiation x segment typicality.016.2222.02.007.6182.17Energized differentiation x segment typicality x brand typicality-.012***.0002.02Random effects for 456 car modelsIncluded (not shown for parsimony)Fixed effects for 7 car segments and 39 car brands Included (not shown for parsimony)R2.7771.7778.7782Log Likelihood-13,253.19b-13,230.87b-13,223.93b*p < .10; **p < .05; ***p < .01 (two-tailed). Indicates that the log likelihood differences are significant at .01 level: Model I versus Model II (df=5, LR=44.62), Model I versus Model III (df=7, LR=58.52), and Model II and Model III (df=2, LR=13.89).Web Appendix G: Average Relevant Stature and Energized Differentiation vs. Average Segment TypicalityNote: This plot shows how brands are positioned in terms of segment typicality and both brand equity components. It shows that none of the brands can be seen as truly typical for the category, as this would imply a near-zero segment typicality score which is not the case for any brand. The brand that happens to have the highest typicality score (Daewoo) is a rather non-descript, relatively unsuccessful Korean brand that is unlikely to be seen as being prototypical for the category. According to research on pioneering advantage (e.g., Carpenter and Nakamoto 1989), brands can become representative for an entire product category (e.g., Kleenex tissues). This is, however, a broader concept than mere visual segment typicality. In our empirical application, the continuous measure of visual segment typicality appears unrelated to brand equity.Web Appendix H: Model I, II and III based Exclusively on Front ViewaModel IModel IIModel IIIExpectationβbpVIFβbpVIFβbpVIFQuality+.033***.0001.39.030***.0001.46.031***.0001.47Price-.012***.0012.39-.012***.0012.55-.010***.0042.56AdStock+.166***.0002.49.160***.0002.52.157***.0002.53Dealer+.602***.0006.75.612***.0007.56.621***.0007.58Complexity+5.682.2633.779.837*.0544.4210.350**.0434.55Segment typicality+.031.6568.91.053.46010.42.070.33310.81Brand typicality+-.111*.0949.17.064***.00911.16.074***.00311.25Segment typicality x complexity+9.275***.0001.738.977***.0002.568.171***.0002.57Brand typicality x segment typicality+-.014.8482.67-.008.9122.75Time-.194***.0001.45-.198***.0001.45-.197***.0001.45Time2-.049***.0001.43-.051***.0001.43-.051***.0001.44Time x segment typicality-.031***.0001.77-.030***.0001.79-.031***.0001.80Time2 x segment typicality-.010***.0001.69-.010***.0001.71-.010***.0001.72Relevant stature+.553***.0003.83.546***.0004.29.591***.0004.75Relevant stature x brand typicality+.229***.0002.47.226***.0002.56Relevant stature x segment typicality-.437***.0002.39-.453***.0002.47Relevant stature x segment typicality x brand typicality-.055*.0512.17Energized differentiation+.093.1102.75.080.1823.03.120*.0533.35Energized differentiation x brand typicality+-.017.6001.99-.046.1882.38Energized differentiation x segment typicality.005.8872.79-.007.8442.83Energized differentiation x segment typicality x brand typicality-.065***.0002.07Copula term price.086.1412.28.085.1442.42.075.1942.43Copula term dealer-.084.2406.31-.101.1586.48-.106.1376.48Copula term complexity -.116*.0642.71-.152**.0162.93-.155**.0142.99Copula term segment typicality.109**.0285.03.081.1115.59.071.1655.73Copula term brand typicality.146***.0056.02.123**.0216.74.115**.0326.77Random effects for 456 car modelsIncluded (not shown for parsimony)Fixed effects for 7 car segments and 39 car brands Included (not shown for parsimony)R2.7779.7795.7797Log Likelihood-13,236.47c-13,187.86c-13181.19cCorrelation of typicality measures based on front versus all three perspectives: segment typicality (r = .796, p < .01), brand typicality (r = .820, p < .01)*p < .10; **p < .05; ***p < .01 (two-tailed). Indicates that the log likelihood differences are significant at .01 level: Model I versus Model II (df=5, LR=97.23), Model I versus Model III (df=7, LR=110.57), and Model II versus Model III (df=2, LR=13.34).Web Appendix I: Full Model with RS-ED-Interaction including Copula termsExpectationβapVIFQuality+.039***.0004.83Price-.015***.0003.09AdStock+.120**.0157.40Dealer+.480***.0009.54Complexity+6.252.2084.99Segment typicality+.032.3308.54Brand typicality+.071**.0328.21Segment typicality x complexity+3.670***.0002.23Brand typicality x segment typicality+.020***.0002.92Time-.200***.0001.47Time2-.047***.0001.39Time x segment typicality-.009**.0111.57Time2 x segment typicality-.005***.0001.52Relevant stature+.568***.0004.64Relevant stature x brand typicality+.091***.0002.34Relevant stature x segment typicality-.078***.0012.22Relevant stature x segment typicality x brand typicality-.016***.0032.40Relevant stature x Energized differentiation-.231***.0002.10Energized differentiation+.123**.0473.49Energized differentiation x brand typicality+-.006.6612.25Energized differentiation x segment typicality.014.3182.28Energized differentiation x segment typicality x brand typicality-.011***.0012.08Copula term quality-.052.4544.60Copula term price.088.1253.02Copula term adstock.029.5116.95Copula term dealer-.132*.0666.99Copula term segment typicality-.114*.0554.54Copula term complexity .107**.0473.16Copula term brand typicality-.120**.0344.90Random effects for 456 car modelsIncluded (not shown for parsimony)Fixed effects for 7 car segments and 39 car brands Included (not shown for parsimony)R2.7785*p < .10; **p < .05; ***p < .01 (two-tailed).Web Appendix J: Model I, II and III Controlling for Product Line BreadthModel IModel IIModel IIIExpectationβapVIFβapVIFβapVIFQuality+.034***.0001.49.033***.0001.56.034***.0001.57Price-.013***.0012.39-.013***.0002.57-.013***.0002.57AdStock+.173***.0002.83.169***.0002.84.166***.0002.85Dealer+.605***.0006.81.611***.0007.48.612***.0007.49Product line breadth-.073***.0007.63-.075***.0007.73-.074***.0007.75Complexity+3.831.4373.856.975.1554.797.421.1314.90Segment typicality+.003.9186.89.046.1558.57.046.1608.69Brand typicality+.041.1806.54.067**.0407.23.063*.0557.24Segment typicality x complexity+3.100***.0001.673.722***.0002.243.398***.0002.26Brand typicality x segment typicality+.019***.0002.65.022***.0002.92Time-.198***.0001.45-.203***.0001.46-.203***.0001.46Time2-.047***.0001.38-.047***.0001.38-.047***.0001.39Time x segment typicality-.009***.0081.54-.008**.0141.55-.008**.0241.55Time2 x segment typicality-.005***.0001.47-.005***.0001.50-.005***.0001.52Relevant stature+.550***.0004.11.513***.0004.64.568***.0004.93Relevant stature x brand typicality+.096***.0002.13.091***.0002.22Relevant stature x segment typicality-.057**.0112.08-.066***.0042.17Relevant stature x segment typicality x brand typicality-.016***.0022.39Energized differentiation+.117**.0462.79.119**.0503.07.149**.0173.30Energized differentiation x brand typicality+.015.2631.85.008.5882.10Energized differentiation x segment typicality.016.2162.06.007.6092.21Energized differentiation x segment typicality x brand typicality-.011***.0002.08Copula term price.085.1392.25.083.1462.43.084.1402.44Copula term dealer-.124*.0796.45-.119*.0906.50-.124*.0766.51Copula term product line breadth.093**.0166.66.089**.0206.71.085**.0276.74Copula term segment typicality-.095.1194.06-.121**.0444.46-.124**.0404.52Copula term complexity .145***.0062.69.106*.0533.05.097*.0773.11Copula term brand typicality-.097*.0734.13-.121**.0354.32-.125**.0294.33Random effects for 456 car modelsIncluded (not shown for parsimony)Fixed effects for 7 car segments and 39 car brands Included (not shown for parsimony)R2.7777.7781.7785Log Likelihood-13232.61b-13209.91b-13203.12b*p < .10; **p < .05; ***p < .01 (two-tailed). Indicates that the log likelihood differences are significant at .01 level:Model I versus Model II (df=5, LR=45.41), Model I versus Model III (df=7, LR=58.98), and Model II versus Model III (df=2, LR=13.57).Web Appendix K: Model III based on Typicality Compared to Model based on SimilarityTypicalitySimilarityβapβapQuality.034***.000.036***.000Price-.014***.000-.011***.005AdStock.155***.000.180***.000Dealer.548***.000.539***.000Complexity7.120.148-.040.993Segment typicality.035.299Brand typicality.067**.041Similarity-.001.903Segment typicality x complexity3.604***.000Similarity x complexity.182.218Brand typicality x segment typicality.021***.000Time-.202***.000-.189***.000Time2-.048***.000-.045***.000Time x segment typicality-.008**.020Time2 x segment typicality-.005***.000Time x similarity.004***.004Time2 x similarity.000.852Relevant stature.561***.000.548***.000Relevant stature x brand typicality.092***.000Relevant stature x segment typicality-.070***.003Relevant stature x segment typicality x brand typicality-.016***.002Relevant stature x similarity.000.936Energized differentiation.135**.028Energized differentiation x brand typicality.009.502Energized differentiation x segment typicality.005.721Energized differentiation x segment typicality x brand typicality-.012***.000Energized differentiation x similarity-.002.454Copula term price.094.109.048.436Copula term dealer-.122*.085-.113.111Copula term complexity-.117*.051-.085.149Copula term segment typicality.104*.061Copula term brand typicality-.119**.038Copula term similarity-.012.558Random effects for 456 car modelsIncluded (not shown for parsimony)Fixed effects for 7 car segments and 39 car brands Included (not shown for parsimony)BIC27,110.4527,202.62*p < .10; **p < .05; ***p < .01 (two-tailed). Notes: To compute similarity values, we calculated the average distance of each model to all other car models currently available in the market based on the 120 feature points of front, side, and rear images. Web Appendix L: Market Share Elasticities of Segment Typicality as a Function of RS and ED for Given Brand Typicality ValuesNotes: We vary the level of the moderator between the 2.5th percentile and the 97.5th percentile of the observations (i.e., relevant stature (RS) between -2.04 and 1.95 and energized differentiation (ED) between -1.42 and 2.29). We choose a brand typicality level of one standard deviation below the mean for the first column, a brand typicality level equal to the mean for the second column, and a brand typicality level of one standard deviation above the mean for the third column. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download