UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       Plaintiff,                   v. DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL, INC.,                      Defendant.

| | | | | | | | | | | |

Civil Action No. 99-005 (SLR) Stamp: FILED Jun 14 2 47 PM '00 CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

EXPERT REPORT OF JERRY WIND. PRESIDENT. WIND ASSOCIATES

Dated: June 14, 2000

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CARL SCHNEE
UNITED STATED ATTORNEY

Judith M. Kinney (DSB #3643)
Assistant United States Attorney
1201 Market Street, Suite 1100
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 573-6277

Mark J. Botti
William E. Berlin
Jon B. Jacobs
Sanford M. Adler
Frederick S. Young
Dionne C. Lomas
Eliza T. Platts-Mills
Adam D. Hirsh
United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
325 Seventh Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 307-0827

1041 Waverly ROad
Gladwyne, PA 19035
Tel: 610 642-2120
Fax:610 642-2168

DENTAL LAB TECHNICIANS PREFERENCES AND TRADEOFFS
AMONG COMPETITIVE MANUFACTURERS OF ARTIFICIAL TEETH

FEBRUARY 29, 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Qualifications, Background and Objectives
2. Research Approach
1. Research Design
2. Universe and Sample
3. The Questionnaire
4. The Stimuli
5. Data Collection
6. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Conclusions

Appendices

1. The PRIDEM Model
2. Master Experimental Design [140 cards, in 20 blocks of 7 each]
3. Illustrative 7 Stimuli Cards [out of a total of 140] plus a base card
4. The Screener Questionnaire
5. The Main Questionnaire
6. Field Instructions
7. The Screening Results
8. Curriculum Vitae

I. QUALIFICATIONS, BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

My qualifications, including a list of my publications and past testimony at trial and by deposition, are contained in my curriculum vitae. which is attached as Appendix H to this report. I am compensated at the rate of $750 per hour for my work in this case.

As I understand the issues in this case, Dentsply International is the leading producer of artificial teeth in the U.S. market. Estimates of its current share ranges from 65 to 80 percent of the U.S. market. Currently, Dentsply distributes its teeth through dealers, and if a dealer adds a competitive line of prefabricated artificial teeth, Dentsply severs its relationship with that dealer.

Other producers of artificial teeth, such as Vita and Ivoclar, have had a difficult time in penetrating the U.S. market. What is not known about this market is the role that the following marketing variables play in influencing dental laboratory technicians' choices of artificial teeth brands:

• Type of distribution - dealers versus direct distribution by manufacturer
• Price

The objective of this study that I have been asked by the United States to conduct, is to produce an appropriate representative sample and generate data that will provide a basis for establishing empirically the relative importance of these factors and a basis for estimating the expected share of Dentsply and its competitors under various scenarios of the above two marketing variables.

In addition to the data generated by the survey I conducted, which is incorporated into this report, I considered other documents including various documents generally describing the artificial tooth market, marketing and promotional materials for several brands of prefabricated artificial teeth, and the Complaint filed by the United States in this case.

II. RESEARCH APPROACH

A. Research Design

I designed and directed a study among dental laboratory technicians as a tradeoff conjoint study focusing on key variables associated with the product, distribution and price offerings of seven suppliers: Dentsply, Vita, Ivoclar, Myerson, Universal, Kenson and Justi.

The study is designed as a conjoint analysis study that generates the data providing a basis for various types of modeling including the PRIDEM and PRIDEL Models. The paper documenting these models is included in Appendix A attached to this report.

The study was designed as a TMT (Telephone recruitment, Mail follow-up and main Telephone interview) study.

B. Universe and Sample

Universe

The universe was defined as dental lab technicians responsible for the selection of plastic artificial teeth purchased by the lab for use in making dentures.

Sample

A representative national probability sample was selected from the universe of dental lab technicians responsible for the selection of plastic artificial teeth purchased by the lab for use in making dentures. The sample size included 274 respondents, one per laboratory.

The sampling procedure involved 3 phases:

1. A national sample list of 10,000 dental laboratories was obtained from Survey Sampling, Inc. located in Fairfield, CT. Their business and professional lists are compiled from continuously updated yellow page listings, nationwide. The list of 10,000 laboratories was divided into 10 replicates of 1,000.

2. Guideline Research, a New York-based national marketing research firm with whom I have worked on similar studies, received the 10 replicates and opened one replication at a time, with the instruction to stert at the beginning of the first replicate and work through all the names in that replicate before beginning the second replicate. A total of 2,520 respondents were called to generate the final sample of respondents. A minimum of 3 dialing attempts was made for each number before eliminating that number from the sample.

3. The respondents were screened to meet the following requirements:
         Laboratory must fabricate dentures using plastic artificial teeth
         Respondent must be responsible for selecting the plastic artificial teeth that the laboratory uses
         Respondent had to be willing to participate (accept receipt of the packet)

The detailed screening results are included in Appendix G.

C. The Questionnaire

The main part of the questionnaire was Part B which consisted of a tradeoff exercise in which each respondent received 8 stimuli cards containing experimentally designed scenarios describing Dentsply and each of its competitors. Each competitor was named - Dentsply, Vita, Ivoclar, etc. The starting, or reference scenario - Exhibit 1 on the following page - showed base price and distribution for each supplier.¹ Subsequent experimentally designed scenarios varied price and distribution mode for the various brands to measure the respondent tradeoffs. For each scenario, the respondent was asked to allocate 100 points across the suppliers, reflecting his/her total plastic tooth purchases from each supplier over the next three months given the distribution and price conditions shown.

In addition, in Part A of the questipnnaire, a selected set of respondent background characteristics (lab size, shares of current tooth suppliers, years in business, etc.) and preferences were collected.

Part A of the questionnaire and the instructions for responding to Part B are included in Appendix E.

C141

Exhibit 1: Sample Scenario Card

					5-7
(1) Plastic Teeth BRAND/LINE	(2) Anterior Card (1 x 6) PRICE IN $	(3) Available From			(4) Your Response: SHARE OF PURCHASES (PERCENT)
		LOCAL DEALER	MAIL-ORDER DEALER	MANUFACTURER DIRECTLY
Dentsply BIOFORMIPN	24.18	Yes	Yes	No		8-10
Dentsply BIOBLEND IPN	26.34	Yes	Yes	No		11-13
Dentsply CLASSIC	3.90	Yes	Yes	No		14-16
Dentsply PORTRAIT IPN	26.28	Yes	Yes	No		17-l9
Dentsply TRUBLEND SLM	27.78	Yes	Yes	No		20-22
Ivoclar SR VIVODENT PE	25.05	No	No	Yes		23-25
Justi BLEND	12.84	Yes	Yes	Yes		26-28
Kenson RESIN	3.75	Yes	Yes	Yes		29-31
Myerson DURABLEND SPECIAL RESIN	19.95	Yes	Yes	Yes		32-34
Universal VERILUX	24.40	Yes	Yes	Yes		35-37
Vita VITAPAN	29.01	Yes	No	Yes		38-40
Total=					100 points

[This is the reference (C141) card sent to all respondents]

D. The Stimuli

Each respondent received 8 Scenario cards. The top card in each set is the reference card, C-141; the remaining cards represent a block of 7 (shuffled) cards drawn from a block of the master design (Appendix B). Exhibit 1, shows C-141, the reference card. The 140 experimental cards (numbered from C-1 through C-140) appear in 20 blocks of 7 cards each; their designs appear in Appendix B - the master experimental design. Appendix C contains seven illustrative stimuli cards.

Pricing

The first 8 columns of the master experimental design contain the pricing information for the 8 primary brands; the 4 Dentsply brands - BIOFORM IPN, BIOBLEND IPN, PORTRAIT IPN, TRUBLEND SLM, and Ivoclar SR VIODENT PE, Myerson DURABLEND SPECIAL RESIN, Universal VERILUX and Vita VITAPAN, respectively. The prices for Dentsply CLASSIC, Justi BLEND and Kenson RESIN are fixed throughout the design at the prices shown in the reference scenario, Card C-141, in Exhibit 1. The experimental prices for the 8 primary brands are shown in Exhibit 2. As noted, there are four price levels for each primary brand. As noted above, the 3 secondary brands have fixed prices - the same as those shown in Exhibit 1.

Distributor Availability

Exhibit 3 shows the master coding for availability. There are 7 levels for this variable. Columns 9 through 13 of Appendix B show the availability codes for the active products. Column 9 is applicable for all of the five Dentsply brands' availability. Columns 10 through 13 of Appendix B show the availability coding for SR VIVODENT PE, DURABLEND SPECIAL RESIN, VERILUX and VITA, respectively. Justi BLEND and Kenson RESIN both received an availability coding of: Yes - Yes - Yes throughout all of the experimental cards.

Exhibit 2: Brands and prices

Dentsply Bioform IPN	(1) $19.44	(2) $21.76	(3) $24.18	(4) $26.60
Dentsply Bioblend IPN	(1) $21.07	(2) $23.71	(3) $26.34	(4) $28.97
Dentsply Portrait IPN	(1) $21.02	(2) $23.65	(3) $26.28	(4) $28.91
Dentsply Trublend SLM	(1) $22.22	(2) $25.00	(3) $27.78	(4) $30.56
Ivoclar SR Vivodent PE	(1) $20.04	(2) $22.55	(3) $25.05	(4) $27.56
Myerson Durablend Special Resin	(1) $15.96	(2) $17.96	(3) $19.95	(4) $21.95
Universal Verilux	(1) $19.52	(2) $21.96	(3) $24.40	(4) $26.84
Vita Vitapan	(1) $23.21	(2) $26.11	(3) $29.01	(4) $31.91

Denstply Classic	$ 3.90	| | | | |	Fixed
Justi Blend	$12.84
Kenson Resin	$ 3.75

Exhibit 3: The Availability Attributes

Design Level	Local Dealer	Mail-Order Dealer	Manufacturer Directly
1	Yes	Yes	Yes
2	Yes	Yes	No
3	Yes	No	Yes
4	Yes	No	No
5	No	Yes	Yes
6	No	Yes	No
7	No	No	Yes

E. Data Collection

The data collection was conducted at my direction by Guideline Research.

The data collection consisted of a TMT design in which respondents were screened by telephone (screener questionnaire is included in Appendix D). Following that, they were sent by priority mail 2 envelopes consisting of a questionnaire (Appendix E) and 8 stimulus cards (one of the 20 blocks of the master design outlined in Appendix B and illustrated in Appendix C). Four to five days later they received a second telephone call and instructions on how to complete the forms. They were asked to return the completed forms and the stimuli to Guideline Research.

The field instructions were prepared by Guideline Research and are included in Appendix F. Neither the interviewers nor the respondents were informed of the purpose or sponsor of the study.

The data generated by the responses to Parts A and B of the questionnaire is incorporated into this report and contained, respectively, in the computer files titled "dental.as1" and "dental.as2."

F. Data Analysis

One method that can be used to analyze the data produced by this survey is the PRIDEM/PRIDEL model developed by Paul Green and Abba Krieger (and described in Appendix A). This model enables the user to "parse out" the effect of each experimentally manipulated variable on respondents' tradeoffs across suppliers. Respondent background attributes from Part A of the questionnaire are included in the model in order to examine their segmentation effects.

The initial analysis focused on 3 scenarios:

1. Base scenario: Current market conditions at the time the survey was designed and conducted, as reflected in the base stimulus card (C-141) with one exception: that Vita is not available from a local dealer (for the reasons noted in the section above describing the questionnaire).

2. Scenario 2: Vita and Ivoclar are available from a local dealer and from the manufacturer directly but not from a mail order dealer, and the price variable will remain the same as the base scenario for Vita and Ivoclar (all price and distribution variables remain the same as the base scenario for each of the other brand/lines);

3. Scenario 3: Vita and ivoclar are available from all three distribution options: local dealer, mail order dealer, and from the manufacturer directly, and the price variable will remain the same as the base scenario for Vita and Ivoclar (all price and distribution variables remain the same as the base scenario for each of the other brand/lines).

III. RESULTS

The initial results produced by the PRIDEM/PRIDEL model for three key scenarios are included in Exhibit 4 on the following page.

This model allows for the calculation of expected share for any scenario based on the factors and levels included in the study (and listed in Exhibits 2 and 3).

Exhibit 4

Estimated Market Share Results for Ivodar and Vita Under Three Scenarios

The Scenarios	Ivodar		Vita
	Share	Relative Gain vs. Scenario 1	Share	Relative Gain vs. Scenario 1
1 Base Scenario Current market conditions as reflected in the base stimulus card (C-141) with one exception, that Vita is not available from a local dealer	5.05%	-------	3.37%	-------
2 Scenario 2 Vita and Ivodar are assumed to be available from a local dealer and from the manufacturer directly but not from a mail order dealer; the price variable remains the same as the base scenario for Vita and Ivodar (all price and distribution variables remain the same as the base scenario for each of the other brand/lines)	6.84%	35%	3.69%	9%
3 Scenario 3 Vita and Ivodar are available from all three distribution options: local dealer, mail order dealer, and from the manufacturer directly; the price variable remains the same as the base scenario for Vita and Ivodar (all price and distribution variables remain the same as the base scenario for each of the other brand/lines)	6.25%	24%	4.44%	32%

IV. CONCLUSIONS

This study, using conjoint analysis methodology, which is generally accepted and commonly used for assessing respondent's trade-offs among key marketing variables, was designed to generate data that allows analysis to:

1. Establish empirically the relative importance of types of distribution and price in dental laboratory technicians¹ choices of artificial teeth brands

2. Estimate the expected share of Dentsply and its competitors under various scenarios of the above two marketing variables

The survey was conducted at my direction according to generally accepted professional scientific standards for survey research used in litigation in order to assure the objectivity of the entire process.

The findings of the study using the PRIDEM/PRIDEL model as summarized in Exhibit 4 show that:

• In the base case reflecting generally prevailing market conditions at the time the survey was designed and conducted, in which Ivoclar and Vita are unavailable from local or mail order dealers, the expected share of
  • Ivoclar is 5.05%
  • Vita is 3.37%

• In a scenario in whjch Ivoclar and Vita are available from only local dealer and manufacturer, the share of
  • Ivoclar is 6.84%, an increase of 35%
  • Vita is 3.69%, an increase of 9%

• In a scenario in which Ivoclar and Vita are available from all three distribution modes manufacturer, mail order or local dealer, the share of
  • Ivociar is 6.25%, an increase of 24% vs. the base case
  • Vita is 4.44%, an increase of 32% vs. the base case

FOOTNOTES

¹ The reference scenario card showed Vita VITAPAN as being available from a local dealer, because for some labs this is technically accurate; however, as I understand the facts, this is not the existing market condition for the majority of labs in the United States, and was not at the time the data was collected. This was, accordingly, adjusted for during the analysis (as discussed in section F, page 12).

APPENDIX A

BACKGROUND ARTICLE ON THE PRIDEM AND PRIDEL MODELS

European Journal of Operational Research 60 (1992) 31-44
North-Holland

Theory and Methodology

Modeling competitive pricing and market share: Anatomy of a decision support system *

Paul E. Green and Abba M. Krieger

The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6371, USA

Received December 1989; revised July 1990

Abstract: Even with today's high emphasis on management decision support systems, relatively little has been published on the motivations, tribulations, and post mortems that generally accompany the development of such systems. This paper reports (in a mixture of narrative style and more formal model exposition) how a computerized decision support system for optimal price determination was developed, implemented, and finally applied to a broad range of industry problems.

Keywords: Pricing; demand analysis; conjoint analysis; multiattribute preference

1. Introduction

Product and service pricing is one of the oldest (and still very important) tools of the marketing executive. Each day business firms face questions like the following:

1. Competitor X has just increased its price by five percent. Should we match it, or stand pat?

2. How should we price our new product, which offers several technical advantages over current offerings?

3. How should we set prices among competing items in our current product line?

Answers to these questions are hard to find for at least two reasons. First, given a set of existing prices and market shares for products in a competing product class, it is often difficult to predict new shares accurately if one or more prices were to change. Second, it is difficult to predict how competitors will react to others' price changes.

Marketing researchers have dealt with the first question by proposing several new marketing research methods that show promise for augmenting information obtained from older approaches. Historically, the measurement of price-demand relationships has relied on statistical methods applied to either cross-sectional or time series data (e.g., Wittink, 1977). However, newer approaches, such as those based'on laboratory studies (Pessemier, 1960), instore experiments (Doyle and Gidengil, 1977), test market simulation (Silk and Urban, 1978), and willingness-to-pay surveys (Monroe and Delia Bitta, 1978) have received increased attention and, in some cases, commercial application.

Even more recently, conjoint-based methods (Mahajan, Green, and Goldberg, 1982; Louviere and Woodworth, 1983; Wyner, Benedetti, and Trapp, 1984) have considered explicitly designed competitive product profile descriptions. Respondents either pick their preferred choice from the set of alternatives, indicate their likelihood of choosing each option, or state their preferences for alternative allocations of a common resource across products or activities competing for that resource (Carroll, Green, and DeSarbo, 1979).

A prototypical procedure entailing tradeoff techniques is that proposed by Mahajan, Green, and Goldberg (MGG). Their survey data collection approach is a modification of one originally proposed by Jones (1975). Respondents are shown profile descriptions of P products, each with an associated brand name and price. Profiles are designed according to fractional factorials in which attributes and levels are idiosyncratic to each brand. Respondents allocate a constant sum (typically 100 points) across each stimulus option indicating the likelihood that they would choose each option, given the stated prices for each alternative. MGG employ a conditional logit model (Theil, 1969) to estimate parameter values that satisfy the following sum and range constraints:

1. The estimated probability of choosing some p-th brand ranges between zero and one.

2. The sum of the choice probabilities across all P brands (including an all-other-brands category, if appropriate) equals unity.

While MGG discuss how their approach might be used in actual business situations, they also add that their experience with applying the model to real-world problems is quite limited.

1.1. Inputs from the business world

As we mulled over the idea of adapting some of the conjoint methodology to the measurement and strategy issues related to optimal pricing, we sought the advice of several commercial marketing research firms. Gradually, a pattern emerged regarding their views about what managers would like to see in a price/demand model:

1. The approach should be able to utilize survey methods, similar to the kinds of buyer trade off data that are collected in applied conjoint studies.

2. The model should be able to consider not only the impact of price changes on market share but also the effect on share of non-price attribute changes on the part of any or all competitors.

3. The model should be able to make market share predictions at both the total market and individual market segment levels.

4. The model should be capable of examining interactions among different competitors' prices and non-price attribute levels.

5. The model should be 'decomposable' in the sense of allowing the client to focus attention on the behavior of a single product's share as a function of individual competitors' prices and non-price activities.

6. The model should be capable of being calibrated to actual starting (i.e., existing) market shares and prices.

7. The model should contain an 'optimizing' feature in which the user can find the best price for a given product, conditional on fixed prices for competitors and specified levels of all non-price attributes, self and competitors.

8. The model should be flexible enough to allow interpolation across discrete price points.

9. The model should be user friendly and, if possible, adaptable to a personal computer.

With these desiderata in mind, we set about the task of constructing a suitable data collection method, parameter estimation technique, and price optimizing routine.

1.2. Borrowing from the past

Fortunately, earlier work in componential segmentation (Green, Krieger, and Zelnio, 1989) led to the development of a conjoint model for forecasting buyers' likelihoods of purchase from information about product attribute preferences and buyer backgrounds (e.g., demographics, life styles, current brand usage, etc.). The PROSIT (PROduct SITuation) model contained a number of relevant features for the current effort, namely PROSITs ability to estimate parameter values for both product attributes and buyer attributes, as well as selected two-way, within-set and between-set interactions.

Furthermore, PROSIT contained an optimizing feature wherein one could find the best product profile for a given market segment or the best segment for a given product.

In the PROSIT model, all parameters are estimated as though each predictive variable is categorical (i.e., predictors are treated as dummy-variables in the spirit of conjoint analysis). The response variable is 'univariate' - typically, a buyer's subjective likelihood of choosing a specific and or service supplier as a joint function of product profiles (for that brand and competitive brands) and respondent background varibles.

In contrast, our present problem emphasized an underlying continuous variable (i.e., price) and entailed a 'multivariate' response, namely, the respondent's subjective likelihood of choosing each of P products as a function of their product attributes, their prices, and the buyer's background attributes. Still, the earlier PROSIT model seemed like a good place to start. On the plus side, it had been successfully applied in a variety of industrial applications (particularly in the phamaceutical and computer industries) and had already been adapted for interactive, personal computer applications.

2. Decisions, decisions

At this point we had a starting point for the PRIce-DEMand model (PRIDEM). However, a number of decisions still had to be made on adapting the PROSIT model for pricing and, in particular, incorporating a multivariate response variable, PROSIT was estimated by OLS dummy variable regression. Its optimizer employed a heuristic for finding optimal combinations of product and/or segment attribute levels from the full Cartesian product set of attribute levels. In contrast, our current interest centered on price optimization, conditional on given settings of all other attributes.

2.1 Handling the price attribute

In keeping with conjoint methodology, it seemed appropriate to maintain the treatment of all attributes (including price) as categorical, encoded as dummy variables. From a pragmatic viewpoint this would allow us to use a portion of the same software already in place for fitting the PROSIT model. Second, we could avail ourselves of highly efficient, fractional factorial designs for setting up the product and price stimulus design that would estimate all main effects as well as selected two-way interactions. Moreover, these (orthogonal) designs are flexible enough to accommodate enough price levels (e.g., five in nine per brand) to approximate a continuous part-worth function rather closely.

Why not just select a polynomial (e.g., quadratic) to represent part worths for the price variable? One of the problems with this approach is that the resulting curve is sensitive to error. In fact, il is possible that the fitted curve could depart rather markedly from the actual response associated with the experimentally designed price points. Clearly, with polynomial fitting there is no requirement that the curve 'go through' the response value observed at each discrete experimental price point.

In contrast, by using splines we could make sure that the response function passed through the knots (i.e., price points). Furthermore, we could make the function smooth between each pair of knots so that simple (classical) methods ol optimization could be used to find the solution that maximized the sponsors contribution to overhead and profit (conditional on fixed prices for competitive products).

Accordingly, we set up a computer routine for fitting one and two-dimensional splines where the knots represented the discrete price levels used in the original experimental design underlying the competitive product profiles. The Appendix describes this procedure.

2.2. Making the model multicariate

A second problem with the adaptation of PROSIT to PRIDEM was how to deal with the multivariate response variable. The PROSIT model is fit by ANOVA-like, OLS regression. If the original PROSIT response variable were quantal (e.g., 1 or 0) or if the response were each respondent's subjective likelihood of purchase on a 0 to 1.0 scale, no attempt was made in PROSIT to transform it to a logit (as was done in Mahajan, Green, and Goldberg, 1982).

Why not, then, set up a multinomial logit model with brand and product interactions, rather than fitting individual linear probability models and then finding market shares on a post hoc basis? We chose to maintain OLS fitting and the linear probability model for two reasons. First, the PROSIT model has a rather elaborate, built-in cross validation feature which we wished to retain for assessing the predictive accuracy of prices, market segments, and non-price attributes on a single products likelihood of purchase. This could be applied to each product, in turn, as a way to see if some part worth functions are poorly estimated.

Second, despite the theoretical attractiveness of the multinomial logit (see Mahajan, Green, and Goldberg, 1982), we noted that Brodie and De Kluyver (1984) have reported that linear probability models, with post hoc adjustment (to respect non-negativity and sum constraints), have fared as well as the more complex multinomial logit models in terms of empirical market share validation. (Still, it should be mentioned that the current structure of PRIDEM could be reformulated in terms of a multinomial logit.)

With these preliminary decisions made, it was then time to formulate the model.

3. The PRIDEM model

To motivate our description of the PRIDEM model, consider a situation in which a pharmaceutical firm wishes to increase the price of its antihypertensive drug brand A. There are five other competing brands in the market niche of interest to brand A's producers: B, C, D, E, and F. The producers of brand A are able to estimate per-unit variable production/distribution costs for each of the six competitive brands.

In designing the marketing research survey, brand A's producers considered four price levels each for brands A, B and C, three levels each for D and E, and two levels for the more remote competitor, brand F. In addition, they selected one three-level non-price attribute describing brand A's dosage schedule: once daily, twice daily, or three times daily.

A conjoint orthogonal design of 64 profile descriptions was set up. Each respondent received eight of the profile descriptions, drawn from the master design. For each description the respondent was asked to allocate 100 points across the six competitive brands so as to reflect the proportion of hypertensive patients for whom each drug would be prescribed, under the stated conditions. (Prior to this task each respondent similarly evaluated a base-case profile showing the current prices of each brand and brand A's current dosage level of three times daily.) Figure 1 shows an illustrative stimulus card for one of the experimental conditions.

CARD D25

I.D.# __________

Share of patients             Total 100%

Current price per day's therapy +5% +10% +15% Brand A dosage twice/day $1.97       Brand B $1.88       Brand C       $2.12 Brand D   $2.29     Brand E   $2.09     Brand F       $2.09

Figure 1. Illustrative stimulus card

Respondents were classified, a priori, by five segment attributes: specialty (cardiologists versus general practitioners); age (under 35, 35 and older); type of practice (solo versus group): current brand favorite (brand A versus others): and patient load, within specialty (above median versus below median).1

3.1. Preliminaries

In describing the PRIDEM model more formally, we first consider the question of estimating the market shares for each brand, as a function of manipulated product/price variables and respondent characteristics. Market shares are assumed to depend on three types of attributes: (a) market segment attributes; (b) non-price (e.g., product) attributes; and (c) price attributes. We let

l₁ , l₂ ,...., l_S

denote the number of levels associated with each of the S segment attributes. In the illustrative problem these attributes describe the decision makers, such as specialty (cardiologist, general practitioner), age (under 35, 35 and over), and so on.

Similarly, we let

m₁ , m₂ ,...., m_r

denote the number of levels associated with each of the T non-price attributes. In the illustrative problem there is only one non-price attribute: dosage (once daily, twice daily, three times daily).

Finally, the market shares are also assumed to depend on the brands' prices. We assume R P price attributes; this allows for the case in which a subset of size P - R of the P brands does not vary with respect to price. We let

n₁ , n₂ ,...., n_R

denote the number of levels of each of the R price attributes. To simplify notation, we further assume that the brands are ordered, so that brand i refers to the brand whose price is varying in price attribute i. Associated with each level of each price attribute an actual price (e.g., m dollars per day's therapy). Prices are denoted by:

ll_rj    r = 1, 2.....R:   j = 1, 2.....n_?

We shall use i, j, and k to subscript attribute levels in general.

3.2. Segment components

The segment attributes are used to define the universe over which the market shares are computed. We specify a segment by assigning selected attribute levels to the S segment attributes. We can combine segments by aggregation. More generally, we can construct any universe of interest by a set of non-negative segment weights. w_sj,    s = 1, 2.....S:   j = 1, 2.....l,

so that

= 1    for s = 1, 2.....S.

In particular, a given segment with levels (i₁ , i₂ ,...., i_S) is captured by setting

w_j??    for j = 1, 2.....S

and

w_j?k = 0; otherwise.

Through the use of weighting coefficients PRIDEM can select a specific weighted universe across all attributes with (say) weights of 0.7 and 0.3 for cardiologist and GP, respectively, and weights of 0.2 and 0.8 for under 35 years and 35 years or older, respectively. Given the five two-level background descriptors, described above, we have a maximum of 32 distinct segments.

Later on, we shall describe how the 'optimal' price for each product is determined, given stated prices for all other brands. The optimal price will be defined by the value that maximizes contribution to overhead and profit, defined by the expression:

Industry sales units • (price - variable cost/unit of brand p ) • (market share of brand p). (In applying the computer-based PRIDEM model, industry sales are usually set, for convenience, at 1.0.)

3.3. Market share model

Associated with each brand p is an estimated market share

f^(p)(k; j, w)

where k is a vector (of length R) of prices, j is a vector (of length T) of levels for the non-price attributes, and w is S vectors (of respective lengths l₁ , l₂ ,...., l_S) denoting the universe of decision makers (i.e., the physicians).

The function f^(p) is obtained by first fitting a main effects model to the raw response data (i.e., the likelihood of prescribing the p-th brand in question) where the predictors are the S segment attributes, the T non-price attributes, and the R price attributes, all expressed as dummy variables. Selected two-way interactions are then added to the model in a sequential, stagewise manner (Green and DeSarbo, 1979). As noted above, interactions can be either within segment, non-price, or price attributes, or between segment, non-price, or price attributes.

The fitting of main effects and interactions yields a set of regression-based functions h^(p), p = 1, 2 ,..., P, one for each product, as a preliminary step toward obtaining f^(p). We first discuss how each h^(p) is obtained and then how it is adjusted to find f^(p). The model is described, in part, by its L interactions. As noted earlier, interaction l* can be of several differing types:

() with .

We have the combinations as shown in Table 1.

Attribute levels with associated interaction are denoted by (). For example, if q₁₁ = 2, q₁₂ = 3, u₁₁ = 3, and w₁₂ = 4, then the first interaction is between the third non-price attribute and the fourth price attribute.

Table 1

		Nature of interaction
1	1	Segment by segment attribute
1	2	Segment by non-price attribute
1	3	Segment by price attribute
2	2	Non-price by non-price attribute
2	3	Non-price by price attribute
3	3	Price by price attribute

Describing the formal regression model for estimating each individual product's h^(p) is a bit messy because of the large variety of possible interaction terms. We define h^(p) as

(1)

where

A^(p) denotes the intercept term for product p's function,

denotes the main effect partworth for level i_s of segment attribute s,

denotes the main effect partworth for level j_t of non-price attribute t.

denotes the main effect partworth for level k_r of price attribute r, and

(i, j, k; , , , ) is an entry in the matrix associated* with interaction l*. The specific entry depends on i, j, k, , , and

3.4. Base-case calibration

To calibrate each individual brand model, we adjust each h^(p) obtained from the individual product regressions to a base-case profile. This is accomplished by finding h^(p) for this profile and then multiplying all the parameters (A, B, C, D, E) by b^(p)/h^(p) where b^(p) is the given market share for the base-case profile.

Finally, we obtain the market share function f^(p) from h^(p) by normalizing the individual h^(p) values by means of the function

(2)

where (x)⁺ = max(x, 0), w_i = and h has been previously adjusted to base-case market shares, as described above. Note that if h^(p) (i, j, k) = 0 for all p, then f^(p) (k, j, w) = 1/P.

3.5. Additional remarks

As noted earlier, we fit each h^(p) regressior function as a simple linear probability model in which predicted values need not obey a 0-1 range constraint; simple OLS regression is employed. Similarly, f^(p) is obtained by a normalizing procedure which simply insures that all of the individual h^(p) predicted values are non-negative. (As described earlier, other procedures, including multinomial logit, could be used.)

It should also be pointed out that the sequential fitting of two-way interactions requires that attention be paid to the significance testing of additional terms. This is implemented by procedures described in Green and DcSarbo (1979). In addition, each individual h^(p) model is cross-validated at each stage in the interaction fitting procedure. Cross-validated predictions are employed as the principal guide to the selection of appropriate interaction terms, once the main effects have been fitted.

4. Price interpolation and optimization

There are two remaining aspects of the model that are not explained fully by (1) for h^(p). (Since the discussion below applies to all p, we now omit the superscript.) We first note from the preceding discussion that market shares can only be predicted at the price levels associated with the price attributes. It is desirable to be able to interpolate, i.e., to predict market shares at prices , r = 1,..., R, that are not limited to the original . Second, we have not discussed how to find the optimal prices , r = 1,..., R.

4.1. Interpolation procedure

The solutions to both of these problems de pend upon the method of interpolation between successive price levels and . To this end, we assume that the weightings over seg ments and levels for non-price attributes are fixed, in any given run of the model. The function, h, can then be written as h(,..... ) where ,..... denotes prices for the R price at tributes. Since we fit an additive model with interactions, we can write.

(3)

where A includes the intercept, and the main effects for segments and nonprice attributes and interactions that do not involve price attributes: g, includes the main effect for price attribute r and all interactions involving the r-th price attribute with a segment attribute or a non-price attribute: g refers to the interaction between the r-th and s-th price attributes (where g_?? = 0 if this interaction does not appear in the model).

The function s is R-dimensional with known values on a lattice of points , r = 1.....R, j = 1.....n_r. We could fit a spline (Greville. 1969: Rice, 1969) to h, treating the as the knots: however, we would not be using all of the known information. Since g and g_rs are known at , and (, ) we can fit one and two-dimensional splines respectively to these functions, thus determining h. The Appendix describes how this is done.

4.2. Finding the optimal value for price

From discussion in the previous sections (and the Appendix), we only need to consider between two knots. Hence,

(4)

where includes the assumed specified values, for the prices of the remaining p - 1 products. Hence, the market share for product p is

(5)

and the objective function, , can be written as:

(6)

It is straightforward to solve (6) when Z₁ () = 0, which is an equation of order 2K, and compare these results to the values at the knots. In particular, if K = 1, then

Hence,

where

We find the two points such that Z₁() = 0 for for j = 0, 1..... n - 1. Finally, we compare Z at these two points, provided that the points are in the appropriate (, ) to determine .

5. A real-world application

The PRIDEM model and decision support system have been implemented on both the main frame (Vax 8700) and the personal computer. A number of industrial applications have been made of PRIDEM over the past three years. We illustrate PRIDEM's application with an actual industry example involving two pharmaceutical companies' pricing strategies in the marketing of a diet supplement for use by hospital patients who have trouble swallowing traditional foodstuffs. (All data have been disguised to respect sponsor confidentiality.)

5.1. Study background

For several years, only one pharmaceutical firm, hereafter called Alpha, had been marketing a special diet supplement for hospital patients with esophagus ailments. The product was designed for drinking (through a straw); it contained a balanced set of nutrients. More recently, a second firm, hereafter called Beta, had developed its own diet supplement. Several of its product properties differed from those of Alpha as well as its marketing and pricing plans.

Prior to Beta's entry, Alpha's ongoing price for its diet supplement was $41 per day per patient. Beta believed that Alpha's short run monopoly could be upset by penetration pricing; accordingly. Beta introduced its product at only $38 per individual per day. The results were dramatic; in two years. Beta had penetrated the market to such an extent that the two firms' shares were 28% and 72%, respectively, for Alpha and Beta. At this point, Beta wondered whether its price was 'right' (in the sense of optimizing its contribution to overhead and profit) and what the implications might be if Alpha were to change its still-current price of $41.

5.2 Designing the conjoint surrey

A conjoint study was designed to obtain data for use in the PRIDEM model. First, Beta personnel discussed possible non-price attributes that could affect market shares independently (or possibly interactively with price). Four such attributes were identified:

1. Packaging for Alpha: 4-ounce can (current) versus 6-ounce can (prospective); Beta's dosage was already at 6 ounces per can.

2. Extended contract price guarantee for Alpha: NO (current) versus YES (prospective); Beta had no price guarantee.

3. Concentration of amino acids for Beta: low concentration (current) versus high concentration (prospective); Alpha's concentration was already slightly lower than Beta's current concentration.

4. Educational aids for Beta: NO (current) versus YES (prospective); Alpha already had educational aids.

In addition to the non-price attributes, Beta's management considered several possibilities for identifying market segments. Management settled on two primary segmentation bases:

1.Type of respondent (i.e., as an influence on which brand is purchased)

1. nurses.

2. doctors,

3. hospital pharmacists.

2. Size of hospital

1. Large (over 500 beds).

2. small (fewer than 500 beds).

Finally, Beta management estimated that variable costs for producing and distributing the diet supplement were about equal between the two firms; they estimated these costs at $19 per individual per day.

A sample of 390 respondents was selected, according to the two stratifying criteria (profession and hospital size). All interviews were conducted by personal administration, following pre-arranged appointments. Respondents received honoraria for their participation.

The conjoint portion of the interview was based on a master orthogonal experimental design of 50 profile cards. Each profile card contained information on brand names, non-price attribute levels under each brand name, and prices per patient day. The prices were drawn from the following sets:

1. Alpha - $43, $41 (current), $34, $28. $21.
2. Beta - $41, $38 (current), $34, $28, $21.

Each respondent first received a 'base case' profile card, followed by five cards (balanced with respect to prices) from the overall orthogonal design. For each card, the respondent was asked to indicate what his/her recommendation would be to purchasing agents responsible for choosing the diet supplement supplier. Each respondent was asked to split 100 points (constant sum scale) between the two potential suppliers, reflecting their likelihood of recommending each.

Other, background information, including the hospital's current use of diet supplements, respondent's role in the contract decision process, years of experience, etc., were also collected for cross-tabulation with the conjoint results.

6. Running the PRIDEM program

Figure 2 shows a portion of the PRIDEM computer run for the problem described above. Illustratively, we input the base-case prices (as a control) and note, of course, the same market shares as originally read in (e.g., Alpha's share is 0.28). We also observe that the contribution to overhead and profit per patient day is $6.16 and $13.68 for Alpha and Beta, respectively.

6.1. Overall market analysis

We next consider alternative pricing strategies, conditioned on the non-price attributes remaining at their original (current) levels. Suppose we wish to find Alphas optimal price at base-case levels. We enter instructions accordingly and find from Figure 2 that its optimal price is $36.19, a decrease from its current level of $41. If Alpha were to reduce its price, with no retaliation from Beta, its share would increase ten percentage-points (from a share of 0.28 to 0.38). Overhead/profit contribution would increase from $6.16 to $6.53.

Next, we repeat the exercise for Beta, conditional on no change in Alpha price from its status quo of $41. In this case Betas optimum entails an increase in its price to $41 (which then happens to be at parity with Alpha). Beta's share would decline from 0.72 to 0.65 but its contribution would increase from $13.68 to $14.26.²

Next, we consider a unilateral strategic change by Beta - one that both improves its non-price attribute levels (from their current levels to their prospective levels) and decreases its price from the original $38 level to $34. Given no retaliation from Alpha, the net effect is to increase Beta's share to 0.868 and its contribution to $13.03.

What should Alpha do if Beta drops to $34 and improves its non-price attributes? Assuming that Alpha's only short-run retaliation is price, the PRIDEM model finds that it should lower price from its starting level of $41 to $34 (at parity with Beta's new price).

Next, we consider a case in which Alpha stays at $41 but Beta really drives down its price (to $28). Moreover, both firms improve their respective non-price attributes to level 2 (prospective levels). The net effect of these actions is that Beta's share markedly increases to 0.933 but its contribution drops substantially (to $8.39).

6.2. Selected segment analysis

At this point we elect to stay with the same non-price parameters as described immediately above. But now we focus on a specific market segmenting variable-type of respondent: nurses, doctors, and pharmacists. PRIDEM shows that the effects on Beta's share differ by segment: 0.892 (nurses), 0.921 (doctors), and 0.982 (pharmacists). Their weighted average is 0.933. as noted above for the total market analysis.

Figure 2. Illustrative run of PRIDEM (Main-frame version)

Table 2

Round	Price
	Alpha	Beta
0	$41	$38
1	$36.19	$38
2	$36.19	$39.83

6.3. Weighted segment analysis

To round out the discussion, we also consider a weighted segment analysis for both type of respondent and hospital size. Illustratively, we assign weights of 0.5, 0.4, and 0.1 to nurses, doctors, and pharmacists, respectively. We assign weights of 0.8 and 0.2 to large and small hospitals, respectively.

The net result of this parameter setting is a Beta share of 0.909 and an associated contribution of $8.18. These outputs are each lower than their total market counterparts.³

6.4. Dynamic changes

Up to this point, our PRIDEM illustration did not explore sequential competitive retaliation. It is, however, a simple matter to use the program in such a way that in Round 1 Alpha initiates action; in Round 2 Beta answers in some fashion, and so on.

By way of illustration, a sequence of actions was implemented, based on starting conditions of $41 (Alpha) and $38 (Beta) with all non-price attributes at their current levels. We assume that Alpha starts out as the price "leader," Beta follows suit, and so on (and each tries to optimize its contribution, conditional on the other's prices). For two such rounds, the results are as- can be seen in Table 2.

At the end of two rounds - initiation and response - the prices are $36.19 and 39.83. with shares (contributions) of 0.43 ($7.38) and 0.57 ($11.90) for Alpha and Beta, respectively. Of course, given the ability of Alpha and Beta to collude (if no external competitor were present and if total demand were completely inelastic), they could drive up the prices as much as they liked. (Hence, we do not consider further price changing rounds lor this example.)

The idea of an external competitor can he incorporated into the PRIDEM model by including a ( P + 1 )-st product with fixed prices and non-price attribute levels, and a starting share. Then, if Alpha and Beta tried to drive up their prices the external competitor would garner an increasing share of the market.

7. What have we learned?

How did the study's sponsor react to the PRIDEM model? As we have frequently found in applied studies using the model, the sponsor explored the possibilities for non-price attribute changes. In this example, Beta management added a price guarantee and educational aids. These non-price changes were accompanied by a Beta price increase to $41 (at parity with Alpha). As of six months after Beta's changes, Alpha had not retaliated with either non-price or price changes. While we are not privy to the financial consequences of Beta's strategy, to the best of our knowledge market share remained relatively stable over the six months' time period in question.

To date, the PRIDEM model has been used on several empirical applications, most frequently drawn from the pharmaceutical industry. The predictions made from the model have been, cross-checked, where possible, with time-series analyses of historical price changes. As is well known, analyses of such 'natural experiments' are fraught with difficulty. However, in the cases analyzed, the results have been roughly concordant with those obtained-from the model.

The main advantages of the PRIDEM model over that proposed by Mahajan, Green, and Goldberg (1982) are twofold. First, market segment responses can be estimated by means of main effects parameters and interactions with price and non-price attribute levels. Second, the present model solves for optimal prices, conditioned on fixed levels for price and non-price attributes of competitive products (using variable cost data estimated by the sponsoring firm's financial department). Moreover, use of the model, as a decision support system, is straightforwardly implemented by non-technical personnel on either a main-frame of personal computer.

There are several limitations to the model, as currently formulated and operationalized. First, the model deals with aggregated responses, where segment differences are measured by within- and between-set interactions. As Moore (1980) has illustrated, researcher-selected segmenting variables may not adequately capture full individual variation in attribute-level part worths. Second, the model does not make allowance for lack of respondent knowledge about actual prices; in some cases the model could overstate price sensitivity, since full comparative pricing information is shown to the respondents. Third, while the model can handle intra-product line pricing (in terms of within-firm competition), it does not consider joint production/distribution costs.

7.1. Action / reaction sequence

As briefly described earlier, PRIDEM enables the user to examine action/reaction sequences, albeit in a rather simple way that does not consider changes in buyer preferences or other kinds of new information that might be obtained between successive rounds of price changes.

Theoretical work by Hauser and Shugan (1983), Kumar and Sudharshan (1988) and Choi, DeSarbo, and Harker (1990) represent a very interesting topic to pursue in tandem with the measurement aspects of PRIDEM.

To date, management's reaction to PRIDEM's potential for formulating 'dynamic' (action/reaction) strategies has been less than enthusiastic. In our experience managers are much more concerned with the interplay of non-price and pricing strategies, with priority given to the former. Bearing in mind that competitive retaliation to non-price actions is typically more difficult and less immediate, this emphasis is understandable.

When managers do engage in action/reaction gaming, their interest usually does not extend to questions of long term equilibria but, rather, is focused on only two to three moves ahead. Again, we do not find these views naive and 'myopic'. Managers typically lack information regarding competitors' costs, motivations and intentions; moveover, they also face questionable assumptions regarding stability in buyers' perceptions and brand preferences over the time period under study.

7.2. Conclusions

These are important caveats and represent opportunities for further research. ⁴ Hence, we consider the model and its associated decision support system as an interim effort that can (and should) be expanded, consistent with making sure that future versions can be operationalizcd in terms of accessible buyer preferences and cost data. If we have learned anything from the development of PRIDEM, it is the important fact that useful models must pay due attention to the kinds of measurements and data inputs one hopes to be able to obtain from the environment (e.g., marketplace).

What has made PRIDEM work is the simple fact that conjoint data can be obtained in reasonably realistic ways from prospective buyers. Without this measurement linkage (and at the back end, a user-friendly computer system), PRIDEM could have easily joined the ranks of a large array of technically attractive models with few (or no) users.

Appendix

In this section we describe, in further detail, the spline fitting procedure that enabled us to interpolate between the discrete price points utilized in the experimental design.

A.1. Fitting onc-dimensioual splines

Let g be a function of one variable. Assume that we know the value of g at (i.e., at n + 1 knots). We want to interpolate to find g(x) smoothly; . We approximate g(x) by a p-dimensional polynomial in each interval , i = 1.....n. Note that the meaning of the variables here (e.g., p below) is different from that used in the main text. That is,

for

Let g^(k) denote the k-th derivative of x. We know g() and g() for smoothness we assume that for k = 1,.... p - 1. This gives us p + 1 linear equations in p + 1 unknowns and hence a_i0.....a_ip are determined. Specifically, let r₁ = g(), r₂ = g() and t_k = , k = 1,..., p - 1. Let a_i = a_i0.....a_ip and

Then,

from which

All we need to specify exogenously is g^(t) ,...., g^(p-t).

Linear interpolation is a special case of the above. Solving for (a_t0, a_??) yields

and

A.2. Fitting two-dimensional splines

Let g be a function of two variables. Assume that we know the value of g at the lattice of points (, ), i = 1, j = 1,...,n. We want to interpolate to find g( x, y ) smoothly for all x and y, and . We approximate g( x, y ) by a polynomial in each rectangle , . That is,

for and .

In a manner similar to the one-dimensional case, smoothness conditions and t₀₀ = g(, ), t₀₁ = g(, ), t₁₀ = g(, ),and t₁₁ = g(, ). In particular, let p = 1. Then g( x, y ) = . We then have four linear equations in four unknowns

t₀₀ = ,

t₀₁ = ,

t₁₀ = ,

and

t₁₁ = .

These four equations have the solution:

a_ij11 = ,

a_ij10 = ,

a_ij01 = ,

and

a_ij00 = .

References

Brodie, R., and De Kluyver, C.A. (1984), "Attraction versus linear and multiplicative market share models: An empirical evaluation", Journal of Marketing Research 21, 194-201.

Carroll, J.D., Green, P.E., and DeSarbo, W.S. (1979), "Optimizing the allocation of a fixed resource: A simple model and its experimental test", Journal of Marketing 43, 51-57.

Choi, S.C., DeSarbo, W.S., and Marker, P.T. (1990), "Product positioning under prior competition", Management Science 36, 175-199.

DeSarbo, W.S., Rao, V.R., Sieckel, J.H., Wind. J., and Columbo, R. (1987), "A friction model for describing and forecasting price changes", Marketing Science ?. 299-319.

Doyle, P., and Gidengil, B.Z. (1977), "A review of in-sture experiments", Journal of Retailing , 53, 47-62.

Green, P.E., and DeSarho, W.S. (1979), "Componemial segmentation in the analysis of consumer tradeoffs", Journal of Marketing 43, 83-91.

Green, P.E., Krieger, A.M., and Zelnio, R.N. (1988), "A componential segmentation model with optimal product design features", Decision Sciences 20, 22l-238.

Greville, T.N.E. (ed.) (1969), Theory and Application of Spline Functions, Academic Press, New York.

Hauser, J.R., and Shugan, S.M. (1983), "Defensive marketing strategies", Marketing Science 2, 319-360.

Jones, D.F. (1975), "A survey technique to measure demand under various pricing strategies", Journal of Marketing 39, 75-77.

Kumar, K.R., and Sudharshan, D. (19S8), "Defensive marketing strategies: An equilibrium analysis based on decoupled response functions", Management Science 34, 805-815.

Louviere, J., and Woodworth, G. (1983), "Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data", Journal of Marketing Research 20, 350-367.

Mahajan, V., Green, P.E., and Goldberg, S.M. (1982), "A conjoint model for measuring self- and cross-price/demand relationships", Journal of Marketing Research 19, 334-342.

Monroe, K.B. and Della Bata, A.J. (1978), "Models for pricing decisions", Journal of Marketing Research 15, 413-428.

Moore, W. (1980), "Level of aggregation in conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison", Journal of Marketing Research 1?, 516-523.

Nagle, T. (1984), "Economic foundations for pricing", Journal of Business 57, 83-52?.

Pessemier, E.A. (1960), "An experimental method for estimating demand", Journal of Business 33, 373-383.

Rao, V.R. (1984), "Pricing research in marketing: The state of the art", Journal of Business 57, 839-860.

Rice, J.R. (1969), The Approximations of Functions, Vol. 2, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Robinson, B., and Lakhani, C. (1975), "Dynamic price models for new product planning", Management Science 21, 1113-1122.

Silk, A.J., and Urban, G.L. (1978), "Pre-test-market evaluation of new packaged goods", Journal of Marketing Research 15, 171-191.

Theil, H. (1969), "A multinomial extension of the linear logit model", International Economics Review 10, 251-259.

Wittink, D.R. (1977), "Exploring territorial differences in the relationship between marketing variables", Journal of Marketing Research 14, 145-155.

Wyner, G.A., Benedetti, L.H., and Trapp, B.M. (1984), "Measuring the quantity and mix of product demand", Journal of Marketing 48, 101-109.

FOOTNOTES

* The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Marketing Science Institute and the Wharton School's Sol C. Snider Entrepreneurial Center.

¹ It should be noted that the approach does not require segment atributes to be dichotomous; however, the model implemented here assumes that all attributes are discrete.

² To conserve on space, the analyses to follow are not shown in Figure 2.

³ By applying weights of 1 and 0, one can find results for each of the six possible segment combinations of respondent profession by hospital size.

⁴ For other illustrations of recent developments in pricing research, see DeSarbo et al. (1987), Nagle (1984), Rao (1984), and Robinson and Lakhani (1975).

0377-2217/92/$05.00 © 1992 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

APPENDIX B

MASTER EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN CARDS Nos. 1 - 140

ARRANGED IN 20 BLOCKS OF 7 CARDS EACH

1 2 3 1 1 1 4 3 3 3 5 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 l 6 1 7 4 3 1 4 4 2 4 2 3 4 1 2 4 4 5 4 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 4 5 7 6 7 1 3 1 1 2 2 4 3 4 5 6 6 3 6 1 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 1 7 3 1 5 1 3 3 1 4 3 2 1 2 7 2 2 3 1 1		2 1 1 3 4 2 4 1 3 4 3 5 6 6 3 2 4 2 1 3 3 4 5 6 5 1 4 6 1 3 4 1 4 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 3 6 4 2 2 3 1 2 1 3 1 5 4 6 1 6 2 1 2 2 3 4 2 3 6 4 2 7 5 6 1 3 1 4 2 4 2 4 4 7 7 2 2 6 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 2 7 1 6 4 1 6		4 2 4 3 1 1 2 2 2 6 5 2 5 11 1 4 3 4 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 7 6 11 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 6 1 4 3 2 11 3 2 4 4 2 1 4 2 6 3 6 5 7 11 2 4 2 1 2 4 1 1 4 7 6 6 1 11 1 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 7 3 7 1 4 11 4 3 1 2 4 4 3 4 5 5 2 4 3 11		4 1 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 7 2 3 4 16 2 4 1 3 2 1 4 4 6 6 5 6 3 16 3 4 2 2 1 4 4 2 5 1 1 2 6 16 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 3 4 4 6 2 1 16 3 2 4 2 4 4 1 1 3 2 7 7 5 16 1 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 7 3 4 4 7 16 2 1 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 5 7 1 6 16
1 1 1 4 2 2 3 2 6 2 1 4 4 2 4 4 2 3 1 4 4 3 4 6 7 3 7 2 2 3 3 2 3 1 4 3 7 4 6 2 4 2 3 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 6 2 2 2 1 2 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 5 1 5 2 4 2 4 1 4 2 2 4 1 1 3 5 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 1 1 5 7 1 4 1 2		1 1 4 4 4 4 2 4 7 6 4 5 6 7 4 4 1 4 4 2 1 1 3 5 2 1 7 7 3 1 2 3 1 1 4 2 4 6 3 4 1 7 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 2 5 2 4 7 3 3 3 3 2 2 4 4 6 1 6 7 5 7 4 4 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 4 4 6 3 7 2 4 4 2 3 4 2 1 1 3 7 3 2 7		3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 6 4 2 7 12 2 2 4 2 2 1 4 1 6 2 4 1 7 12 4 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 7 2 12 1 4 3 3 3 1 4 4 2 7 5 5 6 12 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 4 7 4 6 3 5 12 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 2 3 5 1 2 3 12 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 2 3 5 1 2 3 12		1 2 2 4 4 2 1 2 6 7 3 6 3 17 1 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 2 2 4 4 5 17 3 3 4 3 1 3 2 3 3 1 2 5 4 17 4 2 1 3 3 4 3 2 1 5 6 5 2 17 4 1 2 1 1 3 2 4 7 3 1 7 6 17 2 1 4 4 3 4 3 1 4 4 5 3 7 17 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 3 5 6 7 7 1 17
1 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 4 5 3 5 5 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 6 1 1 4 3 3 4 2 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 6 7 7 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 6 3 4 3 1 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 7 2 1 6 2 3 3 1 4 1 2 4 2 1 2 7 5 4 7 3 1 2 1 3 1 3 4 1 5 4 7 2 3 3		4 1 4 4 1 1 1 2 5 7 4 5 1 8 1 4 3 3 2 4 1 4 1 3 2 2 5 8 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 3 4 2 6 1 3 8 2 2 1 1 4 3 3 2 3 4 1 6 7 8 1 4 1 2 3 2 2 1 7 1 5 1 3 8 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 4 6 5 7 4 6 8 4 3 3 4 1 4 4 1 2 6 3 7 2 8		3 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 7 6 2 5 2 13 1 1 4 4 2 3 4 4 1 5 5 7 1 13 4 3 4 1 3 1 2 1 5 2 6 6 6 13 3 3 2 1 2 4 1 4 3 4 4 1 3 13 4 4 1 4 1 4 3 3 6 7 7 2 5 13 1 1 1 3 4 2 4 3 2 1 1 6 7 13 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 5 3 3 3 4 13		2 2 3 1 1 4 1 2 7 2 2 5 7 18 1 3 4 1 2 2 4 1 5 5 1 1 5 18 4 1 3 3 4 1 3 2 4 1 7 7 4 18 4 4 1 3 3 3 1 4 2 6 6 1 2 18 2 2 1 4 3 1 2 4 3 7 2 4 1 18 3 1 4 2 2 3 4 3 1 3 3 6 3 18 3 4 2 4 4 2 3 1 6 4 5 3 6 18
3 4 3 3 1 1 2 4 6 4 3 1 1 4 2 2 4 3 3 1 3 4 4 1 2 2 6 4 3 1 1 4 3 3 4 3 7 5 1 3 3 4 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 6 4 6 2 4 2 4 2 1 4 3 4 2 5 7 5 5 5 4 4 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 4 3 2 7 6 4 1 3 2 2 1 4 4 1 1 2 6 4 4 4		3 3 2 3 3 4 1 3 6 7 5 6 6 9 1 1 3 4 3 3 1 1 5 1 6 2 7 9 2 2 2 4 4 1 3 3 2 6 4 7 3 9 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 1 5 4 9 3 2 3 1 4 4 3 1 1 5 5 4 5 9 4 4 4 1 1 3 4 4 3 2 7 3 1 9 4 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 7 2 3 1 2 9		2 3 3 4 2 3 1 2 1 6 7 1 6 14 1 1 4 1 4 4 2 2 6 5 6 2 2 14 1 4 2 3 1 2 3 1 5 2 2 7 3 14 2 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 2 3 3 7 14 4 3 2 2 1 2 3 4 7 7 5 6 4 14 3 2 3 2 3 4 2 3 2 1 1 5 1 14 3 1 1 1 3 1 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 14		3 4 4 1 3 2 4 2 4 7 2 1 2 19 1 4 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 3 6 4 6 19 4 3 3 3 2 1 2 3 5 5 5 3 7 19 2 3 3 2 4 1 3 1 1 6 1 2 1 19 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 4 6 4 3 7 4 19 3 1 2 4 2 2 3 3 2 2 7 5 3 19 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 1 7 1 4 6 5 19
4 1 2 2 4 1 1 4 6 5 1 3 4 5 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 4 3 2 7 5 5 5 1 2 2 1 2 4 3 3 5 1 3 1 7 5 4 3 4 3 2 3 1 2 2 4 2 4 6 5 3 3 1 3 4 4 4 2 7 3 5 7 1 5 3 4 3 4 1 3 2 1 4 5 4 6 4 5 Last line unreadable		3 1 2 3 3 2 1 4 5 2 4 2 2 10 1 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 6 6 2 5 1 10 4 2 1 2 4 3 4 3 1 7 4 1 6 10 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 7 4 7 4 7 10 2 1 1 4 1 4 3 4 2 3 6 6 5 10 1 2 4 4 1 1 1 2 4 4 l 7 2 10 Last line unreadable		3 4 3 2 4 3 3 4 2 7 3 2 7 15 1 1 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 4 2 1 1 15 2 4 3 1 3 4 4 2 7 5 4 7 3 15 3 3 1 4 4 1 4 2 5 3 7 6 4 15 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 7 4 3 6 15 2 3 2 4 1 2 1 4 1 1 5 4 2 15 Last line unreadable		2 4 4 4 2 1 1 3 7 5 3 2 6 20 4 1 3 2 4 4 1 2 4 2 5 5 3 20 3 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 7 1 7 7 20 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 1 2 3 5 20 4 3 2 1 3 2 4 1 2 3 3 2 1 20 2 1 3 3 4 3 2 4 5 4 7 6 2 20 Last line unreadable

Appendix C

ILLLUSTRATIVE STIMULI CARDS

C001

					5-7
(1) Plastic Teeth BRAND/LINE	(2) Anterior Card (1 x 6) PRICE IN $	(3) Available From			(4) Your Response: SHARE OF PURCHASES (PERCENT)
		LOCAL DEALER	MAIL-ORDER DEALER	MANUFACTURER DIRECTLY
Dentsply BIOFORM IPN	19.44	Yes	No	Yes		8-10
Dentsply BIOBLEND IPN	23.71	Yes	No	Yes		11-13
Dentsply CLASSIC	3.90	Yes	No	Yes		14-16
Dentsply PORTRAIT IPN	26.28	Yes	No	Yes		17-19
Dentsply TRUBLEND SLM	22.22	Yes	No	Yes		20-22
Ivoclar SR VIVODENT PE	20.04	Yes	No	Yes		23-25
Justi BLEND	12.84	Yes	Yes	Yes		26-28
Kenson RESIN	3.75	Yes	Yes	Yes		29-31
Myerson DURABLEND SPECIAL RESIN	15.96	No	Yes	Yes		32-34
Universal VERILUX	26.84	Yes	Yes	No		35-37
VitaVITAPAN	29.01	Yes	Yes	No		38-40
				Total =	100 points

C002

					5-7
(1) Plastic Teeth BRAND/LINE	(2) Anterior Card (1 x 6) PRICE IN $	(3) Available From			(4) Your Response: SHARE OF PURCHASES (PERCENT)
		LOCAL DEALER	MAIL-ORDER DEALER	MANUFACTURER DIRECTLY
Dentsply BIOFORMIPN	21.76	No	Yes	No		8-10
Dentsply BIOBLEND IPN	21.07	No	Yes	No		11-13
Dentsply CLASSIC	3.90	No	Yes	No		14-16
Dentsply PORTRAIT IPN	26.28	No	Yes	No		17-19
Dentsply TRUBLEND SLM	22.22	No	Yes	No		20-22
Ivoclar SR VI VODENT PE	20.04	Yes	Yes	Yes		23-25
Justi BLEND	12.84	Yes	Yes	Yes		26-28
Kenson RESIN	3.75	Yes	Yes	Yes		29-31
Myerson DURABLEND SPECIAL RESIN	15.96	No	No	Yes		32-34
Universal VERILUX	19.52	Yes	No	No		35-37
Vita VITAPAN	23.21	Yes	No	Yes		38-40
				Total =	100 points

C003

					5-7
(1) Plastic Teeth BRAND/LINE	(2) Anterior Card (1 x 6) PRICE IN $	(3) Available From			(4) Your Response: SHARE OF PURCHASES (PERCENT)
		LOCAL DEALER	MAIL-ORDER DEALER	MANUFACTURER DIRECTLY
Dentsply BIOFORM IPN	26.60	Yes	Yes	No		8-10
Dentsply BIOBLEND IPN	28.97	Yes	Yes	No		11-13
Dentsply CLASSIC	3.90	Yes	Yes	No		14-16
Dentsply PORTRAIT IPN	23.65	Yes	Yes	No		17-19
Dentsply TRUBLEND SLM	30.56	Yes	Yes	No		20-22
Ivoclar SR VIVODENT PE	22.55	Yes	No	No		23-25
Justi BLEND	12.84 f	Yes	Yes	Yes		26-28
Kenson RESIN	3.75 f	Yes	Yes	Yes		29-31
Myerson DURABLEND SPECIAL RESIN	19.95	Yes	No	No		32-34
Universal VERILUX	26.84	No	Yes	Yes		35-37
Vita VTTAPAN	23.21	Yes	No	No		38-40
				Total =	100 points

C004

					5-7
(1) Plastic Teeth BRAND/LINE	(2) Anterior Card (1 x 6) PRICE IN $	(3) Available From			(4) Your Response: SHARE OF PURCHASES (PERCENT)
		LOCAL DEALER	MAIL-ORDER DEALER	MANUFACTURER DIRECTLY
Dentsply BIOFORMIPN	19.44	Yes	No	No		8-10
Dentsply BIOBLENDIPN	23.71	Yes	No	No		11-13
Dentsply CLASSIC	3.90	Yes	No	No		14-16
Dentsply PORTRAIT IPN	23.65	Yes	No	No		17-19
Dentsply TRUBLEND SLM	25.00	Yes	No	No		20-22
Ivoclar SR VIVODENT PE	25.05	No	Yes	Yes		23-25
Justi BLEND	12.84	Yes	Yes	Yes		26-28
Kenson RESIN	3.75 f	Yes	Yes	Yes		29-31
Myerson DURABLEND SPECIAL RESIN	19.95 f	No	No	Yes		32-34
Universal VERILUX	21.96	No	Yes	No		35-37
Vita VTTAPAN	26.11	No	No	Yes		38-40
				Total =	100 points

C005

					5-7
(1) Plastic Teeth BRAND/LINE	(2) Anterior Card (1 x 6) PRICE IN $	(3) Available From			(4) Your Response: SHARE OF PURCHASES (PERCENT)
		LOCAL DEALER	MAIL-ORDER DEALER	MANUFACTURER DIRECTLY
Dentsply BIOFORMIPN	24.18	No	Yes	Yes		8-10
Dentsply BIOBLEND IPN	21.07	No	Yes	Yes		11-13
Dentsply CLASSIC	3.90	No	Yes	Yes		14-16
Dentsply PORTRAIT IPN	21.02	No	Yes	Yes		17-19
Dentsply TRUBLEND SLM	25.00	No	Yes	Yes		20-22
Ivoclar SR VTVODENT PE	22.55	No	Yes	No		23-25
Justi BLEND	12.84	Yes	Yes	Yes		26-28
Kcnson RESIN	3.75	Yes	Yes	Yes		29-31
Myerson DURABLEND SPECIAL RESIN	21.95	No	Yes	No		32-34
Universal VERILUX	24.40	Yes	No	Yes		35-37
Vita VITAPAN	31.91	No	Yes	No		38-40
				Total =	100 points

C006

					5-7
(1) Plastic Teeth BRAND/LINE	(2) Anterior Card (1 x 6) PRICE IN $	(3) Available From			(4) Your Response: SHARE OF PURCHASES (PERCENT)
		LOCAL DEALER	MAIL-ORDER DEALER	MANUFACTURER DIRECTLY
Dentsply BIOFORMIPN	21.76	Yes	Yes	Yes		8-10
Dentsply BIOBLENDIPN	26.34	Yes	Yes	Yes		11-13
Dentsply CLASSIC	3.90	Yes	Yes	Yes		14-16
Dentsply PORTRAIT IPN	28.91	Yes	Yes	Yes		17-19
Dentsply TRUBLEND SLM	27.78	Yes	Yes	Yes		20-22
Ivoclar SR VIVODENT PE	27.56	No	No	Yes		23-25
Justi BLEND	12.84	Yes	Yes	Yes		26-28
Kenson RESIN	3.75	Yes	Yes	Yes		29-31
Myerson DURABLEND SPECIAL RESIN	17.96	Yes	No	Yes		32-34
Universal VERILUX	24.40	Yes	Yes	Yes		35-37
Vita VITAPAN	29.01	No	Yes	Yes		38-40
				Total =	100 points

C006

					5-7
(1) Plastic Teeth BRAND/LINE	(2) Anterior Card (1 x 6) PRICE IN $	(3) Available From			(4) Your Response: SHARE OF PURCHASES (PERCENT)
		LOCAL DEALER	MAIL-ORDER DEALER	MANUFACTURER DIRECTLY
Dentsply BIOFORMIPN	24.18	No	No	Yes		8-10
Dentsply BIOBLENDIPN	26.34	No	No	Yes		11-13
Dentsply CLASSIC	3.90	No	No	Yes		14-16
Dentsply PORTRAIT IPN	21.02	No	No	Yes		17-19
Dentsply TRUBLEND SLM	30.56	No	No	Yes		20-22
Ivoclar SR VTVODENT PE	25.05	Yes	Yes	No		23-25
Justi BLEND	12.84	Yes	Yes	Yes		26-28
Kenson RESIN	3.75	Yes	Yes	Yes		29-31
Myerson DURABLEND SPECIAL RESIN	17.96	Yes	Yes	No		32-34
Universal VERBLUX	19.52	Yes	No	Yes		35-37
Vita VITAPAN	26.11	Yes	Yes	Yes		38-40
				Total =	100 points

Appendix D

THE SCREENER

When Speaking To The Respondent

Hello, my name is ________________ and I represent Guideline Research Corporation, a nationwide market research organization located in New York City. We have been in business for over twenty-five years conducting research studies among both consumers and the dental profession.

Please be assured that we are not selling anything. Any answers we get will be kept strictly confidential and will be reported only when grouped with the answers of the other participating dental laboratories. For your participation, we would send you a check for $20.

A. But first, does your laboratory fabricate dentures using plastic artificial teeth?

	Yes ..............	1		Continue
	No ................	2		Explain to respondent that he doesnt qualify for interview. Record in box below. Erase and re-use screener.

Terminate Q. A: Lab Doesnt Fabricate Dentures Using Plastic Artificial Teeth
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40	(15,16)

B1. Are you the person responsible for selecting the plastic artificial teeth your laboratory will use?

	Yes ..............	1		(Ask Q. B2)
	No ................	2		(Ask to speak to person responsible for selecting the teeth the laboratory uses, tthels unavailable, leave your 800 number, asking him to call back at his earliest convenient)

If respondent does not qualify and no other respondent name is obtained as the person responsible for selecting the plastic artificial teeth the laboratory uses, explain to respondent that he doesn t qualify for Interview. Record in box below. Erase and re-use screener.

Terminate Q. B1: Not Responsible for Selecting Plastic Artificial Teeth Laboratory Uses/Name of Person Responsible Not Obtainable
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40	(17,18)

B2. Including you, if you too are a technician, how many laboratory technicians does your laboratory employ at this location?

3. We would like to send you two envelopes. One will be marked envelope A and can be opened as soon as you receive it, or at your convenience. This envelope contains a few questions regarding your labs' purchase and use of plastic artificial teeth. It should take only about 10 minutes to fill out Please answer these questions before the time anives for a phone call from Guideline Research.

   If you like, you can glance through Envelope B. However, please do not answer any of the questions in Envelope B until you receive our phone call. Upon completion of the contents of both envelopes, the interviewer will verify your name and address so we can mail you the check for $20, as our gift to you for your participation in our survey.

   Again, all of your answers will remain confidential and will be used for tabulation purposes only.

4. If qualified but refuses, record in box below.

Terminate Q. D: Qualified Refusals
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40	(22,23)

24-79R

80-1

Appendix E

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Research Corporation	3 West 35th Street, New York, N.Y. 10001 (212) 947-5140 Fax (212) 629-0061

June, 1998

Dear Respondent:

We at Guideline Research are very pleased that you have agreed to participate in our national survey of dental laboratories regarding their purchase and use of plastic artificial teeth.

Please note that two envelopes are enclosed. Envelope "A" can be opened right now, or at your convenience. This envelope contains a few questions regarding your lab's purchase and use of plastic artificial teeth. It should take only about 10 minutes to fill out. Please answer these questions before the time arrives for your phone call from Guideline Research.

If you like, you can glance through Envelope "B". However, please do not answer any of the questions until you receive our phone call. Upon receipt of your completed materials from Envelope "A" and Envelope "B", we will send you a check for $20 as a thank you for your participation.

Thanks again for all of your help. All of your answers will remain confidential and will be used for tabulation purposes only.

Sincerely,

_______________/s/________________
Larry Adams
Research Coordinator

GUIDELINE RESEARCH CORPORATION	JOB #U09-018
3 West 35th Street New York, NY 10001	June, 1998
	4-5R

General Background Information About Your Dental Laboratory

1. Where is your dental laboratory located:

   	City/Town	_______________________________
   	State	_______________________________	(6-7)

2. Which of the following statements best describes your dental lab? (Please check one box)

   			(?)
   	My lab is independently owned	..............................		-1
   	My lab is owned by a lab chain	..............................		-2

3. Is your lab affiliated with a lab products purchasing group?

   Yes

   ..............................

   -1

   No

   ..............................

   -2

   (8)

4. How many of your technicians fabricate dentures?

   __________ (10-12)

   Number of technicians

   How far away (in miles) is the nearest artificial teeth dealer from your lab.

   __________ (13-16)

   Miles (approximately)

5. How far away (in miles) is the dealer from whom you purchase most of your artificial teeth.

   __________ (17-20)

   Miles (approximately)

6. How often do you obtain artificial teeth from a dealer on the same day that you order them? (Please check one box)

   	Never	..............................		-1		Sometimes	..............................		-3	(21)
   	Seldom	..............................		-2		Almost always	..............................		-4

7. How often do you receive personal visits from dealer sales representatives? (Please check box)

   	More than once a week	..............................		-1	(22)
   	More than once a month but no more than once a week	..............................		-2
   	More than once every 3 months but no more than once a month	..............................		-3
   	No more than once every 3 months	..............................		-5
   	Never	..............................		-5

Please consider the following brands and lines of artificial teeth. Which column best describes your awareness/use of them?

	Never heard of it Have heard of but not used Have used at least once in the past Have used at least once in the last 12 months Used regularly over past 6 months
	-1-	-2-	-3-	-5-	-5-	23-24R
Name Of Brand Line
Dentsply
Bioform IPN						(25)
Bioblend IPN						(26)
Classic						(27)
Portrait IPN						(28)
TrublendSLM						(29)
Vita
Vitapan						(30)
Voclar
VivodentPE						(31)
Universal
Verilux						(32)
Myerson
Durablend Special Resin						(33)
Kenson
Resin						(34)
Justi
Blend						(35)

10a.	Please indicate in column (a) below the percentage in dollars each listed or other artificial tooth line accounted for of the total amount of plastic artificial teeth your lab used in the past six months. (Total should add to 100%)
10b.	Please indicate in column (b) below the percentage in dollars each listed or other artificial tooth line accounts for of your total current stock. (Total should add to 100%)
10c.	Please indicate in column (c) below the average dollar value over the last 6 months of each listed or other artificial tooth line you have on consignment, if any.

	a.) % (in $) of teeth used in last 6 months b.) % (in $) of teeth currently stocked c.) Average $ value of teeth on consignment over last 6 months
Dentsply
Bioform IPN	________ (36-37)	________ (64-65)	________ (18-21)
Bioblend IPN	________ (38-39)	________ (66-67)	________ (22-25)
Classic	________ (40-41)	________ (68-69)	________ (26-29)
Portrait IPN	________ (42-43)	________ (70-71)	________ (30-33)
Trublend SLM	________ (44-45)	________ (72-73)	________ (34-37)
Vita
Vitapan	________ (46-47)	________ (74-75)	________ (38-41)
Ivoclar
Vivodent PE	________ (48-49)	________ (76-77)	________ (42-45)
Universal
Verilux	________ (50-51)	________ (78-79) 80-2 4-5R	________ (46-49)
Myerson
Durablend Special Resin	________ (52-53)	________ (6-7)	________ (50-53)
Kenson
Resin	________ (54-55)	________ (8-9)	________ (54-57)
Justi
Blend	________ (56-57)	________ (10-11)	________ (58-61)
Other (Please Specify)
________________________	________ (58-59)	________ (12-13)	________ (62-65)
________________________	________ (60-61)	________ (14-15)	________ (66-69)
________________________	________ (62-63)	________ (16-17)	________ (70-73)
TOTAL	________ 100%	________ 100%

1. Please estimate the percentage of cases where the dentist (rather than the tab technician) selects the brand/line of artificial tooth.

   ________ (74-75)

   % of cases where dentist selects

12. Please estimate the percentage of cases where the dentist (rather than the lab technician) selects the precise:

    	Mold	________ (76-77)	% specified by dentist
    	Shade	________ (78-79)	% specified by dentist

    80-3

B. Brand/Line Attribute Importance

In your selection of a particular artificial tooth brand and line, how important are the following attributes? Please circle the number that comes closest to describing each attribute, ranging from ...

10 - indicating extremely important, down to
1 - indicating not at all important

4-5R
Brand/Line Manufacturer...	Extremely Important									Not At All Important
Provides technical assistance and product support	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(6)
Has lenient policy for returns/exchanges of broken sets	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(7)
Offers a wide range of tooth lines (offers teeth in premium, mid-range, and economy segments)	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(8)
Offers a wide variety and range of tooth shapes and/or sizes.	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(9)
Offers a wide variety and range of tooth shades	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(10)
Has Vita-shaded teeth	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(11)
Has an accurate shade system/shade guide	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(12)
Offers teeth in American rather than European molds	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(13)
Offers teeth that are highly aesthetic	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(14)
Offers teeth that are highly wear resistant	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(15)
Offers teeth that are highly stain resistant	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(16)
Offers teeth that have a functional occlusal design	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(17)
Offers teeth that are easy for lab technicians to set up	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(18)

C. Dealer Attribute Importance

In your selection of a particular dental supply dealer from whom to buy teeth, how important are the following attributes? Please circle the number that comes closest to describing the importance of each dealer attribute, ranging from ...

10- indicating extremely important, down to
1 - indicating not at all important

Dealer...	Extremely Important									Not At All Important
Has a local inventory of a comprehensive stock of teeth (in wide variety of shades, molds, and sizes)	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(19)
Has same day availability of teeth	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(20)
Sells a wide range of lab products (other than teeth)	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(21)
Has a wide variety of manufacturers/brands of any given product	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(22)
Fills orders promptly and accurately	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(23)
Provides personal visits from dealer sales representatives	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(24)
Provides consignment or other financing arrangement	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(25)
Provides inventory management and restocking (including for consignment stocks)	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(26)
Handles returns and exchanges of broken sets	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(27)
Provides technical assistance and product support (by sales representatives and/ or tooth counter personnel)	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(28)
Has dealer sates representatives or tooth counter personnel with whom you have an established relationship	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	(29)

30-79R

80-4

Instructions For Responding To Materials In Envelope

Thanks very much for your continued participation in our survey. The envelope (Envelope B) contains eight cards. Please look at these cards now. Each card describes a possible business scenario. Please start with the top card, labeled in the upper, right-hand corner as C-141. As you'll note, the first column of this card lists eleven brand/LINE names of plastic artificial teeth (the other seven cards list the same eleven brand/LINE names).

Column 2 shows the approximate current price in dollars (not including any shipping cost), of an anterior 1 by 6 card. (As you go through all eight cards, you'll note that these prices may change from card to card.)

Column 3 shows three kinds of distribution availability: local dealer, mail-order dealer (a dealer that ships teeth from a non-local location), and direct from the manufacturer. A given manufacturer may have some combination of distribution availability, e.g._yes, yes, no. Considering brand/LINE differences, price differences, and distribution availability differences, we'd like you to allocate 100 points across the eleven brands

In such a way as to reflect the share of your total plastic teeth business volume (in units) that you would place with each of these brand/LINES over the next three months, given the information shown on the card.

You can assign ZERO points to one or more suppliers if you feel that you would place no orders with them during the next three months. However, please make sure that the TOTAL number of assigned points add to 100.

As you have finished your point allocation for the first card, please read off to me your point allocation to each supplier (including ZERO points if that's applicable).
(Interviewer: check that total is 100.)

Now let's proceed to the next card. Each card will be different from the rest in one or more respects — price or type of distribution availability. For each of the scenarios, please indicate your point allocation under each set of conditions.

Appendix F

FIELD INSTRUCTIONS

Research Corporation	3 West 35th Street, New York, N.Y. 10001 (212) 947-5140 Fax (212) 629-0061

#U09-018
Dental Laboratory Study
June 1998

Dear Supervisor:

Enclosed are the following materials for our "Dental Laboratory Study":

• Screeners (white)
• 2^nd Call Instructions Sheet
• Envelope A (Pre-Stuffed)
• Envelope B (Pre-Stuffed)
• Business Reply Envelope
• Respondent Cover Letter
• US Priority Mailing Envelopes
• Practice Interviews
• Progress Report Sheet
• Validation Listing Sheet
• Airbill to return work
• Sample (sent via Modem)

OVERVIEW/STUDY DESIGN

This is a Phone Mail Phone WATS study. All recruiting and interviewing is to be conducted during local business hours using the sample provided.

All respondents will be recruited via phone then mailed a packet via US Priority mail, then called again on the phone approximately 4-5 days after the mailing. At the time of the second call the respondents will be instructed on how to complete the forms in Envelope B and to return the contents of Envelope A and Envelope B back to GRC.

SCHEDULE
Recruiting
      Brief and Begin: --------------------------------- Friday, June 19
      Progress Report: --------------------------------- Daily by 10:00 AM

      End Recruiting: --------------------------------- Monday, July 13

2^nd Calls
      Brief and Begin --------------------------------- Wednesday, June 24^th
      Progress Report--------------------------------- Daily by 10:00 AM
      End Second Calls--------------------------------- Wednesday, July 22^nd

INTERVIEWING HOURS

Interviewing should be scheduled during local business hours.

QUOTA

You are to recruit 500 respondents who agree to participate.

You are to mail packets to all 500 respondents who were recruited.

You are to call back all 500 respondents who were recruited and a packet mailed out to.

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

In order to qualify for this study, respondents must meet the following requirements:

• Laboratory must fabricate dentures using plastic artificial teeth (Q.A)

• Respondent must be responsible for selecting the plastic artificial teeth the laboratory uses (Q.Bl)

• Laboratory must fabricate dentures using plastic artificial teeth (Q.B1)

• Respondent must be willing to participate (accept receipt of the packet) (Q.C)

• Respondent must have completed contents of Envelope A and Completed 2^nd Call.

SAMPLE

We have provided you with a national sample of 10,000 numbers.

Please only open 1 replicate at a time. You are to start at the beginning of the first replicate and work through all the names in that replicate before beginning the second replicate. Each sample sheet should be used as your call record sheet to document every dialing attempt made to each potential respondent. A minimum of 3 dialing attempts must be made for each number.

MATERIALS

There is one version of the Screener (white). Note: All the screeners have been pre-numbered. This number is your reference number when mailing the Envelope B and the Business Reply Envelope

There is one version of the 2^nd Call Instruction Sheet which is Labeled "Instructions For Responding To Materials In Envelope B".

There is one version of the Respondent Cover Letter. Every respondent will receive a copy of this letter.

There is one version of Envelope A. All respondents will receive Envelope A. Envelope A contains a self administered questionnaire

There are 20 versions of Envelope B. The envelopes have been bundled by block # from 1-20. Each bundle has 25 envelopes. Each respondent will receive one Envelope B. Envelope B contains 8 cards. The block # of Envelope B that the respondent receives will depend on the respondent Id #. Therefore, it is important that the envelopes stay in the bundle order provided. See chart below.

There are 500 large pre-numbered Business Reply envelopes. Each respondent must receive the corresponding envelope which matches the Id # on the front page of the screener, this is to ensure that we are able to identify the respondent when they return the materials back to us.

We have provided you with US Priority envelopes which will be used to mail all the specific materials (cover letter, Envelope A, Envelope B, and the Business Reply Envelope.

ID/ENVELOPE ASSIGNMENT

Screener /Respondent ID #	Envelope B Block #	Business Reply Envelope
001-025	1	001-025 (Specific #)
026-050	2	026-050 (Specific #)
051-075	3	051-075 (Specific #)
076-100	4	076-100 (Specific #)
101-125	5	101-125 (Specific #)
126-150	6	126-150 (Specific #)
151-175	7	151-175 (Specific #)
176-200	8	176-200 (Specific #
201-225	9	201-225 (Specific #)
226-250	10	226-250 (Specific #)
251-275	11	251-275 (Specific #)
276-300	12	276-300 {Specific #)
301-325	13	301-325 (Specific #)
326-350	14	326-350 (Specific #)
351-375	15	351-375 (Specific #)
376-400	16	376-400 (Specific #)
401-425	17	401-425 (Specific #)
426-450	18	426-450 (Specific #)
451-475	19	451-475 (Specific #)
476-500	20	476-500 (Specific #)

Example 1: If you are using a screener pre-numbered 020, you must send this respondent Envelope B Block 1 with Business Reply Envelope pre-numbered 020 along with all the other materials (cover letter and Envelope A). Example 2: If you are using screener pre-numbered 422, you must send this respondent Envelope B Block 17 with Business Reply Envelope pre-numbered 422 along with all the other materials (cover letter and Envelope A).

BRIEFING

A personal briefing must be held before any interviewing begins. All personnel working on this study must attend. If more than one briefing is required, the same supervisor that was present at the first briefing must conduct all subsequent briefings. All interviewers working on this study are to do a practice interview.

Most questions which appear on the main questionnaire are clear and straightforward and need no further explanation. Interviewers must read and follow all instructions and skip patterns as indicated on the questionnaire. Interviewers must read and thoroughly understand all questionnaire interviewing procedures before working on this study.

At the briefing, stress the following points:

• Screening criteria/respondent eligibility

• Ask to speak to the person named on the list OR the person responsible for selecting the teeth the laboratory uses.

• At the pre-recruit phase the interviewers must record for each respondent the number of attempts it took to obtain a completed interview. Note: This must be recorded on the front page of the screener in the space indicated.

• Record date of when the package is mailed.

• Schedule callback appointments 4-5 days after the package is mailed

• At the 2^nd call phase the interviewer must record for each respondent the number of attempts it took to obtain a completed interview. Note: This information must be recorded on the top of page 2.

• Record whether the respondent was Recruited and 2nd call completed or Recruit Only on the front page of the Screener.

• 2^nd Call - The interviewer will not be taking down any information. They will only explain to the respondent how to complete the materials in Envelope B.

• Carefully following all instructions indicated on the questionnaire

• Completing all respondent information

PROGRESS REPORTS

Enclosed are Progress Report Sheets for your convenience. Accurate cumulative reports are to be received by us as indicated on the "Schedule" section. We are to RECEIVE them by 10:00 AM OUR TIME.

• FAX #212-947-6294 (Preferred). Do not use a cover sheet, just fill in all the required information on the Progress Report Sheet. Be sure to write your city and contact name on each sheet of the report.

If you prefer you can call in your report in the evening at 800-223-5306 and leave your report on our answering machine. Be sure to give your city and job number when doing so. In New York State, use 212-947-5140.

VALIDATON SHEETS

• List only ONE interviewer's work on a sheet.

• Fill all required respondent information, interviewer name, city and quota group.

• Write listings in black ink only.

• Do NOT xerox additional screeners without contacting GRC for instructions as to how to number these additional screeners.

• Be careful about indicating correct area codes.

• Supervisors are NOT to conduct telephone validations. You must, however, monitor or do on-site validation for at least 10% of each interviewer's work and note validated work on Validation Form.

EDITING

Edit 100% of the work. Use blue pencil (not red), please. Editor's initials must appear on the top right corner of the Screener.

RETURNING WORK

Return work as per schedule.

• Bundle together all completed Recruits and 2^nd Call Completed by interviewer with that interviewer's Validation Sheet(s) on top.

  • Bundle together all "Recruits Only" which contain a record of terminations.

• Return all practice interviews.

• Enclose Master/Final Progress Report Forms.

• Return Sample.

SHIPMENT/CHARGES

• Use the blank airbills provided as they contain our account # and address

• All shipments are to be charged to our Federal Express Account #0100-0112-9 unless otherwise specified

• Do not insure

• Indicate Job #U08-018 on airbill for all shipments

• Important

  Since GRC does not want to incur additional shipping charges, make sure that all items specified above are included with your completed questionnaires, unless otherwise specified. If you "forget" we will have to deduct the additional shipping charges from your bill.

BILLING

Submit all bills under separate cover to the attention of our Accounting Department.

Thank you for your help with this survey.

Sincerely,

Nelly Valentin Field Director

Guideline Research 3 West 35th Street New York, NY 10001

Job #U09-018 Dental Laboratory Study June, 1998

Interviewer's Instructions

Interviewer's Name:_______________________________	Date:___________
Briefing Supervisor: _______________________________

OVERVIEW/STUDY DESIGN

This is Phone Mail Phone WATS study. All recruiting and interviewing is to be conducted during local business hours using the sample provided.

All respondents will be recruited via phone then mailed a packet via US Priority mail, then called again on the phone approximately 4-5 days after the mailing. At the time of the second call the respondents will be instructed on how to complete the forms in Envelope B and to return the contents of Envelope A and Envelope B back to GRC.

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

In order to qualify for this study, respondents must meet the following requirements:

• Laboratory must fabricate dentures using plastic artificial teeth (Q.A)

• Respondent must be responsible for selecting the plastic artificial teeth the laboratory uses (Q.B1)

• Respondent must be willing to participate (accept receipt of the packet) (Q.C)

• Respondent must have completed contents of Envelope A and Completed 2^nd Call.

RECRUITING PHASE

SCREENER QUESTION BY QUESTION INSTRUCTIONS

Ask to speak to the person recorded on the sample OR the person responsible for selecting the teeth the laboratory will use.

When speaking to the receptionist read the introduction verbatim. If the receptionist indicates that the selected respondent is not available, leave your 800 number, asking him to call back at his earliest convenience, or you may interview another qualified person in the same office if the first respondent is not available. You may not interview two respondents from the same office.

If the receptionist indicates that this dental laboratory will not participate, terminate, circle the next available number in the termination box.

When speaking to the selected respondent read the introduction verbatim.

Q.A:	If "yes" ask Q.Bl. If "no" terminate. This location does not qualify for this study.
Q.B1:	If "yes" continue. If "no" ask to speak to the person responsible for selecting the teeth the laboratory uses, if he is unavailable, leave the 800 number, asking him to call back at his earliest convenience, otherwise terminate.
Q.B2:	Record the number of laboratory technicians employed at this facility.
Q.C:	Read verbatim. Explain to the respondent that they will be receiving a packet via US Priority mail. The packet contains two envelopes. The envelope labeled "A" must be completed as soon as they receive it. They are to be instructed not to do anything with the envelope labeled "B" until they receive a call from you which will occur approximately 4-5 days after they have received the package. Inform the respondent that they will receive $20.00 if they complete the contents of Envelope A, receive a 2nd call and complete the contents of Envelope B, and return the contents of both A and B in the Business Reply Envelope provided. If the respondents refuses, terminate, circle next available number in the termination box. If the respondents agrees schedule a callback appointment approximately 4-5 days from when the package is to be mailed. Record date and time of call in the space provided. Record all respondent information on the front page of the screener. Important: Record the total number of attempts needed to obtain this completed recruit in the space indicated on the front page of the screener.

MAILING PHASE

All packets are to be mailed out the same day the respondents are recruited.

You are to record the date of when the packet was mailed on the front page of the Screener.

You are to type up one label to adhere to the mailing envelope.

Each respondent will be receiving 4 items:
       Cover Letter
       Envelope A--Common To All Respondents
       Envelope B--Customize by Respondents --Check with Supervisor
       Business Reply Envelope--Customize by Respondent--Check with Supervisor

2^nd CALL PHASE

At the scheduled time each respondent will receive a 2^nd call. The purpose of this second call is to verify receipt of the package and to provide the respondent with instructions on how to complete the contents of Envelope B.

There is no questionnaire to be administered-by you in this phase of the study, the only instrument that you will be using is the "Instruction For Responding To Materials In Envelope B" sheet. You are to read the sheet verbatim. Be sure you are familiar with the forms before you get on the telephone with the respondents.

Note: On the second paragraph from the bottom of the instruction sheet it refers to "Read off to me...." You are not recording anything, you are simply making sure that the respondent has correctly allocated 100 points across all supplier on each page.

After the respondent understands the process of filling out the forms, instruct them to return both the contents of Envelope A and B, the respondent should be told not to include Envelope A and Envelope B but only their contents, that is the self administered questionnaire and the 8 cards, in the provided Business Reply Envelope.

Remind the respondent that they will receive their $ 20.00 check only after GRC receives their completed packet.

IMPORTANT:
Record the total number of attempts needed to obtain this completed 2^nd call in the space indicated on the top of the 2^nd page of the screener. Be sure to circle Recruited/2^nd Call Completed on the front page of the screener.

Appendix G
The Screening Results

[D]

Appendix H

CURRICULUM VITAE

YORAM (JERRY) WIND

Jerry Wind is The Lauder Professor and Professor of Marketing at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He is the foundingi director of the Wharton "think tank", The SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management The Center's mission is to assure through research and development the quality of management research and education and its relevance to the needs of management practice and society in the 21st century. Currently he leads Wharton's Information Management Initiatives (IMI) and the faculty committee that develops the Master in Electronic Business program. From 1983 to 1988, he was the founding director of the Joseph H. Lauder Institute of Management and International Studies, and from 1980 to 1983 the founding director of the Wharton Center for International Management Studies. Or. Wind chaired the Wharton committees that designed the Wharton Executive MBA Program (1974), the new MBA curriculum (1991), and the School's globalization strategy (1995-1997). He also started the Wharton International Forum (1987) and served as the chairman of its faculty council until 1998. Dr. Wind joined the Wharton staff in 1967, upon receipt of his doctorate from Stanford University.

Dr. Wind is one of the most cited authors in marketing. He is a regular contributor to the professional marketing literature, which has included 15 books and over 200 papers, articles, and monographs encompassing the areas of marketing strategy, marketing research, new product and market development, consumer and industrial buying behavior, and international marketing. His most recent book, Driving Change, that focuses on how corporations can prepare themselves for the next millennium, has already received wide acclaim. He has lectured in faculty seminars and executive programs in over 50 universities worldwide.

Dr. Wind has served as editor-in-chief of the JOURNAL OF MARKETING, on the policy boards of the JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH and MARKETING SCIENCE, and has been on the editorial boards of all major marketing journals. He recently served as guest editor of special issues of MARKETING SCIENCE (1996) on Empirical Generalization in Marketing (with Frank Bass), JMR (1997) on Innovation in New Product Development: Best Practice in Research, Modeling, and Applications, and MARKETING RESEARCH (1993) on The State of the Art in Quantitative Research.

Dr. Wind has served as a consultant to many Fortune 500 firms and a number of non-U.S. multinationals in the financial services, Pharmaceuticals, information, and consumer packaged goods industries. His current clients include Bristol-Myers Squibb, SEI Investments, Edward Jones, Price Waterhouse Coopers and General Instrument. His consulting focuses on both overall global corporate and business strategy as well as marketing strategy and especially the development of new products and services. In addition, he has served as an expert witness in various legal cases.

Dr. Wind is a trustee of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, a co-founder of NETT - New Educational Technological Transformations, a member of the board of Enhance Financial Services Corporation, and CASA. He is a former director of Contel Corporation and a number of entrepreneurial-ventures.

Dr. Wind is an active member of the major marketing and management science professional associations, a former academic trustee of the Marketing Science Institute, and a member of a number of its steering committees (currently he chairs the MSI task force on e-commerce valuation). He is also a former chairman of the College of Marketing of the Institute of Management Science and a previous member of the Board of Directors of the Philadelphia AMA Chapter. He is one of the founders of the new Israeli university - The Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Business, Law and Technology and chairman of its international advisory board and academic council. He is also a member of the board of a number of Wharton's research centers and the Lauder Institute.

Dr. Wind is the recipient of various awards, including the prestigious Charles Coolidge Pariin Award (1985), the AMA/lrwin Distinguished Educator Award (1993), the Paul D. Converse Award (1996), and the first Faculty Impact Award by Wharton Alumni (1993). He was elected as the 1984 member of the Attitude Research Hall of Fame and has won a number of research awards, including two Alpha Kappa Psi Foundation awards.

October 26, 1999

ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE

EDUCATION

Stanford Universit, Graduate School of Business, Ph.D. (Marketing), 9/64-12/66.

Stanford University, International Center for Advancement of Management Education, Certificate in Marketing Management 9/63-6/64.

The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, School of Economics and Social Sciences, M.A. (Business Administration and Political Science), 9/60-6/63; B. Soc. Sci. (Economics and Political Science), 9/58-6/61.

UNIVERSITY POSITIONS

1. University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School

Faculty Positions:
    The Lauder Professor, 1983-
    Professor of Marketing, 1973-
    Associate Professor of Marketing, 1970-73
    Assistant Professor of Marketing and International Business, 1967-70

Selected Administrative Positions:
    Founding Director, The SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management 1988-
    Founding Director, The Joseph H. Lauder Institute of Management and International Studies, 1983-88
    Founding Director, the 1st Title VI National Resource Center in International Management Studies, 1985-88
    Founding Director, The Wharton Center for International Management Studies, 1980-1983

Secondary Faculty Appointments:
    Member of the Graduate Group in International Studies (School of Arts & Sciences), 1984-1998
    Member of the OR Group, 1979-84 and the OR affiliated faculty, 1984-89
    Senior Fellow of the Leonard Davis Institute, 1977-1980
    Secondary Appointment as Professor of Management 1981-1984
    Member of the Extended Faculty of the Social Systems Sciences Dept. 1981-1986

2. Other Universities

Erasmus University (The Netherlands) The first visiting Unilever-Erasmus Professorship, Spring 1993

University of Tokyo (Japan) The first Hakuhodo Visiting Professorship, Spring 1992 and 1993

University of New South Wales (Australia) The first visiting Hoover Foundation Professor, 6/77

University of California at Berkeley, School of Business Administration, Visiting Professor, Fall 1975

University of Tel Aviv, The Leon Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration, Visiting Senior Lecturer, 9/68-8/69

Stanford University, Graduate School of Business, Research Assistant, 6/65-10/66

The Hebrew University Jerusalem, Teaching Assistant in the Departments of Political Science and Business Administration, 9/61-6/63

PUBLICATIONS

1. BOOKS

Leveraging Japan: Marketing to the New Asia, with George Fields and Hotako Katahira (San Francisco: Josse Bass), forthcoming 1999.

*Driving Change, with Jeremy Main (New York: The Free Press), 1997.

The Silveriake Project, with Roy A. Bauer, Emilio Collar, Victor Tang and Patrick R. Houston. (New York: Oxford University Press), January, 1992.

*Product Policy: Concepts, Methods and Strategies (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley), 1982. Reviewed JM Summer 1981.

*Marketing and Product Planning (in Spanish) (Mexico: Expansion). This book is based in part on sections from Product Policy which was selected by the editors of Expansion as the "Book of the Year" 1979.

Multi-Attribute Decisions in Marketing: A Measurement Approach, with Paul E. Green (and contributions by Douglas Carroll). (Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press), 1973.

Organizational Buying Behavior, with Frederick E. Webster, Jr. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Foundations of Marketing Series), 1972. Translated to Portuguese (Editor, Atlas, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1975). Reviewed JMR August, 1974.

Market Segmentation, with Ronald E. Frank and William F. Massy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, International Series in Management), 1972. Reviewed JMR, November, 1972; August, 1974.

Advertising Measurement and Decision Making, with Homer Dalby and Irwin Gross (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon), 1968.

Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing. Publication of the Marketing Science Institute (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon), 1967. Contributed two chapters; co-authored with Patrick J. Robinson three chapters; and participated in the overall organization and preparation of the book.

*Industrial Buying Behavior: Source Loyalty in the Purchase of Industrial Components. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, December, 1966.

2. EDITED BOOKS

Digital Marketing, with Vijay Mahajan, forthcoming, 2000.

New Product Diffusion Models, with Vijay Mahajan and Eitan Muller, The IC² Institute's Econometric & Management Sciences Series (Kluwer Academic Publishers), forthcoming 1999.

Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance, with Vijay Mahajan, The IC² Institute's Econometric & Management Sciences Series (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.), 1986.

*New Product Forecasting: Models and Applications, with Vijay Mahajan and Richard Cardozo. (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books), 1981.

*Advances in Organizational Buying Research: The Case of Acquisition of Scientific and Technical Information, with Robert J. Thomas (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation), 1979.

*Moving A Head with Attitude Research: Proceedings of the Seventh Attitude Research Conference. Edited with Marshall Greenberg. (Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association), 1977. Designed, organized, and edited this book of eight invited position papers and eighteen application papers.

Behavioral Models of Market Analysis: Foundations for Marketing Action, edited with Francesco Nicosia (Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press), 1977. Co-planned, edited, and organized the volume of original papers.

3. ARTICLES, CONTRIBUTED CHAPTERS, PAPERS IN PROCEEDINGS, AND WORKING PAPERS

The papers in this section are classified into ten areas:

1. Portfolio analysis and strategy
2. Integration of marketing perspective in corporate strategy
3. Marketing and product strategy
4. Research on industrial buying behavior
5. Research on consumer behavior
6. Marketing research and modeling
7. International marketing
8. Publications related to international management education and the Lauder Institute
9. Publications related to management practice and education in the 21st Century
10. Entries in Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

A number of papers can fit in more than one category. The division is, therefore, quite arbitrary and based primarily on the target audience of the paper.

1. Portfolio Analysis and Strategy

1.*	"Product Portfolio: A New Approach to the Product Mix Decision", in Ronald C. Churhan, ed., Combined Proceedings AMA, August, 1974, pp. 60-464.
2.|*	"Planning Product Line Strategy: A Matrix Approach", with Henry Claycamp, Journal of Marketing, 40, January 1976, pp. 2-9.
3a.|*	"An Analytic Hierarchy Process for the Allocation of Resources Within a Target Product/Market/Distribution Portfolio", with Daniel Gross, in D.B. Montgomery and D.R. Wittink, eds., Proceedings of the ORSA/TIMS Conference on Marketing Measurement and Analysis, Stanford, CA, March, 1979. Sections of this paper were later incorporated in a paper by Wind and Saaty, "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process", Management Science 26, July 1980, pp. 641-658.
3b.|*	"Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process", with Thomas L. Saaty, Management Science, 26, July 1980, pp. 641-658.
4.|*	"Designing Product and Business Portfolios", with Vijay Mahajan, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 59, No. 1, Jan-Feb, 1981, pp. 155-165. Based on a paper, "Measurement Issues in Portfolio Analysis", presented at the Second Market Measurement and Analysis Conference, University of Texas, Austin; March 1980.
5.	"Stochastic Dominance Rules for Product Portfolio Analysis", with Vijay Mahajan and John W. Bradford, Marketing Planning Models, Special Issue of TIMS Studies in t he Management Sciences, 1981, pp. 161-183.
6.|*	"International Portfolio Analysis and Strategy: The Challenge of the 80's", with Susan P. Douglas, Journal of International Business Studies, Fall, 1981, pp. 69-82.
7.|	"A Model for the Analysis of Asymmetric Data in Marketing Research", with Richard Harshman and Paul E. Green, Marketing Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, Spring, 1982, pp. 205-242.
8.|*	"Empirical Comparison of Standardized Portfolio Models", with Vijay Mahajan and Donald Swire, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, Spring, 1983. pp. 89-99. This article is based on a paper presented at the 1981 conference on Analytical Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning.
9.|	"A Risk Return Approach to Product Portfolio Strategy", with Richard Cardozo, Long Range Planning, Vol. 18. No. 2, 1985, pp. 77-85.
10.	"Integrating Financial Portfolio Analysis with product Portfolio Models", with Vijay Mahajan, in H. Thomas & D. Gardner, (eds.) Strategic Marketing and Management, (NY: J. Wiley & Sons, 1985), pp. 193-212.
11.|	"Corporate Growth Through Synergy: Concept, Measurement and Applications", with Vijay Mahajan, Wharton School Working Paper, 1985.
12.|	"Business Synergy Does Not Always Pay Off', with Vijay Mahajan, Long Range Planning, Vol. 21, No. 1, February 1988, pp. 59-65.

2. Marketing Strategy and Integration of Marketing Perspective in Corporate Strategy

1.*	"A Research Program for a Marketing Guided Approach to Mergers and Acquisitions", in N. Beckwith et al., 1979 Educator's Conference Proceedings (Chicago, IL: AMA), 1979, pp. 207-256.
2.*	"Marketing Oriented Strategic Planning Models", in R.L SchuHz and A. A. Zoltners, eds., Marketing Decision Models, (New York: Elsevier, North Holland), 1980, pp. 207-250.
3.*	"Marketing and the Other Business Functions", in J. Sheth, ed., Research in Marketing, Vol. 5, 1980, pp. 237-264.
4.|*	"Marketing and Corporate Strategy", in 77je Wharton Magazine, Summer 1982, pp. 38-45. Based on "Marketing and Corporate Strategy: Problems and Perspectives", The 13th Annual Albert Wesley Frey Lecture, Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, 1981.
5.	"Marketing Strategy," with Thomas Robertson in Kenneth J. Albert, (ed.), The Strategic Management Handbook, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1982), Chapter 11, pp. 11-3C11-22
6.|	"Marketing Strategy: New Directions for Theory & Research," with Thomas Robertson, Journal of Marketing, Spring, 1983. pp. 12-25.
7.	"Analytic Hierarchy Process for Generation & Evaluation of Marketing Mix Strategies", with E. Dunn, in Contemporary Views on Marketing Practice, Gary Frazier and Jagdish Sheth (eds.), proceeding of the Stellner Symposium on Theories of Marketing Practice, Lexington Books, 1987, pp. 111-131.
8.*	"Marketing for Top Executives: Problems and Prospects", Wharton School Working Paper, 1985.
9.*	"Models for Marketing Planning and Decision Making", in Victor P. Buell, ed., Handbook of Modem Marketing 2nd Edition, 1985, Chapter 49, pp.
10.*	"Expanding the Role of the Board of Directors", Wharton School Working Paper, 1986.
11.*	"A Marketing Perspective for Competitive Strategy", in Harold E. Glass (ed.), Handbook of Business Strategy, 1988/1989 Yearbook (Boston: Warren, Gorham and LaMont), 1988, pp. 285-291. Based on a paper presented at an international conference on Competitive Analysis at the University of Groningen, October 1986.
12.|*	"An AHP-Based Approach to the Design and Evaluation of a Marketing-Driven Business and Corporate Strategy", Mathematical Modeling, Vol. 9, No. 3-5, pp. 285-291, 1987.
13.*	"Effective Competitive Strategies: A Marketing Perspective", Achieving Excellence in Managing, transcript of the SIA Regional Conference, March 25-26, 1986, pp. 62-80.
14.|*	"Financial Services: Increasing Your Marketing Productivity and Profitability", The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 2, Fall 1987, pp. 5-18.
15.*	'Targeting Global Markets: Guidelines to Meet the Marketing Challenge", Directions, 1989, publication of Contel Corp.
16.*	"Inducing Creativity and Innovation in Large Bureaucracies: Lessons from Marketing", in Proceedings of the RGK Foundation, 4th International Conference on Creative and Innovative Management, 1993.
17.*	"Growth Strategies," Wharton School Working Paper, 1996.
18.*	"Preemptive Strategies," in G. Day and D. Reibstein (eds.), Wharton on Dynamic Competitive Strategy, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997.
19.*	"Segmentation: Accomplishments, Issues and Challenges of the Global Information Age," in J. Hess and K. Monroe (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Paul D. Converse Award Symposium, AMA, 1998.
20.*	"Marketing Strategy in the Global Information Age," The Financial Times, pp. 131-150, Mastering Marketing Series, 1998.
21.*	"Customerization: The Second Revolution in Mass Customization," with Arvind Rangaswamy, Wharton School Working Paper, 1999.
22.	"Digital Marketing," with Vijay Mahajan, in Wind and Mahajan, eds., Digital Marketing, The IC2 Institute's Econometric & Management Sciences Series (Kluwer Academic Publishers), forthcoming, 1999.

3. Marketing and Product Strategy

1.|	"I nnovation in Marketing: Organizational Behavior Perspective", with Kenneth E. Knight California Management Review, 11, Fall 1968, pp. 67-78.
2.|*	"Management and Change", with Bent Stidsen and Kenneth E. Knight, Manpower and Applied Psychology, 2, Winter 1968, pp. 38-46.
3.	"The Marketing Concept Revisited"," with Thomas Schutte, Whartotv School Working Paper, January 1968.
4.|*	"Innovation As Marketing Orientation", Business Economics (Hebrew), 36, December, 1969, pp. 5-11.
5.|*	"A Marketing Approach to the Salesman Function", Organization and Administration (Hebrew), 15, September 1969, pp. 26-33.
6.|*	"The Stepchildren of Marketing: Organizational and International Customers", The Wharton Quarterly, 7, Fall 1972. pp. 43-46.
7.*	"A Note on the Operationalization of the Product Life Cycle Concept", Wharton School Working Paper, July 1974.
8.	"Consumer Attitudes as Guidelines for the Evaluation of a New Distribution System", with Frank J. Cacchione, Jr., and Daniel Gross in Y. Wind and M. Greenberg, (eds.) Moving A Head With Attitude Research. (Chicago, IL: AMA), 1977, pp. 139-143.
9.*	"On the Use of Attitude Research in Product Policy", with Tyzoon Tyebjee, in Y. Wind and M. Greenberg, (eds.), Moving A Head With Attitude Research, (Chicago, IL: AMA), 1977, pp. 147-156.
10.*	The Perception of the Firm's Competitive Position", in F. Nicosia and Y. Wind, (eds.), Behavioral Models of Market Analysis: Foundations for Marketing Action, (Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press, 1977), pp. 163-181.
11.|*	"Toward a Change in the Focus of Marketing Analysis: From a Single Brand to an Assortment of Brands", Journal of Marketing, October 1977, pp. 12-13.
12.*	"On the Multi-Dimensionality of Market Share", with Peter T. FitzRoy, Wharton School Working Paper, April 1979.
13.*	"Product-Marketing Planning Models: Concepts, Techniques, and Needed Development", in Allan D. Shocker, (ed.), Analytic Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning (Cambridge, MA: MSI), 1979. pp. 39-66.
14.|*	"Going to Market: New Twists for Some Old Tricks", The Wharton Magazine, 4, Spring, 1980, pp. 34-39. Based on "Product Positioning and Market Segmentation Marketing and Corporate Perspectives", Wharton School Working Paper, 1979.
15.|*	"Market Share: Concepts, Findings, and Directions for Future Research", with Vijay Mahajan, Review of Marketing, and K. Roering, (eds.), Chicago: AMA, 1981, pp. 31-42.
16.|*	"Product Innovation Management: The Required Breakthrough", Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 1, 1984.
17.*	"The Contribution of Research to Product Management and New Product Development", ESOMAR Congress Proceedings, August 1983, pp. 1-15.
18.*	'The Marketing Challenge", address given upon receipt of the Charles Coolidge Parlin Award, 1985. Wharton School Working Paper. Excerpts appeared in The Marketing News August 1985.
19.|*	"Marketing Hype: A New Perspective for New Product Research and Introduction", with Vijay Mahajan, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 43-49, March 1987.
20.|*	"New Product Development Process: A Perspective for Reexamination", with Vijay Mahajan, 77»e Journal of Product Innovation Management, Dec. 1988, No. 5: pp. 304-310. Reprinted in IEEE Engineering Management Review, 1990.
21.*	"Positioning Analysis and Strategy", in G. Day, B. Weitz and R. Wensley (eds.), The Interface of Marketing and Strategy, JAI Press 1990.
22.*	"Salespeople as Marketing Strategists", with Douglas Hill, Wharton School Working Paper, June 1988.
23.*	"Innovative Distribution: The Neglected Dimension in Business Strategy", Wharton School Working Paper, August 1988.
24.|*	"Getting a Read on Market-Defined Value", Journal of Pricing Management Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter 1990, pp. 5-14.
25.*	"A New Approach to the Determination and Allocation of the R&D Budget", Wharton School Working Paper, 1990.
26.*	"A New Approach for Screening New Products and Service Concepts: Application to Financial Services," with Hoonyoung Lee and Raymond Burke, August 1992.
27.*	"New Product Models: Practice, Shortcomings and Desired Improvements" with Vijay Mahajan, March 1991.
28.	"New Product Success in the Japanese Consumer Goods Market" with Hotaka Katahira and Makoto Mizuno, Wharton School Working paper, 1993.
29.|*	"Introduction to the special issue: Empirical generalizations in marketing," with Frank Bass and Yoram Wind in Marketing Science special issue on Empirical Generalizations in Marketing, Volume 14, Number 3, Part 2,1995.
30.|*	"Issues and Opportunities in New Product Development An Introduction to the Special Issue," JMR special issue on Innovation in New Product Development: "Best Practice" in Research, Modeling and Applications, with Vijay Mahajan, February, 1997, pp. 1-12.
31.*	Innovation as Determinant of Firms Financial Performance: The View of the Financial Analyst, with Ed Nifssen and Bemend Wierenga (manuscript under review).
32.	"Got Affect? Moving Positioning Beyond Features and Benefits" with Vijay Mahajan, Wharton School working paper July 1999.

4. Research on Industrial Buying Behavior

1.|*	"The Determinants of Vendor Selection: An Evaluation Function Approach", with Paul E. Green and Patrick J. Robinson. Journal of Purchasing, 4, August 1968, pp. 29-41.
2.|*	"Applying the Behavioral Theory of the Firm to Industrial Buying Decisions", The Economic and Business Bulletin, 20, Spring 1968, pp. 22-28.
3.*	"Integrating Attitude Measures in a Study of Industrial Buying Behavior", in Lee Adler and Irving Crespi, (eds.), Attitude Research on the Rocks, (Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 1968), pp. 58-77.
4.*	"Mathematical Analysis of Perception and Preferences for Industrial Marketing", in K Cox and B.M. Enis, (eds.), A New Measure of Responsibility for Marketing. Proceedings of the International Marketing Conference of the American Marketing Association, June 1968, pp. 284-294.
5.	"Generalized Simulation of the Industrial Buying Process", with Patrick J. Robinson, Marketing Science Institute Working Paper P-46-2, June 1968.
6.*	"Simulating the Industrial Buying Process", with Patrick J. Robinson, in B.L King, (ed.), Marketing and the New Science of Planning. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, August 1968 Conference, pp. 441-448.
7.|*	"Computer Simulation: Marketing Management Tool", with Patrick J. Robinson, Computer Operations, 3, January-February 1969, pp. 42-47.
8.|*	"Industrial Source Loyalty," Journal of Marketing Research, 7, November 1970, pp. 450-457.
9.*	"A Reward Balance Model of Buying Behavior in Organizations", in George Fisk, (ed.), Wew Essays in Marketing Theory, (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1971), pp. 206-217.
10.*	"Industrial Marketing Research", with Richard Cardozo. Paper presented at the AMA Workshop on Industrial Buying Behavior, Berkeley, California, April 1971.
11.|	"A General Model for Understanding Organizational Buying Behavior", with Frederick E. Webster, Journal of Marketing, 36, April 1972, pp. 12-19.
12.|*	"On the Study of Industrial Buying Behavior: Current Practices and Future Trends", with Frederick E. Webster, Industrial Marketing Management, 1, July 1972, pp. 411-416.
13.|*	"Industrial Buying as Organizational Behavior A Guideline for Research Strategy", with Frederick E. Webster, Journal of Purchasing, 8, August 1972, pp. 5-16.
14.*	"Segmenting Media Buyers", with Steve Silver, Journal of Advertising Research, 8, December 1973, pp. 33-38.
15.*	'The Industrial Customer", with Elmer Lotshaw, in Stuart H. Britt, (ed.), Marketing Handbook, (The Dartnell Corp., 1973), pp. 781-792.
16.*	"Recent Approaches to the Study of Organizational Buying Behavior", in T.V. Greer, (ed.), Increasing Marketing Productivity. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association April 1973 Conference, pp. 203-206.
17.|*	"Industrial Marketing Segmentation", with Richard N. Cardozo, Industrial Marketing Management, 3. March 1974, pp. 153-165. (Also appeared in the French Encyclopedie de Marketing, 1978).
18.	"Marketing Research in the Design of STI Systems: Case Study", with John F. Grashof, in R. Mason and J. Kreps, Jr., (eds.), Information Services: Economics, Management, and Technology, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 1981, pp. 73-84.
19.|*	"Emerging Models of Organizational Buying Processes", with Francesco M. Nicosia, Industrial Marketing Management, 6, 1977, pp. 353-369. Also in Nicosia and Wind, (eds.), Behavioral Models of Market Analysis: Foundations for Marketing Action (Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press), 1977, pp. 96-120.
20.*	"Information Requirements on Buying and Usage of STI Services", in Current Research on Scientific and Technical Information Transfer, (New York: J. Norton Publishers, 1977), A Micropapers Edition.
21.|*	"Market Based Guidelines for Design of Industrial Products", with John F. Grashof and Joel D. Goldhar, Journal of Marketing, 24, July 1978, pp. 27-37.
22.|*	"The Boundaries of Buying Decision Centers", Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 14, Summer 1978, pp. 23-29.
23.*	"Organizational Buying Center: A Research Agenda", in Thomas V. Bonoma and Gerald Zaltman, (eds.), Organizational Buying Behavior, (Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 1978), pp. 67-76.
24.|*	"Organizational Buying Behavior", Annual Review of Marketing 1, 1978, pp. 160-193.
25.*	"Problems and Prospects in the Segmentation of the STI Marker, with Robert Thomas in William R. King and Gerald Zaltman, (eds.), Marketing Scientific and Technical Information, (Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1979), pp. 67-76.
26.*	"Industrial Market Segmentation Under Conditions of Intra-Organizational Heterogeneity", in Yoram Wind and Robert Thomas, (eds.), Advances in Organizational Buying Behavior, (Washington, D.C.: NSF, 1979).
27.|	"Organizational Psychographics and Innovativeness", with Thomas S. Robertson, Journal of Consumer Research, June 1980, pp. 24-31.
28.|*	"Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Organizational Buying Behavior", with Robert J. Thomas, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14, 1980, pp. 239-263.
29.|*	"The Linking Pin Role of Organizational Buying Centers", with Thomas S. Robertson. Special Issue of Journal of Business Research, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1981, pp. 169-184.
30.|	"Organizational Cosmopoliteness and Innovativeness", with Thomas S. Robertson, Academy of Management Journal, 26, June 1983, pp. 332-338.
31.	"Toward Empirical Generalizations on Industrial Market Segmentation", with Robert J. Thomas in R. Spekman and D. Wilson, (eds.), Issues in Industrial Marketing: A View to the Future (Chicago: AMA), 1982, pp. 1-19.
32.|	"Decision Analysis of High Risk Patient Referral", with Douglas Richardson and Steven G. Gabbe, Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 63, number 4, April 1984, pp. 496-501.
33.	"The Changing Industrial Market: Implications for Research", in A Strategic Approach to Business Marketing, Robert Spekman and David Wilson (eds.), Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1985, pp.67-78.
34.*	"Segmenting Industrial Markets", with Robert J. Thomas, in Arch Woodside (ed.), Advances in Business Marketing and Purchasing, Jay Press Inc. 1994, pp. 59-82.
35.*	"Strategy-Driven Industrial Marketing Research", with Robert J. Thomas, Annual Review of Marketing, V. Zeithaml (ed.), Chicago: AMA, 1991, pp. 411-454.
36.*	"The Buygrid Model: 30 Years Later," with Robert Thomas, Wharton School Working Paper, 1998.

5. Research on Consumer Behavior

1.|	"Inter-Product Household Loyalty to Brands", with Ronald E. Frank, Journal of Marketing Research, 6, November 1969, pp. 434-435.
2.*	"Incongruency of Socioeconomic Variables and Buying Behavior", in P.R. McDonald, (ed.), Marketing Involvement in Society and the Economy. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, August 1969 Conference, pp. 362-367.
3.|*	"Models of Customer Behavior", Organization and Administration (Hebrew), 16, May 1970, pp. 3-13.
4.*	"The Application of Multidimensional Scaling in Segmentation Research." Paper presented at the First Annual Meeting of the Association for Consumer Research, Amherst, MA, August 1970.
5.	"Prediction Experiments Utilizing Perceptual and Preference Judgmen", with Paul E. Green. Paper presented at the Second Annual Meeting of the American Institute for Decision Sciences, Dallas, TX, November 1970.
6.*	"Life Style Analysis: A New Approach", in Fred C. Allvin, (ed.), Marketing in Motion. Proceedings of the 54th International Marketing Congress of the American Marketing Association, April 1971, pp. 303-305.
7.	"Intentions to Buy as Predictors of Buying Behavior", with Susan P. Douglas, in D. Gardner, (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Maryland, 1971, pp. 331-343.
8.|	"Benefit Bundle Analysis", with Paul E. Green and Arun K. Jain, Journal of Advertising Research, 11, April 1972, pp. 31-36.
9.|	"Subjective Evaluation Models and Conjoint Measurement", with Paul E. Green and Frank Carmone, Behavioral Science, 18, May 1972, pp. 288-299.
10.|	"A Note on the Measurement of Social-Psychological Belief Systems", with Paul E. Green and Arun K. Jain, Journal of Marketing Research, 9, May 1972, pp. 204-208.
11.	"Experiments in the Multidimensional Psychophysics of Taste and Semantic Description", with Paul E. Green. The paper was awarded first prize in the 1972 Research Design Competition of the American Psychological Association, Division 23, July ,1972.
12.	"Consumer Menu Preference: An Application of Additive Conjoint Measurement", with Paul E. Green and Arun K. Jain, in M. Venkatesan, (ed.), Proceedings of Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Chicago, IL, 1972, pp. 304-315.
13.|	"Preference Measurement of Item Collections", with Paul E. Green and Arun K. Jain, Journal of Marketing Research, 9, November 1972, pp. 371-377.
14.*	"On the Teaching of Consumer Behavior A Managerial Approach." Paper presented at the AMA August 1972 Conference Houston, TX.
15.|	"Analyzing Free Response Data in Marketing Research", with Paul E. Green and Arun K. Jain, Journal of Marketing Research, 10, February 1973, pp. 45-52.
16.	"Consumer Evaluation of Discount Cards: A Conceptual Model and Experimental Test", with Paul E. Green and Frank Carmone, Journal of Retailing, 49, Spring 1973, pp. 10-22.
17.	"Benefit Congruence Analysis", with Paul E. Green and Arun K. Jain. Paper presented at the 1974 Southeast AIDS Conference.
18.*	"Some Conceptual Measurement and Analytical Problems in Life Style Research", with Paul E. Green, in William Wells, (ed.), Life Style and Psychographics, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 1974, pp. 97-126.
19.|	"Brand-Features Congruence Mapping", with Paul E. Green and Henry J. Claycamp, Journal or Marketing Research, 12, August 1975, pp. 306-313.
20.|	"On the Usage of 'Modified' Personality Trait Measures in Consumer Research", with Kathryn Villani, Journal of Consumer Research, 2, December 1975, pp. 223-228.
21.	"Recent Approaches to the Modeling of Individuals' Subjective Evaluations", with Paul E. Green, in Philip Levine, (ed.), Attitude Research Bridges the Atlantic, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 1975, pp. 123-153.
22.	"Alternative Approaches to Data Collection for Attitude Measurement", with Terry C. Gleason. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, September 1975.
23.*	"Multi-person Influence and Usage Occasions as Determinants of Brand Choice." Paper presented at the August 1975 AMA Conference, Rochester, NY.
24.|*	"Preference of Relevant Others and Individual Choice Models", Journal of Consumer Research, 3, June 1976, pp. 50-57.
25.*	"On the Relationship Between Knowledge and Preference", with Michael DeVita, in Kenneth L. Bernhardt, (ed.), Proceedings of the AMA 1976 Conference, pp. 153-157.
26.*	"A 1975 Retrospective View of Bourne's 1957 "Group Influence in Marketing'" in Louis E. Boone, (ed.), Classics in Consumer Behavior, Tulsa, Oklahoma: The Petroleum Publishing Company, 1977, pp. 225-235.
27.*	"Brand Loyalty and Vulnerability", in Arch G. Woodside, Jagdish N. Sheth, and Peter D. Bennett, (eds.), Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, New York: Elsevier, North Holland, Inc., 1977, pp. 313-319.
28.*	"Reflections on Creativity and Relevance of Consumer Research", in B.A. Greenberg and D.A. Bellenger, (eds.), Contemporary Marketing Thought. Proceedings of the 1977 AMA Conference, pp. 55-58.
29.*	"Brand Choice", in Robert Ferber, (ed.), Selected Aspects of Consumer Behavior, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977, pp. 235-258.
30.	"Sociology of Consumption and Tradeoff Models in Consumer Public Policy", with Francesco M. Nicosia, in Research for Consumer Policy, W.M. Denney and R.T. Lund, (eds.), Cambridge, MA: Center for Policy Alternatives, MIT, 1978, pp. 141-184.
31.*	"On the Interface Between Organizational and Consumer Buying Behavior", in H. Keith Hunt, (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, 1977, pp. 657-662.
32.|	"Examining Family Role and Authority Patterns: Two Methodological Issues", with Susan P. Douglas, Journal of Marriage and the Family, February 1978, pp. 35-47.
33.|*	"A Comparison of Three Brand Evaluation Procedures", with Joseph Denny and Arthur Cunningham, Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, Summer 1979, pp. 261-270.
34.	"Exploration Into the Time-Money Tradeoff", with John Deighton and Franco Nicosia. Proceedings of the 1983 ESOMAR Conference, Strategic Planning, pp. 51-65 (Based in part on a paper presented at the August 1978 APA Conference, Toronto, "A Time-Money Tradeoff (TMI) Model of Consumer Behavior."
35.|*	"On the Measurement of Purchase Data: Surveys vs. Purchase Diaries", with David Learner, Journal of Marketing Research, XVI, February 1979, pp. 39-41.
36.	"Physical and Social Psychological Anxiety as Correlates of Purchase Behavior", with Cynthia Fraser, The Wharton School Working Paper, revised 1980.
37.*	"Comparative Consumer Research: The Next Frontier?" with Susan P. Douglas, E. Kaynak, (ed.), Comparative Marketing Systems, Bradford, England: MCB Publications, 1982, pp. 24-35.
38.|*	"A Note on the Relationship Between Perceived Problem Severity and Frequency of Occurrence", with Peter Shubs, Journal of The Professional Marketing Research Society, Fall 1981, pp. 19-22, and "On the Generalizability and Theoretical Implications of Empirical Findings: A Reply to Comments "A Note on the Relationships Between Perceived Problem Severity and Frequency of Occurrence", with Peter Shubs, Journal of Professional Marketing Research, 1982.
39.|*	"Courtyard by Marriott Designing a Hotel Facility with Consumer-Based Marketing Models", with Paul E. Green, Douglas Shifflet, and Marsha Scarbrough. First Runner-Up in the 1988 Franz Edelman Award for Management Science Achievement Interfaces, January/February 1989, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 25-47.
40.*	"Behavioral Methods", with Paul Green and Vithala Rao, in Thomas Robertson and Hal Kassarjian (eds.), Handbook of Consumer Theory and Research, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991, pp. 507-532.
41.	"Inferring Causality in Consumer Perception Studies in Litigation Context", with David C. Schmittlein. Proceeding of the NAD Workshop III, Advances in Claim Substantiation, New York, BBB 1991, pp. 161-170.
42.	"Value of Pharmaceutical Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Advertising," with Franklin Carter and F. Gonul, SEI Center Working Paper, December, 1997.

6. Marketing Research and Modeling

1.	"The Use of Interactive Models as Framework for Research", with Charles S. Goodman, Management Science Center, University of Pennsylvania, May 1968.
2.*	"Some Applications of Mathematical Analysis of Perception and Preference in Advertising", with Patrick J. Robinson, Marketing Science Institute Special Report, No. P-45-1, May 1968.
3.*	"Marketing Performance: A Conceptual Framework", with Susan P. Douglas, Marketing Science Institute Working Paper, P-51-1, revised June 1968.
4.|*	"Organizing a Diffusion System for Managerial Information in Israel: A Proposal", Organization and Administration (Hebrew), 15, September 1969.
5.|*	"Experimentation as a Tool for the Retailer", with Susan P. Douglas and Aaron Ascali, Journal of the Marketing Research Society, 13, July 1971, pp. 158-169.
6.*	"On the Measurement of Quality of Life", with Francesco M. Nicosia. Paper presented at the TIMS Conference, July 1972.
7.*	"Product Positioning: An Application of Multidimensional Scaling", with Patrick J. Robinson, in R.I. Haley, (ed.), Attitude Research in Transition, Chicago: AMA, 1972, pp. 155-175.
8.|*	"A New Procedure for Concept Evaluation", Journal of Marketing, 37, October 1973, pp. 2-11. (The Alpha Kappa Psi Foundation Award for the best article published in the Journal of Marketing in 1973).
9.|*	"Higher Order Factor Analysis in the Classification of Psychographic Variables", with Paul E. Green and Arun K. Jain, Journal of the Market Research Society, 15, October 1973, pp. 224-232.
10.|*	"Multivariate Analysis of Variance in Research on the Effectiveness of TV Commercials", with Joseph Denny, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, May 1974, pp. 136-142.
11.*	"A Note on the Classification and Evaluation of New Product Forecasting Models." Paper presented at the April 1974 AMA Conference.
12.*	"Is 'Concept Testing: An Appropriate Approach' Really Appropriate?" Wharton School Working Paper, May. 1975.
13.*	"Concept Testing as Input to Strategic Marketing Simulations", with Stuart Jolly and Arthur O'Conner, in E. Mazzie, (ed.), Proceedings of the 58th International AMA Conference, April 1975, pp. 120-124.
14.|	"New Way to Measure Consumers' Judgment", with Paul E. Green, Harvard Business Review, 53, July-August 1974, pp. 107-117.
15.|*	"Analytical Approach to Marketing Decisions in Health Care Organizations", with Lawrence K. Apitz. Special Health Care issue of Operations Research, 24, September-October 1976, pp. 973-990.
16.*	"Determination of the Size and Allocation of Marketing Research Budgets", with Daniel Gross, in Subhash C. Jain, (ed.), Proceedings of the August 1978 AMA Conference, pp. 57-61.
17.*	"New Developments in Conjoint Analysis." Paper presented at the 25th Annual Midwest Conference of the American Statistical Association on What's New in Statistical Techniques for Marketing Research. March 1978.
18.|*	"Issues and Advances in Segmentation Research", Journal of Marketing Research, 15, August 1978, pp. 317-337.
19.*	"Marketing Research and Management: A Retrospective View of the Contributions of Paul E. Green", in A.R. Andreasen and David M. Gardner, (eds.), Diffusing Marketing Theory and Research. Proceedings of the Tenth Paul D. Converse Award Symposium, 1978, pp. 57-68.
20.*	"A Note on the Selection of Attributes for Conjoint Analysis", with John G. Myers, Working Paper, Revised January 1979.
21.|	"Product Testing: Current Methods and Needed Developments", with Randall Batsell, Journal of the Marketing Research Society, 22, April 1980, pp. 115-139.
22.|*	"Overlapping Clustering: A New Methodology for Product Positioning", with Phipps Arabie, Wayne DeSarbo, and J. Douglas Carroll, Journal of Marketing Research, XVIII, pp. 310-317, August 1981.
23.*	"A Reexamination of New Product Forecasting Models", with Vijay Mahajan, in Proceedings of the August 1981 AMA Educator's Conference, pp. 358-363.
24.*	"Implications of Increased Government Regulation for the Quality and Relevance of Marketing Research", in M.P. Mokwa and S.E. Permut, (eds.), Government Marketing: Theory and Practice (New York: Praeger Publishers) 1981, pp. 264-269.
25.|*	"Industrial Product Diffusion by Segments", with Thomas Robertson and Cynthia Fraser, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 11, No. 1., February 1982, pp. 1-8.
26.	"An Approach to Repeat Purchase Diffusion Analysis", with Vijay Mahajan and Subash Sharma, Proceedings of the 1983 AMA Conference, pp. 442-446.
27.|	"Conjoint Analysis of Price Premiums for Hotel Amenities", with Steve Goldberg and Paul E. Green, Journal of Business, vol. 57, number 1, part 2. January 1984. pp. S111-S132.
28.|	"Parameter Estimation in Marketing Models in the Presence of Response Outliers: Robust Regression", with Vijay Mahajan and Subash Sharma, Journal of Marketing Research, August 1984, pp. 268-277.
29.|	"Assessing the Impact of Market Interventions on New Product Sales: A Diffusion Modeling Approach", with Vijay Mahajan and Subash Sharma, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 28, number 1, 1985, p. 13-27.
30.	"New Products Diffusion Models with Stochastic Parameters", with Jehoshua Eliashberg and Charles S. Tapiero, Wharton School Working Paper, Revised February 1985.
31.	"The Role of Within Group Variance in the Design and Analysis of Market Expert ments", with David C. Schmittlein and Vijay Mahajan, Wharton School Working Paper, Revised September 1987.
32.|	"A Customized Market Response Model: Development, Estimation and Empirical Testing", with Vithala Rao and Wayne DeSarbo, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Special issue on the State of the Art of Marketing Research, Spring 1988, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 128-140.
33.	"Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance: A Re-examination", with Vijay Mahajan in Mahajan and Wind, (eds.), Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance, 1986, pp. 2-25.
34.	"Why and When to Use Tobit Analysis", with Cynthia Fraser, Working Paper, Revised 1986.
35.|	"A Friction Model for Describing and Forecasting Price Changes", with Wayne S. DeSarbo, Vithala R. Rao, Joel H. Steckel, and Richard Colombo, Marketing Science, Vol. 6, No. 4, Fall 1987, pp. 299-319.
36.|	"Risk Behavior and Optimum Advertising with a Stochastic Dynamic Sales Response", with Charles S. Tapiero and Jehoshua Eliashberg, Optimal Control Applications and Methods, Vol. 8, 1987, pp. 289-304.
37.|	"New Product Forecasting Models: Directions for Research and Implementation", with Vijay Mahajan, International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 4 (1988) pp. 341 -358.
38.|	"Developing Marketing Expert Systems: An Application to International Negotiations", with Arvind Rangaswamy, Jehoshua Eliashberg, and Raymond R. Burke. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, No. 4 (October 1989), pp. 24-39.
39.|	"A Knowledge-Based System for Advertising Design", with Raymond Burke, Arvind Rangaswamy, and Jehoshua Eliashberg, Marketing Science, 1990, pp. 212-229. An earlier version of this paper was published as "Expert Systems for Marketing", by the Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, Report No. 87-107, November, 1987.
40.*	"Selecting a Portfolio of Market Segments Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process", Wharton School, Working Paper, 1989.
41.|	"Market Discontinuities and Strategic Planning: A Research Agenda", with Vijay Mahajan, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 36, Anniversary Issue, 1989, pp. 185-199.
42.	"Combining Multiple Estimates: An Application to Damage Assessment Litigation", with David C. Schmittlein, Wharton School Working Paper, 1991.
43.|	"New Product Models: Practice, Shortcomings, & Desired Improvements", with Vijay Mahajan, Journal of Product Innovation and Management, Vol. 9, #2, June 1992, pp. 128-135.
44.*	"Attribute Interdependencies in Product Performance Claims", with David Schmittlein. Proceedings of the NAD Workshop on Product Performance Tests: Design, Interpretation & Claims, N.Y. BBB, 1992.
45.	"An Analogical Reasoning System for Managerial Learning and Problem Solving," with Hoo Young Lee and Raymond R. Burke, Wharton School Working Paper, 1992.
46.*	"Marketing Science at a Cross Road", Inaugural presentation of the Unilever Visiting Professorship, Erasmus University, 1993.
47.	"Social Networks in Marketing," with Phipps Arable. Chapter in S. Wasserman and J. Galaskiewica (Eds.), Advances in Social and Behavioral Sciences: Social Networks Analysis, London: Sage Publications, 1994, pp. 254-273.
48.|*	"Start Your Engines: Gear up for challenges ahead with innovative marketing research products and services," Marketing Research: Special Issue on the State of the Art in Quantitative Research, Winter, 1997.
49.|*	"RX for Marketing Research: Prescriptions for the Recovery of an Ailing Discipline," with Vijay Mahajan. Marketing Research Magazine, 1999.
50.	"New Product Diffusion Models: From Theory to Practice,* with Vijay Mahajan and Eitan Muller in Mahajan, Muller, and Wind (eds.), New Product Diffusion Models, Kluwer Academic Publishers, forthcoming 1999.
51.	"Linking Soft Data Collection Techniques with Strategic market Modeling: A Case Application," with Paul E. Green and Paul Saatsaglou, Wharton Marketing Department Working Paper, September 1999.

7. International Marketing

1.|*	"The Role of Marketing in Israel", Journal of Marketing, 31, April 1967, pp. 53-57.
2.*	"Information Requirements for International Business Decisions." Background note prepared for and used in the introductory International Business course at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, June 1967.
3.|*	"Cross-Cultural Analysis of Consumer Behavior", in R. Meyer, (ed.), Changing Marketing Systems. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, December 1967 Conference, pp. 183-185. (Reprinted in the Wharton Quarterly, 2, Winter-Spring 1968), pp. 1-3.
4.*	"Marketing in Israel", in Harper W. Boyd, Jr., (ed.), Comparative Marketing. A collection of papers assembled by the International Center for the Advancement of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1968.
5.*	"Perceptual and Preference Mapping of Countries: An Application of Multidimensional Scaling", with Patrick J. Robinson. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in International Business, December 1970.
6.|*	"International Market Segmentation", with Susan P. Douglas, European Journal of Marketing, 6, Spring 1972, pp. 17-25.
7.|*	"On the Meaning of Comparison: A Methodology for Cross Cultural Studies", with Susan P. Douglas, The Quarterly Journal of Management Development, 6, Spring 1972, pp. 17-25.
8.	"Selection of Global Target Markets: A Decision Theoretic Approach", with Susan P. Douglas and Patrick LeMaire, in Marketing in a Changing Wohd: Their Role of Market Research. Proceedings of the 24th ESOMAR Congress, Cannes, France, September 1972.
9.|*	"Guidelines for Developing International Marketing Strategy", with Susan P. Douglas and Howard Perlmutter, Journal of Marketing, 37, April 1973, pp. 14-23.
10.|	"Environmental Factors and Marketing Practices", with Susan P. Douglas, European Journal of Marketing, 7, Winter 1973/74, pp. 155-165.
11.|*	"Some Issues in International Consumer Research", with Susan P. Douglas, European Journal of Marketing, 8, Winter 1974, pp. 208-217.
12.*	"Multinational Trade Off Segmentation", with Patrick J. Robinson, in Y. Wind and M. Greenberg, (eds.), Moving A Head with Attitude Research (Chicago, IL: AMA), 1977, pp. 50-57.
13.*	"Research for Multinational Product Policy", in Warren J. Keegan and Charles S. Mayer, (eds.), Multinational Product Management, Chicago, IL: AMA, 1977, pp. 165-184.
14.|*	"On the Identification of Frontier Issues in Multinational Marketing", with Howard Perlmutter, Columbia Journal of World Business, XII, Winter 1977, pp. 131-139.
15.*	"Comparative Methodology and Marketing Theory", with Susan P. Douglas, in Lamb and Dunne, (eds.), Theoretical Developments in Marketing, proceedings from Chicago AMA conference, 1980. This paper is based on "Toward a Metatheory of Comparative Marketing Systems", Marketing Science Institute Working Paper, P-15-1, August 1968.
16.*	"Marketing Perspectives on International Risk Analysis and Risk Preference Measurement Concepts, Methods, and Research Directions", with Josh Eliashberg, Wharton School Working Paper, 1983.
17.|	"The Myth of Globalization" with Susan P. Douglas, The Columbia Journal of World Business, Volume XXII, No. 4, Winter, 1987, pp. 19-29. An earlier, shorter version appeared in The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 3, No. 2, Spring 1986.
18.|*	"Old-Line Manufacturing Needs Better Marketing", Chief Executive, No. 44, March/April 1988, pp. 44-48.
19.	"International Technology Patterns: Implications for Global Competitive and Cooperative Strategies", with Alok Chakrabarti, Wharton School Working Paper, 1986.
20.*	"Towards the Development of a Global Marketing Strategy: A Dynamic Portfolio Perspective", with Susan Douglas, Wharton School Working Paper, 1987.
21.	"The Invisible Global Market: Strategies for Reaching the Forgotten 86 Percent of the World," with Vijay Mahajan and Marcos V. Pratini de Morales, SEI Center Working Paper, March, 1998.

8. Publications Related to International Management Education and The Lauder Institute

1.|*	"Coffee, Closets, and Funeral Flowers", Penn Perspectives, 1984.
2.|*	"Toward Internationalization of Management Education", address to Board of Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, October 1983. Reprinted as "Global Management Penn's Response" in Wharton Alumni Magazine, Winter 1984, pp. 32-35.
3.	"Education for International Management The Joseph H. Lauder Institute", with Claire Gaudiani, in S. Spencer, (ed.), Foreign Languages and International Trade: A Global Perspective (University of Georgia Press), 1987, pp. 31-38.
4.*	"Hallmarks of Successful International Business Programs: The Joseph H. Lauder Institute of Management and International Studies", Occasional Papers on International Education Exchange (NY: Council on International Education Exchange) August 1988. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference in San Francisco, November, 1987.
5.*	"The Globalization of Management Education: Options, Trade-Offs, and an Agenda for Implementation", with Barbara S. Thomas, AACSB Occasional Papers, 1989.

9. Publications Related to Management Practice and Education in the 21st Century

1.*	"Marketing in the Year 2000", in W. Lazer and P. La Barbera, Marketing in the Year 2000, (Chicago: AMA) 1990.
2.*	"The Restructured Wharton MBA: Inventing A New Paradigm", U.P. Almanac April 2, 1991.
3.|*	"Reinventing the Corporation" with Alfred P. West, Jr., Chief Executive, October 1991.
4.|*	"The Reinvention of Corporate America", Chief Executive, June, 1992.
5.*	"JIT Learning: A New Concept for Executive Education", SEI Center, Wharton School working paper, June, 1993.
6.*	"Pace-Setting 21st Century Enterprises: A Glimpse of What Might Emerge", with Robert Holland, Alfred P. West, Jr. and Robert Gunther, SEI Center, Wharton School working paper, June, 1993.
7.*	"Downsizing and Layoffs: Miracle Cure or Prescription for Disaster," February 8,1994.
8.*	"Marketing: Big Questions for the 21st Century," Financial Times, Part 15 of a 20-part guide to Management, 1996, pp. 6-7.
9.*	"Driving Change: Preparing for the 21st Century," The Li & Fung Lecture, University of Honq Kong, April, 1998.
10.*	"The Impact Imperative: Closing the Relevance Gap of Academic Management Research," with Pedro Nueno, The International Academy of Management, New York, May 1998.
11.*	"Reinventing the Business School for the Global Information Age," Wharton School Working Paper, 1998.
12.	"Reinventing Training, "Wharton School Working Paper, 1999.

10. Entries in Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

1.|	"Statistics in Marketing," with Paul E. Green, in S. Kotz and N. Johnson (eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Volume 5, 1985, pp. 227-248.
2.|	"Definitions of Marketing Models," with David Schmittlein, in Peter D. Bennett (ed.), Dictionary of Marketing Terms, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1988, pp. 1-30.
3.|	"Information Technology in Marketing," with Arvind Rangaswamy, in A. Kent and J.G. Williams (eds.), Encyclopedia of Microcomputers, New York: Marcel Dekkerlnc, 1992, pp. 1-33.
4.|	"Marketing Strategy Models," with Gary L. Lilien, in Handbooks in OR & MS: Marketing, Elsevier Science, Vol. 5, 1993, pp. 773-826.
5.|	"Marketing," with Josh Eliashberg and Gary Lilien, Encyclopedia of OR/MS, Saul Gass and Carl Harris (eds.), Kluwer Publishers, 1994, pp. 1-15; revised, 1998.
6.|	"Market Segmentation," Chapter 23 in Michael J. Baker (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Marketing, 1995, pp. 394-419.
7.|	"Conjoint Analysis: Methods and Applications," with Paul Green and Vithala Rao, in The Technology Management Handbook, CRC Press, 1998, pp 1266 B 1272.
8.	"Creating a Vision," in The Technology Management Handbook, CRCnet Base 2000, 1999.

4. EDITOR OF SPECIAL ISSUES
• Journal of Marketing Research
  • "Market Segmentation," August 1978;
  • "Innovation and New Products," February 1997.
• Marketing Research - "Marketing Research Forum: The State of the Art in Quantitative Research," Winter 1997.
• Marketing Science - "Empirical Generalizations in Marketing" with Frank M. Bass, Vol. 14, No. 3, part 2,1998.
• Management Science (with John Farley and Diana L. Day) - "The State of The Art in Theory and Methods for Strategy Research," 1990.
• The Wharton Quarterly, Marketing, Fall 1972.
5. EDITORIALS

Journal of Consumer Research	June 1977:	"New Directions for JCR"
Marketing News	July -1978:	"New Directions for JM"
Journal of Marketing	Winter 1979: The Journal of Marketing at a Crossroad"
	Spring 1979:	"Repositioning the Journal
	Summer 1979:	"Bridging the Gap Between Practitioners and Academicians"
	Fall 1979:	"On the Status of Marketing Theory"
	Winter 1980:	"Marketing in the 80's"
	Spring 1980:	"Strategic Planning and Marketing: Time for a Constructive Partnership", with George Day
	Summer 1980:	"International Marketing: The Neglect Continuous", with John Farley
	Fall 1980:	"Industrial Marketing: The Sleeping Giant", with Frederick Webster
	Winter 1981:	"Journals and the Development of a Discipline"
	Spring 1981:	"Research and Management"
	Summer 1981:	"A Positive Perspective on Marketing"
	Fall 1981:	"Reflections"
The Lauder Quarterly	All editorials from initiation in 1986 to July, 1988.

6. EDITED PUBLICATIONS OF THE SEI CENTER
• Creating and Implementing a Corporate Vision, January 1990.
• Human Resources: Management for the 21^st Century, January 1990.
• The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Management Decision Making and Organizational Design, February 1990.
• Creating and Implementing Quality in Organizations, March 1990.
• Corporate Governance: Who's in Charge?, May 1990.
• Strategic Information Architecture: Increasing Productivity, Managing Risks, June 1993.
• Management in the 21^st Century: Predictions From Top Think Tanks, September 1990.
• The Individually Empowered Organization, November 1990.
• Innovation and New Product Development for the 21* Century Enterprise, November 1990. Ethical Standards for Global Corporations? December 1990.
• Managing Infrastructure Costs; What is the Best Strategy for Long-Term Controls? February 1991.
• Lessons from the Malcolm Baldridge Award: Implications for Management Practice, Research, and Education, February 1991. Innovation in Services, May 1991.
• Visionary Leadership, October 1991.
• The Impact of Information Networking on Organizational Design and Strategy, November 1991.
• Frontiers in Electronic Commerce: Experimental Systems for Communication, Coordination, and Negotiation, February 1992.
• Innovation and Learning, March 1992.
• Historical Perspectives in Management Education, April 1992.
• Decision Making in Highly Uncertain Political Environments: Investing in the Russian Oil and Gas Industry, March 1992.
• Issues and Advances in New Product Development, June 1992.
• Rewarding the Workforce of the Future: Competence-Based Performance Measures and Incentives, October 1992.
• Designing Corporate Governance for the 21^st Century Global Enterprise: International Perspectives, January 1993
• Dr. Peter Drucker on "The New Organization," April 1993.
• Corporate Performances: Beyond Financial Measures, April 1993.
• The Horizontal Organization, October 1993.
• The End of Diversity: Rights, Responsibility and the Communication Agenda November 1993.
• Deploying Strategic Assets: Beyond Core Capabilities, November 1993.
• Research Challenges in Linking Quality: Profitability and Organizational Architecture, December 1993.
• Empirical Generalizations in Marketing, February 1994
• Beyond Quality: Organizational Transformation for the 21^st Century Enterprise, March 1994.
• Exploratory Conference on Business Ethics: Building the Common Ground, March 1994.
• Interactivity is Two-Way: Life on the Net April 1994.
• Interactive Industry 2000: Who's Gonna Buy this Stuff Research for the Interactive Television Business, July 1994.
• Leadership in the 21^st Century Enterprise, November 1994.
• A New Management Paradigm for the 21^st Century, December 1994.
• The Virtual University, January 1995.
• Go West Young MBA, Far Far West Adventures on the World's Business and Management Frontier, January 1995.
• Information Technology and the Changing Boundaries of the Firm, January 1995.
• EMU - The Road to Europe, February 1995.
• The New Science and Emerging Paradigms in Business, April 1995.
• Innovation in New Product Development Best Practices in Research, Modeling and Applications, May 1995.
• The Bamboo Network, November 1995.
• Corporate Growth Engines, December 1995.
• A Trapezoidal Corporation, February 1996.
• The Impact of Computers and Information on Management 1946-1996-2001, May 1996.
• European Venture Capital Industry, November 1996.
• The CEO Challenge: Implementing Strategy in a Constantly Changing Marketplace, December 1996.
• The Future of Impact of Information Management A Lecture Series from July 1996-January 1997.
• New Media, February 1997.
• From Detection to Action: Processes and Insights Gained from an Early Warning Signal System, March 1997.
• Toward New Corporate Governance Models: Lessons from the Japanese and U.S. Experience, March 1997.
• When Is It Worthwhile Targeting the Majority Instead of the Innovators in a New Product Launch? November, 1997
• Consumer Choice Behavior in On-line and Regular Stores: The Effects of Brand Name, Price, and Other Search Attributes, January 1998
• The Systems Approach: The New Generation, February 1998
• Managing Workteam Diversity, Conflict, and Productivity: A New Form of Organizing in the 21* Century Workspace. September 1998 (by Etty Jehn, The Diversity Research program with Bob Holland)
• GM for the 21^st Century: From "Make and Sell" to "Sense and Respond," March, 1999 (by Vtnce Barabba)
• The Limits of Privacy, March 1999 (by Amitai Etzioni) -
• Japan at the Great Divide, April 1999 (by Yasuhisa Shiozaki)
7. ILLUSTRATIVE PUBLISHED ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS DELIVERED IN PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS
• "Enduring Vs. Situation Dependent Customer Characteristics as Bases for Market Segmentation: An Evaluation", in David L. Sparks, (ed.), Broadening the Concepts of Marketing. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, August 1970 Conference.
• "Preference of Relevant Others and Individual Choice Models", in W.L. Nichols, ed., Proceedings of the 1974 AAPOR Conference and in Public Opinion Quarterly, 38, Fall 1974, pp. 447.
• "Multivariate Decision-Making in the Setting of Pulmonary Outpatient Clinic", with Lawrence Spitz and Ronald Daniele. Paper presented at American College of Physicians, San Francisco, April 1975.
• "Diagnosis Consumer Behavior A Quantitative Approach", D. Rothwell, (ed.), Proceedings of the 3^rd Annual AAPOR Conference May 1975 and in Public Opinbn Quarterly, 39, Fall 1975, pp. 415.
• "Segmentation and Positioning of Health Insurance Services Under Conditions of Heterogeneous Health Insurance Portfolios", in TIMS/ORSA Bulletin for the S.F. Joint Meeting, May 1977, pp. 244.
• "Alternative Approaches to Industrial Market Segmentation", with Paul E. Green, in TIMS/ORSA Bulletin for the S.F. Joint Meeting, May 1977, pp. 234.
• "Innovation and the R&D-Marketing Interface", with Joel Goldhar, in TIMS/ORSA Bulletin for the Atlanta Meeting, November 1977.
• "Measurement Issues in Portfolio Analysis", with Vijay Mahajan, in R.P. Leone, (ed.), Proceedings of Market Measurement and Analysis, TIMS, 1980, pp. 50-53.
• Aimagery Products: A Measurement Challenge", with Lew Pringle, in J. Keon, (ed.), Market Measurement and Analysis, TIMS/ORSA, 1981.
• "Standardized Portfolio Models: An Empirical Comparison of Business Classification", with Vijay Mahajan and Donald J. Swire in Allan D. Shocker and R. Snvastava, (eds.), Proceedings of the 1981 Analytical Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning Conference.
8. CASE STUDIES
• During the academic year 1962-63,1 wrote a number of marketing cases at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Israel). One of these cases, The Ozi Ballpoint Pen III, was published in Harper W. Boyd, Jr. et al., (eds.), Marketing Management Cases from the Emerging Countries (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company), 1966.
• During the academic year 1968-69, several marketing cases were written under my supervision at the Leon Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration, Tel Aviv University.