Andrew Ehrenberg was a professor and statistician who contributed to the marketing literature on systematic patterns in buyer behavior for more than half a century. His work has been shown to accurately describe consumer behavior and how brands work under a very wide range of conditions. That`s where science comes in. The law of double risk is generalizable under all conditions and therefore highly predictable, meaning marketers can make decisions with confidence due to its reliability. As a result, blue-chip brands have long since moved away from intuition and triage-based marketing methods, using Ehrenberg`s mathematical rules as the basis for their marketing planning. This empirical law-like phenomenon is due to a statistical selection effect that occurs when brands are largely substitutable and sell to several of the same types of people (often referred to as lack of product differentiation and market sharing). The empirical generalization of dual risk is explained and predicted by the NBD-Dirichlet theory of repeat purchases. [5] [6] See also Schmittlein, Bemmaor and Morrison (1985). [7] Dear Byron, I recently read your book and was really amazed at how great it is (and how disproportionately popular it is). I think for the first time in my 10-year marketing career, I see such a simple and consistent explanation of how branding works. And (especially) extremely well connected to developments in psychology (such as Kahneman`s system 1 and 2).
The Young Women Act is really one of the few real laws in marketing that has a solid psychological explanation. And now you see it in my own data. But the commercial question for me concerns new products. When you launch a new product, you definitely have a JD law working against you. So you need to create importance for the fresh start. In your opinion, is there a tipping point that new launches need to reach for JD Law to play in their favor? Double Jeopardy can also be applied to create better customer experiences. How? Thanks to customer expectations. By anticipating before action (Kunde et al., 2007), it follows the same pattern of double jeopardy. By building the customer`s expectation (single jeopardy), you automatically increase the experience value of your customers (double jeopardy), which helps to build memories (triple jeopardy). 3 for 1 offer! The answer is that the Chicago Cubs would lose more fans. It is a double danger in action. Because the Yankees have a larger fan base (Single Jeopardy), they also have more loyal fans (Double Jeopardy).
With a higher percentage of fans, the Yankees would have fewer fans who also change during an offseason, compared to teams with a smaller fan base (Doyle, 2013). The larger the fan base, the higher the fan retention and ongoing support and ticket sales! The main implication of the dual threat is that market share growth largely depends on the size of a brand`s customer base. [8] The concept of dual risk applied in branding is simply a function of the size of the brand. The larger the market share of a brand (single jeopardy), the higher the loyalty (double criminality). For example, Crest and Colgate (large market share) have higher customer retention than Toms of Maine (small market share). In the 1960s, a social scientist named William McPhee coined the term double criminality to describe people`s sympathy and propensity for certain behaviors. After a few years, Andrew Ehrenberg, a marketing statistician, applied the term purely in the marketing world. The term was originally coined in 1963 by social scientist William McPhee, who observed the phenomenon, first in awareness and sympathy for Hollywood actors, and then in behaviors (e.g., reading comics and listening to radio hosts). [1] Shortly thereafter, Andrew Ehrenberg discovered the double prosecution law, which was generalized to the purchase of trademarks. [2] Subsequently, it has been demonstrated that dual risk applies in all countries and over time in categories as diverse as detergents and aviation fuel[3].
[4] Socio-psychological response: In addition to availability, social influence seems to play a role in double jeopardy. Our desire for popularity and tendency to adapt usually leads us to choose the biggest brand or sports team (e.g. mass behavior, social compliance, etc.). If most people are Yankees fans, I`ll be Yankees fans. It`s hard to resist the crowd!!! Sharp (2016) explains that Double Jeopardy is achieved by increasing physical availability (distribution – ease of purchase/search) and mental availability (accessible in memory at the time of purchase). In other words, brands that seek to reap the rewards of double punishment are the most physically and mentally available. Double criminality is an empirical law in marketing in which brands with a lower market share in a market, with a few exceptions, have both significantly fewer buyers in a given period of time and lower brand loyalty. Double Jeopardy describes the relationship between brand size and customer loyalty in the context of a “double jeopardy,” where smaller brands not only have fewer customers to buy, but those customers are also less loyal. Ehrenberg had the concept that marketing is less magical than science. Those who have heard about the law on double criminality have been suspended from some of its work. Hi Byron. Perhaps one way to look at causality here is through algebra.
Let`s say you only have two brands, one with 90% and one with 10% market share (for specificity, two supermarket chains). Let`s say everyone goes grocery shopping once a week by randomly selecting a brand based on its market share (I say randomly because it ensures the elimination of confounders and makes the causal effect on loyalty completely dependent on the difference in market share). After two weeks, with such a random model, you will receive 81% of purchases only in the big brand, only 1% in the small brand and 18% in both. Therefore, the loyalty metrics for the population buying the primary brand are 81/(81+18), which is greater than 1/(1+18), which is the loyalty metrics for the secondary brand. It is not difficult to see that the general solution for this model is L(p) = p^2 / (p ^ 2 + 2p), where L (p) is the loyalty metric for a brand with market share p. Since L(p) is an increasing function of p and L(p)=L(1-p) occurs only for p = 0.5 (both facts can be verified by derivatives and a simple algebra), we conclude that in this model, a brand with more than 50% market share will *always* have greater fidelity, that is, L(p)>L(1-p) for each p>0.5. I am not familiar with the literature on double jeopardy, so I would be happy to hear your advice or advice here if people have looked at it from that angle.