The Effects of Banning Advertising in Junk Food Markets

The E↵ects of Banning Advertising in Junk Food Markets

Pierre Dubois, Rachel Gri�th and Martin O’Connell⇤

November 7, 2014

Abstract

We develop a structural model to analyze the e↵ects of banning advertising on market equilibria and

welfare in junk food markets. We consider the impact on demand and prices, and show how to quantify

welfare e↵ects when advertising might lead consumers to take decisions that are inconsistent with their

underlying preferences. We use transaction level data on the potato chips market and find that banning

advertising leads to a direct reduction in demand, but also toughens price competition, leading to lower

prices and increased demand. Welfare increases as consumers benefit from no longer making distorted

decision and from lower prices.

Keywords: advertising, demand estimation, welfare, dynamic oligopoly

JEL classification: L13, M37

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Bart Bronnenberg, Jennifer Brown, Greg Crawford, Joe Har-

rington, Marc Ivaldi, Bruno Jullien, Philip Kircher, Thierry Magnac, Massimo Motta, Lars Nesheim, Ariel Pakes, Mar

Reguant, Regis Renault, Patrick Rey, Paul Scott, John Sutton, Michelle Sovinsky, Jean Tirole for helpful suggestions.

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the European Research Council (ERC) under ERC-2009-AdG grant

agreement number 249529 and from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) under the Centre for the Microe-

conomic Analysis of Public Policy (CPP), grant number RES-544-28-0001 and under the Open Research Area (ORA)

grant number ES/I012222/1 and from ANR under Open Research Area (ORA) grant number ANR-10-ORAR-009-01.

⇤Correspondence: Dubois: Toulouse School of Economics, [email protected]; Gri�th: Institute for Fiscal Studiesand University of Manchester, rgri�[email protected]; O’Connell: Institute for Fiscal Studies and University College London,martin [email protected]

1

1 Introduction

In this paper, we study the welfare consequences of a banning junk food advertising. We develop a model of

consumer demand and oligopoly supply in which multi-product firms compete in prices and advertising bud-

gets. We pay careful attention to the way that advertising a↵ects demand, allowing advertising of one brand

to potentially increase or decrease demand for other brands, and for past advertising to influence current

demand, meaning firms play a dynamic game. We use the model to simulate counterfactual market equilibria

in which advertising is banned. Banning advertising leads to a direct reduction in quantity demanded, but

it also leads to tougher price competition; the decrease in equilibrium prices leads to an o↵setting increase

in quantity demanded.

The ban has a substantial welfare e↵ect. The a↵ect of banning advertising on consumer welfare depends

on the view one takes about how advertising a↵ects consumers’ decision making, and specifically whether

advertising enters utility or not. Most advertising in junk food markets involves celebrity endorsements

of established brands. If we consider this to lead consumers to make choices that are inconsistent with

their underlying preferences, and not to enter utility directly, this leads consumers to maximize an objective

function that di↵ers from their true underlying utility, reflecting the distinction between decision utility

and experienced utility (Kahneman et al. (1997)). Removing advertising leads to welfare gains because

consumers’ decisions are no longer distorted, and tougher price competition increases consumer welfare. On

the other hand, if advertising enters utility directly then consumers are made worse o↵ by the ban.

Advertising is regulated in many markets (for example in the cigarette and tobacco and alcohol markets),

with the aim of reducing consumption.1 Attention has recently turned to using a similar policy tool to reduce

the consumption of junk foods, particularly by children. The World Health Organization ((WHO, 2010))

published the recommendation that the “overall policy objective should be to reduce both the exposure of

children to, and the power of, marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars, or

salt”. The medical literature has called for restrictions on advertising; for example, in a well cited paper,

Gortmaker et al. (2011) state that, “marketing of food and beverages is associated with increasing obesity

rates”, citing work by Goris et al. (2010), and say that it is especially e↵ective among children, citing

National Academies (2006) and Cairns et al. (2009).2

The aim of these interventions is to reduce consumption of junk foods. However, a ban on advertising

could lead the market to expand or to contract. Brand advertising may be predatory, in which case its e↵ect

is to steal market share of rival products, or it might be cooperative, so that an increase in the advertising of

1In other markets, such as pharmaceuticals and some professional services, the aim is more focused on consumer protection.2In the UK regulations ban the advertising of foods high in fat, salt or sugar during children’s program-

ming (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17041347) and there have been recent calls to extend this ban (seehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/04/obesity-tv-junk-food-ads). In the US the Disney Channel has plans to banjunk food advertising (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18336478).

2

one product increases demand for other products (Friedman (1983)). The impact on total market demand

depends on the relative importance of these two e↵ects.3 In addition, firms are likely to respond to a ban on

advertising by adjusting their prices, as the equilibrium prices with advertising are unlikely to be the same

as in an equilibrium when advertising is not permitted.

To illustrate these e↵ects we apply our model to the market for potato chips using novel data on purchases

made both for consumption at home and purchases made on-the-go for immediate consumption by a sample

of British consumers, combined with information on brand level advertising expenditure. The potato chips

market is interesting because it is an important source of junk calories, but we also believe that the results

that we obtain speak to the e↵ects of advertising in a broader set of junk food markets where advertising

plays a similar role and where market structures are of a similar nature. In concentrated markets where

advertising is not informative, advertising is likely to dampen price competition between firms, and therefore

banning it leads to lower equilibrium prices. These lower prices stimulate demand, and so mitigate the direct

e↵ects of banning advertising. The e↵ects on consumer welfare depend on whether advertising enters utility

directly; if it does then banning it may lead to a reduction in consumer welfare, however, if the main e↵ects

of advertising are to distort consumer decision making then banning is likely to lead to welfare gains.

There is a large literature on how advertising a↵ects consumer choice. Bagwell (2007) provides a com-

prehensive survey and makes a useful distinction between advertising as being persuasive, entering utility

directly as a characteristics, or being informative. Much of the early literature on advertising focused on

its persuasive nature (Marshall (1921), Braithwaite (1928), Robinson (1933), Kaldor (1950) and Dixit and

Norman (1978)), where its purpose is to change consumer tastes. More recently the behavioral economics

and neuroeconomics literatures have explored the mechanisms by which advertising a↵ects consumer de-

cision making. Gabaix and Laibson (2006) consider models in which firms might try to shroud negative

attributes of their products, while McClure et al. (2004) and Bernheim and Rangel (2004, 2005) consider

the ways that advertising might a↵ect the mental processes that consumers use when taking decisions (for

example, causing a shift from the use of deliberative systems to the a↵ective systems that respond more to

emotional cues). This literature, in particular Dixit and Norman (1978), Bagwell (2007) and Bernheim and

Rangel (2009), raises questions of how welfare should be evaluated, and particularly whether we should use

preferences that are influenced by advertising or the “unadvertised self” preferences. Bernheim and Rangel

(2009) argue that if persuasive advertising has no information content, choices based on the advertising cues

are based on improperly processed information, and therefore welfare should be based on choice made under

other conditions. We follow this idea and argue that we can identify and empirically estimate undistorted

3For example, Rojas and Peterson (2008) find that advertising increases aggregate demand for beer; while Anderson et al.(2012) show that comparative advertising of pharmaceuticals has strong business stealing e↵ects and is detrimental to aggregatedemand. Other papers show that regulating or banning advertising has led to more concentration, for example Eckard (1991),for cigarettes and Sass and Saurman (1995), for beer. Motta (2013) surveys numerous other studies.

3

preferences with our structural demand model, and so can use the model to evaluate changes in welfare from

a ban or any regulatory policy that a↵ects those environmental cues. We find that banning advertising is

welfare enhancing. In a theoretical paper, Glaeser and Ujhelyi (2010) make a similar finding; they consider

some advertising in the food market as misinformation that leads consumers to consume an unhealthy good

excessively and argue that a quantity restriction on advertising can maximize welfare.

An alternative view of advertising is that it enters utility directly (see Becker and Murphy (1993) and

Stigler and Becker (1977)). Consumers may like or dislike advertising, and advertising may act as a comple-

ment to other goods or a characteristic that enters the utility function. The crucial feature that distinguishes

this characteristic view of advertising from the persuasive view is how advertising a↵ects consumer welfare.

If advertising is viewed as a characteristic then it does not lead consumers to make decisions that are incon-

sistent with their true welfare, and consideration of the consumer welfare implications of banning advertising

are analogous to those associated with removing or changing any other characteristic.

Another branch of the literature focuses on the role that advertising plays in providing information to

consumers (as distinct from being persuasive). For instance, advertising may inform consumers about the

quality or characteristics of a product (Stigler (1961) and Nelson (1995)), product price (for instance, see

Milyo andWaldfogel (1999) who study the alcohol market), or about the existence and availability of products

(see, inter alia, Sovinsky-Goeree (2008) on personal computers and Ackerberg (2001) and Ackerberg (2003)

on distinguishing between advertising that is informative about product existence and prestige advertising

in the yoghurt market). Although, as Anderson and Renault (2006) point out, firms may actually have an

incentive to limit the informative content of adverts even when consumers are imperfectly informed (see also

Spiegler (2006)). Studies of the tobacco bans of the 1970s show that these might have led to an increase in

demand for cigarettes (see for example Qi (2013)). Bagwell (2007) provides a survey of the broader literature

on advertising. We discuss the content of advertising in junk food markets, and in our view they have little

informative content.

Our work also relates to the growing dynamic games literature in empirical IO. We use the concept

of Markov-Perfect Equilibrium (MPE), as in Maskin and Tirole (1988) and Ericson and Pakes (1995), to

characterize firms observed behavior and show that we do not need to estimate counterfactual dynamic

equilibria but only a static Bertrand-Nash equilibrium for identifying the e↵ects of banning advertising.

Existing work in the dynamic game literature on the impact of advertising on market equilibria has focused

on simulating the e↵ect of advertising on market structure in a stylized setting. For instance, Doraszelski

and Markovich (2007) use the Ericson and Pakes (1995) framework to simulate a game in which single

product firms choose advertising, compete in prices and make entry and exit decisions and show that a ban

on advertising can, in some circumstances, have anticompetitive e↵ects, because firms can use advertising

4

to deter entry and induce exit (as in Chamberlin (1933), Dixit (1980), Schmalensee (1983) and Fudenberg

and Tirole (1984)).

Much of the broader dynamic games literature has been interested in addressing the substantial com-

putational burden of estimating dynamic game models (see, inter alia, Rust (1987), Bajari et al. (2007),

Ryan (2012) and Fowlie et al. (2013)). Most of this work assumes that the same equilibrium is played in

all markets, in order to allow consistent estimation of policy functions in all observed markets. A recent

advance in Sweeting (2013) circumvents this problem by using parametric approximations to firms’ value

functions.

While we specify a fully dynamic oligopoly model that accounts for the potentially long lasting e↵ects

of advertising on firm behavior, we avoid many of the di�cult computational problems that arise in such

models. In our model firms compete in both prices and advertising; firms’ strategies in prices and advertising

are multidimensional and continuous with a very large set of state variables. If we wanted to estimate the

dynamic parameters of the model, we would face a potentially intractable computational problem. However,

we are interested in the counterfactual equilibrium in which advertising is banned, meaning it is su�cient to

focus on the static price first-order conditions, since the dynamic e↵ects of advertising on demand disappear

in this counterfactual. We consider a mature market with a stable set of brands and firms, so we can abstract

from entry and exit considerations. This simplifies the problem. However, we estimate a model that includes

multi-product firms and we do not restrict equilibria to be unique or symmetric or to be constant across

markets, but instead we use the fact that we observe all state variables, such as advertising state vectors

a↵ecting MPE. In this realistic market setting we consider the impact that an advertising ban will have on

price competition.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In Section 2.1 we outline a model of consumer demand that

is flexible in the ways that advertising enters, and allows for the possibility that advertising is cooperative so

expands the market, or that it is predatory and so potentially contracts the market. We also detail how we

can evaluate the impact of advertising on consumer welfare. Section 3.1 presents a dynamic oligopoly model

in which multi-product firms compete in price and advertising budgets and discusses how we identify the

unobserved marginal costs parameters of the model. Section 3.2 outlines how we conduct the counterfactual

simulations. Section 4.1 describes the data used in our application to the UK potato chips market; a unique

feature of our data is that we observe purchase decisions for consumption outside the home as well as at

home. In this section we also describe the advertising in this market. Section 4.2 describes our estimates

and Section 4.3 describes market equilibria with advertising and with an advertising ban implemented. A

final section summarizes and concludes.

5

2 Demand

We specify a demand model that is flexible in the way that advertising a↵ects both individual and market

level demand. We use a random utility discrete choice model in the vein of Berry et al. (1995), Nevo (2001)

and Berry et al. (2004). We estimate the model on transaction level data. Berry and Haile (2010, 2014)

show that identification of such multinomial choice models requires less restrictive assumptions with micro

data, compared with when market level data alone are used.

2.1 Consumer Choice Model

Multi-product firms o↵er brands (b = 1, .., B) in di↵erent pack sizes, indexed by s; a product index is defined

by a (b, s) pair. Good (0, 0) indexes the outside option of not buying potato chips. We index markets, which

are defined as the period of time over which firms take pricing and advertising decisions, by t.

Let i index consumers. We observe individuals on two types of purchase occasion, food on-the-go and

food at home, indexed by 2 {1, 2}. On food on-the-go purchase occasions an individual buys a pack of

potato chips for immediate consumption outside of the home; on food at home purchase occasions the main

shopper in the household buys potato chips for future consumption at home.

Consumer i purchases the product that provides her with the highest payo↵, trading o↵ characteristics

that increase her valuation of the product, such as tastiness, against characteristics that decrease her valua-

tion, such as price and possibly ‘unhealthiness’. Advertising could a↵ect the weight the consumer places on

all of these; it could directly enter as a characteristic that the consumer values, it could change the amount

of attention the consumer pays to the other characteristics, or it could change the information the consumer

has about the characteristics. In Section 4.1.2 we discuss the nature of advertising in the UK potato chips

market.

Products have observed and unobserved characteristics. A product’s observed characteristics include its

price (pbst

) and its nutrient characteristic (xb

). The nutrient characteristic might capture both tastiness, if

consumers like the taste of salt and saturated fat, and the health consequences of consuming the product,

which might reduce the payo↵ of selecting the product for some consumers. We also assume that there exists

a set of advertising state variables, at

= (a1t

, ...,a

Bt

), where abt

denotes a brand b specific advertising vector

of state variables, which may depend on current and past brand advertising, as will be detailed in the Supply

Section 3. zbs

denotes functions of the product’s pack size, and ⇠ib

is an unobserved brand characteristic. A

consumer’s payo↵ from selecting a product also depends on an i.i.d. shock, ✏ibst

.

6

Let vibs

denote the consumer’s payo↵ from selecting product (b, s), then the consumer will choose product

(b, s) if:

v

ibs

(pbst

,a

t

, x

b

, z

bs

, ⇠

b

, ✏

ibst

) � v

ibs

(pb

0s

0t

,a

t

, x

b

0 , zb

0s

0, ⇠

b

0, ✏

ib

0s

0t

) 8(b0 , s0) 2 ⌦

,

where ⌦

denotes the set of products available on purchase occasion . The i subscript on the payo↵ function

indicates that we will allow coe�cients to vary with observed and unobserved (through random coe�cients)

consumer characteristics. The subscript indicates that we allow coe�cients to vary between purchases

made on-the-go for immediate consumption, and purchases made as part of a main shopping trip for future

consumption at home. We allow this variation in order to accommodate the possibility that behavior and

preferences might di↵er when a decision is made for immediate consumption compared to when it is made

for delayed consumption. In our application this is important; for example, we find that consumers are more

price sensitive when purchasing food on-the-go compared with when they purchase food to be consumed at

home.

One of our aims in specifying the form of the payo↵ function is to allow changes in price and advertising

to impact demand in a way that is not unduly constrained a priori. We therefore incorporate both observable

and unobservable heterogeneity in consumer preferences. Many papers, including Berry et al. (1995), Nevo

(2001) and Berry et al. (2004), have illustrated the importance of allowing for unobservable heterogeneity, in

particular to allow flexible cross-price substitution patterns. While in di↵erentiated markets it is typically

reasonable to impose that goods are substitutes (lowering the price of one good increases demand for a

second), it is not reasonable to impose that cross-advertising e↵ects are of a particular sign. A priori we do

not know whether more advertising of one brand increases or decreases demand for another brand. Therefore,

we include advertising in consumers’ payo↵ function in such a way that allows for the potential for both

cooperative or predatory advertising.

We assume that consumer i’s payo↵ from selecting product (b, s) is additive in a term reflecting the e↵ects

of price on the payo↵ function, ↵i

(abt

, p

bst

), a term reflecting the net impact of the nutritional content of the

product on the payo↵ function, i

(abt

, x

b

), a term reflecting the direct e↵ects of advertising, �i

(abt

,a�bt

),

and a final term capturing other product characteristics, ⌘i

(zbs

, ⇠

b

). We allow all parameters, including

the distribution of the random coe�cients, to vary for on-the-go and food at home occasions (), and by

demographic characteristics (income, education, household composition). For notational simplicity we drop

the subscript on the coe�cients - it appears on all coe�cients - we retain the i subscript to clarify how we

incorporate observed and unobserved heterogeneity. Thus the payo↵ function is given by:

v

ibst

= ↵

i

(abt

, p

bst

) +

i

(abt

, x

b

) + �

i

(abt

,a�bt

) + ⌘

i

(zbs

, ⇠

b

) + ✏

ibst

, (2.1)

7

where we specify the functions:

↵

i

(abt

, p

bst

) = (↵0i + ↵1iabt) pbst,

i

(abt

, x

b

) = ( 0i + 1iabt)xb

,

�

i

(abt

,a�bt

) = �

i

a

bt

+ ⇢

i

⇣Xl 6=b

a

lt

⌘,

⌘

i

(zbs

, ⇠

b

) = ⌘1izbs + ⌘2iz2bs

+ ⌘

i

⇠

b

.

The coe�cients ⇡u

i

= (↵0i,�i, ⇢i, ⌘i) incorporate observed and unobserved heterogeneity and take the form

⇡

u

i

= ⇡

u

0 +⇡u

1 di+�idi, where di are demographic characteristics and �i

⇠ N (0,⌃⇡

); the distribution of these

random coe�cients is allowed to di↵er both by demographics and by whether the purchase occasion is for

on-the-go or food at home. The coe�cients ⇡o

i

= (↵1i, 0i, 1i, ⌘1i, ⌘2i) incorporate observed heterogeneity

and take the form ⇡

o

i

= ⇡

o

0 + ⇡

o

1di.

Advertising enters the payo↵ function in three distinct ways. We allow advertising to enter directly

through �

i

(abt

,a�bt

), this can also be viewed as allowing advertising to shift the weight the consumer

places on the brand characteristic; the coe�cients �i

and ⇢i

can be interpreted as capturing the extent to

which time variation in the own brand and competitor advertising state vectors shift the weight consumers

place on the brand. We allow advertising to interact with price; the coe�cient ↵1i allows the mean marginal

e↵ect of price on the payo↵ function (within a given demographic group) to shift with advertising (as in

Erdem et al. (2008b)). We also allow advertising to interact with the nutrient characteristic; the coe�cient

1i allows the marginal e↵ect of the nutrient characteristic on the payo↵ function (within a given demographic

group) to shift with advertising. Inclusion of rich heterogeneity in the e↵ects of advertising on the payo↵

function serves both to capture variation across consumers in responses to advertising (due to both variation

in exposure and variation in responsiveness for a given level of exposure) and to allow for rich patterns of

demand response to changes in advertising.

When we specify and estimate the demand system we can remain agnostic about how advertising a↵ects

demand (in Bagwell (2007)’s terms whether it is informative about product characteristics, persuasive or

a characteristic). Advertising might shift the marginal impact of the nutrient characteristic on the payo↵

function, because it leads the consumer to be better informed about this characteristic, because it persuades

consumers to pay more or less attention to this characteristic than they would in the absence of advertising,

or because it is a product characteristic that enters interactively with the nutrient characteristic. It is when

we use the model to make welfare statements that we need to take a stand on the role of advertising.

Without further restrictions, we cannot separately identify the baseline nutrient characteristic coe�cient

( 0i) from the unobserved brand e↵ect (⇠b

), although we can identify the combination of the two e↵ects:

8

⇣

ib

= 0ixb

+ ⌘

i

⇠

b

. To simulate the equilibrium and welfare e↵ects of an advertising ban, it is not necessary

to separately estimate these coe�cients. However, we are able recover the baseline e↵ect of the nutrient

characteristic on consumer tastes under the additional assumption that the nutrient characteristic is mean

independent from the unobserved brand characteristic, using an auxiliary minimum distance estimation

between a set of estimated brand e↵ects ⇣ib

and the nutrient characteristic x

b

.

We allow for the possibility that the consumer chooses not to purchase potato chips; the payo↵ from

selecting the outside option takes the form:

v

i00t = ⇣

i0t + ✏

i00t.

We allow the mean utility of the outside option, ⇣i0t to change over time. In particular, we allow it to change

from year to year and seasonally.

Assuming ✏ibst

is i.i.d. and drawn from a type I extreme value distribution, the probability that consumer

i buys product (b, s) in period (market) t is:

s

ibs

(at

,p

t

) =exp[↵

i

(abt

, p

bst

) +

i

(abt

, x

b

) + �

i

(abt

,a�bt

) + ⌘

i

(zbs

, ⇠

b

)]P(b0 ,s0 )2⌦

exp [↵i

(ab

0t

, p

b

0s

0t

) +

i

(ab

0t

, x

b

0) + �

i

(ab

0t

,a�b

0t

) + ⌘

i

(zb

0s

0, ⇠

b

0)]. (2.2)

The payo↵ function (2.1) allows advertising to have a flexible impact on demand in an empirically

tractable way. By allowing advertising to shift the marginal e↵ect of price and the marginal e↵ect of the

nutrient characteristic on the payo↵ function, we allow advertising to have a direct impact on price elasticities

and the consumer’s willingness to pay for a change in the nutrient characteristic. Crucially, the inclusion of

competitor advertising in the payo↵ function allows the model to capture both predatory and cooperative

advertising. In particular, the specification is su�ciently flexible to allow for the possibility that an increase

in the advertising state variable for one brand, b, increases demand for another brand b

0 - in which case we

say advertising of brand b is cooperative with respect to brand b

0. Conversely, the specification also allows

for the possibility that an increase in the advertising state variable for brand b reduces demand for brand b

0

- in which case we say advertising of brand b is predatory with respect to brand b

0. In addition, the way we

include advertising allows for the possibility that the size of the total market can either expand or contract in

response to an increase in the brand b advertising state. Had we only included brand advertising as the only

advertising variable in the payo↵ function we would have restricted, a priori, advertising to be predatory

and to lead to market expansion.4

4We report the marginal own and cross advertising e↵ects in Appendix E.2.

9

2.2 Consumer Welfare

The demand model presented above is su�ciently flexible to capture the impact of pricing and advertising on

demand regardless of which view (informative about product characteristics, persuasive or a characteristic)

we take about advertising. However, to understand how a ban on advertising will a↵ect welfare, which

includes consumer welfare, profits of firms that manufacture and sell potato chips and potentially also firms

in the advertising industry,5 requires that we take a stance on which view of advertising is most appropriate.

Advertising in the UK potato chips principally consists of celebrity endorsements (see Section 4.1.2). This

is true of much advertising in consumer goods markets, and particularly in junk food markets. We adopt the

view that advertising is persuasive and acts to distort consumer decision making. The persuasive view of

advertising has a long tradition in the advertising literature (Robinson (1933), Kaldor (1950)). More recently,

the behavioral economics literature (see Bernheim and Rangel (2005)) has suggested advertising might lead

consumers to act as non-standard decision makers; advertising providing environmental “cues” to consumers.

While policies that improve cognitive processes are potentially welfare enhancing if the environmental cues

have information content, persuasive advertising might distort choices in ways that do not enhance welfare.

Bernheim and Rangel (2009) argue that “ choices made in the presence of those cues are therefore predicated

on improperly processed information, and welfare evaluations should be guided by choices made under other

conditions.” The welfare implications of restricting advertising that acts to distort decision making has

been explored by Glaeser and Ujhelyi (2010), who are particularly concerned with firm advertising (or

misinformation in their term) in food markets, while Mullainathan et al. (2012) consider the broad policy

framework in public finance applications when consumers makes decisions inconsistent with their underlying

welfare.

As pointed out by Dixit and Norman (1978), the welfare e↵ects of changes in advertising will depend

on whether one uses pre or post tastes to evaluate welfare. When assessing the welfare implications of

banning persuasive advertising it is natural to assess welfare changes using undistorted preferences (i.e. the

parameters in the consumer’s payo↵ function in the absence of advertising). This mirrors the distinction

made by Kahneman et al. (1997) between decision and experience utility; in his terms, advertising a↵ects

choice and therefore decision utility, but it does not a↵ect underlying or experience utility.

Under the persuasive view of advertising, decisions made when advertising is non-zero maximize a payo↵

function that does not coincide with the consumer’s utility function. Consumers will choose the product

that provides them with the highest payo↵ v

ibst

as in equation (2.1), but the true underlying utility is based

5Though we have less to say about this, we can state the total advertising budgets, which represent an upper bound onadvertisers’ profits.

10

on the consumer’s product valuation in the absence of advertising.

bvibst

= ↵

i

(0, pbst

) +

i

(0, xb

) + �

i

(0,0) + ⌘

i

(zbs

, ⇠

b

) + ✏

ibst

. (2.3)

In this case the consumer’s expected utility at the advertising state and price vectors (at

,p

t

) is given by

evaluating the choice made by maximizing the payo↵ function (2.1) at preferences described by (2.3):

cW

i

(at

,p

t

) = E✏

[bvib

⇤,s

⇤t

] .

where we define (b⇤, s⇤) = argmax(b,s)2⌦

{vibst

}. In this case, following the terminology of Kahneman et al. (1997),

bv is the experience utility while v is the decision utility of the consumer. Noting that

bvibst

= v

ibst

� ↵

i

(abt

, p

bt

) + ↵

i

(0, pbt

)�

i

(abt

, x

b

) +

i

(0, xb

)� �

i

(abt

,a�bt

) + �

i

(0,0),

we can write cW

i

(at

,p

t

) as:

cW

i

(at

,p

t

) =E✏

[vib

⇤s

⇤t

]

� E✏

[↵i

(ab

⇤t

, p

b

⇤t

)� ↵

i

(0, pb

⇤t

) +

i

(ab

⇤t

, x

b

⇤)�

i

(0, xb

⇤) + �

i

(ab

⇤t

,a�b

⇤t

)� �

i

(0,0)]

=E✏

max

(b,s)2⌦

v

ibst

�

� E✏

[↵i

(ab

⇤t

, p

b

⇤t

)� ↵

i

(0, pb

⇤t

) +

i

(ab

⇤t

, x

b

⇤)�

i

(0, xb

⇤) + �

i

(ab

⇤t

,a�b

⇤t

)� �

i

(0,0)]

=W

i

(at

,p

t

)

�X

(b,s)2⌦

s

ibst

[(↵i

(abt

, p

bst

)� ↵

i

(0, pbst

)) + ( i

(abt

, x

b

)�

i

(0, xb

)) + (�i

(abt

,a�bt

)� �

i

(0,0))] ,

where s

ibst

is given by equation (2.2) and, up to an additive constant,

W

i

(at

,p

t

) ⌘ E

✏

max

(b,s)2⌦

v

ibst

�

= ln

2

4X

(b,s)2⌦

exp [↵i

(abt

, p

bst

) +

i

(abt

, x

b

) + �

i

(abt

,a�bt

) + ⌘

i

(zbs

, ⇠

b

)]

3

5 (2.4)

using the standard closed form (Small and Rosen (1981)) when the error term ✏ is distributed type I extreme

value.

This says that when a consumer’s choices are distorted by advertising, expected utility is equal to expected

utility if advertising was in the consumer’s utility function, minus a term reflecting the fact that the consumer

is making choices that do not maximize her true underlying utility function.

11

Denote p0 a price counterfactual equilibrium in which there is no advertising, we define the nature of this

equilibrium more precisely in Section 3.2. Evaluating the impact of banning advertising under the welfare

standard of bvibst

, the consumer welfare di↵erence between the equilibrium with advertising and the one in

which advertising is banned can be decomposed as:

W

i

�0,p

0

t

�� cW

i

(at

,p

t

) =W

i

(0,pt

)� cW

i

(at

,p

t

) (choice distortion e↵ect) (2.5)

+W

i

�0,p

0

t

��W

i

(0,pt

) (price competition e↵ect)

where we use the fact that cW

i

(0,p) = W

i

(0,p).

Advertising has the e↵ect of inducing the consumer to make suboptimal choices. Banning advertising

removes this distortion to decision making, which benefits consumers. We label this the “choice distortion

e↵ect”. However, banning advertising also a↵ects consumer welfare through the “price competition e↵ect”

channel. The sign of this e↵ect will depend on the change in pricing equilibrium. The price competition

e↵ect is independent of the view we take about advertising since firms’ behavior depends only on decision

utilities of consumers.

An alternative to the persuasive view of advertising is that it is a characteristic of the product that

consumers value (Stigler and Becker (1977) and Becker and Murphy (1993)). In this case, in the terminology

of Kahneman et al. (1997), advertising would enter both experience and decision utilities. The welfare e↵ect

of banning advertising would be given by the more standard term W

i

�0,p

0

t

�� W

i

(at

,p

t

) and the choice

distortion term in the equation (2.5) would be replaced by a term reflecting the impact on welfare of removing

the advertising characteristic from the market, Wi

(0,pt

)�W

i

(at

,p

t

).

The identification of this e↵ect is influenced by the normalization of the outside option utility. We include

own brand and competitor advertising in the payo↵ function of inside goods, but the alternative specification

where own brand advertising appears in the payo↵ of inside goods and total advertising appears in the

payo↵ of the outside option would give rise to observationally equivalent demand. Although observationally

equivalent, these two specifications would lead to di↵erent welfare predictions under the characteristics view.6

However, as advertising does not enter the experience utility under the persuasive view, such problem does

not exist in this alternative welfare definition.

We focus on welfare measures of the direct monetary costs for consumers and firms of an advertising ban.

To measure the monetary costs to a consumer we convert the welfare changes to compensating variation

(dividing by the marginal utility of income):

CV

i

�a

t

,p

t

,p

0

t

�=

1

↵0i

hW

i

�0,p

0

t

�� c

W

i

(at

,p

t

)i

(2.6)

6See Appendix B for details.

12

In the empirical application we also report the change in the nutrient characteristic of products purchased;

these could be combined with estimates from the medical literature of the health implications of consumption

of those nutrients (salt and saturated fat being among the most important ones) to say something about the

long term health e↵ects.

2.3 Market Demand

We can obtain market level demand and aggregate welfare once we know individual demand. The inclusion

of rich observed and unobserved consumer heterogeneity means that flexibility in individual demand will

translate into even more flexibility in market level demand. We consider firms to take pricing and advertising

decisions each month t. We measure the potential size of the potato chips market (or maximum number of

potato chips that could be purchased) as being equal to the number of shopping occasions on which snacks

were purchased, denote this Mt

. This definition of the market size implies that we assume that changes in

pricing or advertising in the potato chips market may change consumers’ propensity to buy potato chips,

but not their propensity to go shopping to buy a snack product. We model the share of the potential market

accounted for by purchases of product (b, s), by averaging over the individual purchase probabilities given

by equation (2.2).

In order to aggregate individual choice probabilities over individual purchase occasions into market shares

we use the following assumption:

Assumption 1 : Random coe�cients ⇡u

i

= (↵0i,�i, ⇢i, ⌘i) are i.i.d. across consumers, within purchase

occasion type.

As seen in Section 2.1, we allow the mean and variance of the random coe�cient to vary with observed

household characteristics, di

. We integrate over consumers’ observed and unobserved preferences; under

assumption 1 the share of the potential market accounted for by product (b, s) is given by:

s

bs

(at

,p

t

) =

Zs

ibs

(at

,p

t

)dF (⇡u

i

,⇡

o

i

|di

). (2.7)

Assumption 1 guarantees that the market share function s

bs

(., .) is not time dependent. A generalization

where the distribution of observed preference shifters di

changes over time in a Markov way is straightforward

and would simply mean that the parameters of this distribution at time t would be an additional argument

of this function s

bs

(., .).

Similarly, aggregate compensating variation is given by;

CV

�a

t

,p

t

,p

0

t

�=

ZCV

i

�a

t

,p

t

,p

0

t

�dF (⇡u

i

,⇡

o

i

|di

). (2.8)

13

2.4 Identification

A common concern in empirical demand analysis is whether the ceteris paribus impact of price on demand is

identified. In the industrial organization literature the most common concern is that price is correlated with

an unobserved product e↵ect (either some innate unobserved characteristic of the product or some market

specific shock to demand for the product); failure to control for the unobserved product e↵ect will mean that

we can not identify the true e↵ect of price on demand. Following the seminal contribution of Berry (1994)

and Berry et al. (1995), the literature estimating di↵erentiated product demand with market level data has

dealt with the endogeneity of price by controlling for market varying product e↵ects using an auxiliary IV

regression. Our strategy di↵ers from the typical “BLP” approach and is similar to that suggested in Bajari

and Benkard (2005); we exploit the richness of our micro data, and the fact that the UK retail food market

is characterized by close to national pricing.7

The use of individual transaction level data, coupled with the lack of geographic variation in pricing,

means in our context that concerns over the endogeneity of price translates into whether di↵erences in price

either across products or through time are correlated with the individual level errors (✏ibst

), conditional on

all other characteristics included in the model. A typical concern is that marketing activities are correlated

with prices, but we observe and control for all relevant brand advertising in the market. We also control for

time e↵ects and seasonality of aggregate potato chip demand. Hence, we are able to exploit within product

time series variation in price, conditional on advertising and time e↵ects in aggregate potato chip demand.

A second common issue is that some unobserved characteristic of products is not adequately captured by the

model and firms, which set prices based in part on the demand they face, will set prices that are correlated

with the unobserved characteristic. A strength of our data is that we observe barcode level transactions, and

we are therefore able to model demand for products that are defined more finely than brands (in particular

each brand is available in a variety of pack sizes). We control for both brand e↵ects, which capture unobserved

characteristics of brand, as well as pack size. So a second source of price variation we exploit is di↵erences

across brand in how unit price varies across pack size (non-linear pricing). Taken together we believe that

national pricing, consumer level demand, and the inclusion of aggregate time e↵ects, advertising and brand

e↵ects deal with the typical sources of endogeneity of prices.

A related issue is whether we are able to identify the ceteris paribus e↵ect of advertising on demand.

Like pricing decisions, in the UK, advertising decisions are predominantly taken at the national level. The

majority of advertising is done on national television, meaning that all households are subject to the same

vector of brand advertising. Even though we use consumer level data and control for shocks over time to

aggregate potato chip demand, there may remain some concern that the individual taste shocks (✏ibst

) are

7In the UK most supermarkets implement a national pricing policy following the Competition Commission’s investigationinto supermarket behavior (Competition Commission (2000)).

14

correlated with advertising. Our advertising state vector abt

depends on the advertising flow e

bt

in addition

to past advertising flows ebt�1, ebt�2, ... Therefore, if the state variable abt is correlated with demand shocks

it is most likely to be through its dependence on the contemporaneous advertising flow. To address this we

implement a control function approach (see Blundell and Powell (2004) and for multinomial discrete choice

models Petrin and Train (2010)). We estimate a first stage regression of product level monthly advertising

flows on time e↵ects and exogenous brand characteristics (included in the demand model), and instruments

chosen to be correlated with potato chip brand advertising flows but not with demand shocks. A natural

instrument would be the price of advertising, unfortunately we do not directly observe advertising prices.

Instead we use advertising expenditure in another market (the ready-meal sector), where shocks to demand

are likely to be uncorrelated with shocks in the potato chips market. We interact the instrument with

potato chip brand fixed e↵ects. The logic is that ready-meal advertising will be correlated with potato chip

advertising through the common influence of the price of advertising but be independent of ✏ibst

. We find

that the instrument has power and that the control function is statistically significant in the ‘second stage’

demand estimation, suggesting that there is some correlation (conditional on other variables in the model)

between brand advertising and demand shocks.

We use the model to predict demand in the absence of advertising. A potential concern is whether we

are predicting advertising levels outside the range of variation we observe in the data. However, a number

of brands in the market, in particular the generic supermarket brands, e↵ectively do not advertise so we

observe the advertising state variable at (very close to) zero.

3 Supply

We consider a dynamic oligopoly game where both price and advertising are strategic variables. The market

structure is assumed to be fixed both in terms of the firms in the market, indexed j = 1, .., J , and in terms

of the products produced by each firm. Let Fj

denote the set of products produced by firm j (a product is

defined by its brand b and size s), and B

j

denote the set of brands owned by firm j. We abstract from entry

and exit considerations.

3.1 Oligopoly Competition in Prices and Advertising

Before describing the details of the dynamic oligopoly game, we start by writing the objective function of

a firm as a function of strategic variables, prices and advertising expenditures, and the vectors of state

variables. Let c

bst

denote the marginal cost of product (b, s) at time t. The firm owning product (b, s)

chooses the product’s price, pbst

, and advertising expenditures, ebt

, for the brand b in each period t. The

15

intertemporal variable profit of firm j at period 0 is:

X1

t=0�

t

X(b,s)2Fj

(pbst

� c

bst

) sbs

(at

,p

t

)Mt

�X

b2Bj

e

bt

�, (3.1)

where the time t advertising state vector at

depends on the vector of current brand advertising expenditures

e

t

= (e1t, ..., eBt

) and possibly on all past advertising expenditures such that

a

t

= A (et

, e

t�1

, .., e�1) .

In order for the game to have an equilibrium we must impose restrictions on the functional A (., ..., .) for the

state space to remain of finite dimension.

As in Erdem et al. (2008a), we assume that the dynamic e↵ect of advertising on demand is such that the

state advertising variables are equal to a geometric sum of current and past advertising expenditure:

A (et

, e

t�1

, .., e�1) =X+1

n=0�

n

e

t�n

,

which means that the dimension of the state space remains finite, since a

t

= A (at�1

, e

t

) = �a

t�1

+ e

t

. abt

is akin to a stock of advertising goodwill that decays over time at rate �, but that can be increased with

expenditure ebt

. An alternative would be to specify that the state vector at

depends on the vector of current

brand advertising expenditures et

= (e1t, .., eBt

) and a maximum of L lagged advertising expenditures such

that

a

t

= A (et

, e

t�1

, .., e

t�L

) .

In this case, the advertising state vector at the beginning of period t is not at�1

but is (et�1

, .., e

t�L

). All

of the following discussion can accommodate this case.

We assume that at each period t all firms observe the total market size, Mt

, and the vector of all firms’

marginal costs c

t

. We denote the information set ✓t

= (Mt

, c

t

). We assume that firms form symmetric

expectations about future shocks according to the following assumption:

Assumption 2: Marginal costs and market size follow independent Markov processes such that for all t,

E

t

[cbst+1] = c

bst

and E

t

[Mt+1] = M

t

.

We follow the majority of the empirical literature by restricting our attention to pure Markov strategies

(see, inter alia, Ryan (2012), Sweeting (2013) and Dube et al. (2005)). This restrict firms’ strategies to

depend only on payo↵ relevant state variables, (at�1

, ✓

t

). For each firm j, a Markov strategy �

j

is a

mapping between the state variables (at�1

, ✓

t

), and the firm j decisions {pbst

}(b,s)2Fj, {e

bt

}b2Bj

, which

16

consist of choosing prices and advertising expenditures for the firm’s own products and brands (�j

(at�1

, ✓

t

) =

({pbst

}(b,s)2Fj, {e

bt

}b2Bj

)).

There is no guarantee that a Markov Perfect Equilibrium (MPE) in pure strategies of this dynamic game

exists. In a discrete version of this game, existence of a symmetric MPE in pure strategies follows from

the arguments in Doraszelski and Satterthwaite (2003, 2010), provided that we impose an upper bound on

advertising strategies. Ericson and Pakes (1995) and Doraszelski and Satterthwaite (2003) provide general

conditions for the existence of equilibria in similar games, but as our model set up di↵ers the conditions

cannot be directly applied in our case. Therefore we assume the technical conditions for the existence of

a subgame perfect Markov equilibrium of this game are satisfied, and below we use necessary conditions

to characterize an equilibrium (Maskin and Tirole (2001)). However, we do not need to assume that an

equilibrium is unique, and indeed it is perfectly possible that this game has multiple equilibria. We now turn

to characterize the equilibria of this game.

We first show that the firm’s intertemporal profit maximization can be restated using a recursive formula-

tion. In this dynamic oligopoly game, each firm j makes an assumption on the competitor’s strategy profiles

denoted ��j

, where ��j

(at�1

, ✓

t

) = (�1 (at�1

, ✓

t

) , ..,�j�1 (at�1

, ✓

t

) ,�j+1 (at�1

, ✓

t

) , ..,�J

(at�1

, ✓

t

)). Equi-

librium decisions are generated by a value function, ⇡⇤j

(., .), that satisfies the following Bellman equation

⇡

⇤j

(at�1

, ✓

t

) = max{pbst}(b,s)2Fj

,{ebt}b2Bj

X

(b,s)2Fj

(pbst

� c

bst

) sbs

(at

,p

t

)Mt

�X

b2Bj

e

bt

+ �E

t

⇥⇡

⇤j

(at

, ✓

t+1)⇤,

where

a

t

= (a1t, .., aBt

) = (A (a1t�1, e1t) , ..,A (aBt�1, eBt

)) .

The Bellman equation is thus conditional on a specific competitive strategy profile ��j

. A MPE is then a list

of strategies, �⇤j

for j = 1, .., J , such that no firm deviates from the action prescribed by �⇤j

in any subgame

that starts at some state (at�1

, ✓

t

).

We show in Appendix D that, for a given continuous Markov competitor strategy profile ��j

, and

under additional technical assumptions on the su�ciency of first-order conditions for price and advertising

strategies, this recursive equation for firm j has a solution using standard dynamic programming tools

(Stokey et al. (1989)). With other players’ price and advertising strategies fixed, we just need to check

technical conditions for this recursive equation to define a contraction mapping to guarantee existence of a

fixed point, and then a solution of the Bellman equation ⇡

⇤j

will correspond to each MPE of the dynamic

game.

17

Consequently, the maximization problem of the firm at time t is equivalent to the following program:

max{pbst}(b,s)2Fj

,{ebt}b2Bj

⇧j

(pt

, e

t

,a

t�1

, ✓

t

) ⌘X

(b,s)2Fj

(pbst

� c

bst

) sbs

(at

,p

t

)Mt

�X

b2Bj

e

bt

+�E⇥⇡

⇤j

(at

, ✓

t+1)⇤,

where ⇡⇤j

(at

, ✓

t+1) is the next period discounted profit of firm j, given the vector of future advertising

states at

=(a1t, .., aBt

). This profit is the one obtained by the firm choosing optimal prices and advertising

expenditures in the future, given all state variables.

Assuming that the technical conditions for the profit function are di↵erentiable in price and have a single

maximum, we can use the first-order conditions of firm j profit with respect to prices for each (b, s) 2 F

j

:

@⇧j

@p

bst

(pt

, e

t

,a

t�1

, ✓

t

) = s

bs

(at

,p

t

) +X

(b0,s0)2Fj

(pb

0s

0t

� c

b

0s

0t

)@s

b

0s

0 (at

,p

t

)

@p

bst

= 0. (3.2)

We can identify price-cost margins using the condition (3.2) provided this system of equations is invertible,

which will be the case if goods are “connected substitutes” as in Berry and Haile (2014). Another set of

conditions for the optimal choice of advertising flows exist and allow characterize the equilibrium relationship

between advertising flows and prices with all state variables including past advertising. We however do not

need to use such condition for identifying marginal costs. Thus, we do not need to impose di↵erentiability

of the profit function with respect to advertising, we only need to use the necessary first-order condition on

price, which depends on the observed state vector at

.

As shown by Dube et al. (2005) and Villas-Boas (1993), the dynamic game can give rise to alternating

strategies or pulsing strategies in advertising, corresponding to each MPE profile �. However, the identi-

fication of marginal costs, cbst

, does not depend on the equilibrium value function ⇡

⇤j

for a given level of

observed optimal prices and advertising (pt

, e

t

). Price-cost margins will depend on equilibrium strategies

only through observed prices and advertising decisions, and will simply be the solution of the system of equa-

tions (3.2). The identification of marginal costs thus does not require either uniqueness of the equilibrium

nor di↵erentiability of firms’ value functions.

3.2 Counterfactual Advertising Ban

We consider the impact of a proposed ban on advertising. A new price equilibrium will then be played. We

consider Markov equilibria where firms’ strategies consist of choosing only prices. We assume that technical

conditions on demand shape are satisfied to guarantee uniqueness of a Nash equilibrium in the static case

(as in Caplin and Nalebu↵ (1991)). It is straightforward to show that equilibria will satisfy the per period

Bertrand-Nash conditions of profit maximization whatever the beliefs of firms about whether the regulatory

18

change is permanent or not. In the absence of advertising firms have no means to a↵ect future state variables

and the new price equilibrium p

0

t

must be such that, for all (b, s) and j,

s

bs

�0,p

0

t

�+

X

(b0,s0)2Fj

(pb

0s

0t

� c

b

0s

0t

)@s

b

0s

0�0,p

0

t

�

@p

bst

= 0, (3.3)

where

s

bs

(0,p0

t

) =

Zs

ibs

(0,p0

t

)dF (⇡u

i

,⇡

o

i

|di

) (3.4)

is the market level demand for product (b, s) when advertising stocks are all zero and at prices p

0

t

. We

could easily obtain the counterfactual equilibrium for any other exogenously fixed levels of advertising state

variables. For example, we could consider a period t0 level of advertising state variables and simulate the

subsequent period equilibria, where the advertising state vector decreases over time due to the decay of

advertising, since a

t0+L

= �

L

a

t0 is decreasing in L and converging to zero.

To evaluate the impact of an advertising ban we solve for the counterfactual pricing equilibrium in each

market when advertising is banned and compare the quantities, prices, variable profits and consumer welfare

relative to the equilibrium played prior to the ban (the outcome of which we observe).

4 Application

4.1 Data

We apply our model to the UK market for potato chips. This is an important source of junk calories. In the

US the potato chips market was worth $9 billion in 2013, and 86% of people consumed some potato chips.

The UK potato chips market had an annual revenue of more £2.8 billion in 2013 with 84% of consumers

buying some potato chips.8

We also believe that this market shares several important characteristics with other junk food markets,

which make our results of broader interest. There are a small number of large firms that sell multiple brands

and have large advertising budgets. Advertising is mainly in the form of celebrity endorsement or other

types that contain little factual information on the characteristics of the product.

We use two sources of data - transaction level purchase data from the market research firm Kantar, and

advertising data from AC Nielsen.

8For the size of the US market see http://www.marketresearch.com/MarketLine-v3883/Potato-Chips-United-States-7823721/ ; the size of the UK market see http://www.snacma.org.uk/fact-or-fiction.asp ; and for the number of people who con-sume potato chips in each country see http://us.kantar.com/business/health/potato-chip-consumption-in-the-us-and-globally-2012/.

19

4.1.1 Purchase data

The purchase data are from the Kantar World Panel for the period June 2009 to October 2010. Our data are

unusual in that we have information on households’ purchases for food at home and individuals’ purchases for

food on-the-go. For each household we observe all food purchases made and brought into the home (we refer

to these as “food at home” purchases). We also use a sample of individuals drawn from these households

that record all food purchases made for consumption “on-the-go” (we refer to these as “food on-the-go”

purchases). Food at home purchases are by definition made for future consumption (the product has to

be taken back home to be recorded), while food on-the-go purchases are made for immediate consumption.

Individuals participating in the on-the-go panel include both adults and children aged 13 or older.

We use information on 261,149 transactions over the period June 2009 to October 2010; this includes

161,513 food at home purchase occasions and 99,636 food on-the-go purchase occasions, made by 2872

households and 2306 individuals. We define a purchase occasion as a week. For the food at home segment

this is any week in which the household records buying groceries; when a household does not record purchasing

any potato chips for home consumption we say it selected the outside option in this segment. Potato chips are

purchased on 41% of food at home purchase occasions. For the food on-the-go segment a purchase occasion

is any week in which the individual records purchasing any food on-the-go; when an individual bought food

on-the-go, but did not purchase any potato chips, we say they selected the outside option. Potato chips are

purchased on 27% of food on-the-go purchase occasions. From other data we know that 14% of potato chips

are bought on-the-go, with the remaining share purchased for food at home (Living Cost and Food Survey).

We define a potato chip product as a brand-pack size combination.9 Potato chips for consumption at

home are almost entirely purchased in large supermarkets as part of the households’ main weekly shop,

whereas those for consumption on-the-go are almost entirely purchased in small convenience stores. The set

of products available in large supermarkets (for food at home) di↵ers from the set of products available in

convenience stores (for food on-the-go). Some brands are not available in convenience stores (for example,

generic supermarket brands), and purchases made at large supermarkets are almost entirely large or multi-

pack sizes, while food on-the-go purchases are almost always purchases of single packs. We restrict the choice

sets in each segment to reflect this. This means that the choice sets for food at home and on-the-go occasions

do not overlap; most brands are present in both segments, but not in the same pack size. Table 4.1 shows

the set of products available and the market shares in each market segment. The table makes clear that

Walkers is, by some distance, the largest firm in the market - its products account for 46% of all potato chips

sold in the food at home segment and 54% of that sold in the food on-the-go segment. For each product we

9Potato chips are available in a variety of di↵erent flavors, for example, salt and vinegar or cheese and onion are popularflavors. We have this information, but we do not distinguish between these products because neither price nor advertising varieswithin product across flavors. For our purposes it is the choice that a consumers makes between brand and pack size that isrelevant.

20

compute the transaction weighted mean price in each of the 17 months (or markets). Table 4.1 shows the

mean of these market prices. We use these market prices in demand estimation.

Table 4.1: Quantity Share and Mean Price

Segment: Food at home Food on-the-go

Quantity Share Price (£) Quantity Share Price (£)

Walkers 45.66% 54.37%

Walkers Reg:34.5g 27.16% 0.45Walkers Reg:50g 7.19% 0.63Walkers Regular:150-300g 1.77% 1.25Walkers Regular:300g+ 23.98% 2.77Walkers Sensations:40g 2.04% 0.61Walkers Sensations:150-300g 0.43% 1.26Walkers Sensations:300g+ 1.81% 2.52Walkers Doritos:40g 4.70% 0.54Walkers Doritos:150-300g 1.30% 1.21Walkers Doritos:300g+ 3.29% 2.47Walkers Other:<30g 4.34% 0.45Walkers Other:30g+ 8.94% 0.61Walkers Other:<150g 0.69% 1.24Walkers Other:150-300g 3.73% 1.77Walkers Other:300g+ 8.66% 3.17

Pringles 6.88%

Pringles:150-300g 1.34% 1.10Pringles:300g+ 5.54% 2.63

KP 19.50% 3.87%

KP:50g 3.87% 0.57KP:<150g 0.21% 0.85KP:150-300g 4.80% 1.19KP:300g+ 14.49% 2.39

Golden Wonder 1.50% 4.17%

Golden Wonder:<40g 3.08% 0.39Golden Wonder:40-100g 1.09% 0.73Golden Wonder:<150g 0.10% 1.28Golden Wonder:150-300g 0.25% 1.35Golden Wonder:300g+ 1.15% 2.70

Asda 3.33%

Asda:<150g 0.08% 0.93Asda:150-300g 0.90% 0.95Asda:300g+ 2.35% 2.29

Tesco 6.49%

Tesco:<150g 0.18% 0.82Tesco:150-300g 1.78% 0.91Tesco:300g+ 4.50% 2.07

Other 16.66% 37.58%

Other:<40g 17.57% 0.48Other:40-100g 20.01% 0.59Other:<150g 0.94% 1.05Other:150-300g 3.94% 1.31Other:300g+ 11.78% 2.57

Notes: Quantity share refers to the quantity share of potato chips in the segment accounted for by that product. Pricerefer to the mean prices across all transactions.

21

We are particularly interested in the nutrient characteristic of the products. Table 4.2 shows the main

nutrients in potato chips. We could include these directly in the demand model; for parsimony use an index

that combines these into a single score and is used by UK government agencies. It is based on the nutrient

profile model developed by Rayner et al. (2005) (see also Rayner et al. (2009) and Arambepola et al. (2008))

and is used by the UK Food Standard Agency, and by the UK advertising regulator Ofcom to determine

the healthiness of a product. For potato chips the relevant nutrients are the amount of energy, saturated

fat, sodium and fiber that a product contains per 100g. Products get points based on the amount of each

nutrient they contain; 1 point is given for each 335kJ per 100g, for each 1g of saturated fat per 100g, and

for each 90mg of sodium per 100g. Each gram of fiber per 100g reduces the score by 1 point. The UK

Food Standard Agency uses a threshold of 4 points or more to define ‘less healthy’ products, and Ofcom has

indicated this is the relevant threshold for advertising restrictions (Ofcom (2007)).

Table 4.2 also shows the nutrient profile score. Nutrient values do not vary across pack sizes because

they are measured per 100g. There is considerable variation across brands; Walkers Regular has the lowest

score (10), and the brand KP has the highest score (18). This is a large di↵erence. To give some context, if

all other nutrients were the same then an 8g di↵erence in saturated fat (per 100g or product) would lead to

a di↵erence of 8 points in the nutritional profiling score; in the UK the guideline daily amount of saturated

fat is 20g per day for woman and 30g per day for men.

Table 4.2: Nutrient Characteristics of Brands

Nutrient Energy Saturated fat Sodium Fiber ProteinBrand profiling

score (kj per 100g) (g per 100g) (g per 100g) (g per 100g) (g per 100g)

Walkers Regular 10 2164 2.56 0.59 4.04 6.11Walkers Sensations 11 2023 2.16 0.71 4.25 5.87Walkers Doritos 12 2095 2.86 0.66 3.02 7.47Walkers Other 15 2020 2.50 0.82 3.14 5.46Pringles 16 2160 6.31 0.62 2.75 4.03KP 18 2158 5.87 0.85 2.70 6.35Golden Wonder 16 2101 4.01 0.92 3.79 6.04Asda 15 2125 4.13 0.75 3.31 5.57Tesco 15 2145 4.65 0.77 3.57 5.97Other 12 2084 3.84 0.70 4.06 6.02

Notes: See text for definition of the nutrient profiling score.

Table 4.3 provides details of the numbers of households of each type, the number of individuals making

food on-the-go decision and the number of purchase occasions. Households and individuals can switch

between demographic groups, for example if a child is born in a household, or if a grown up child turns 18.

We allow all coe�cients, including the distribution of the random coe�cients, to vary across the demo-

graphic groups shown in Table 4.3. Households are distinguished along three characteristics: (i) household

22

composition, (ii) skill or education level of the head of household, based on socio-economic status, and (iii)

income per household member.

Table 4.3: Household Types

Demographic group Number of Number of purchase occasionshouseholds individuals food at home food on-the-go

Composition skill level income

No children high high 472 345 22721 14371medium 308 235 13178 8376low 290 251 13341 8219

low medium-high 215 164 10187 6667low 343 258 16147 8559

Pensioners 271 145 14384 6016Children high high 408 341 20426 12786

medium 315 265 14292 8502low 165 139 7091 4494

low medium-high 323 269 15349 9549low 302 267 14397 8932

Child purchase 96 3165

Total 2873 2306 161,513 99,636

Notes: Households with “children” are households with at least one person aged below 18, “Pensioners” refers to ahouseholds with no more than two people, no-one aged below 18 and at least on person aged above 64; “No children”refers to all other households. “Child purchase” refers to someone aged below 18 making a food on-the-go purchase.Skill levels are defined using socioeconomic groups. “High” comprises people in managerial, supervisory or professionalroles, “low” refers to both skilled and unskilled manual workers and those who depend on the state for their income.Income levels are defined by terciles of the within household type income per person distribution. The total number ofhouseholds and individuals is less than the sum of the number in each category because households may switch groupover time.

4.1.2 Advertising Data

We use advertising data collected by AC Nielsen. We have information on advertising expenditure by brand

and month over the period 2001-2010. The information on earlier periods allows us to compute advertising

stocks, taking into account a long period of prior advertising flows. For each brand we observe total monthly

advertising expenditure, including expenditure on advertising appearing on TV, in press, on radio, on outside

posters and on the internet. Advertising is at the brand level, it does not vary by pack size.

Table 4.4 describes monthly advertising expenditure. Walkers spends the most on advertising. The most

advertised brand is Walkers Regular, with on average £500,000 expenditure per month. Walkers Regular

also has the highest market share. The table shows the minimum and maximum advertising expenditures

by month over June 2009 - October 2010. Advertising expenditures vary a lot across brands, but also across

months within a brand. All brands have some periods of zero advertising expenditure, and some brands

e↵ectively never advertise, meaning that for these brands the stock of advertising is always very low.

23

Table 4.4: Advertising Expenditures

Monthly expenditure (£100,000) TotalMean Min Max (06/09-10/10)

Walkers Regular 4.97 0.00 18.29 84.47Walkers Sensations 0.54 0.00 1.46 9.12Walkers Doritos 1.75 0.00 8.25 29.67Walkers Other 2.89 0.00 8.99 49.07Pringles 4.50 0.00 10.14 76.54KP 2.09 0.00 8.49 35.60Golden Wonder 0.08 0.00 0.80 1.34Asda 0.01 0.00 0.23 0.23Tesco 0.08 0.00 0.68 1.44Other 1.58 0.00 5.74 26.83

Notes: Expenditure is reported in £100,000 and includes all expenditure on advertising appearing on TV, in press,on radio, on outside posters and on the internet.

Advertising in the UK potato chips market consists mainly of celebrities endorsing brands. The typical

adverts show a sports star or a model eating potato chips. Prominent examples are shown in Figure 4.1.

The advertisement on the top left shows supermodel Elle Macpherson eating Walkers potato chips; the one

on the lower left shows an ex-professional football player and TV personality Gary Lineker with the FA Cup

(football) trophy full of Walkers potato chips; the top right shows one of a series of adverts for KP Hola Hoops

aimed at children, and the bottom right shows a model with Golden Wonder Skins. Our interpretation is

that these adverts act to persuade and distort consumers’ choices in the ways described by Marshall (1921),

Braithwaite (1928), Robinson (1933), Kaldor (1950), Dixit and Norman (1978), Gabaix and Laibson (2006),

Bernheim and Rangel (2009) and Glaeser and Ujhelyi (2010). This does not a↵ect how we estimate demand,

but it does have a fundamental impact on the way that we measure welfare, as described in Section 2.2.

24

Figure 4.1: Example Adverts for Potato Chip Brands

Note: Adverts are for Walkers (upper left), KP Hula Hoops (upper right), Walkers (lower left) and GoldenWonder Skins (lower right).

4.2 Empirical Estimates

We estimate the demand model outlined in Section 2 using simulated maximum likelihood, allowing all

parameters to vary by demographic groups (defined in Table 4.3) and by whether the purchase occasion is

for consumption at home or on-the-go. We include random coe�cients on brand advertising, competitor

advertising, price and on a firm dummy for Walkers in the food at home segment. All random coe�cients

are assumed to have normal distributions, except those on price, which are assumed to be log normal.

We include in the model time e↵ects interacted with the outside option to capture shocks to aggregate

demand for potato chips and we include a control function to control for the possible endogeneity of brand

advertising (see Section 2.4). Our first stage estimates of the control function suggest that the instrument

has power (the F-stat of the joint significance of the instrument-brand e↵ects interactions is 4.0 in the food

in segment and 2.3 for the food on-the-go segment). There is some evidence of correlation between brand

advertising and demand shocks, particularly in the food at home segment. For 8 of the 11 demographic

25

household groups, we find the control function to be statistically significant at the 95% level. In the food

on-the-go segment, the control function is only statistically significant in 1 case. Including the time e↵ects

and control function in estimation leads to a reduction in the estimated impact of advertising on demand.

We report the full set of estimated coe�cients, along with market own and cross price elasticities and

marginal cost estimates in Appendix E. Here we focus on what the estimates imply for how advertising

a↵ects consumer demand. We show the impact of advertising on consumers’ willingness to pay for the

nutrient characteristic, price elasticities and patterns of cross brand and cross pack size substitution.

We compute the willingness to pay for a one point reduction in the nutrient profiling score (which

corresponds to an increase in product healthiness), details of this calculation are in the Appendix C. Table

4.5 shows the median willingness to pay across households for food at home purchase occasions and across

individuals for food on-the-go purchase occasions; 95% confidence intervals are given in brackets.10 We

evaluate the consumers’ willingness to pays at three levels of advertising: zero, medium (corresponding to

the average stock of the brand KP), and high (corresponding to the average stock of the brand Walkers

Regular). When there is no advertising, households are willing to pay 6.3 pence per transaction for a one

point reduction in the nutrient profiling score for food at home; this falls to 4.6 pence when advertising is at

a medium level, and falls further to 1.3 when advertising is at a high level. Expressed as a percentage of the

mean price of potato chips available for food at home purchases, households are willing to pay an additional

3.0% for a 1 point reduction in the nutrient profiling score in the absence of advertising, this falls to 0.6%

when advertising is high. A similar pattern holds for food on-the-go, with willingness to pay for a one point

reduction in the nutrient profiling score falling from 4.6% of mean price to zero as advertising is raised from

zero to high. Table 4.5 makes clear that one thing that advertising does is lower consumers’ willingness to

pay for an increase in the healthiness of potato chips.

10We calculate confidence intervals in the following way. We obtain the variance-covariance matrix for the parameter vectorestimates using standard asymptotic results. We then take 500 draws of the parameter vector from the joint normal asymptoticdistribution of the parameters and, for each draw, compute the statistic of interest, using the resulting distribution across drawsto compute Monte Carlo confidence intervals (which need not be symmetric around the statistic estimates).

26

Table 4.5: E↵ect of advertising on willingness to pay for 1 point reduction in nutrient profiling score

Advertising levelNone Medium High

Food in the home Willingness to pay in pence 6.3 4.6 1.3[5.7, 6.8] [4.1, 5.0] [0.3, 2.7]

% of mean price 3.0 2.2 0.6[2.7, 3.3] [2.0, 2.4] [0.1, 1.3]

Food on-the-go Willingness to pay in pence 2.4 1.1 0.0[2.1, 2.6] [1.0, 1.3] [-0.2, 0.4]

% of mean price 4.6 2.3 0.1[4.2, 5.1] [1.9, 2.5] [-0.3, 0.7]

Notes: Numbers in rows 1 and 3 are the median willingness to pay in pence for a one point reduction in the nutrientprofiling score. Numbers in rows 2 and 4 are the willingness to pay expressed as a percentage of the mean price ofpotato chips on the purchase occasion (i.e. food at home or food on-the-go occasion). Medium advertising refers to themean advertising stock of the brand KP. High advertising refers to the mean advertising stock of the brand WalkersRegular. 95% confidence intervals are given in square brackets.

In our demand specification we allow advertising to interact with the price coe�cient, meaning it can

potentially shift consumers’ price sensitivities. We find that, for the food at home segment (which represent

86% of the market) advertising leads to a reduction in consumers’ sensitivity to price. In order to illustrate

the strength of this e↵ect we do the following. For each of the food at home products belonging to three

most highly advertised brands, we report, in Table 4.6, the mean market own price elasticity at observed

advertising levels and the elasticity if the brand was not advertised in that month (and all other brands

advertising had remained at observed levels). Table 4.6 shows that the mean market own price elasticity at

observed advertising levels for the 150-300g pack of Walkers is -1.5 and the elasticity for the 300g+ pack

size is -2.2. If Walkers unilaterally stopped advertising, demand for its Regular brand, for both the 150-300g

pack and the 300g+ pack, would become more elastic; the own price elasticities would be -1.6 and -2.5. A

similar pattern is apparent for Pringles and (to a lesser extent) KP.

27

Table 4.6: E↵ect of advertising on own price elasticities

Walkers Regular Pringles KPObserved Zero Observed Zero Observed Zeroadvertising advertising advertising advertising advertising advertisingexpenditure expenditure expenditure expenditure expenditure expenditure

<150g -1.33 -1.37[-1.38, -1.29] [-1.42, -1.32]

150g-300g -1.50 -1.63 -1.41 -1.55 -1.69 -1.74[-1.57, -1.44] [-1.69, -1.56] [-1.47, -1.35] [-1.61, -1.49] [-1.75, -1.63] [-1.80, -1.68]

300g+ -2.20 -2.54 -2.42 -2.79 -2.77 -2.89[-2.32, -2.09] [-2.67, -2.42] [-2.54, -2.29] [-2.91, -2.67] [-2.89, -2.66] [-3.01, -2.78]

Notes: For each brand in the first row, we report the mean market own price elasticity for each pack size available inthe food at home segment. We report the elasticity both at the level of advertising expenditure observed in the data,and if current market brand advertising was unilaterally set to zero. 95% confidence intervals are given in squarebrackets.

We undertake a similar exercise to illustrate the impact advertising has on brand demand. For each

brand in turn, we simulate what market demand would have been in each market (month) if that brand had

not been advertised in that month (and all other brands’ advertising had remained at observed levels). In

Table 4.7 we report the results for the highly advertised brands. If Walkers unilaterally stopped advertising

its Regular brand quantity demanded for that brand would fall by 2%; demand for Pringles would increase

by 3% (Pringles sales are much smaller than Walkers Regular), while demand for most other brands, and for

potato chips overall, would fall. Unilaterally shutting down Pringles’ advertising results in a large reduction

in the quantity demanded of 15% for that brand, demand for Walkers Regular rises by around 1%, but

demand for all other brands falls. The overall e↵ect is to reduce potato chip demand by 1%.

Table 4.7 makes clear that, for a number of brands, advertising is cooperative. The fact that we find

evidence of cooperative advertising e↵ects underlines the importance of allowing advertising to enter demand

in a flexible way that does not unduly constrain the impact of advertising on demand a priori; if we had only

included own brand advertising in the payo↵ function and omitted the interaction with other characteristics

then the functional form assumptions would have ruled out cooperative advertising e↵ects. Notice though,

for the largest brand - Walkers Regular - rival advertising is predatory.

28

Table 4.7: E↵ect of advertising on brand demand

Walkers Regular Pringles KP

Advertising expenditure (£m) 0.497 0.450 0.209

% change in brand demand if advertising expenditure is set to zeroWalkers Regular -2.01 1.11 0.47

[-3.70, -0.69] [0.79, 1.43] [0.33, 0.59]Walkers Sensations -2.40 -0.64 -0.40

[-2.77, -1.94] [-0.96, -0.31] [-0.52, -0.28]Walkers Doritos -1.68 -0.13 -0.35

[-2.17, -1.13] [-0.47, 0.19] [-0.51, -0.21]Walkers Other 0.54 0.44 0.33

[0.10, 1.05] [0.14, 0.75] [0.19, 0.48]Pringles 3.07 -15.61 0.25

[2.41, 3.87] [-17.63, -13.96] [0.09, 0.41]KP -0.50 -0.16 -2.42

[-0.93, -0.03] [-0.53, 0.22] [-3.31, -1.69]Golden Wonder -4.17 -1.17 -1.27

[-4.62, -3.65] [-1.56, -0.77] [-1.46, -1.10]Asda -1.54 -0.35 -0.44

[-1.97, -1.06] [-0.73, 0.03] [-0.58, -0.30]Tesco -2.54 -1.20 -0.88

[-2.97, -2.05] [-1.64, -0.78] [-1.07, -0.68]Other -2.64 -1.37 -1.00

[-3.05, -2.16] [-1.76, -0.97] [-1.18, -0.80]

% change in total potato chips demand if advertising expenditure is set-1.11 -0.98 -0.40

[-1.44, -0.82] [-1.29, -0.68] [-0.53, -0.28]

Notes: For each brand in the first row, in each market, we unilaterally set current brand advertising expenditure tozero. Numbers in the table report the resulting percentage change in quantity demanded for all brands and for thepotato chips market as a whole. Numbers are means across markets. 95% confidence intervals are given in squarebrackets.

Table 4.8 shows how setting market advertising to zero for each of the most advertised brands a↵ects

demand for each of the pack sizes available for food at home. For each brand it is demand for the largest

pack size that declines when advertising expenditure is set to zero; demand for the smaller pack sizes actually

increases (although by less than the fall in demand for the larger pack sizes). This highlights that advertising

more of a particular brand leads consumers to switch to the larger pack size of the brand.

29

Table 4.8: E↵ect of advertising on demand by pack size

Walkers Regular Pringles KP

Advertising expenditure (£m) 0.497 0.450 0.209

Change in own brand demand by pack size in 1,000kg if advertising expenditure is setto zero<150g 4.98

[3.89, 5.91]150g-300g 125.93 2.63 21.44

[106.58, 141.18] [-3.98, 7.43] [13.53, 28.64]300g+ -284.93 -321.91 -145.48

[-401.62, -183.35] [-364.54, -286.58] [-181.37, -114.07]

Change in own food at home brand demand in 1,000kg if advertising expenditure is set to zero-159.00 -319.28 -119.06

[-289.83, -48.08] [-365.52, -280.20] [-162.67, -83.34]

Notes: For each brand in the first row, in each market, we unilaterally set current brand advertising expenditure tozero. Numbers in the table report the change in quantity demands for all pack sizes of the brand available on food athome purchase occasions. Numbers are means across markets. 95% confidence intervals are given in square brackets.

4.3 Counterfactual Analysis of Advertising Ban

We compare the observed market equilibria with one in which the advertising stocks of all firms are set to

zero (i.e. to the situation after advertising has been banned for long enough for the stock to fully depreciate).

We find the new equilibrium in all markets (months) and report the means across markets.

4.3.1 Impact on Market Equilibrium

One e↵ect advertising has on consumer demand is to lower consumers’ sensitivity to price (see Table 4.6).

Banning advertising therefore leads to toughening price competition. The average price in the market falls

by 9%. This fall is driven by price reductions for products in the food at home segment that belong to

the most heavily advertised brands. Table 4.9 shows the mean market price in the observed equilibrium

with advertising and in the counterfactual equilibrium in which advertising is banned for the food at home

products belonging to the three most advertised brands. The ban results in a fall in price for each product

in Table 4.9. Walkers reduces the price of its most popular brand by the most, reducing the price of the

150-300g pack by 33p (or 26%) and the 300g+ pack by 55p (or 20%). The price of other products available

in the food at home segment, belonging to brands that have lower levels of advertising, fall by less, or not

at all. Prices in the smaller food on-the-go segment actually increase slightly in response to the advertising

ban.

30

Table 4.9: E↵ect of advertising ban on equilibrium prices

Walkers Regular Pringles KPObserved Advertising Observed Advertising Observed Advertisingequilibrium banned equilibrium banned equilibrium banned

<150g 0.86 0.75[0.74, 0.76]

150g-300g 1.25 0.92 1.11 0.87 1.19 1.07[0.90, 0.96] [0.84, 0.89] [1.06, 1.08]

300g+ 2.79 2.24 2.61 2.20 2.39 2.22[2.18, 2.31] [2.15, 2.24] [2.21, 2.24]

Notes: Numbers show the mean price across markets in £s. “Observed equilibrium” refers to the prices observed inthe data; “Advertising banned” refers to counterfactual prices when advertising is banned. 95% confidence intervalsare given in square brackets.

Table 4.10 summarizes the overall impact of an advertising ban on total monthly expenditure on potato

chips and the total quantity of potato chips sold.11 It also shows the impact of the ban on the mean

probability a household buys potato chips on a purchase occasion, the average pack size of potato chips

purchased, conditional on choosing an inside option, and the average nutrient score of potato chips purchased.

The first column shows the average of each variable across markets in the observed equilibria, the second

column shows numbers in the counterfactual when advertising is banned but prices are held constant, and

the final column shows the numbers for new equilibria when advertising is banned and firms reoptimize

prices.

11To gross the numbers up from our sample to the UK market we need a measure of the total market size Mt and how it issplit between food at home and food on-the-go segments. From the Snack, Nut and Crisp Manufacturers Association we knowthat total annual potato chip expenditure in the UK is around £2800m (http://www.snacma.org.uk/fact-or-fiction.asp) andfrom the Living Cost and Food Survey we know that 14% of potato chips by volume were purchased as food on-the-go. Basedon this information we can compute the implied potential market size and the size of each segment of the market.

31

Table 4.10: E↵ects of advertising ban on purchases

Observed Advertising bannedequilibrium no price response with price response

Expenditure (£m) 231.1 214.1 220.2[227.2, 233.2] [201.4, 223.7] [208.2, 229.2]

% change -7.4 -4.7[-12.3, -2.9] [-9.4, -0.7]

Quantity (m kg) 33.7 30.6 36.5[33.1, 34.0] [28.8, 32.1] [34.4, 38.1]

% change -9.3 8.5[-14.2, -4.7] [3.1, 13.2]

Probability of selecting potato chips 0.39 0.37 0.39[0.38, 0.39] [0.35, 0.39] [0.36, 0.40]

% change -3.11 0.38[-9.71, 2.05] [-5.72, 4.82]

Mean pack size conditional on purchase (kg) 0.17 0.16 0.18[0.17, 0.17] [0.15, 0.17] [0.18, 0.19]

% change -6.41 7.90[-10.18, -1.64] [4.47, 12.49]

Nutrient score 13.6 13.1 12.9[13.5, 13.6] [13.1, 13.2] [12.8, 13.0]

% change -3.1 -5.2[-3.6, -2.4] [-5.7, -4.5]

Notes: Percentage changes are shown below variables. “no price response” refers to the situation where advertisingis banned and prices are held at their pre ban level; “with price response” refers to the situation where advertising isbanned and firms reoptimize their prices. Expenditure refers to total expenditure on potato chip and quantity refersto the total amount of potato chips sold. Nutrient score reports the mean nutrient profiling score for potato chippurchases; a reduction indicates consumers are switching to more healthy potato chips. Numbers are means acrossmarkets. 95% confidence intervals are given in square brackets.

In the current equilibria with advertising total monthly expenditure on potato chips was £231m and

total quantity sold was 34m kg. The impact of the ban if we hold prices constant is to induce a 7% fall in

expenditure and a 9% fall in quantity sold. The reduction in quantity is both down to households buying

potato chips less frequently and a fall in the average pack size of potato chip purchases. The average nutrient

profiling score of potato chips purchased falls by 3% (meaning consumers switch to products that have a

lower - i.e. better - nutrient score). When we account for the fact that oligopolistic firms will respond to

the advertising ban by adjusting prices we find that expenditure falls by 5% but total quantity sold actually

increases. The reason is that firms respond to the advertising ban by lowering prices (on average) and this

increases the probability households will select a potato chip product in a purchase occasion. The pattern

of price response leads to a larger fall in the nutrient profiling score (of 5%) relative to when prices are held

fixed, as consumers switch even more strongly to brands with more healthy nutrient characteristics.

32

4.3.2 Impact on Welfare

In Table 4.11 we summarize the impact of the ban on welfare. In order to calculate welfare changes or

compensating variations we need to take a stance on whether advertising, which a↵ects choices and so

decision utilities, does also directly a↵ect experience utilities. As discussed in Section 4.1.2, advertising

in the UK potato chips market consists largely of celebrity brand endorsements. Our baseline calculation

is based on the assumption that this type of advertising does not a↵ect experience utility, and thus, as

outlined in Section 2.2, potentially distorts consumer decision making, leading consumers to make decisions

inconsistent with their true underlying preferences.

The first three lines of Table 4.11 show the impact of the ban on consumer welfare. The “choice distortion

e↵ect” in the first row is a measure of the welfare gain to consumers of no longer making decisions distorted by

advertising, keeping prices as they are. The second row reports the gains through increased price competition

after banning advertising. The third row is the sum of these two e↵ects. The “choice distortion e↵ect” leads

to a £36 million increase in consumer welfare. The “price competition e↵ect” raises consumer welfare by a

further £21 million. Firms, on average, respond to the ban by lowering their prices and consumers benefit

from paying these lower prices. In equilibrium, the ban increases total consumer welfare by £56 million per

month.

The fourth line shows the impact of the ban on firms’ variable profits (net of advertising expenditure).

Banning advertising does not lead to a statistically significant change in variable profits. In Appendix E.4

we show profits by firm. The dominant firm, Walkers, plays an important role; it sells more after advertising

is banned and this leads to an increase in variable profits (net of advertising expenditure). The profits of

other firms fall.

The e↵ect of the ban is to reduce total welfare by £56 million; around one-third of this is due to increased

price competition, and around two-thirds to removal of distorting e↵ects of persuasive advertising.

33

Table 4.11: E↵ects of advertising ban on welfare

Advertising bannedno price response with price response

Choice distortion e↵ect (£m) 36.2 36.2[34.8, 42.0] [34.8, 42.0]

Price competition e↵ect (£m) 0.0 20.8[16.9, 23.8]

Total compensating variation (£m) 36.2 57.0[34.8, 42.0] [54.0, 63.3]

Change in profits (£m) -0.1 -1.0[-6.2, 5.6] [-6.8, 4.0]

Total change in welfare (£m) 36.1 56.0[31.5, 44.6] [50.3, 64.5]

Notes: “No firm response” refers to case of an advertising ban when prices are held at their pre ban level; “Firmresponse” refers to case of an advertising ban when firms reoptimize their prices. Compensating variation is computedunder the view that advertising distorts consumer decision making, as outlined in Section (2.2). 95% confidenceintervals are given in square brackets.

We define total welfare as the sum of compensating variation and the change in firms’ variable profits. If,

even under zero advertising, consumers fail to account for possible future costs (or benefits) of potato chip

consumption, these will not be included in our welfare calculations. If such e↵ects exist, their importance

will depend on to what goods are most substitutable with potato chips. We allow for consumer substitution

between potato chips and other products; these will include products that are more nutritious than potato

chips - for example, fruit, which has an average nutrient profiling score of -5 - and products that are less

nutritious - for example, confectionary, which has an average nutrient profiling score of 25; it is beyond the

scope of this paper to estimate di↵erential substitution patterns to other food categories.

An alternative to the view that advertising distorts consumer decision is the view that it a↵ects utility

directly as a characteristic that consumers value (Stigler and Becker (1977) and Becker and Murphy (1993)).

Under this view advertising is a product characteristic that consumers may place value on, and therefore

(holding prices fixed) removing it from the market is likely to reduce consumer welfare. Under this view

of advertising in the potato chips market consumer welfare would comprise a “characteristic e↵ect” and

the “price competition e↵ect”. As discussed in Section 2.2, the magnitude of the “characteristic e↵ect” is

influenced by the normalization of the outside option utility. Under our adopted normalization, where own

brand and competitor advertising enter the payo↵ function of inside goods, the “characteristics e↵ect” leads

to a reduction in consumer welfare of £33 million, and the overall impact of the ban is then to reduce welfare.

This underlines the importance of the stance that is taken on how advertising enters utility.

34

5 Summary and Conclusions

In this paper we develop a model of demand and supply in a market where firms compete over prices and

advertising budgets, and where the impact of current advertising on future demand means that each firm’s

problem is a dynamic one. We allow advertising to impact demand in a flexible way, which allows us to

understand the impact of advertising on demand while remaining agnostic about the view taken of advertising

(as informative, a characteristic or persuasive), and we do not rule out a priori that advertising is cooperative

and leads to market expansion or that it is predatory and possibly leads to market contraction. We apply

the model to the potato chip market using novel transaction level data on purchases of food taken into the

home and food bought on-the-go for immediate consumption. We find that brand advertising increases both

own demand and often competitor demand, suggesting that it is, at least in part, cooperative. As well as

attracting new customers, higher brand advertising also induces consumers to trade up to larger pack sizes,

reduces consumers’ price sensitivities and lowers consumers’ willingness to pay for healthier products.

We use the structural model to simulate the impact of an advertising ban on market equilibrium. This

both helps us understand the impact that advertising has on equilibrium outcomes, and given recent calls

for restrictions in junk food advertising, is an interesting exercise from a policy perspective. We find that

banning advertising lowers potato chip demand only if firms do not respond by changing their prices. In

the more realistic scenario in which firms re-optimize prices in response to the ban, total demand for potato

chips actually rises. This is because the ban increases price competition and so firms respond by lowering

average prices and the increase in demand this induces more than o↵sets the direct fall in demand from no

advertising.

Ultimately we are interested in the impact of the ban on welfare. We show how to calculate the change

in welfare under di↵erent assumptions about how advertising a↵ects experience utility. In the potato chip

market, as in many junk food markets, advertisements consist mainly of celebrity endorsements. As our

baseline welfare assumption we consider advertising to be persuasive, acting to distort consumer decision

making, leading them to take decisions that are inconsistent with their underlying preferences. Under this

view of advertising the ban acts to raise consumer and total welfare. In the counterfactual equilibrium

consumers no longer make distorted decisions and benefit from lower prices, while in aggregate firms do not

lose profits.

In this paper our focus has been on the impact of an advertising ban on a market with a set of well

established and known brands. An interesting avenue for future research would be to consider an alternative

counterfactual; for instance how would firms’ pricing and advertising strategies respond to the introduction of

a tax. The framework we develop in this paper could potentially be used to study such a question, although

solving for the set of counterfactual equilibria would present considerable challenges. In markets with a

35

reasonable degree of product churn, entry and exit considerations may play a more prominent role than in

the potato chips market. In such a case, the ex ante evaluation of an advertising ban could be extended to

study the e↵ects of a ban on industry structure. Advertising may constitute a barrier to entry, and banning

advertising may facilitate entry of competitors who would not need to invest in building up large advertising

stocks. While in the particular market studied in the paper, this consideration is not of first-order concern,

in other less mature markets it may be more important. This represents a promising direction for future

research.

References

Ackerberg, D. (2001). Empirically distinguishing informative and prestige e↵ects of advertising. Rand Journalof Economics 32 (2), 316 – 333.

Ackerberg, D. (2003). Advertising, learning, and consumer choice in experience good markets: An empiricalexamination. International Economic Review 44 (3), 1007 – 1040.

Anderson, S., F. Ciliberto, J. Liaukonyte, and R. Renault (2012). Push-me pull-you: Comparative advertisingin the otc analgesics industry. CEPR Discussion Paper 8988 .

Anderson, S. and R. Renault (2006). Advertising content. American Economic Review 96 (1), 93–103.

Arambepola, C., M. Scarborough, and M. Rayner (2008). Validating a nutrient profile model. Public HeathNutrition 11, 371–378.

Bagwell, K. (2007). The economic analysis of advertising. Handbook of Industrial Organization 3.

Bajari, P. and C. L. Benkard (2005). Demand estimation with heterogeneous consumers and unobservedproduct characteristics: A hedonic approach. Journal of Political Economy 113 (6), 1239–1276.

Bajari, P., C. L. Benkard, and J. Levin (2007). Estimating dynamic models of imperfect competition.Econometrica 75, 1331–1370.

Becker, G., S. and K. M. Murphy (1993). A simple theory of advertising as a good or ban. The QuarterlyJournal of Economics 108 (4), 941–964.

Bernheim, B. and A. Rangel (2004). Addication and cue-triggered decision processes. American EconomicReview 94, 1558?1590.

Bernheim, B. and A. Rangel (2005). Behavioral public economics welfare and policy analysis with non-standard decision-makers. NBER Working Paper 11518 .

Bernheim, B. and A. Rangel (2009). Beyond revealed preference: Choice-theoretic foundatations for behav-ioral welfare economics. Quarter Journal of Economics 124 (1), 51–104.

Berry, S. (1994). Estimating discrete-choice models of product di↵erentiation. RAND Journal of Eco-nomics 25 (2), 242–262.

Berry, S. and P. Haile (2010). Nonparametric identification of multinomial choice demand models withheterogeneous consumers. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper 1718 .

Berry, S. and P. Haile (2014). Identification in di↵erentiated products markets using market level data.forthcoming Econometrica.

Berry, S., J. Levinsohn, and A. Pakes (1995). Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica 63 (4),841–890.

36

Berry, S., J. Levinsohn, and A. Pakes (2004). Di↵erentiated products demand systems from combination ofmicro and macro data: The new car market. Journal of Political Economy 112 (1), 68–105.

Blundell, R. and J. Powell (2004). Endogeneity in semiparametric binary response models. Review ofEconomic Studies 71, 655–679.

Braithwaite, D. (1928). The economic e↵ects of advertisement. Economic Journal 38, 16–37.

Cairns, G., K. Angus, and G. Hastings (2009). The extent, nature and e↵ects of food promotion to children:a review of the evidence to December 2008. World Health Organization: Geneva.

Caplin, A. and B. Nalebu↵ (1991). Aggregation and imperfect competition: On the existence of equilibrium.Econometrica 59, 26–59.

Chamberlin, E. (1933). The Theory of Monopolistic Competition. Harvard University Press: Cambridge,MA.

Competition Commission (2000). Supermarkets: A Report on the supply of Groceries from Multiple Storesin the United Kingdom. The Stationary O�ce.

Dixit, A. (1980). The role of investment in entry deterrence. Economic Journal 90, 95–106.

Dixit, A. and V. Norman (1978). Advertising and welfare. Bell Journal of Economics 9 (1), 1–17.

Doraszelski, U. and S. Markovich (2007). Advertising dynamics and competitive advantage. Rand Journalof Economics 38 (3), 557–592.

Doraszelski, U. and M. Satterthwaite (2003). Foundations of markov-perfect industry dynamics: Existence,purification, and multiplicity. Working Paper, Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution.

Doraszelski, U. and M. Satterthwaite (2010). Computable markov-perfect industry dynamics. Rand Journalof Economics 41 (2), 215–243.

Dube, J., G. Hitsch, and P. Manchanda (2005). An empirical model of advertising dynamics. QuantitativeMarketing and Economics 3, 107–144.

Eckard, W. (1991). Competition and the cigarette tv advertising ban. Economic Inquiry 29, 119–133.

Erdem, T., M. Keane, and B. Sun (2008a). A dynamic model of brand choice when price and advertisingsignal product quality. Marketing Science 27 (6), 1111–1125.

Erdem, T., M. Keane, and B. Sun (2008b). The impact of advertising on consumer price sensitivity inexperience goods markets. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 6 (2), 139–176.

Ericson, R. and A. Pakes (1995). Markov-perfect industry dynamics: A framework for empirical work.Review of Economic Studies 62, 53–82.

Fowlie, M., M. Reguant, and S. P. Ryan (2013). Pollution permits and the evolution of market structure.Working Paper .

Friedman, J. (1983). Advertising and oligopolistic equilibrium. Bell Journal of Economics 14, 461–473.

Fudenberg and Tirole (1984). The fat-cat e↵ect, the puppy-dog ploy, and the lean and hungry look. AmericanEconomic Review Papers and Proceedings 74, 361–366.

Gabaix, X. and D. Laibson (2006). Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression incompetitive markets. Quarterly Journal of Economics 121 (2), 505–540.

Glaeser, E. L. and G. Ujhelyi (2010). Regulating misinformation. Journal of Public Economics 94, 247 –257.

Goris, J., S. Petersen, E. Stamatakis, and J. Veerman (2010). Television food advertising and the prevalenceof childhood overweight and obesity: a multi country comparison. Public Health Nutrition 13, 1003–12.

37

Gortmaker, S., B. Swinburn, D. Ley, R. Carter, D. Mabry, T. Finegood, T. Huang, Marsh, and M. Moodie(2011). Changing the future of obesity: science, policy, and action. The Lancet 378, 838–847.

Kahneman, D., P. P. Wakker, and R. Sarin (1997). Back to bentham? explorations of experienced utility.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 375–405.

Kaldor, N. (1950). The economic aspects of advertising. Review of Economic Studies 18, 1–27.

Marshall, A. (1921). Industry and Trade: A study of Industrial Technique and Business Organization andof Their Influences on the Conditions of Various Classes and Nations. MacMillan and Co.: London.

Maskin, E. and J. Tirole (1988). A theory of dynamic oligopoly, i: Overview and quantity competition withlarge fixed costs. Econometrica 56, 549–569.

Maskin, E. and J. Tirole (2001). Markov perfect equilibrium i: Observable actions. Journal of EconomicTheory 100 (2), 191–219.

McClure, S., D. Laibson, G. Loewenstein, and J. Cohen (2004). Separate neural systems value immediateand delayed monetary rewards. Science 306, 503–507.

Milyo, J. and J. Waldfogel (1999). The e↵ect of price advertising on prices: Evidence in the wake of 44liquormart. American Economic Review 89, 1081–96.

Motta, M. (2013). Advertising bans. SERIEs 4, 61–81.

Mullainathan, S., J. Schwartzstein, and W. J. Congdon (2012). A reduced form approach to behavioralpublic finance. Annual Review of Economics 4 (17), 1–30.

National Academies, T. (2006). Committee on food marketing and the diets of children and youth reporton food marketing to children and youth: threat or opportunity?

Nelson, P. (1995). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy 78, 311–329.

Nevo, A. (2001). Measuring market power in the ready-to-eat cereal industry. Econometrica 69 (2), 307–342.

Ofcom (2007). Television advertising of food and drink products to children: Final statement. London:Ofcom.

Petrin, A. and K. Train (2010). A control function approach to endogeneity in consumer choice models.Journal of Marketing Research XLVII, 3–13.

Qi, S. (2013). The impact of advertising regulation on industry: The cigarette advertising ban of 1971. TheRAND Journal of Economics 44 (2), 215–248.

Rayner, M., P. Scarborough, A. Boxer, and L. Stockley (2005). Nutrient profiles: Development of finalmodel. Technical report, Food Standards Agency: London.

Rayner, M., P. Scarborough, and T. Lobstein (2009). The uk ofcom nutrient profiling model. Technicalreport, Nu�eld Department of Population Healthy, Oxford University.

Robinson, J. (1933). Economics of Imperfect Competition. MacMillan and Co., London.

Rojas, C. and E. Peterson (2008). Demand for di↵erentiated products: Price and advertising evidence fromthe u.s. beer market. International Journal of Industrial Organization 26, 288–307.

Rust, J. (1987). Optimal replacement of gmc bus engines: An empirical model of harold zurcher. Econo-metrica 55 (5), 999–1033.

Ryan, S. (2012). The costs of environmental regulation in a concentrated industry. Econometrica 80, 1019–1062.

Sass, T. and D. Saurman (1995). Advertising restrictions and concentration: The case of malt beverages.Review of Economics and Statistics 77, 66–81.

38

Schmalensee, R. (1983). Advertising and entry deterrence: An exploratory model. Journal of PoliticalEconomy 91, 636–53.

Small, K. and H. Rosen (1981). Applied welfare economics of discrete choice models. Econometrica 49,105–130.

Sovinsky-Goeree, M. (2008). Limited information and advertising in the us personal computer industry.Econometrica 76 (5), 1017–1074.

Spiegler, R. (2006). Competition over agents with bounded rationality. Theoretical Economics I , 207–231.

Stigler, G. (1961). The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy 69, 213–225.

Stigler, G. and G. Becker (1977). De gustibus non est disputandum. American Economic Review 67, 76–90.

Stokey, N., R. Lucas, and E. Prescott (1989). Recursive methods in economic dynamics.

Sweeting, A. (2013). Dynamic product positioning in di↵erentiated product markets: The e↵ect of fees formusical performance rights on the commercial radio industry. Econometrica 81 (5), 1763–1803.

Villas-Boas, M. (1993). Predicting advertising pulsing policies in an oligopoly: A model and empirical test.Marketing Science 12, 88–102.

WHO (2010). Set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children.Geneva: World Health Organization.

39

APPENDICES: The E↵ects of Banning Advertising in Junk Food

Markets

Pierre Dubois, Rachel Gri�th and Martin O’Connell

November 7, 2014

1

A Price and Advertising E↵ects

The specification of the payo↵ function described in Section 2 of the paper responds to both the need for

flexibility and the need for parsimony. We allow for the possibility that an increase in the advertising state

variable for one brand, b, increases demand for another brand b

0, in which case the advertising is cooperative

with respect to brand b

0. We also allow for the alternative possibility that it decreases demand for brand b

0,

in which case the advertising is predatory with respect to brand b

0. The size of the total market can expand

or contract in response to an increase in the brand b advertising state. It is important that we include

advertising in the model flexibly enough to allow for the possibility of these di↵erent e↵ects.

With our specification of the consumer choice model the marginal impact of a change in an advertising

state variable of one brand (b > 0) on the individual level choice probabilities is given by:

@sibst

@abt=sibst

h�ibst � ⇢i(1� si00t)�

Xs02Kb

(�ibs0t � ⇢i)sibs0ti

@sib0st

@abt=sib0st

h⇢isi00t �

Xs02Kb

(�ibs0t � ⇢i)sibs0ti

for b0 6= (0, b)

@si00t

@abt=� si00t

h⇢i(1� si00t) +

Xs02Kb

(�ibs0t � ⇢i)sibs0ti,

where �ibst = �i + ↵1ipbst + 1ixb and Kb denotes the set of all pack sizes s that brand b is available in.

The interaction of the advertising state variable abt with price and the nutrient characteristic, and the

possibility that competitor advertising directly enters the payo↵ function are important in allowing for a

flexible specification. If we do not allow competitor advertising to a↵ect demand (imposing ⇢i = 0), and

do not allow advertising to a↵ect the consumer’s responsiveness to price or nutrients (imposing ↵1i = 0

and 1i = 0), then we directly rule out cooperative advertising and market contraction. In this case, the

marginal impacts would be, for b > 0:

@sibst

@abt=�isibst

h1�

Xs02Kb

sibs0t

i

@sib0st

@abt=� �isib0st

hXs02Kb

sibs0t

ifor b0 6= b.

In this restricted model, in order for advertising to have a positive own e↵ect (so @sibst/@abt > 0) we require

�i > 0. In this case, advertising is predatory (since @sib0st/@abt < 0), and it necessarily leads to market

expansion (since @si00t/@abt < 0).

Allowing ↵1i to be non-zero, but with no competitor advertising e↵ect (⇢i = 0), makes the model more

flexible. However, it will in general also restrict advertising to be predatory, and to lead to market expansion

if own advertising increases own market share (@sibst/@abt > 0). But by allowing ⇢i 6= 0 we can capture more

2

general e↵ects. This does come at the expense of making direct interpretation of the advertising coe�cients

more di�cult, for example, we can have �i < 0 but nonetheless have advertising have a positive own demand

e↵ect. However, it is straightforward to use estimates of the demand model to shut o↵ advertising of one

brand, to determine the e↵ect it has on demands.

The interaction of advertising with price also allows advertising to have a direct impact on consumer

level price elasticities. In particular, the our specification yields consumer level price elasticities given by, for

b > 0 and s > 0:

@ ln sibst@ ln pbst

= (↵0i + ↵1iabt) (1� sibst)pbst

@ ln sib0s0t@ ln pbst

= � (↵0i + ↵1iabt) sibstpbst for b0 6= b or s0 6= s.

Hence, advertising impacts consumer level price elasticities in a flexible way, through its impact on choice

probabilities and through its impact on the marginal e↵ect of price on the payo↵ function captured by ↵1i.

B Expected Utility Under Characteristics View of Advertising

Our model specification leads, under the characteristic view of advertising, to expected utility given (up to

an additive constant) by:

Wi (at,pt) = ln

"X

(b 6=0,s 6=0)2⌦

exp

(↵0i + ↵1iabt) pbst + ( 0i + 1iabt)xb + �iabt + ⇢i

⇣Xlalt

⌘+

+ ⌘1izbs + ⌘2iz2bs + ⌘i⇠b + ✏ibst

�+ exp [⇣i0t]

#

An alternative to our model specification is:

evibst = (↵0i + ↵1iabt) pbst + ( 0i + 1iabt)xb + e

�iabt + ⌘1izbs + ⌘2iz2bs + ⌘i⇠b + ✏ibst (B.1)

evi00t = ⇣i0t + e⇢i

⇣Xlalt

⌘+ ✏i00t.

Note:

evibst�e

vi00t = (↵0i + ↵1iabt) pbst+( 0i + 1iabt)xb+e�iabt�e⇢i

⇣Xlalt

⌘+⌘1izbs+⌘2iz

2bs+⌘i⇠b�⇣i0t+(✏ibst�✏i00t)

Setting e�i = �i � ⇢i and e⇢i = �⇢i shows that e

vibst � evi00t = vibst � vi00t meaning that the alternative

specification yields observationally equivalent demand to our main specification.

3

However, expected utility under equation B.1 is given by

fWi (at,pt) = ln

"P

(b 6=0,s 6=0)2⌦exp

(↵0i + ↵1iabt) pbst + ( 0i + 1iabt)xb + e

�iabt +

+⌘1izbs + ⌘2iz2bs + ⌘i⇠b + ✏ibst

�+ exp

⇣i0t + e⇢i

⇣Xlalt

⌘�#

= ln

"P

(b 6=0,s 6=0)2⌦exp

(↵0i + ↵1iabt) pbst + ( 0i + 1iabt)xb + �iabt + ⇢i

⇣Xl 6=b

alt⌘+

+⌘1izbs + ⌘2iz2bs + ⌘i⇠b + ✏ibst

�+ exp

⇣i0t

�#� ⇢i

⇣Xlalt

⌘

= Wi (at,pt)� ⇢iP

l alt

Therefore the two specifications, giving rise to identical demand, lead to di↵erent welfare conclusion. Under

the characteristic view of advertising welfare is sensitive to whether competitor advertising is included in

inside product utilities or whether total advertising is included in outside option utility.

C Willingness to Pay for Healthiness

Define the nutrient characteristic xb such that a higher value corresponds to lower nutritional quality and

consider the willingness to pay for a change in xb that reduces product unhealthiness. This is given by

WTPibt =@vibst/@xb

@vibst/@pbst= 0i + 1iabt↵0i + ↵1iabt

. (C.1)

If consumers positively value income and healthiness, the marginal e↵ect of price and of the nutrient charac-

teristic in the payo↵ function will be negative (↵0i + ↵1iabt < 0 and 0i + 1iabt < 0), and the willingness

to pay for a healthier product (a decrease in the nutrient characteristic) will be positive. However, whether

the willingness to pay for healthiness will decrease with advertising will depend on the relative signs and

magnitudes of the interactions between advertising and price and the nutrient characteristic.

D Existence Proof of Solution to Recursive Equation

For a given firm j, let’s consider C

�<N ⇥⇥,<

�the set of continuous functions from <N ⇥ ⇥ to <. Let

k.k1 be the superior norm1 of C�<N ⇥⇥,<

�which gives to C

�<N ⇥⇥,<

�a structure of complete metric

1For f (.) 2 C

�<N ⇥⇥,<

�, we have kfk1 = Sup

x2<N,✓2⇥

|f (x, ✓)|.

4

space. We note d the corresponding distance2. Let the operator T : C

�<N ⇥⇥,<

�! C

�<N ⇥⇥,<

�be

such that, for a given information ✓, and a given competitive strategy profile ��j (where ��j (at�1, ✓t) =

(p�j (at�1, ✓t) , e�j (at�1, ✓t))), 8w 2 C

�<N ⇥⇥,<

�, Tw :

�aj, a�j,✓

�2 <N ⇥⇥ ! Tw

�aj, a�j,✓

�where

Tw

�aj, a�j,✓

�= max

{pbs,eb}(b,s)2Fj

X

(b,s)2Fj

(pbs � cbs) sbs⇣a0j, a

0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘,pj,p�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘⌘M �

X

b2Bj

eb

+�E✓0

hw

⇣a0j,a

0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘, ✓

0⌘i

where pj = (pbs)(b,s)2Fjaj = (ab)b2Bj

, p�j = (pbs)(b,s)/2Fj, a�j = (ab)b/2Bj

, ej = (eb)b2Bj, e�j = (eb)b/2Bj

and

a0j = A (aj, ej)

a0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘= A

⇣a�j, e�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘⌘

and ✓

0 has a pdf f (.|✓) on ⇥ and where a0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘, p�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘represent the vectors of strategies

of other firms than j.

If we assume that strategies a�j0⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘, p�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘are continuous functions, then it is obvious

that Tw (.,.) 2 C

�<N ⇥⇥,<

�because Tw is continuous by composition of continuous functions since sbs (., .)

is also continuous. ? make similar continuity assumptions which are commonplace in the literature on

dynamic stochastic games.

Let w (.,.) , ew (.,.) 2 C

�<N ⇥⇥,<

�: 8

�aj, a�j,✓

�2 <N ⇥⇥, we have:

Tw

�aj, a�j,✓

�=

X

(b,s)2Fj

(p⇤bs � cbs) sbs⇣a0j

⇤, a0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘,p⇤

j ,p�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘⌘M �

X

b2Bj

e

⇤b

+�E✓0

hw

⇣a0⇤j ,a

0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘, ✓

0⌘i

We then assume that technical conditions are satisfied such that first-order conditions in price and

advertising expenditures are su�cient for the optimal choice strategies (which rigorously implies that we

restrict the subset of functions w (.,.) 2 C

�<N ⇥⇥,<

�to those satisfying such technical requirements).

2The distance d is defined by : 8f, g 2 C

�<N ⇥⇥,<

�d (f, g) = kf � gk1 = Sup

x2<N,✓2⇥

|f (x, ✓)� g (x, ✓)|.

5

Then, we can rewrite:

Tw

�aj, a�j,✓

�=

X

(b,s)2Fj

(p⇤bs � cbs) sbs⇣a0j

⇤, a0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘,p⇤

j ,p�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘⌘M �

X

b2Bj

e

⇤b

+�E✓0

hw

⇣a0⇤j ,a

0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘, ✓

0⌘i

Similarly, we can write:

T ew�aj, a�j,✓

�= max

{pbs,eb}(b,s)2Fj

X

(b,s)2Fj

(pbs � cbs) sbs⇣a0j, a

0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘,pj,p�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘⌘M �

X

b2Bj

eb

+�E✓0

hew⇣a0j,a

0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘, ✓

0⌘i

=X

(b,s)2Fj

(p⇤⇤bs � cbs) sbs⇣a0j

⇤⇤, a0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘,p⇤⇤

j ,p�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘⌘M �

X

b2Bj

e

⇤⇤b

+�E✓0

hew⇣a0⇤⇤j ,a0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘, ✓

0⌘i

Hence according to the definition of Tw (.,.) and T ew (.,.):


��

X

(b,s)2Fj

(p⇤bs � cbs) sbs⇣a

0⇤j , a0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘,p⇤

j ,p�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘⌘M �

X

b2Bj

e

⇤b

+�E✓0

hew⇣a0⇤j ,a

0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘, ✓

0⌘i

and

Tw

�aj, a�j,✓

��

X

(b,s)2Fj

(p⇤⇤bs � cbs) sbs⇣a

0⇤⇤j , a0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘,p⇤⇤

j ,p�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘⌘M �

X

b2Bj

e

⇤⇤b

+�E✓0

hw

⇣a0⇤⇤j ,a0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘, ✓

0⌘i

Thus for all�aj, a�j,✓

�

�E✓0

hew⇣a0⇤j ,a

0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘, ✓

0⌘� w

⇣a0⇤j ,a

0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘, ✓

0⌘i


�� Tw

�aj, a�j,✓

�

�E✓0

hew⇣a0⇤⇤j ,a0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘, ✓

0⌘� w

⇣a0⇤⇤j ,a0�j

⇣aj, a�j, ✓

⌘, ✓

0⌘i

6

Hence: 8�aj, a�j,✓

�,

��T ew

�aj, a�j,✓

�� Tw

�aj, a�j,✓

�� supa0j,a

0�j,✓

0

�� ew�a0j,a

0�j, ✓

0�� w

�a0j,a

0�j, ✓

0��

= � k ew (., .)� w (., .)k1

and kT ew � Twk1 � k ew � wk1. T is indeed a contraction with modulus �.

As T is a contraction, it has a unique fixed point w satisfying w = Tw. This ensures that the recursive

equation

⇡

⇤j (at�1, ✓t) = max

{pbs,eb}(b,s)2Fj

X

(b,s)2Fj

(pbst � cbst) sbs (at,pt)Mt �X

b2Bj

ebt + �E

⇥⇡

⇤j (at, ✓t+1)

⇤

where

at = A (at�1, et)

has a solution which is unique.

Similarly, the implication that ⇡

⇤j is the solution to a contraction mapping implies that if we assume

(or restrict) that strategies are di↵erentiable functions of all state variables, then the fixed point of the

contraction mapping will be di↵erentiable and ⇡

⇤j will be di↵erentiable. However, we do not need to do such

assumption neither for the estimation strategy we adopt, not for the counterfactual simulation we perform.

E Additional Results

E.1 Coe�cients Estimates

7

Tab

leE.1:Coe�cien

testimatesforfood

athome-part

1

Nokids,

high

inc.,

Nokids,

med

ium

inc.,

Nokids,

low

inc.,

Nokids,

high-m

edium

inc.,

Nokids,

low

inc.,

Pen

sioners

high

sk.

high

sk.

high

sk.

low

sk.

low

sk.

Random

coe�

cients

Mea

ns

Price

0.2414

0.6025

0.6103

0.5171

0.5875

0.6540

0.0612

0.0580

0.0541

0.0827

0.0482

0.0665

Bra

nd

advertising

-0.1224

-0.1644

-0.1798

-0.1166

-0.0982

-0.0921

0.0185

0.0225

0.0216

0.0249

0.0183

0.0266

Competitoradvertising

0.0009

0.0083

-0.0009

0.0005

0.0030

0.0027

0.0028

0.0037

0.0035

0.0041

0.0031

0.0038

Std

.dev

iations

Price

0.4267

0.4073

0.2666

0.3989

0.3924

0.2802

0.0266

0.0242

0.0192

0.0421

0.0237

0.0263

Bra

nd

advertising

0.0501

0.0795

0.0780

0.0496

0.0584

0.0625

0.0029

0.0048

0.0050

0.0046

0.0028

0.0055


0.0232

0.0239

0.0205

0.0184

0.0168

0.0223

0.0008

0.0010

0.0009

0.0010

0.0006

0.0009

Walkers

1.1187

0.9592

1.1346

1.0857

1.0302

1.6036

0.0536

0.0546

0.0816

0.0632

0.0451

0.1037

Fixed

coe�

cients

Size

0.0186

0.0244

0.0211

0.0241

0.0227

0.0211

0.0008

0.0010

0.0010

0.0012

0.0009

0.0011

Sizesq

uared

-0.0200

-0.0239

-0.0196

-0.0247

-0.0215

-0.0204

0.0011

0.0013

0.0012

0.0016

0.0011

0.0015

Price

*Bra

nd

advertising

0.0303

0.0275

0.0349

0.0190

0.0250

0.0279

0.0027

0.0033

0.0032

0.0040

0.0027

0.0036

Hea

lth

cost*Bra

nd

advertising

0.0039

0.0074

0.0050

0.0052

0.0025

0.0025

0.0011

0.0014

0.0013

0.0015

0.0011

0.0017

WalkersReg

ular

-0.0111

0.2790

0.5804

0.5696

0.3605

-0.1846

0.1043

0.1293

0.1228

0.1405

0.0990

0.1543

WalkersSen

sations

-1.6573

-2.0791

-2.1605

-1.7257

-2.3429

-3.1410

0.0789

0.1114

0.1218

0.1245

0.1041

0.1747

WalkersDorito

s-1.7371

-1.8221

-2.0551

-1.7405

-2.2595

-3.3314

0.0768

0.0952

0.1072

0.1126

0.0872

0.1615

WalkersOth

er-0.1838

-0.1025

0.2277

-0.1426

0.1125

-0.4257

0.0752

0.1002

0.0963

0.1193

0.0772

0.1202

Pringles

-0.9575

-1.1680

-1.0045

-1.0199

-0.9829

-1.0653

0.0828

0.1054

0.1034

0.1177

0.0898

0.1276

KP

-0.7834

-1.0207

-0.6484

-0.5535

-0.7604

-1.3010

0.0651

0.0819

0.0781

0.0919

0.0674

0.0995

Golden

Wonder

-2.9409

-3.0825

-2.4961

-2.1333

-2.5155

-2.4305

0.1116

0.1457

0.1140

0.1288

0.1007

0.1242

Asd

a-2.7334

-2.9050

-2.8963

-2.8160

-2.5961

-3.5577

0.0843

0.1036

0.1039

0.1318

0.0830

0.1446

Tesco

-2.3980

-2.2822

-2.4444

-2.2367

-2.3106

-2.2426

0.0765

0.0902

0.0927

0.1144

0.0782

0.1033

OutsideOption

4.2418

4.3300

3.6707

4.3140

4.2023

4.0506

0.2155

0.2850

0.2710

0.3234

0.2433

0.2982

2010

0.0070

0.0603

0.0629

0.0241

0.0879

0.0778

0.0431

0.0615

0.0561

0.0641

0.0493

0.0597

Quarter

2-0.1684

-0.1969

-0.2364

-0.1661

-0.1704

-0.2230

0.0581

0.0766

0.0736

0.0865

0.0655

0.0752

Quarter

3-0.0990

-0.0904

-0.1383

-0.0281

-0.1195

-0.1828

0.0524

0.0695

0.0668

0.0785

0.0594

0.0697

Quarter

4-0.2105

-0.1988

-0.2895

-0.1573

-0.1983

-0.1769

0.0629

0.0826

0.0801

0.0933

0.0713

0.0844

Controlfunction

0.0094

0.0240

0.0252

0.0105

0.0157

0.0177

0.0058

0.0070

0.0067

0.0081

0.0057

0.0081

Notes:

Each

column

representsa

separateestimation,standarderrorsarereported

below

coe�cientestimates.

Rowsnamed

random

parameterreferto

the

standarddeviationoftherandom

distributionofparameters.Random

coe�cientshavenormaldistributionsexceptforthepricecoe�cientwhichislognormal.

Weuseagridsearchtoestimatetheadvertisinggoodwilldecayparameterandfind�=

0.75.W

econstructthecontrolfunctionasdetailedinthemainpaper.

8

Tab

leE.2:Coe�cien

testimatesforfood

athome-part

2

Kids,

high

inc.,

Kids,

med

ium

inc.,

Kids,

low

inc.,

Kids,

high-m

edinc.,

Kids,

low

inc.,

high

sk.

high

sk.

high

sk.

low

sk.

low

sk.

Random

coe�

cients

Mea

ns

Price

0.4930

0.6134

0.3712

0.5087

0.5606

0.0475

0.0475

0.0865

0.0477

0.0488

Bra

nd

advertising

-0.1333

-0.1518

-0.1827

-0.1017

-0.1555

0.0160

0.0182

0.0258

0.0165

0.0172


-0.0001

0.0022

-0.0004

0.0063

0.0073

0.0026

0.0032

0.0045

0.0031

0.0031

Std

.dev

iations

Price

0.3217

0.2832

0.2758

0.2179

0.2904

0.0181

0.0154

0.0250

0.0114

0.0180

Bra

nd

advertising

0.0351

0.0535

0.0731

0.0508

0.0457

0.0024

0.0037

0.0071

0.0027

0.0027


0.0135

0.0171

0.0141

0.0158

0.0077

0.0006

0.0006

0.0012

0.0007

0.0007

Walkers

0.8774

0.8402

0.9605

0.9463

0.7975

0.0380

0.0606

0.0715

0.0470

0.0427

Fixed

coe�

cients

Size

0.0223

0.0225

0.0229

0.0243

0.0222

0.0008

0.0009

0.0013

0.0009

0.0009

Sizesq

uared

-0.0210

-0.0197

-0.0216

-0.0222

-0.0179

0.0010

0.0011

0.0016

0.0011

0.0011

Price

*Bra

nd

advertising

0.0269

0.0357

0.0291

0.0268

0.0318

0.0025

0.0028

0.0043

0.0026

0.0028

Hea

lth

cost*Bra

nd

advertising

0.0056

0.0055

0.0069

0.0025

0.0061

0.0009

0.0011

0.0015

0.0010

0.0010

WalkersReg

ular

0.3041

0.6362

1.0680

0.7231

0.9844

0.0891

0.0985

0.1323

0.0919

0.0912

WalkersSen

sations

-1.6316

-1.7203

-1.7171

-1.7326

-2.2268

0.0761

0.0946

0.1298

0.0889

0.1217

WalkersDorito

s-1.5033

-1.4106

-1.4379

-1.5801

-1.3961

0.0646

0.0747

0.1085

0.0750

0.0761

WalkersOth

er0.1737

0.5481

0.4166

0.6144

0.6855

0.0691

0.0796

0.1103

0.0743

0.0767

Pringles

-1.0723

-1.0238

-1.1226

-0.5355

-0.7745

0.0751

0.0888

0.1291

0.0776

0.0842

KP

-0.5045

-0.3526

-0.2964

-0.1074

-0.2253

0.0572

0.0653

0.0918

0.0604

0.0632

Golden

Wonder

-2.9442

-3.1765

-2.7372

-2.3568

-2.1782

0.1137

0.1454

0.1662

0.1019

0.0982

Asd

a-2.6035

-2.2481

-2.0395

-2.2887

-2.0779

0.0781

0.0807

0.1099

0.0793

0.0788

Tesco

-1.9416

-1.9584

-1.8954

-1.9025

-1.8863

0.0675

0.0773

0.1102

0.0735

0.0775

OutsideOption

4.3432

4.0464

4.1233

4.8380

4.5672

0.2076

0.2494

0.3562

0.2403

0.2432

2010

-0.0645

-0.0262

0.0673

0.0242

-0.0878

0.0407

0.0528

0.0760

0.0487

0.0486

Quarter

2-0.2489

-0.1949

-0.2084

-0.0880

-0.1178

0.0564

0.0671

0.0957

0.0667

0.0662

Quarter

3-0.1804

-0.0943

-0.0138

-0.1102

-0.1084

0.0508

0.0605

0.0862

0.0599

0.0600

Quarter

4-0.2496

-0.0994

-0.0759

-0.1069

-0.2572

0.0608

0.0736

0.1031

0.0713

0.0718

Controlfunction

0.0211

0.0102

0.0170

0.0169

0.0077

0.0049

0.0055

0.0077

0.0051

0.0053

Notes:

Each

column

representsa


below


Rowsnamed

random

parameterreferto

the





0.75.W


9

Tab

leE.3:Coe�cien

testimatesforfood

on-the-go

-part

1

Nokids,

high

inc.,

Nokids,

med

ium

inc.,

Nokids,

low

inc.,

Nokids,

high-m

edium

inc.,

Nokids,

low

inc.,

Pen

sioners

high

sk.

high

sk.

high

sk.

low

sk.

low

sk.

Random

coe�

cients

Mea

ns

Price

2.1113

2.3685

2.0300

2.3479

2.3817

1.3325

0.0726

0.0816

0.1174

0.0946

0.0950

0.3573

Bra

nd

advertising

-0.0287

-0.1196

-0.1183

-0.0780

-0.0474

0.0419

0.0279

0.0407

0.0418

0.0421

0.0394

0.0573


-0.0043

0.0036

-0.0021

-0.0071

-0.0013

-0.0075

0.0041

0.0056

0.0056

0.0063

0.0058

0.0069

Std

.dev

iations

Price

0.3941

0.3704

0.3296

0.3995

0.1922

0.3076

0.0272

0.0309

0.0361

0.0337

0.0208

0.1141

Bra

nd

advertising

0.1219

0.1014

0.0860

0.0839

0.1294

0.0913

0.0051

0.0065

0.0043

0.0047

0.0071

0.0067


0.0450

0.0369

0.0388

0.0406

0.0490

0.0366

0.0019

0.0019

0.0021

0.0033

0.0024

0.0023

Fixed

coe�

cients

Size

0.2083

0.2873

0.2045

0.1273

0.2116

0.1572

0.0150

0.0212

0.0222

0.0235

0.0243

0.0318

Sizesq

uared

-1.9492

-3.0520

-2.1566

-1.1175

-1.8195

-2.2737

0.1720

0.2486

0.2583

0.2722

0.2785

0.3768

Price

*Bra

nd

advertising

-0.3048

-0.0771

-0.1514

-0.1002

-0.1777

-0.0595

0.0312

0.0402

0.0419

0.0444

0.0453

0.0543

Hea

lth

cost*Bra

nd

advertising

0.0125

0.0124

0.0148

0.0096

0.0086

-0.0055

0.0021

0.0032

0.0033

0.0033

0.0028

0.0046

WalkersReg

ular

0.0376

0.5839

0.4694

0.5825

0.5355

0.2819

0.1118

0.1571

0.1633

0.1631

0.1601

0.2044

WalkersSen

sations

-1.6647

-1.7916

-2.2397

-3.2169

-2.9449

-2.9459

0.1022

0.1753

0.1995

0.3618

0.2999

0.3507

WalkersDorito

s-2.2588

-1.7056

-1.7800

-1.8332

-1.3228

-1.7997

0.1056

0.1322

0.1336

0.1560

0.1265

0.2114

WalkersOth

er-0.4176

-0.1961

-0.6654

-0.4605

-0.1684

-0.4403

0.0935

0.1390

0.1447

0.1516

0.1420

0.2081

KP

-2.1275

-2.4134

-2.5323

-1.8747

-1.2919

-1.5812

0.1272

0.2178

0.2201

0.2040

0.1617

0.2860

Golden

Wonder

-2.9902

-2.3120

-2.7036

-2.5918

-2.4469

-2.3906

0.1060

0.1341

0.1456

0.1478

0.1383

0.1773

OutsideOption

3.2261

4.6359

3.8595

-0.0825

2.5948

3.0092

0.4350

0.6112

0.6401

0.6914

0.6894

0.8713

2010

-0.2634

-0.4379

-0.1227

0.0489

0.0453

0.1745

0.0741

0.1049

0.1085

0.1185

0.1093

0.1289

Quarter

2-0.3694

-0.3726

-0.1310

-0.1963

-0.2906

0.1726

0.0809

0.1125

0.1163

0.1274

0.1122

0.1338

Quarter

3-0.2498

-0.6917

-0.2486

-0.1760

-0.3103

0.1621

0.0805

0.1134

0.1165

0.1284

0.1130

0.1375

Quarter

4-0.3321

-0.4368

-0.2087

-0.0741

-0.1457

0.0653

0.0912

0.1269

0.1310

0.1454

0.1296

0.1552

Controlfunction

0.0020

0.0131

0.0129

0.0065

0.0064

0.0136

0.0070

0.0093

0.0099

0.0102

0.0100

0.0126

Notes:

Each

column

representsa


below


Rowsnamed

random

parameterreferto

the





0.75.W


10

Tab

leE.4:Coe�cien

testimatesforfood

on-the-go

-part

2

Kids,

highinc.,

Kids,

med

ium

inc.,

Kids,

low

inc.,

Kids,

high-m

edinc.,

Kids,

low

inc.,

Kid

highsk.

highsk.

highsk.

low

sk.

low

educ

purchaser

Random

coe�cients

Mea

ns

Price

2.35

682.09

371.36

502.39

741.66

141.71

530.0799

0.116

20.2479

0.0730

0.1385

0.1992

Brandadvertising

-0.0807

-0.0496

0.00

30

-0.1837

-0.0048

-0.0436

0.0333

0.037

60.0525

0.0372

0.0441

0.0748

Competitoradve

rtising

-0.004

0-0.0031

-0.0071

0.0040

0.0007

-0.0032

0.0043

0.005

20.0075

0.0051

0.0055

0.0089

Std

.dev

iations

Price

0.2876

0.2983

0.4183

0.3751

0.3636

0.4086

0.0266

0.037

50.0769

0.0297

0.0535

0.0712

Brandadvertising

0.0795

0.0884

0.0988

0.1487

0.0847

0.1046

0.0039

0.005

70.0105

0.0070

0.0049

0.0077

Competitoradve

rtising

0.0328

0.0369

0.03

67

0.0426

0.0291

0.0342

0.0020

0.001

80.0026

0.0021

0.0019

0.0026

Fixedcoe�cients

Size

0.2530

0.1886

0.2816

0.2419

0.1169

0.0616

0.0190

0.020

70.0288

0.0195

0.0243

0.0372

Sizesquared

-2.4670

-1.9330

-3.1370

-2.3795

-1.5159

-0.4780

0.2172

0.239

10.3313

0.2266

0.2858

0.4323

Price*Brandadve

rtising

-0.1636

-0.0817

-0.3924

0.0479

-0.1981

-0.2309

0.0385

0.041

40.0635

0.0350

0.0440

0.0643

Hea

lthco

st*B

randad

vertising

0.01

250.00

720.01

140.01

130.00

750.01

110.0025

0.002

80.0039

0.0028

0.0033

0.0059

WalkersReg

ular

0.25

64-0.057

5-0.110

90.397

1-0.1629

0.3273

0.1265

0.149

60.2154

0.1403

0.1787

0.2813

WalkersSen

sation

s-1.826

9-2.020

0-1.884

5-2.2323

-1.965

5-2.4267

0.1345

0.173

50.1826

0.1755

0.1933

0.3746

WalkersDoritos

-1.423

3-1.625

3-1.184

1-1.5146

-1.474

8-1.4397

0.0939

0.119

70.1329

0.1089

0.1367

0.2248

WalkersOth

er-0.530

2-0.483

2-0.353

3-0.3265

-0.798

2-0.7273

0.1175

0.130

20.1633

0.1265

0.1510

0.2652

KP

-2.5352

-1.6977

-2.1811

-2.3822

-1.7251

-2.7911

0.1712

0.169

20.2370

0.1843

0.2092

0.4265

Golden

Wonder

-3.0806

-2.8000

-3.0092

-3.1532

-1.7555

-2.0869

0.1325

0.143

50.1954

0.1394

0.1183

0.2050

OutsideOption

3.5409

2.7287

5.7491

2.6174

2.7589

0.9722

0.5382

0.604

50.8057

0.5623

0.6450

1.0334

2010

-0.1204

0.0564

0.2532

0.0458

0.0963

0.1625

0.0802

0.102

10.1478

0.0940

0.1038

0.1695

Quarter

2-0.1374

-0.1499

-0.0538

-0.1149

0.0199

-0.0128

0.0869

0.1051

0.1447

0.1037

0.1159

0.1865

Quarter

3-0.0991

-0.1653

-0.2802

-0.0618

-0.1902

-0.1289

0.0883

0.1045

0.1409

0.1044

0.1133

0.1880

Quarter

4-0.0182

-0.0474

-0.0497

-0.1796

-0.1708

-0.2956

0.0988

0.1195

0.1650

0.1168

0.1278

0.2094

Controlfunction

0.0212

0.00

13

0.0082

-0.0124

-0.0057

-0.0353

0.0080

0.0094

0.0135

0.0088

0.0110

0.0174

Notes:

Each

column

representsa


below


Rowsnamed

random

parameterreferto

the





0.75.W


11

E.2 Mean market price elasticities

Tab

leE.5:Ownandcross

price

elasticitiesforfood

athome-part

1

Pringles

WalkersReg

WalkersSen

sW

alkersDor

Walke

rsOth

150-300g

300g+

150-300

g300g+

150-300g

300g+

150-300g

300g+

<150g

150-300g

300g+

WalkersReg

ular:150

-300g

-1.4914

0.45

250.01

470.03

460.02

870.05

740.04

740.11

420.19

590.02

000.07

39W

alkersReg

ular:300

g+

0.058

2-2.183

90.01

020.03

540.02

020.06

250.03

150.09

120.23

140.01

180.07

70W

alkersSen

sations:15

0-300

g0.05

940.29

07-2.028

10.05

370.03

460.06

890.04

370.10

700.19

220.01

280.05

16W

alkersSen

sations:30

0g+

0.042

50.30

340.01

70-3.365

80.02

600.07

230.03

180.09

030.21

800.00

930.05

42W

alkersDoritos:15

0-300

g0.065

80.33

280.01

920.04

66-1.798

90.07

100.04

440.10

980.19

880.01

500.06

12W

alkersDoritos:30

0g+

0.045

70.35

160.01

400.04

730.02

56-3.070

40.03

220.09

270.22

970.01

050.06

44W

alkersOth

er:<

150g

0.0745

0.3629

0.0171

0.0405

0.0309

0.06

31

-1.6967

0.1240

0.2156

0.0161

0.0663

WalkersOth

er:150-300

g0.063

80.37

000.01

520.04

190.02

750.06

540.04

41-2.164

40.23

010.01

400.06

84W

alkersOth

er:300g+

0.04

29

0.36

470.01

150.04

210.02

040.06

660.03

090.09

25-3.067

90.00

980.06

81Pringles:150-300g

0.055

90.2523

0.0087

0.0209

0.0182

0.0370

0.0287

0.0707

0.1262

-1.4086

0.116

3Pringles:300g+

0.0345

0.2708

0.0065

0.0228

0.0135

0.0411

0.0205

0.0602

0.1545

0.0191

-2.4316

KP:<

150g

0.0428

0.2138

0.0109

0.0255

0.0197

0.03

99

0.0280

0.0685

0.1211

0.0200

0.0776

KP:150-300g

0.0397

0.2254

0.0102

0.0265

0.0186

0.0419

0.0261

0.0670

0.1304

0.0184

0.080

6KP:300g+

0.0297

0.2468

0.0080

0.0278

0.0148

0.0457

0.0204

0.0597

0.1544

0.013

40.0842

Golden

Wonder:<

150g

0.0345

0.1769

0.0117

0.02

93

0.0183

0.0386

0.0247

0.0614

0.1136

0.0169

0.0684

Golden

Wonder:150-300g

0.0340

0.1830

0.0115

0.02

99

0.0182

0.0400

0.0240

0.0609

0.1179

0.0164

0.0701

Golden

Wonder:300g+

0.0247

0.2099

0.00

83

0.0307

0.0141

0.0453

0.0181

0.0535

0.1447

0.0115

0.0744

Asd

a:<150g

0.03

43

0.1817

0.0124

0.030

20.0208

0.0431

0.0258

0.0634

0.1171

0.0161

0.0653

Asd

a:15

0-30

0g0.03

450.18

780.01

230.03

020.02

110.04

420.02

580.06

400.11

960.01

620.06

66Asd

a:30

0g+

0.02

540.21

110.00

920.03

200.01

580.04

880.01

940.05

650.14

610.01

140.07

13Tesco

:<150g

0.0367

0.1736

0.0128

0.0291

0.0212

0.0407

0.02

72

0.0647

0.1107

0.0181

0.0665

Tesco

:150-300g

0.0364

0.1798

0.01

26

0.0296

0.0212

0.0421

0.0267

0.0647

0.1146

0.0178

0.0680

Tesco

:300g+

0.0274

0.20

42

0.0097

0.0318

0.0167

0.0472

0.0207

0.0583

0.1402

0.0129

0.0731

Oth

er:<

150g

0.0406

0.19

16

0.0112

0.0261

0.0191

0.0376

0.0273

0.0661

0.1152

0.0206

0.0776

Oth

er:150-300g

0.0383

0.2000

0.01

06

0.0270

0.0183

0.0393

0.0258

0.0649

0.1223

0.0193

0.0801

Oth

er:300g+

0.0279

0.21

72

0.0084

0.0288

0.0144

0.0433

0.0196

0.0570

0.1452

0.0137

0.0832

Outsideoption

0.0281

0.1250

0.0068

0.0149

0.0125

0.0235

0.0179

0.0419

0.0689

0.0116

0.0411

Notes:Eachcellcontainsthepriceelasticityofdemandfortheproductindicatedincolumn1withrespecttothepriceoftheproductin

row

1.Numbersare

meansacrossmarkets.

12

Tab

leE.6:Ownandcross

price

elasticitiesforfood

athome-part

2

KP

Golden

Wonder

Asd

a<150g

150-300g

300g+

<150g

150-300g

300g+

<150g

150-300g

300g+

WalkersReg

ular:150

-300g

0.0109

0.05

300.14

330.00

160.00

500.01

120.00

19

0.00

93

0.021

3W

alkersReg

ular:300

g+

0.007

60.04

190.16

670.00

120.00

380.01

370.00

15

0.007

40.026

1W

alkersSen

sations:15

0-300

g0.0114

0.05

550.14

670.00

220.00

700.01

550.00

28

0.013

80.030

5W

alkersSen

sations:30

0g+

0.0083

0.04

500.15

930.00

170.00

570.01

760.00

22

0.010

70.033

7W

alkersDoritos:15

0-300

g0.0116

0.05

690.15

490.00

190.00

610.01

460.00

26

0.013

20.029

6W

alkersDoritos:30

0g+

0.008

50.04

600.17

180.00

150.00

500.01

700.00

200.0102

0.0337

WalkersOth

er:<

150g

0.0114

0.0552

0.1509

0.0018

0.0057

0.0131

0.0023

0.0112

0.025

8W

alkersOth

er:150-300

g0.010

00.05

080.15

860.00

170.00

530.01

410.00

210.0102

0.0273

WalkersOth

er:300g+

0.007

30.04

060.16

780.00

130.00

430.01

570.00

160.0080

0.0298

Pringles:150-300g

0.0142

0.0683

0.1801

0.0022

0.0069

0.01

53

0.002

50.0123

0.0265

Pringles:300g+

0.0098

0.0537

0.2030

0.0017

0.005

50.0181

0.0019

0.0095

0.0311

KP:<

150g

-1.3348

0.0774

0.1992

0.0026

0.0080

0.0173

0.0033

0.015

90.0343

KP:150-300g

0.014

9-1.6998

0.2107

0.0024

0.0076

0.0184

0.0030

0.0150

0.03

63

KP:300g+

0.0111

0.0609

-2.776

70.0019

0.0062

0.0211

0.0024

0.01

21

0.0413

Golden

Wonder:<

150g

0.0143

0.0686

0.1806

-2.1304

0.0113

0.0246

0.0036

0.0173

0.0388

Golden

Wonder:150

-300g

0.0139

0.0678

0.1867

0.0035

-2.3169

0.0253

0.0035

0.0173

0.0402

Golden

Wonder:300

g+

0.0099

0.0546

0.2154

0.0025

0.0085

-3.9243

0.0027

0.0135

0.0474

Asd

a:<150g

0.0151

0.072

20.1926

0.0030

0.0094

0.0213

-1.6403

0.0198

0.0436

Asd

a:15

0-30

0g0.01

510.07

320.19

820.00

290.00

940.02

170.00

40-1.653

10.04

48Asd

a:30

0g+

0.01

080.05

890.22

290.00

220.00

740.02

550.00

300.01

53-3.352

1Tesco

:<150g

0.0158

0.0739

0.1823

0.0033

0.0107

0.0213

0.0041

0.0202

0.0402

Tesco

:150-300g

0.0154

0.0739

0.1892

0.0032

0.0104

0.0219

0.0040

0.0202

0.04

17

Tesco

:300g+

0.0115

0.0613

0.2150

0.0025

0.0083

0.0252

0.0031

0.01

57

0.0480

Oth

er:<

150g

0.0151

0.0710

0.1774

0.0030

0.0092

0.0190

0.0033

0.01

60

0.0332

Oth

er:150-300g

0.0141

0.0687

0.1860

0.0028

0.0088

0.0198

0.0031

0.0153

0.03

49

Oth

er:300g+

0.0104

0.0560

0.2057

0.0022

0.0071

0.0224

0.0025

0.01

21

0.0396

Outsideoption

0.0090

0.041

60.1022

0.0015

0.0046

0.0097

0.0019

0.0092

0.0190


row

1.Numbersare

meansacrossmarkets.

13

Table E.7: Own and cross price elasticities for food in the home - part 3

Tesco Other<150g 150-300g 300g+ <150g 150g 150-300g

Walkers Regular:150-300g 0.0037 0.0170 0.0407 0.0182 0.0570 0.1500Walkers Regular:300g+ 0.0026 0.0123 0.0447 0.0120 0.0420 0.1665Walkers Sensations:150-300g 0.0054 0.0247 0.0588 0.0205 0.0644 0.1743Walkers Sensations:300g+ 0.0039 0.0184 0.0609 0.0150 0.0514 0.1900Walkers Doritos:150-300g 0.0050 0.0231 0.0562 0.0195 0.0621 0.1707Walkers Doritos:300g+ 0.0035 0.0170 0.0592 0.0140 0.0484 0.1864Walkers Other:<150g 0.0044 0.0204 0.0496 0.0195 0.0610 0.1642Walkers Other:150-300g 0.0039 0.0180 0.0510 0.0170 0.0554 0.1728Walkers Other:300g+ 0.0028 0.0135 0.0518 0.0123 0.0433 0.1824Pringles:150-300g 0.0052 0.0237 0.0551 0.0258 0.0805 0.2075Pringles:300g+ 0.0036 0.0170 0.0583 0.0176 0.0605 0.2284KP:<150g 0.0063 0.0287 0.0657 0.0264 0.0819 0.2093KP:150-300g 0.0057 0.0266 0.0682 0.0240 0.0769 0.2187KP:300g+ 0.0042 0.0204 0.0718 0.0175 0.0608 0.2355Golden Wonder:<150g 0.0076 0.0339 0.0799 0.0288 0.0897 0.2364Golden Wonder:150-300g 0.0074 0.0336 0.0815 0.0276 0.0874 0.2407Golden Wonder:300g+ 0.0050 0.0237 0.0848 0.0187 0.0650 0.2563Asda:<150g 0.0076 0.0348 0.0817 0.0267 0.0833 0.2213Asda:150-300g 0.0076 0.0354 0.0838 0.0262 0.0827 0.2236Asda:300g+ 0.0052 0.0251 0.0879 0.0183 0.0633 0.2454Tesco:<150g -1.4857 0.0388 0.0824 0.0302 0.0924 0.2247Tesco:150-300g 0.0084 -1.5953 0.0845 0.0291 0.0905 0.2287Tesco:300g+ 0.0058 0.0279 -3.0888 0.0209 0.0708 0.2499Other:<150g 0.0069 0.0311 0.0688 -1.6266 0.0913 0.2271Other:150-300g 0.0064 0.0294 0.0707 0.0276 -1.9100 0.2351Other:300g+ 0.0046 0.0217 0.0733 0.0198 0.0678 -3.0242Outside option 0.0037 0.0167 0.0369 0.0150 0.0457 0.1114

Notes: Each cell contains the price elasticity of demand for the product indicated in column 1 with respect to the price

of the product in row 1. Numbers are means across markets.

14

Tab

leE.8:Ownandcross

price

elasticitiesforfood

on-the-go

WalkersReg

Sm

WalkersReg

Lg

Walke

rsSen

sW

alke

rsDor

Walke

rsOth

Sm

WalkersOth

Lg

KP

GW

Sm

GW

Lg

Oth

erSm

Oth

erLg

WalkersReg

ular:34.5g

-3.295

30.408

90.02

550.09

820.20

510.264

60.0829

0.039

50.0090

0.3640

0.2981

WalkersReg

ular:50g

1.220

7-5.378

20.02

640.09

790.18

740.28

070.0816

0.0338

0.009

80.34

29

0.307

4W

alkersSen

sations:40

g0.49

240.180

4-4.285

50.14

030.16

520.270

10.1000

0.088

00.0277

0.5587

0.5086

WalkersDoritos:40

g0.67

41

0.234

70.04

86-4.350

70.18

630.279

20.0970

0.078

70.0204

0.5200

0.4526

WalkersOth

er:<

30g

0.8128

0.2557

0.0361

0.1128

-3.8791

0.3135

0.0953

0.0633

0.0150

0.4693

0.3839

WalkersOth

er:30g

+0.78

70

0.285

50.04

290.12

460.23

84-4.9727

0.102

30.055

50.015

40.465

40.417

8KP:50g

0.7280

0.2507

0.0510

0.1330

0.2102

0.3025

-4.8016

0.08

58

0.0221

0.5272

0.4909

Golden

Wonder:<

40g

0.4430

0.1414

0.0565

0.1346

0.166

70.2036

0.1025

-2.8148

0.0361

0.6159

0.4944

Golden

Wonder:40g

+0.3793

0.1529

0.0616

0.1324

0.1528

0.21

40

0.0962

0.1201

-4.2230

0.5385

0.5171

Oth

er:<

40g

0.6031

0.2006

0.0499

0.1309

0.1912

0.2592

0.0970

0.0906

0.0219

-3.3289

0.4658

Oth

er:40g+

0.6121

0.2221

0.0550

0.1395

0.1920

0.2847

0.1098

0.0877

0.0254

0.5664

-4.1942

Outsideoption

0.2577

0.0700

0.0132

0.0385

0.0678

0.0768

0.0276

0.0274

0.0052

0.1639

0.1215


row

1.Numbersare

meansacrossmarkets.

15

E.3 Mean marginal costs estimates

Table E.9: Marginal costs: food at home segment

Price (£) Cost (£) Margin

Walkers Regular:150-300g 1.11 0.27 0.76[0.24, 0.31] [0.73, 0.79]

Walkers Regular:300g+ 2.61 1.49 0.43[1.43, 1.55] [0.40, 0.45]

Walkers Sensations:150-300g 1.25 -0.08 1.07[-0.14, -0.01] [1.01, 1.11]

Walkers Sensations:300g+ 2.79 1.06 0.62[0.96, 1.16] [0.58, 0.65]

Walkers Doritos:150-300g 1.30 0.22 0.85[0.17, 0.26] [0.82, 0.89]

Walkers Doritos:300g+ 2.58 1.30 0.50[1.24, 1.35] [0.48, 0.52]

Walkers Other:<150g 1.21 0.09 0.93[0.04, 0.13] [0.90, 0.98]

Walkers Other:150-300g 2.50 1.16 0.54[1.09, 1.22] [0.51, 0.57]

Walkers Other:300g+ 1.24 0.04 0.97[-0.01, 0.09] [0.93, 1.01]

Pringles:150-300g 1.77 0.46 0.74[0.40, 0.52] [0.71, 0.78]

Pringles:300g+ 3.18 1.61 0.49[1.52, 1.69] [0.47, 0.52]

KP:<150g 0.86 0.13 0.86[0.10, 0.16] [0.83, 0.89]

KP:150-300g 1.19 0.42 0.65[0.39, 0.45] [0.63, 0.67]

KP:300g+ 2.39 1.48 0.38[1.44, 1.51] [0.37, 0.40]

Golden Wonder:<150g 1.26 0.67 0.49[0.64, 0.69] [0.47, 0.51]

Golden Wonder:150-300g 1.40 0.80 0.44[0.77, 0.82] [0.43, 0.46]

Golden Wonder:300g+ 2.78 2.07 0.26[2.04, 2.10] [0.25, 0.27]

Asda:<150g 0.94 0.35 0.63[0.33, 0.37] [0.61, 0.65]

Asda:150-300g 0.95 0.36 0.62[0.34, 0.38] [0.60, 0.64]

Asda:300g+ 2.28 1.60 0.30[1.57, 1.62] [0.29, 0.32]

Tesco:<150g 0.82 0.24 0.72[0.22, 0.26] [0.69, 0.74]

Tesco:150-300g 0.91 0.32 0.65[0.30, 0.34] [0.63, 0.67]

Tesco:300g+ 2.06 1.38 0.33[1.35, 1.40] [0.32, 0.34]

Other:<150g 1.05 0.32 0.70[0.29, 0.34] [0.68, 0.72]

Other:150-300g 1.31 0.56 0.58[0.53, 0.58] [0.56, 0.60]

Other:300g+ 2.57 1.67 0.35[1.64, 1.71] [0.34, 0.36]

Notes: Margins are defined as (p � mc)/p. Numbers are means across markets. 95% confidence intervals are given

in square brackets.

16

Table E.10: Marginal costs: food on-the-go segment

Price (£) Cost (£) Margin

Walkers Regular:34.5g 0.45 0.26 0.41[0.26, 0.27] [0.39, 0.43]

Walkers Regular:50g 0.63 0.43 0.32[0.42, 0.44] [0.30, 0.34]

Walkers Sensations:40g 0.62 0.42 0.32[0.41, 0.44] [0.30, 0.34]

Walkers Doritos:40g 0.54 0.36 0.34[0.35, 0.37] [0.32, 0.36]

Walkers Other:<30g 0.45 0.27 0.40[0.26, 0.28] [0.37, 0.42]

Walkers Other:30g+ 0.61 0.42 0.31[0.41, 0.43] [0.29, 0.32]

KP:50g 0.57 0.45 0.21[0.44, 0.46] [0.20, 0.22]

Golden Wonder:<40g 0.39 0.25 0.36[0.24, 0.26] [0.34, 0.39]

Golden Wonder:40g+ 0.73 0.55 0.25[0.53, 0.57] [0.22, 0.28]

Other:<40g 0.48 0.31 0.34[0.31, 0.32] [0.32, 0.36]

Other:40g+ 0.58 0.42 0.29[0.41, 0.43] [0.27, 0.30]

Notes: Margins are defined as (p � mc)/p. Numbers are means across markets. 95% confidence intervals are given

in square brackets.

E.4 Profits

Table E.11 disaggregates the impact of the ban by firm and reports the average impact across months. The

first panel reports pre ban numbers, showing mean advertising expenditures, the average price, total quantity

of potato chips and total variable profits. The second panel details the percent change in quantity sold and

variable profits resulting from the ban if firms do not re-optimize their prices in response. The final panel

shows the impact on prices, quantity and variable profits following the ban in equilibrium, when firms are

allowed to re-optimize prices.

When prices are held at their pre ban level the ban leads to a fall in the quantity sold and in variable

profits of almost all firms in the market. Walkers is the exception - Walkers see a small decline in quantity

sold and a rise in profits, although neither change is statistically significantly di↵erent from zero. Holding

prices fixed, Walkers, the largest and highest advertising firm, is not adversely a↵ected by the ban. The

reason for this is that other firms’ advertising is strongly predatory towards Walkers products (particularly its

largest brand, Walkers Regular). If Walkers unilaterally stopped advertising it would loss profits.3 However,

3For instance, if Walkers unilaterally set advertising expenditure of Walkers Regular to zero in a particular market holdingprices fixed, they would see a small fall in flow profits and a bigger fall in total discounted profits due the long lasting e↵ect ofadvertising on demand.

17

this loss in profits is made up for post ban by the fact that competitors are also no longer advertising (and

therefore stealing market share from Walkers’ products).

18

Tab

leE.11:

Advertisingban:Im

pact

byfirm

Walkers

Pringles

KP

Golden

Wonder

Asda

Tesco

Other

Preban

Advertisingexpen

diture

(£m)

1.01

0.45

0.21

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.16

Price

(£)

1.76

1.86

1.45

1.40

1.39

1.27

1.36

[1.75,1.77]

[1.86,1.86]

[1.45,1.45]

[1.37,1.43]

[1.39,1.39]

[1.27,1.27]

[1.36,1.37]

Quantity

(mKg)

16.52

2.06

5.34

0.61

0.90

1.75

6.50

[16.08,16.78]

[1.98,2.14]

[5.22,5.46]

[0.58,0.65]

[0.85,0.94]

[1.69,1.82]

[6.31,6.62]

Profits

(£m)

68.59

5.63

12.67

1.57

1.70

3.31

18.79

[64.23,72.46]

[5.21,6.02]

[12.06,13.28]

[1.46,1.71]

[1.60,1.80]

[3.16,3.48]

[17.77,19.55]

Postban:Nofirm

response

%changein

quantity

-1.06

-32.67

-20.17

-28.82

-22.72

-23.86

-5.33

[-6.17,3.73]

[-37.37,-26.95]

[-25.48,-13.85]

[-33.37,-23.70]

[-28.43,-16.77]

[-29.27,-18.19]

[-10.42,-0.05]

%changein

profits

4.85

-22.65

-16.21

-32.79

-23.59

-24.65

-3.42

[-0.66,9.89]

[-28.13,-15.73]

[-21.85,-9.86]

[-37.63,-27.04]

[-29.26,-17.63]

[-30.16,-18.71]

[-8.88,2.14]

Postban:W

ithfirm

response

%changein

price

-7.66

-16.84

-8.47

1.82

0.70

0.03

-5.11

[-8.92,-6.11]

[-18.72,-15.14]

[-9.31,-7.66]

[-1.11,4.71]

[0.15,1.28]

[-0.53,0.62]

[-6.58,-3.36]

%changein

quantity

34.36

-6.19

-18.16

-38.93

-37.77

-37.44

-8.70

[26.97,39.88]

[-13.31,2.39]

[-23.34,-12.25]

[-43.17,-33.74]

[-42.36,-32.70]

[-42.00,-32.42]

[-13.61,-3.95]

%changein

profits

9.03

-28.53

-28.00

-37.69

-37.55

-37.95

-11.62

[3.71,13.68]

[-33.56,-22.05]

[-32.69,-22.37]

[-42.41,-31.56]

[-41.93,-32.43]

[-42.17,-33.04]

[-16.88,-5.69]

Notes:“Nofirm

response”referstocaseofanadvertisingbanwhenpricesareheldattheirprebanlevel;“Firm

response”referstocaseofanadvertisingban

whenfirmsreoptimizetheirprices.Pricereferstothequantityweightedmeanpricesetbythefirm,quantityreferstothetotalamountofproducesoldandprofits

arevariableprofits.Numbersaremeansacrossmarkets.95%

confidenceintervalsaregiveninsquarebrackets.

19

The Effects of Banning Advertising in Junk Food Markets

Documents