Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Review of Marketing Science

CiteScore 2018: 0.12

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.114
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.070

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Eliminating the Outside Good Bias in Logit Models of Demand with Aggregate Data

Dongling Huang / Christian Rojas
  • Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 219A Stockbridge Hall, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2014-08-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/roms-2013-0016


The logit model is the most popular tool in estimating demand for differentiated products. In this model, the outside good plays a crucial role because it allows consumers to stop buying the differentiated good altogether if all brands simultaneously become less attractive (e.g. if a simultaneous price increase occurs). But practitioners lack data on the outside good when only aggregate data are available. The currently accepted procedure is to assume a “market potential” that implicitly defines the size of the outside good (i.e. the number of consumers who considered the product but did not purchase); in practice, this means that an endogenous quantity is approximated by a reasonable guess thereby introducing the possibility of an additional source of error and, most importantly, bias. We provide two contributions in this paper. First, we show that structural parameters can be substantially biased when the assumed market potential does not approximate the outside option correctly. Second, we show how to use panel data techniques to produce unbiased structural estimates by treating the market potential as an unobservable in both the simple and the random coefficients logit demand model. We explore three possible solutions: (a) controlling for the unobservable with market fixed effects, (b) specifying the unobservable to be a linear function of product characteristics, and (c) using a “demeaned regression” approach. Solution (a) is feasible (and preferable) when the number of goods is large relative to the number of markets, whereas (b) and (c) are attractive when the number of markets is too large (as in most applications in Marketing). Importantly, we find that all three solutions are nearly as effective in removing the bias. We demonstrate our two contributions in the simple and random coefficients versions of the logit model via Monte Carlo experiments and with data from the automobile and breakfast cereals markets.

Keywords: logit model; random coefficients; demand estimation; market potential; outside good; differentiated products

JEL Codes: C15; C82; D12; D43


  • Armantier, O., and O. Richard. 2008. “Domestic Airline Alliances and Consumer Welfare.” The RAND Journal of Economics 39(3):875–904.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berry, S. T. 1990. “Airport Presence as Product Differentiation.” The American Economic Review 80(2):394–99.Google Scholar

  • Berry, S. T. 1994. “Estimating Discrete Choice Models of Product Differentiation.” The RAND Journal of Economics 25(2):242–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berry, S. T., M. Carnall, and P. Spiller. 2006. “Airline Hubs: Costs, Markups and the Implications of Customer Heterogeneity.” In Advances in Airline Economics. Vol. 1 of Competition Policy and Anti-Trust, edited by D. Lee. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing LTD.Google Scholar

  • Berry, S. T., J. Levinsohn, and A. Pakes. 1995. “Automobile Price in Market Equilibrium” Econometrica 63(4):841–90.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berry, S. T., J. Levinsohn, and A. Pakes. 1999. “Voluntary Export Restraints on Automobiles: Evaluating a Trade Policy.” The American Economic Review 89(3):400–30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chamberlain, G. 1982. “Multivariate Regression Models for Panel Data.” Journal of Econometrics 1:5–46.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chu, C., P. Leslie, and A. Sorensen. 2011. “Bundle-Size Pricing as an Approximation to Mixed Bundling.” The American Economic Review 101(1):263–303.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dube, J. P., J. Fox, and C. Su. 2012. “Improving the Numerical Performance of BLP Static and Dynamic Discrete Choice Random Coefficients Demand Estimation.” Econometrica 80(5):2231–67.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Gorman, W. M. 1959. “Separable Utility and Aggregation.” Econometrica 27(3):469–81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hausman, J., G. Leonard, and J. D. Zona. 1994. “Competitive Analysis with Differentiated Products.” Annals of Economics and Statistics 34:159–80.Google Scholar

  • Huang, D., and C. Rojas. 2013. “The Outside Good Bias in Logit Models of Demand with Aggregate Data.” Economics Bulletin 33:198–206.Google Scholar

  • Kim, K., and A. Petrin. 2010. “Control Function Corrections for Unobserved Factors in Differentiated Product Models.”Working Paper, University of Minnesota and NBER.Google Scholar

  • Mundlak, Y. 1978. “On the Pooling of Time Series and Cross Section Data.” Econometrica 46:69–85.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nevo, A. 2000. “A Practitioner’s Guide to Estimation of Random Coefficients Logit Models of Demand.” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 9(4):513–48.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nevo, A. 2001. “Measuring Market Power in the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry.” Econometrica 69(2):307–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Park, S., and S. Gupta. 2009. “Simulated Maximum Likelihood Estimator for the Random Coefficient Logit Model Using Aggregate Data.” Journal of Marketing Research 46(4):531–42.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Petrin, A., and K. Train. 2010. “A Control Function Approach to Endogeneity in Consumer Choice Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 47(1):3–13.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Reiss, P. C., and F. A. Wolak. 2007. “Structural Econometric Modeling: Rationales and Examples from Industrial Organizations.” In Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 6A, edited by J.J. Heckman and L. Edward. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Press.Google Scholar

  • Wooldridge, J. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2014-08-08

Published in Print: 2014-01-01

Citation Information: Review of Marketing Science, Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 1–36, ISSN (Online) 1546-5616, ISSN (Print) 2194-5985, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/roms-2013-0016.

Export Citation

©2014 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Pierre Dubois and Laura Lasio
American Economic Review, 2018, Volume 108, Number 12, Page 3685
Pauline Givord, Céline Grislain-Letrémy, and Helene Naegele
Energy Economics, 2018
Paula S.W. Rolim, Humberto F.A.J. Bettini, and Alessandro V.M. Oliveira
Journal of Air Transport Management, 2016, Volume 54, Page 31

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in