IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fgv/eaerae/v56y2016i2a60318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

As preferências do consumidor aplicando o método de máximas diferenças

Author

Listed:
  • Farías, Pablo
  • Fistrovic, Bruno

Abstract

This study aims to identify the most important attributes employed by consumers in Lima in the process of choosing wine. Furthermore, it seeks to identify differences between segments in these preferences. The methodology consists of a survey of wine consumers using the maximum difference method. The study is unique in Latin America, where there is a major gap in the wine market and where the maximum difference method is unexplored by managers and researchers. The results show that the most important attributes are related to the consumer’s prior experience with the wine, pairings, and recommendations. This article presents the implications for managers and marketing strategies in the context of Lima by age, socioeconomic, and gender group.

Suggested Citation

  • Farías, Pablo & Fistrovic, Bruno, 2016. "As preferências do consumidor aplicando o método de máximas diferenças," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 56(2), March.
    • Handle: RePEc:fgv:eaerae:v:56:y:2016:i:2:a:60318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/ojs/index.php/rae/article/view/60318
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    3. Office of Health Economics, 2007. "The Economics of Health Care," For School 001490, Office of Health Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    2. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    3. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Sarah, Acquah, 2014. "A National Survey of Consumer Preferences for Branded Gulf Oysters and Risk Perceptions of Gulf Seafood," Research Reports 190586, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    4. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    5. Simone Mueller & Larry Lockshin & Jordan Louviere, 2010. "What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 335-350, December.
    6. Cooper, Bethany & Crase, Lin & Rose, John M., 2018. "Cost-reflective pricing: empirical insights into irrigators’ preferences for water tariffs," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(2), April.
    7. Flynn, Terry Nicholas & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1957-1965, June.
    8. Erik Brynjolfsson & Avinash Collis & Felix Eggers, 2019. "Using massive online choice experiments to measure changes in well-being," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(15), pages 7250-7255, April.
    9. Soto, Jose R. & Adams, Damian C., 2012. "Estimating the Supply of Forest Carbon Offsets: A Comparison of Best- Worst and Discrete Choice Valuation Methods," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124830, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. T.N. Flynn & A.A.J. Marley, 2014. "Best-worst scaling: theory and methods," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 8, pages 178-201, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    12. Kruger, C. & Boxall, P.C. & Luckert, M.K., 2013. "Preferences of community public advisory group members for characteristics of Canadian forest tenures in pursuit of sustainable forest management objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 121-130.
    13. Hristov, Hristov & Kuhar, Ales, 2013. "Young Urban Adults' Preferences for Wine Attributes: An Exploratory Study of the Republic of Macedonia Wine Market Applying the Best-Worst Scaling," 2013 Conference: Tools for decision support in agriculture and rural development, April 18-19, 2013, Krško, Slovenia 183907, Slovenian Association of Agricultural Economists (DAES).
    14. Greiner, Romy, 2014. "Willingness of north Australian pastoralists and graziers to participate in contractual biodiversity conservation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165839, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Confraria, João & Ribeiro, Tiago & Vasconcelos, Helder, 2017. "Analysis of consumer preferences for mobile telecom plans using a discrete choice experiment," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 157-169.
    16. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    17. Greiner, Romy & Ballweg, Julie, 2013. "Estimating the supply of on-farm biodiversity conservation services by north Australian pastoralists: design of a choice experiment," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152153, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. N. Flynn, Terry & J. Peters, Tim & Coast, Joanna, 2013. "Quantifying response shift or adaptation effects in quality of life by synthesising best-worst scaling and discrete choice data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 34-43.
    19. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Julie Ratcliffe & Elisabeth Huynh & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer & Terry Flynn, 2016. "Nothing About Us Without Us? A Comparison of Adolescent and Adult Health‐State Values for the Child Health Utility‐9D Using Profile Case Best–Worst Scaling," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 486-496, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fgv:eaerae:v:56:y:2016:i:2:a:60318. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Núcleo de Computação da FGV EPGE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eagvfbr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.