IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v56y2010i5p785-800.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reality Check: Combining Choice Experiments with Market Data to Estimate the Importance of Product Attributes

Author

Listed:
  • Eleanor McDonnell Feit

    (Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)

  • Mark A. Beltramo

    (General Motors Research and Development, Warren, Michigan 48090)

  • Fred M. Feinberg

    (Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)

Abstract

Discrete choice models estimated using hypothetical choices made in a survey setting (i.e., choice experiments) are widely used to estimate the importance of product attributes in order to make product design and marketing mix decisions. Choice experiments allow the researcher to estimate preferences for product features that do not yet exist in the market. However, parameters estimated from experimental data often show marked inconsistencies with those inferred from the market, reducing their usefulness in forecasting and decision making. We propose an approach for combining choice-based conjoint data with individual-level purchase data to produce estimates that are more consistent with the market. Unlike prior approaches for calibrating conjoint models so that they correctly predict aggregate market shares for a "baseline" market, the proposed approach is designed to produce parameters that are more consistent with those that can be inferred from individual-level market data. The proposed method relies on a new general framework for combining two or more sources of individual-level choice data to estimate a hierarchical discrete choice model. Past approaches to combining choice data assume that the population mean for the parameters is the same across both data sets and require that data sets are sampled from the same population. In contrast, we incorporate in the model individual characteristic variables, and assert only that the mapping between individuals' characteristics and their preferences is the same across the data sets. This allows the model to be applied even if the sample of individuals observed in each data set is not representative of the population as a whole, so long as appropriate product-use variables are collected that can explain the systematic deviations between them. The framework also explicitly incorporates a model for the individual characteristics, which allows us to use Bayesian missing-data techniques to handle the situation where each data set contains different demographic variables. This makes the method useful in practice for a wide range of existing market and conjoint data sets. We apply the method to a set of conjoint and market data for minivan choice and find that the proposed method predicts holdout market choices better than a model estimated from conjoint data alone or a model that does not include demographic variables.

Suggested Citation

  • Eleanor McDonnell Feit & Mark A. Beltramo & Fred M. Feinberg, 2010. "Reality Check: Combining Choice Experiments with Market Data to Estimate the Importance of Product Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 785-800, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:56:y:2010:i:5:p:785-800
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1136
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1136?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Timothy J. Gilbride & Peter J. Lenk & Jeff D. Brazell, 2008. "Market Share Constraints and the Loss Function in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 995-1011, 11-12.
    3. Brownstone, David & Bunch, David S. & Train, Kenneth, 2000. "Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 315-338, June.
    4. Arnaud De Bruyn & John C. Liechty & Eelko K. R. E. Huizingh & Gary L. Lilien, 2008. "Offering Online Recommendations with Minimum Customer Input Through Conjoint-Based Decision Aids," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 443-460, 05-06.
    5. V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
    6. McCulloch, Robert & Rossi, Peter E., 1994. "An exact likelihood analysis of the multinomial probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-2), pages 207-240.
    7. Bhat, Chandra R. & Castelar, Saul, 2002. "A unified mixed logit framework for modeling revealed and stated preferences: formulation and application to congestion pricing analysis in the San Francisco Bay area," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 593-616, August.
    8. Joffre Swait & Rick L. Andrews, 2003. "Enriching Scanner Panel Models with Choice Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 442-460, September.
    9. Glen L. Urban & John R. Hauser & John H. Roberts, 1990. "Prelaunch Forecasting of New Automobiles," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 401-421, April.
    10. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    11. Robert Zeithammer & Peter Lenk, 2006. "Bayesian estimation of multivariate-normal models when dimensions are absent," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 241-265, September.
    12. Zsolt Sándor & Michel Wedel, 2002. "Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 455-475, February.
    13. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    14. J. G. Ibrahim & S. R. Lipsitz & M.‐H. Chen, 1999. "Missing covariates in generalized linear models when the missing data mechanism is non‐ignorable," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 61(1), pages 173-190.
    15. Manski, Charles F & Lerman, Steven R, 1977. "The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(8), pages 1977-1988, November.
    16. Geraldine Fennell & Greg Allenby & Sha Yang & Yancy Edwards, 2003. "The Effectiveness of Demographic and Psychographic Variables for Explaining Brand and Product Category Use," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 223-244, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tin Cheuk Leung, 2013. "What Is the True Loss Due to Piracy? Evidence from Microsoft Office in Hong Kong," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1018-1029, July.
    2. Helveston, John Paul & Feit, Elea McDonnell & Michalek, Jeremy J., 2018. "Pooling stated and revealed preference data in the presence of RP endogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 70-89.
    3. Adelina Gschwandtner & Jose Eduardo Ribeiro & Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Michael Burton, 2021. "Combining Stated and Revealed Preferences for valuing Organic Chicken Meat," Studies in Economics 2113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    4. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    5. Christian Schlereth & Bernd Skiera, 2017. "Two New Features in Discrete Choice Experiments to Improve Willingness-to-Pay Estimation That Result in SDR and SADR: Separated (Adaptive) Dual Response," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 829-842, March.
    6. Min, Jihoon & Azevedo, Inês L. & Michalek, Jeremy & de Bruin, Wändi Bruine, 2014. "Labeling energy cost on light bulbs lowers implicit discount rates," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 42-50.
    7. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    8. Fred Feinberg & Elizabeth Bruch & Michael Braun & Brett Hemenway Falk & Nina Fefferman & Elea McDonnell Feit & John Helveston & Daniel Larremore & Blakeley B. McShane & Alice Patania & Mario L. Small, 2020. "Choices in networks: a research framework," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 349-359, December.
    9. Helveston, John Paul & Liu, Yimin & Feit, Elea McDonnell & Fuchs, Erica & Klampfl, Erica & Michalek, Jeremy J., 2015. "Will subsidies drive electric vehicle adoption? Measuring consumer preferences in the U.S. and China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 96-112.
    10. Yi Qian & Hui Xie, 2014. "Which Brand Purchasers Are Lost to Counterfeiters? An Application of New Data Fusion Approaches," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 437-448, May.
    11. Yi Qian & Hui Xie, 2011. "No Customer Left Behind: A Distribution-Free Bayesian Approach to Accounting for Missing Xs in Marketing Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 717-736, July.
    12. Peter Ebbes & Oded Netzer, 2022. "Using Social Network Activity Data to Identify and Target Job Seekers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 3026-3046, April.
    13. Adler, Nicole & Hanany, Eran, 2016. "Regulating inter-firm agreements: The case of airline codesharing in parallel networks," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 31-54.
    14. Islam, Towhidul & Meade, Nigel & Carson, Richard T. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Wang, Juan, 2022. "The usefulness of socio-demographic variables in predicting purchase decisions: Evidence from machine learning procedures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 324-338.
    15. Brathwaite, Timothy & Walker, Joan L., 2018. "Causal inference in travel demand modeling (and the lack thereof)," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-18.
    16. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    17. Daria Dzyabura & Srikanth Jagabathula & Eitan Muller, 2019. "Accounting for Discrepancies Between Online and Offline Product Evaluations," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 88-106, January.
    18. Gilbride, Timothy J. & Currim, Imran S. & Mintz, Ofer & Siddarth, S., 2016. "A Model for Inferring Market Preferences from Online Retail Product Information Matrices," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(4), pages 470-485.
    19. Robert P. Rooderkerk & Harald J. van Heerde & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2013. "Optimizing Retail Assortments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 699-715, September.

    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. Lynd Bacon & Peter Lenk, 2012. "Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 453-474, December.
    2. Daria Dzyabura & Srikanth Jagabathula & Eitan Muller, 2019. "Accounting for Discrepancies Between Online and Offline Product Evaluations," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 88-106, January.
    3. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    4. Helveston, John Paul & Feit, Elea McDonnell & Michalek, Jeremy J., 2018. "Pooling stated and revealed preference data in the presence of RP endogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 70-89.
    5. Train, Kenneth & Wilson, Wesley W., 2008. "Estimation on stated-preference experiments constructed from revealed-preference choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 191-203, March.
    6. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    7. Peter Lenk, 2014. "Bayesian estimation of random utility models," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 20, pages 457-497, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2011. "Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: An empirical study in air travel choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-79, January.
    9. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    10. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    11. Troske, Kenneth R. & Voicu, Alexandru, 2010. "Joint estimation of sequential labor force participation and fertility decisions using Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 150-169, January.
    12. Stephan Wachtel & Thomas Otter, 2013. "Successive Sample Selection and Its Relevance for Management Decisions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 170-185, September.
    13. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    14. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    15. Soda, Giuseppe & Zaheer, Akbar & Sun, Xiaoming & Cui, Wentian, 2021. "Brokerage evolution in innovation contexts: Formal structure, network neighborhoods and knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    16. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    17. Stephane Hess & John W. Polak, 2004. "An analysis of parking behaviour using discrete choice models calibrated on SP datasets," ERSA conference papers ersa04p60, European Regional Science Association.
    18. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    19. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    20. Hensher, David A., 2008. "Empirical approaches to combining revealed and stated preference data: Some recent developments with reference to urban mode choice," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 23-29, January.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:56:y:2010:i:5:p:785-800. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.