IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v16y2005i3p197-208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adjusting Choice Models to Better Predict Market Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Greg Allenby
  • Geraldine Fennell
  • Joel Huber
  • Thomas Eagle
  • Tim Gilbride
  • Dan Horsky
  • Jaehwan Kim
  • Peter Lenk
  • Rich Johnson
  • Elie Ofek
  • Bryan Orme
  • Thomas Otter
  • Joan Walker

Abstract

The emergence of Bayesian methodology has facilitated respondent-level conjoint models, and deriving utilities from choice experiments has become very popular among those modeling product line decisions or new product introductions. This review begins with a paradox of why experimental choices should mirror market behavior despite clear differences in content, structure and motivation. It then addresses ways to design the choice tasks so that they are more likely to reflect market choices. Finally, it examines ways to model the results of the choice experiments to better mirror both underlying decision processes and potential market choices. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Suggested Citation

  • Greg Allenby & Geraldine Fennell & Joel Huber & Thomas Eagle & Tim Gilbride & Dan Horsky & Jaehwan Kim & Peter Lenk & Rich Johnson & Elie Ofek & Bryan Orme & Thomas Otter & Joan Walker, 2005. "Adjusting Choice Models to Better Predict Market Behavior," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 197-208, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:16:y:2005:i:3:p:197-208
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-005-5885-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11002-005-5885-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-005-5885-1?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elie Ofek & V. Srinivasan, 2002. "How Much Does the Market Value an Improvement in a Product Attribute?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 398-411, June.
    2. Peter J. Lenk & Ambar G. Rao, 1990. "New Models from Old: Forecasting Product Adoption by Hierarchical Bayes Procedures," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 42-53.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    4. Huber, Joel & Ariely, Dan & Fischer, Gregory, 2002. "Expressing Preferences in a Principal-Agent Task: A Comparison of Choice, Rating, and Matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 66-90, January.
    5. Greg M. Allenby & Thomas S. Shively & Sha Yang & Mark J. Garratt, 2004. "A Choice Model for Packaged Goods: Dealing with Discrete Quantities and Quantity Discounts," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 95-108, June.
    6. David R. Bell & James M. Lattin, 2000. "Looking for Loss Aversion in Scanner Panel Data: The Confounding Effect of Price Response Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 185-200, May.
    7. Toubia, Olivier & Hauser, John & Simester, Duncan, 2003. "Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Working papers 4285-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    8. Dan Horsky & Paul Nelson, 1992. "New Brand Positioning and Pricing in an Oligopolistic Market," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 133-153.
    9. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    10. Jaehwan Kim & Greg M. Allenby & Peter E. Rossi, 2002. "Modeling Consumer Demand for Variety," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 229-250, December.
    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. Olga C. Damman & Peter Spreeuwenberg & Jany Rademakers & Michelle Hendriks, 2012. "Creating Compact Comparative Health Care Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(2), pages 287-300, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Richard T. Gretz & Ashwin Malshe & Carlos Bauer & Suman Basuroy, 2019. "The impact of superstar and non-superstar software on hardware sales: the moderating role of hardware lifecycle," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 394-416, May.
    4. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta & Notaro, Sandra, 2010. "The Role Of Production Methods In Fruit Purchasing Behaviour: Hypothetical Vs Actual Consumers’ Preferences And Stated Minimum Requirements," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116426, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Eline Jongmans & Alain Jolibert & Julie Irwin, 2014. "Estimation du poids d'un attribut environnemental : influence et effet des mesures d'évaluation," Post-Print halshs-01185772, HAL.
    6. Juan Carlos Leyva López & Jesús Jaime Solano Noriega & Omar Ahumada Valenzuela & Alma Montserrat Romero Serrano, 2022. "A preference choice model for the new product design problem," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1-32, September.
    7. Allenby, Greg M., 2017. "Structural forecasts for marketing data," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 433-441.
    8. Benedikt M. Brand & Theresa Maria Rausch & Jannika Brandel, 2022. "The Importance of Sustainability Aspects When Purchasing Online: Comparing Generation X and Generation Z," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-28, May.
    9. Banelis, Melissa & Riebe, Erica & Rungie, Campbell M., 2013. "Empirical evidence of repertoire size," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 59-65.
    10. Steve Berry & Ahmed Khwaja & Vineet Kumar & Andres Musalem & Kenneth Wilbur & Greg Allenby & Bharat Anand & Pradeep Chintagunta & W. Hanemann & Przemek Jeziorski & Angelo Mele, 2014. "Structural models of complementary choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 245-256, September.
    11. Daniel Berki-Kiss & Klaus Menrad, 2019. "Consumer Preferences of Sustainability Labeled Cut Roses in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, June.
    12. 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.
    13. S Tsafarakis & E Grigoroudis & N Matsatsinis, 2011. "Consumer choice behaviour and new product development: an integrated market simulation approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(7), pages 1253-1267, July.
    14. Eline Jongmans & Alain Jolibert & Julie Irwin, 2014. "Toujours plus, toujours mieux ? Effet contre-intuitif de l'évaluation des attributs environnementaux du produit par le consommateur," Post-Print halshs-01185784, HAL.

    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. 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.
    2. Ahn, Jiwoon & Jeong, Gicheol & Kim, Yeonbae, 2008. "A forecast of household ownership and use of alternative fuel vehicles: A multiple discrete-continuous choice approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 2091-2104, September.
    3. Greg M. Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John R. Howell & Peter E. Rossi, 2014. "Valuation of Patented Product Features," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(3), pages 629-663.
    4. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    5. Huber, Joel & Viscusi, W. Kip & Bell, Jason, 2008. "Reference dependence in iterative choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 143-152, July.
    6. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    7. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Carola Grebitus & Maria Facendola, 2011. "Consumers' preferences for geographical origin labels: evidence from the Canadian olive oil market," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(2), pages 193-212, June.
    8. Bhat, Chandra R., 2008. "The multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model: Role of utility function parameters, identification considerations, and model extensions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 274-303, March.
    9. Woojae Kim & Sungmin Ko & Myoungjin Oh & Ie-jung Choi & Jungwoo Shin, 2019. "Is an Incentive Policy for Energy Efficient Products Effective for Air Purifiers? The Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, May.
    10. John R. Hauser & Felix Eggers & Matthew Selove, 2019. "The Strategic Implications of Scale in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 1059-1081, November.
    11. Bechler, Georg & Steinhardt, Claudius & Mackert, Jochen & Klein, Robert, 2021. "Product line optimization in the presence of preferences for compromise alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 902-917.
    12. Jong-Wen Wann & Chia-Yung Kao & Yu-Chen Yang, 2018. "Consumer Preferences of Locally Grown Specialty Crop: The Case of Taiwan Coffee," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    13. Elie Ofek & V. Srinivasan, 2002. "How Much Does the Market Value an Improvement in a Product Attribute?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 398-411, June.
    14. Sergi Jiménez-Martín & Antonio Ladrón de Guevara-Martínez, 2009. "A state-dependent model of hybrid behavior with rational consumers in the attribute space," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 33(3), pages 347-383, September.
    15. Franke, Melanie & Nadler, Claudia, 2019. "Energy efficiency in the German residential housing market: Its influence on tenants and owners," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 879-890.
    16. Cai, Zhen & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2013. "Meta-analysis of consumer's willingness-to-pay premiums for certified wood products," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 15-31.
    17. Lee, Daeho & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Sangwon, 2015. "Network management in the era of convergence: Focusing on application-based quality assessment of Internet access service," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 705-716.
    18. Yonezawa, Koichi & Richards, Timothy J., 2016. "Competitive Package Size Decisions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(4), pages 445-469.
    19. Chul-Yong Lee & Sung-Yoon Huh, 2017. "Forecasting Long-Term Crude Oil Prices Using a Bayesian Model with Informative Priors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-15, January.
    20. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).

    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:kap:mktlet:v:16:y:2005:i:3:p:197-208. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.