IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v28y2017i2d10.1007_s11002-016-9402-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Brand-anchored discrete choice experiment (BDCE) vs. direct attribute rating (DAR): An empirical comparison of predictive validity

Author

Listed:
  • Mario Farsky

    (Ipsos Marketing)

  • Oliver Schnittka

    (University of Southern Denmark)

  • Henrik Sattler

    (University of Hamburg)

  • Björn Höfer

    (Ipsos Marketing)

  • Carina Lorth

    (University of Hamburg)

Abstract

The image of a brand provides a key driver of brand equity. To build and control a strong brand image though, brand managers require a valid procedure to measure it. This article empirically compares the predictive validity of two measurement techniques to assess brand image: First, a brand-anchored discrete choice experiment (BDCE) which is based on a brand-anchored conjoint approach where brands serve as the levels for any attribute and which was originally introduced as ranting-based approach by Louviere and Johnson Journal of Retailing, 66, 359–382 (1990) and further extended to a BDCE by Eckert et al. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29, 256–264 (2012). Second, a direct attribute rating (DAR) approach which is commonly used for commercial applications of brand image measurement. An empirical study using a representative sample of the German beer market shows that BDCE shows significantly higher levels of predictive validity (i.e., higher correlations with the actual market shares of the brands under investigation) than the widely used DAR method.

Suggested Citation

  • Mario Farsky & Oliver Schnittka & Henrik Sattler & Björn Höfer & Carina Lorth, 2017. "Brand-anchored discrete choice experiment (BDCE) vs. direct attribute rating (DAR): An empirical comparison of predictive validity," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 231-240, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:28:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11002-016-9402-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-016-9402-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11002-016-9402-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-016-9402-5?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. 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.
    2. Eckert, Christine & Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2012. "Seeing the forest despite the trees: Brand effects on choice uncertainty," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 256-264.
    3. DeSarbo, Wayne S, et al, 2002. "A Gravity-Based Multidimensional Scaling Model for Deriving Spatial Structures Underlying Consumer Preference/Choice Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(1), pages 91-100, 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. Demel, Simona & Longo, Alberto & Mariel, Petr, 2020. "Trading off visual disamenity for renewable energy: Willingness to pay for seaweed farming for energy production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    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. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    2. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    3. Dufhues, T. & Buchenrieder, G., 2004. "Der Beitrag der Conjoint Analyse zur nachfrageorintierten Entwicklung des ländlichen Finanzsektors in Vietnam," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 39.
    4. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. 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.
    6. Mahesh Balan U & Saji K. Mathew, 2021. "Personalize, Summarize or Let them Read? A Study on Online Word of Mouth Strategies and Consumer Decision Process," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 627-647, June.
    7. Shin, Jungwoo & Hwang, Won-Sik, 2017. "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for a renewable fuel standard (RFS) policy: Focusing on ex-ante market analysis and segmentation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 32-40.
    8. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    9. Ha, Jinkyung, 2018. "Consumer valuation of Fintech: The case of Mobile Payment in Korea," 22nd ITS Biennial Conference, Seoul 2018. Beyond the boundaries: Challenges for business, policy and society 190341, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    10. P. A. Ferrari & S. Salini, 2008. "Measuring Service Quality: The Opinion of Europeans about Utilities," Working Papers 2008.36, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    11. Steinhorst, M.P. & Bahrs, E., 2013. "Renditansprüche im Kontext gleichmäßiger Rückflüsse – Ergebnisse eines Experiments mit Stakeholdern des Agribusiness," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 48, March.
    12. Yavuz Taşcıoğlu & Mevlüt Gül & Metin Göksel Akpınar & Bahri Karlı & Bektaş Kadakoğlu & Bekir Sıtkı Şirikçi & Musa Acar & Hilal Yılmaz, 2023. "Optimum Support Policy Component for the Development of Agricultural Production: Potato Producer," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, April.
    13. 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.
    14. T Drezner & Z Drezner, 2008. "Lost demand in a competitive environment," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(3), pages 362-371, March.
    15. Srinivasan, V. Seenu & Netzer, Oded, 2007. "Adaptive Self-Explication of Multi-attribute Preferences," Research Papers 1979, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    16. Fusco, Elisa, 2023. "Potential improvements approach in composite indicators construction: The Multi-directional Benefit of the Doubt model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    17. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    19. Robert S. Wigton & Vincent L. Hoellerich & Kashinath D. Patil, 1986. "How Physicians Use Clinical Information in Diagnosing Pulmonary Embolism," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 6(1), pages 2-11, February.
    20. Kowalska-Pyzalska, Anna & Michalski, Rafał & Kott, Marek & Skowrońska-Szmer, Anna & Kott, Joanna, 2022. "Consumer preferences towards alternative fuel vehicles. Results from the conjoint analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(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:28:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11002-016-9402-5. 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.