IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorsoc/v62y2011i7d10.1057_jors.2010.70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer choice behaviour and new product development: an integrated market simulation approach

Author

Listed:
  • S Tsafarakis

    (Technical University of Crete, Kounoupidiana)

  • E Grigoroudis

    (Technical University of Crete, Kounoupidiana)

  • N Matsatsinis

    (Technical University of Crete, Kounoupidiana)

Abstract

The extremely high costs associated with the commercial failure of a new product, stresses the importance of a model that will effectively forecast the market penetration of a product at the design stage. The purpose of our study is to discover heuristics that will better explain market share, an issue of considerable concern to industry, which also, if successfully pursued, will increase the value of the analytical tools developed for managers. A method easy to implement is presented, which improves the value of market simulations in conjoint analysis. The proposed approach deals with two issues common to traditional market simulations in the context of conjoint analysis applications—the lack of differential impact of attributes across alternatives and the absence of accounting for differential substitution across brands (ie, the Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives problem). We deal with the first issue by ‘tuning’ utilities with individual level exponents, as opposed to a common exponent under the ‘ALPHA’ rule (the current state of the art approach). These exponents derive from the range, skewness and kurtosis of the distribution of utilities that a respondent assigns to various products. While these exponents are individual specific, the effects of the coefficients are assumed to be homogeneous across consumers to preserve model parsimony, while accounting for observed heterogeneity in the data. The second issue is studied in the model via a similarity ‘correction’ for each pair of products. The performance of the approach is validated both on real data from a market survey concerning milk, and on simulated data through the design of a Monte Carlo experiment. The results of the simulation for different market scenarios indicate that the approach appropriately exhibits the theoretical properties that are necessary for the efficient representation of consumer choice behaviour. In addition, the proposed model outperforms the state of the art methodology, as well as some more traditional approaches, with regard to the forecasting accuracy on market shares estimation, both on the real and the simulated data sets. The results obtained have important implications for marketing managers concerning the design of new products. A new concept can be tested before it enters the production stage, using data obtained from a market survey. The high predictive accuracy of the model may assist a firm in minimizing the uncertainty and risks associated with a new product launch. The case study with data from a real market survey, illustrates the practical applicability of the approach.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:62:y:2011:i:7:d:10.1057_jors.2010.70
    DOI: 10.1057/jors.2010.70
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/jors.2010.70
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/jors.2010.70?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. 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. Baltas, George & Doyle, Peter, 2001. "Random utility models in marketing research: a survey," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 115-125, February.
    3. Edgar Pessemier & Philip Burger & Richard Teach & Douglas Tigert, 1971. "Using Laboratory Brand Preference Scales to Predict Consumer Brand Purchases," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(6), pages 371-385, February.
    4. L S Thakur & S K Nair & K-W Wen & P Tarasewich, 2000. "A new model and solution method for product line design with pricing," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 51(1), pages 90-101, January.
    5. Huber, Joel & Puto, Christopher, 1983. "Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(1), pages 31-44, June.
    6. Matsatsinis, Nikolaos F. & Siskos, Yannis, 1999. "MARKEX: An intelligent decision support system for product development decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 336-354, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger, 1996. "Individualized Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(6), pages 850-867, June.
    9. Krieger, Abba M. & Green, P. E., 2002. "A decision support model for selecting product/service benefit positionings," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 187-202, October.
    10. R Fildes & K Nikolopoulos & S F Crone & A A Syntetos, 2008. "Forecasting and operational research: a review," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(9), pages 1150-1172, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    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. Julio López & Sebastián Maldonado & Ricardo Montoya, 2017. "Simultaneous preference estimation and heterogeneity control for choice-based conjoint via support vector machines," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(11), pages 1323-1334, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Goodwin, Paul & Meeran, Sheik & Dyussekeneva, Karima, 2014. "The challenges of pre-launch forecasting of adoption time series for new durable products," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 1082-1097.
    4. Sumeetha R. Natesan & Goutam Dutta, 2022. "A comparison of logarithmic goal programming and conjoint analysis to generate priority point vectors: an experimental approach," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 59(2), pages 518-549, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Xiong Xiaoqin & Cheng Aiguo, 2020. "Evaluation of Heavy Commercial Vehicles Brand Considering Multi-Attribute Indexes in China," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 8(4), pages 291-308, August.

    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. 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.
    2. Nasim Mousavi & Panagiotis Adamopoulos & Jesse Bockstedt, 2023. "The Decoy Effect and Recommendation Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1533-1553, December.
    3. Davies, Antony & Cline, Thomas W., 2005. "A consumer behavior approach to modeling monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 797-826, December.
    4. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2022. "The Attraction and Compromise Effects in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2987-3007, April.
    5. Sanjay Dominik Jena & Andrea Lodi & Claudio Sole, 2021. "On the estimation of discrete choice models to capture irrational customer behaviors," Papers 2109.03882, arXiv.org.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:7:p:593-601 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Christopher Shallow & Rumen Iliev & Douglas Medin, 2011. "Trolley problems in context," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 593-601, October.
    9. J-J Huang, 2009. "Revised behavioural models for riskless consumer choice," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1237-1243, September.
    10. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul, 2011. "Do consumers prefer offers that are easy to compare? An experimental investigation," Jena Economics Research Papers 2011-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    11. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    12. Diels, Jana Luisa & Wiebach, Nicole, 2011. "Customer reactions in Out-of-Stock situations: Do promotion-induced phantom positions alleviate the similarity substitution hypothsis?," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2011-021, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    13. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Dekker, Thijs, 2014. "Random regret minimization for consumer choice modeling: Assessment of empirical evidence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2428-2436.
    14. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly & Richard Batley, 2018. "Revisiting consistency with random utility maximisation: theory and implications for practical work," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 181-204, March.
    15. Gaudeul, Alexia & Crosetto, Paolo, 2019. "Fast then slow: A choice process explanation for the attraction effect," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 386, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    16. Moss, S. & Edmonds, B., 1997. "A knowledge-based model of context-dependent attribute preferences for fast moving consumer goods," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 155-169, April.
    17. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2009. "How to extend a model of probabilistic choice from binary choices to choices among more than two alternatives," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 330-332, December.
    18. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2012. "Probabilistic subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 47-50.
    19. Jerome R. Busemeyer & Jörg Rieskamp, 2014. "Psychological research and theories on preferential choice," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 3, pages 49-72, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Michalek, Jeremy J. & Ebbes, Peter & Adigüzel, Feray & Feinberg, Fred M. & Papalambros, Panos Y., 2011. "Enhancing marketing with engineering: Optimal product line design for heterogeneous markets," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-12.
    21. Kumar Padamwar, Pravesh & Kumar Kalakbandi, Vinay & Dawra, Jagrook, 2023. "Deliberation does not make the attraction effect disappear: The role of induced cognitive reflection," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    22. Heribert Gierl & Hans Höser, 2002. "Der Reihenfolgeeffekt auf Präferenzen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 3-18, February.

    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:pal:jorsoc:v:62:y:2011:i:7:d:10.1057_jors.2010.70. 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.palgrave-journals.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.