IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iamodp/91768.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Untersuchung Der Präferenzen Russischer Fachbesucher Für Ausgewählte Messeleistungen

Author

Listed:
  • Moser, Nataliya

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of preferences of Russian trade visitors for selected exhibit attributes. We used Choice Based Conjoint Analysis to establish realistic measurement of choice tasks and hence to determine respondents behaviour. By conducting latent class analysis we extracted two segments of Russian trade visitors with different preferences for price, web presence, business program, presentations and visitor-service.

Suggested Citation

  • Moser, Nataliya, 2009. "Untersuchung Der Präferenzen Russischer Fachbesucher Für Ausgewählte Messeleistungen," IAMO Discussion Papers 91768, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iamodp:91768
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.91768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/91768/files/dp124.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.91768?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. Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber, 2007. "Conjoint Analysis as an Instrument of Market Research Practice," Springer Books, in: Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber (ed.), Conjoint Measurement, edition 0, chapter 1, pages 3-30, Springer.
    2. Wayne S. DeSarbo & Christian F. DeSarbo, 2007. "A Generalized Normative Segmentation Methodology Employing Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, in: Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber (ed.), Conjoint Measurement, edition 0, chapter 16, pages 321-345, Springer.
    3. Rinus Haaijer & Michel Wedel, 2007. "Conjoint Choice Experiments: General Characteristics and Alternative Model Specifications," Springer Books, in: Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber (ed.), Conjoint Measurement, edition 0, chapter 11, pages 199-229, Springer.
    4. 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.
    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. Möser, Nataliya, 2009. "Untersuchung der Präferenzen russischer Fachbesucher für ausgewählte Messeleistungen [Analysis of preferences of Russian trade visitors for selected exhibit attributes]," IAMO Discussion Papers 124, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    2. repec:zbw:iamodp:91768 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Kick, Markus & Littich, Martina, 2015. "Brand and Reputation as Quality Signals on Regulated Markets," EconStor Preprints 182503, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Atallah, Shadi S. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Leahy, Jessica & Bennett, Karen, 2020. "Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304623, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. 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.
    8. Hyunjoo Lee & Misuk Lee & Sesil Lim, 2018. "Do Consumers Care about the Energy Efficiency of Buildings? Understanding Residential Choice Based on Energy Performance Certificates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    9. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    10. Yoon, Moon Gil & Yoon, Duk Young & Yang, Tae Won, 2006. "Impact of e-business on air travel markets: Distribution of airline tickets in Korea," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 253-260.
    11. Norbert Bajkó & Zsolt Fülöp & Kinga Nagyné Pércsi, 2022. "Changes in the Innovation- and Marketing-Habits of Family SMEs in the Foodstuffs Industry, Caused by the Coronavirus Pandemic in Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Heap, Shaun P. Hargreaves & Koop, Christel & Matakos, Konstantinos & Unan, Asli & Weber, Nina Sophie, 2021. "We Cannot Disagree Forever! Reality Polarization and Citizens’ Post-Pandemic Fiscal Adjustment Preferences," SocArXiv 69tup, Center for Open Science.
    13. Emmanuel Olateju Oyatoye & Sulaimon Olanrewaju Adebiyi & Bilqis Bolanle Amole, 2013. "An Application of Conjoint Analysis to Consumer Preference for Beverage Products in Nigeria," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 9(6), pages 43-56, December.
    14. Krieger, Abba M. & Green, Paul E., 2006. "A tactical model for resource allocation and its application to advertising budgeting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(3), pages 935-949, May.
    15. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    16. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    17. Shakila Yasmin & Khaled Mahmud & Farzan Afrin, 2016. "Job Attribute Preference of Executives: A Conjoint Analysis," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(2), pages 1-68, February.
    18. Dean A. Shepherd & Holger Patzelt, 2015. "Harsh Evaluations of Entrepreneurs Who Fail: The Role of Sexual Orientation, Use of Environmentally Friendly Technologies, and Observers' Perspective Taking," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 253-284, March.
    19. Meixner, Oliver & Haas, Rainer & Pochtrager, Siegfried, 2007. "Importance and Relevance of Quality Labels in the Austrian Meat Supply Chain," 2007 1st Forum, February 15-17, 2007, Innsbruck, Austria 6598, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    20. Andreas Klein, 2011. "Die Entwicklung eines agentenbasierten Basismodells zur Bestimmung der deckungsbeitragsmaximierenden Anzahl von Außendienstmitarbeitern," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 189-210, January.
    21. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.

    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:ags:iamodp:91768. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iamoode.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.