IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v37y2020ics1755534520300476.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice data generation using usage scenarios and discounted cash flow analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Ungki
  • Kang, Namwoo
  • Lee, Ikjin

Abstract

Discrete choice analysis is a popular method of estimating heterogeneous customer preferences. Although model accuracy can be increased by including more choice data, this option is untenable when the obtaining of choice data from target customers is costly and time-consuming.. We thus propose a method for choice data generation for commercial products whose expected money value is a key factor in consumer choice (e.g., commercial vehicles and financial product). Using an individual usage scenario, we generate a discounted cash flow (DCF) model instead of a utility model to estimate the discount rates, rather than partworths, of individual consumers. The DCF model helps us generate synthetic choice data from choice sets consisting of various combinations of attribute levels. Using these data, we employ a hierarchical Bayesian (HB) discrete choice analysis. We conclude the study with a case study on the preference estimation of a hybrid courier truck conversion. The results reveal that the DCF-based HB estimation outperforms the traditional HB estimation.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Ungki & Kang, Namwoo & Lee, Ikjin, 2020. "Choice data generation using usage scenarios and discounted cash flow analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:37:y:2020:i:c:s1755534520300476
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2020.100250
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534520300476
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2020.100250?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. Kim Darby & Marvin T. Batte & Stan Ernst & Brian Roe, 2008. "Decomposing Local: A Conjoint Analysis of Locally Produced Foods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 476-486.
    2. John Bridges & Elizabeth Kinter & Lillian Kidane & Rebekah Heinzen & Colleen McCormick, 2008. "Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 273-282, October.
    3. Halbrendt, Catherine K. & Wirth, Ferdinand F. & Vaughn, Gerald F., 1991. "Conjoint Analysis Of The Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market For Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-9, July.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    5. Gallagher, Kelly Sims & Muehlegger, Erich, 2011. "Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Oded Netzer & Olivier Toubia & Eric Bradlow & Ely Dahan & Theodoros Evgeniou & Fred Feinberg & Eleanor Feit & Sam Hui & Joseph Johnson & John Liechty & James Orlin & Vithala Rao, 2008. "Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 337-354, December.
    7. Theresa Kuchler & Basit Zafar, 2019. "Personal Experiences and Expectations about Aggregate Outcomes," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 74(5), pages 2491-2542, October.
    8. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    9. Stewart C. Myers, 1984. "Finance Theory and Financial Strategy," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 126-137, February.
    10. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.
    11. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    12. Saul Pleeter & John T. Warner, 2001. "The Personal Discount Rate: Evidence from Military Downsizing Programs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 33-53, March.
    13. Theodoros Evgeniou & Massimiliano Pontil & Olivier Toubia, 2007. "A Convex Optimization Approach to Modeling Consumer Heterogeneity in Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 805-818, 11-12.
    14. Wee, Hui-Ming & Law, Sh-Tyan, 2001. "Replenishment and pricing policy for deteriorating items taking into account the time-value of money," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1-3), pages 213-220, May.
    15. Ulrike Malmendier & Stefan Nagel, 2016. "Learning from Inflation Experiences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(1), pages 53-87.
    16. Remer, Donald S. & Nieto, Armando P., 1995. "A compendium and comparison of 25 project evaluation techniques. Part 1: Net present value and rate of return methods," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 79-96, November.
    17. Wong, Timothy & Brownstone, David & Bunch, David S., 2019. "Aggregation biases in discrete choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 210-221.
    18. Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
    19. Halbrendt, C.K. & Wirth, F.F. & Vaughn, G.F., 1991. "Conjoint Analysis of the Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market for Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 155-163, July.
    20. Caputo, Vincenzina & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Are preferences for food quality attributes really normally distributed? An analysis using flexible mixing distributions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 10-27.
    21. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2011. "Estimation methods for choice-based conjoint analysis of consumer preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 160-167, October.
    22. Hein, Maren & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2019. "On the effect of HB covariance matrix prior settings: A simulation study," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 51-72.
    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. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2011. "Estimation methods for choice-based conjoint analysis of consumer preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 160-167, October.
    2. Díaz, Verónica & Montoya, Ricardo & Maldonado, Sebastián, 2023. "Preference estimation under bounded rationality: Identification of attribute non-attendance in stated-choice data using a support vector machines approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 797-812.
    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. 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.
    5. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    6. Maldonado, Sebastián & Montoya, Ricardo & Weber, Richard, 2015. "Advanced conjoint analysis using feature selection via support vector machines," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(2), pages 564-574.
    7. 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.
    8. Lüthi, Sonja & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2012. "The price of policy risk — Empirical insights from choice experiments with European photovoltaic project developers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1001-1011.
    9. Karlson Pfannschmidt & Pritha Gupta & Bjorn Haddenhorst & Eyke Hullermeier, 2019. "Learning Context-Dependent Choice Functions," Papers 1901.10860, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    10. Weber, Anett & Steiner, Winfried J., 2021. "Modeling price response from retail sales: An empirical comparison of models with different representations of heterogeneity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(3), pages 843-859.
    11. Meeran, Sheik & Jahanbin, Semco & Goodwin, Paul & Quariguasi Frota Neto, Joao, 2017. "When do changes in consumer preferences make forecasts from choice-based conjoint models unreliable?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 512-524.
    12. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    13. 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.
    14. Kessels, Roselinde & Jones, Bradley & Goos, Peter, 2019. "Using Firth's method for model estimation and market segmentation based on choice data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 1-21.
    15. Yupeng Chen & Raghuram Iyengar & Garud Iyengar, 2017. "Modeling Multimodal Continuous Heterogeneity in Conjoint Analysis—A Sparse Learning Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 140-156, January.
    16. KESSELS, Roselinde & JONES, Bradley & GOOS, Peter, 2013. "An argument for preferring Firth bias-adjusted estimates in aggregate and individual-level discrete choice modeling," Working Papers 2013013, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    17. Katharina Keller & Christian Schlereth & Oliver Hinz, 2021. "Sample-based longitudinal discrete choice experiments: preferences for electric vehicles over time," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 482-500, May.
    18. Oded Netzer & Olivier Toubia & Eric Bradlow & Ely Dahan & Theodoros Evgeniou & Fred Feinberg & Eleanor Feit & Sam Hui & Joseph Johnson & John Liechty & James Orlin & Vithala Rao, 2008. "Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 337-354, December.
    19. Michael Yee & Ely Dahan & John R. Hauser & James Orlin, 2007. "Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 532-549, 07-08.
    20. Theresa Kuchler & Monika Piazzesi & Johannes Stroebel, 2022. "Housing Market Expectations," CESifo Working Paper Series 9665, CESifo.

    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:eee:eejocm:v:37:y:2020:i:c:s1755534520300476. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.