IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v18y1999i4p584-604.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

MDS Maps for Product Attributes and Market Response: An Application to Scanner Panel Data

Author

Listed:
  • Rick L. Andrews

    (Department of Business Administration, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716)

  • Ajay K. Manrai

    (Department of Business Administration, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716)

Abstract

There is theoretical and empirical evidence that consumers have limited cognitive resources and thus cannot maintain direct preferences for each choice alternative on the store shelves. Instead, they likely form their overall preferences for choice alternatives by evaluating the attributes describing each item. Rather than mapping the locations of and preferences for all choice alternatives in a multidimensional space, as is the current practice in marketing research, it is insightful to map the locations of and preferences for the attributes consumers use to evaluate the choice alternatives. The model proposed in this study unifies latent class preference models (choice models or conjoint models) with latent class multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis. Dimensional restrictions are imposed on latent class preference models such that the locations of attribute levels and market response parameters can be mapped in reduced-dimension spaces. Interactions between attributes can be graphically examined, which is not feasible with the traditional MDS approach. Also, the effects of price reductions and promotions on the locations of attribute levels can be graphically examined. An empirical application with scanner panel data shows the capabilities and limitations of the proposed model. In addition to the managerial insights provided by the model, it is also much more parsimonious than existing methods, and it forecasts holdout choices significantly better. In the empirical application, a model with two-dimensional attribute maps has 50 fewer parameters than the best unrestricted latent class choice model, yet the fit is comparable. The predictive performance of our model is shown to be superior to that of latent class MDS approaches and latent class conjoint approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Rick L. Andrews & Ajay K. Manrai, 1999. "MDS Maps for Product Attributes and Market Response: An Application to Scanner Panel Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 584-604.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:18:y:1999:i:4:p:584-604
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.18.4.584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.18.4.584
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.18.4.584?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. Wayne DeSarbo & Vithala R. Rao, 1986. "A Constrained Unfolding Methodology for Product Positioning," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19.
    2. Wedel, Michel & DeSarbo, Wayne S, 1996. "An Exponential-Family Multidimensional Scaling Mixture Methodology," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 14(4), pages 447-459, October.
    3. Kohsuke Ogawa, 1987. "An Approach to Simultaneous Estimation and Segmentation in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 66-81.
    4. Wayne S. DeSarbo & J. Douglas Carroll & Donald R. Lehmann & John O'Shaughnessy, 1982. "Three-Way Multivariate Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 323-350.
    5. Wayne DeSarbo & Daniel Howard & Kamel Jedidi, 1991. "Multiclus: A new method for simultaneously performing multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 121-136, March.
    6. Terry Elrod, 1988. "Choice Map: Inferring a Product-Market Map from Panel Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 21-40.
    7. Geert Soete & Suzanne Winsberg, 1993. "A latent class vector model for preference ratings," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 10(2), pages 195-218, December.
    8. Geert Soete & Willem Heiser, 1993. "A latent class unfolding model for analyzing single stimulus preference ratings," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 545-565, 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. 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.
    2. Keane, Michael P. & Wasi, Nada, 2016. "How to model consumer heterogeneity? Lessons from three case studies on SP and RP data," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 197-231.
    3. Anocha Aribarg & Thomas Otter & Daniel Zantedeschi & Greg M. Allenby & Taylor Bentley & David J. Curry & Marc Dotson & Ty Henderson & Elisabeth Honka & Rajeev Kohli & Kamel Jedidi & Stephan Seiler & X, 2018. "Advancing Non-compensatory Choice Models in Marketing," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(1), pages 82-92, March.
    4. Ashish Sinha & J. Jeffrey Inman & Yantao Wang & Joonwook Park & Gerard J. Tellis & Rajesh K. Chandy & Deborah MacInnis & Pattana Thaivanich, 2005. "Practice Prize Reports," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 351-366, September.
    5. Dean C. H. Wilkie & Lester W. Johnson & Wynne W. Chin, 2018. "Does the type of attribute matter? Examining whether underlying factors explain product attribute preference," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 25(4), pages 305-321, July.
    6. Ma, Li-Ching, 2010. "Visualizing preferences on spheres for group decisions based on multiplicative preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(1), pages 176-184, May.
    7. Franz Hackl & Michael Hölzl-Leitner & Dieter Pennerstorfer, 2021. "How to Measure Product Differentiation," Economics working papers 2021-01, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    8. Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Panel data discrete choice models of consumer demand," Economics Papers 2013-W08, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    9. Ma, Li-Ching, 2012. "Screening alternatives graphically by an extended case-based distance approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 96-103, January.
    10. González-Benito, Óscar & Martínez-Ruiz, María Pilar & Mollá-Descals, Alejandro, 2009. "Using store level scanner data to improve category management decisions: Developing positioning maps," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(2), pages 666-674, October.
    11. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    12. J. Vera & Rodrigo Macías & Willem Heiser, 2009. "A Latent Class Multidimensional Scaling Model for Two-Way One-Mode Continuous Rating Dissimilarity Data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 297-315, June.

    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. DeSarbo, Wayne S. & Selin Atalay, A. & Blanchard, Simon J., 2009. "A three-way clusterwise multidimensional unfolding procedure for the spatial representation of context dependent preferences," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 3217-3230, June.
    2. J. Vera & Rodrigo Macías & Willem Heiser, 2013. "Cluster Differences Unfolding for Two-Way Two-Mode Preference Rating Data," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 30(3), pages 370-396, October.
    3. J. Vera & Rodrigo Macías & Willem Heiser, 2009. "A Latent Class Multidimensional Scaling Model for Two-Way One-Mode Continuous Rating Dissimilarity Data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 297-315, June.
    4. Junghyun Park & Minki Kim & Pradeep K Chintagunta, 2022. "Mapping Consumers’ Context-Dependent Consumption Preferences: A Multidimensional Unfolding Approach [An Empirical Comparison of Logit Choice Models with Discrete versus Continuous Representations o," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 49(2), pages 202-228.
    5. Joonwook Park & Priyali Rajagopal & Wayne DeSarbo, 2012. "A New Heterogeneous Multidimensional Unfolding Procedure," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 263-287, April.
    6. Tomoya Okubo & Shin-ichi Mayekawa, 2015. "Modeling Viewpoint Shifts in Probabilistic Choice," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 412-427, June.
    7. Douglas Clarkson & Richard Gonzalez, 2001. "Random effects diagonal metric multidimensional scaling models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 66(1), pages 25-43, March.
    8. Joonwook Park & Wayne DeSarbo & John Liechty, 2008. "A Hierarchical Bayesian Multidimensional Scaling Methodology for Accommodating Both Structural and Preference Heterogeneity," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 451-472, September.
    9. Duncan Fong & Wayne DeSarbo & Zhe Chen & Zhuying Xu, 2015. "A Bayesian Vector Multidimensional Scaling Procedure Incorporating Dimension Reparameterization with Variable Selection," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(4), pages 1043-1065, December.
    10. Kamel Jedidi & Wayne DeSarbo, 1991. "A stochastic multidimensional scaling procedure for the spatial representation of three-mode, three-way pick any/J data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(3), pages 471-494, September.
    11. Vichi, Maurizio & Kiers, Henk A. L., 2001. "Factorial k-means analysis for two-way data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 49-64, July.
    12. Wayne DeSarbo & Robert Madrigal, 2012. "Exploring the Demand Aspects of Sports Consumption and Fan Avidity," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 42(2), pages 199-212, April.
    13. Elrod, Terry & Keane, Michael, 1995. "A Factor-Analytic Probit Model for Representing the Market Structure in Panel Data," MPRA Paper 52434, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Wayne DeSarbo & Michael Johnson & Ajay Manrai & Lalita Manrai & Elizabeth Edwards, 1992. "Tscale: A new multidimensional scaling procedure based on tversky's contrast model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 57(1), pages 43-69, March.
    15. Pradeep Chintagunta & Jean-Pierre Dubé & Vishal Singh, 2003. "Balancing Profitability and Customer Welfare in a Supermarket Chain," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 111-147, March.
    16. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    17. Karsten Hansen & Vishal Singh & Pradeep Chintagunta, 2006. "Understanding Store-Brand Purchase Behavior Across Categories," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 75-90, 01-02.
    18. Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.
    19. 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.
    20. Rosa Bernardini Papalia & Silvia Bertarelli, 2013. "Nonlinearities in economic growth and club convergence," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 1171-1202, June.

    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:inm:ormksc:v:18:y:1999:i:4:p:584-604. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.