IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v21y2002i4p398-411.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Much Does the Market Value an Improvement in a Product Attribute?

Author

Listed:
  • Elie Ofek

    (Harvard Business School, Soldiers Field, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • V. Srinivasan

    (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305–5015)

Abstract

A firm contemplating improvements to its product attributes would be interested in the dollar value the market attaches to any potential product modification. In this paper, we derive a measure of market value such that the comparison of the measure against the incremental unit cost of the attribute improvement is key in deciding whether or not the attribute improvement is profitable. Competition from other brands, the potential for market expansion, and heterogeneity in customer preference structures are explicitly modeled using the multinomial logit framework. The analysis yields a closed form expression for the market's value for an attribute improvement (MVAI). A key result we obtain is that customers should be differentially weighted based on their probability of purchasing the firm's product. In particular, customers who exhibit a very high or very low probability of choosing the firm's product should receive less weight in detemining MVAI. Because the probability of choice varies across products, the answer to the question of how much the market values an improvement depends on which firm is asking the question. It is shown that customers whose utilities have a greater random component should be weighted less. Furthermore, the measure developed is robust to the influence of outliers in the sample. An empirical illustration of the MVAI measure in the context of a new product development study is provided. The study illustrates the advantages of the proposed measure over currently used approaches and explores the possibility of competitive price reactions.

Suggested Citation

  • Elie Ofek & V. Srinivasan, 2002. "How Much Does the Market Value an Improvement in a Product Attribute?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 398-411, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:21:y:2002:i:4:p:398-411
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.21.4.398.130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.21.4.398.130
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.21.4.398.130?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. John R. Hauser & Steven M. Shugan, 2008. "Defensive Marketing Strategies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 88-110, 01-02.
    2. Dennis H. Gensch, 1984. "Targeting the Switchable Industrial Customer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 41-54.
    3. 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.
    4. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    5. V. Srinivasan, 1979. "Network Models for Estimating Brand-Specific Effects in Multi-Attribute Marketing Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 11-21, January.
    6. Dan Horsky & Paul Nelson, 1992. "New Brand Positioning and Pricing in an Oligopolistic Market," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 133-153.
    7. S. Chan Choi & Wayne S. Desarbo & Patrick T. Harker, 1990. "Product Positioning Under Price Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(2), pages 175-199, February.
    8. Asim Ansari & Nicholas Economides & Avijit Ghosh, 1994. "Competitive Positioning in Markets with Nonuniform Preferences," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 248-273.
    9. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki & Shiroishi, Fumiaki, 1992. "Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 149-164, March.
    10. Novshek, William & Sonnenschein, Hugo, 1979. "Marginal Consumers and Neoclassical Demand Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(6), pages 1368-1376, December.
    11. Steven T. Berry, 1994. "Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 242-262, Summer.
    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. Voleti, Sudhir & Srinivasan, V. & Ghosh, Pulak, 2017. "An approach to improve the predictive power of choice-based conjoint analysis," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 325-335.
    2. Luc Wathieu & Marco Bertini, 2007. "Price as a Stimulus to Think: The Case for Willful Overpricing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 118-129, 01-02.
    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. Fernando Branco & Monic Sun & J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2012. "Optimal Search for Product Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(11), pages 2037-2056, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Eisen-Hecht, Jonathan I. & Kramer, Randall A. & Huber, Joel, 2004. "A Hierarchical Bayes Approach To Modeling Choice Data: A Study Of Wetland Restoration Programs," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20253, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Greg M. Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John R. Howell & Peter E. Rossi, 2014. "Valuation of Patented Product Features," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(3), pages 629-663.
    8. Sivakumar, K. & Feng, Cong, 2019. "Patterns of product improvements and customer response," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 27-43.
    9. Sonnier, Garrett P., 2014. "The market value for product attribute improvements under price personalization," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 168-177.
    10. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    11. Takuya Satomura & Jaehwan Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2011. "Multiple-Constraint Choice Models with Corner and Interior Solutions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 481-490, 05-06.
    12. Steven M. Shugan, 2003. "Editorial: Compartmentalized Reviews and Other Initiatives: Should Marketing Scientists Review Manuscripts in Consumer Behavior?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 151-160.
    13. Min Ding & Jehoshua Eliashberg, 2008. "A Dynamic Competitive Forecasting Model Incorporating Dyadic Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 820-834, April.
    14. Steven M. Shugan, 2003. "Editorial: Defining Interesting Research Problems," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 1-15.
    15. Liu, Heng & Özer, Özalp, 2009. "Managing a product family under stochastic technological changes," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 567-580, December.
    16. Timothy Park & Ashok K. Mishra & Shawn J. Wozniak, 2014. "Do farm operators benefit from direct to consumer marketing strategies?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 213-224, March.
    17. Greg Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John Howell & Peter Rossi, 2014. "Economic valuation of product features," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 421-456, December.
    18. Gang Chen & Shuaiyong Xiao & Chenghong Zhang & Huimin Zhao, 2023. "A Theory-Driven Deep Learning Method for Voice Chat–Based Customer Response Prediction," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1513-1532, December.
    19. S. Sriram & Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Ramya Neelamegham, 2006. "Effects of Brand Preference, Product Attributes, and Marketing Mix Variables in Technology Product Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 440-456, September.
    20. Hiller, R. Scott & Savage, Scott J. & Waldman, Donald M., 2018. "Using aggregate market data to estimate patent value: An application to United States smartphones 2010 to 2015," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-31.
    21. Eggers, Felix & Sattler, Henrik, 2009. "Hybrid individualized two-level choice-based conjoint (HIT-CBC): A new method for measuring preference structures with many attribute levels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 108-118.
    22. Raul O. Chao & Stylianos Kavadias, 2008. "A Theoretical Framework for Managing the New Product Development Portfolio: When and How to Use Strategic Buckets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 907-921, May.
    23. John R. Hauser & Felix Eggers & Matthew Selove, 2019. "The Strategic Implications of Scale in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 1059-1081, November.
    24. van Wezel, M.C. & Kagie, M. & Potharst, R., 2005. "Boosting the accuracy of hedonic pricing models," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2005-50, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.

    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. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. S. Sajeesh, 2016. "Influence of market-level and inter-firm differences in costs on product positioning and pricing," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(12), pages 888-896, August.
    3. Marks, Ulf G. & Albers, Sönke, 1995. "Experiments in competitive product positioning: An equilibrium analysis," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 364, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    4. Wilhelm, Wilbert E. & Xu, Kaihong, 2002. "Prescribing product upgrades, prices and production levels over time in a stochastic environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(3), pages 601-621, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Julia Cagé, 2014. "Media Competition, Information Provision and Political Participation," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03602440, HAL.
    7. Crawford, Gregory S. & Griffith, Rachel & Iaria, Alessandro, 2021. "A survey of preference estimation with unobserved choice set heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 4-43.
    8. 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.
    9. Filistrucchi, L. & Gerardin, D. & van Damme, E.E.C. & Keunen, S. & Klein, T.J. & Michielsen, T.O. & Wileur, J., 2010. "Mergers in Two-Sided Markets - A Report to the NMa," Other publications TiSEM f901d1fe-8878-444e-a685-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, July.
    11. Rajeev K. Tyagi, 2000. "Sequential Product Positioning Under Differential Costs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(7), pages 928-940, July.
    12. Hong il Yoo, 2012. "The perceived unreliability of rank-ordered data: an econometric origin and implications," Discussion Papers 2012-46, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    13. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/16juu6v6rg8rq8nl0u1grb4jm6 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Aguilar, Francisco X., 2009. "Investment preferences for wood-based energy initiatives in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2292-2299, June.
    15. Julia Cagé, 2014. "Media Competition, Information Provision and Political Participation," SciencePo Working papers hal-03602440, HAL.
    16. Stefan Roth, 1999. "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen ökonomischer Positionierungsmodelle," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 243-266, March.
    17. van Beek, Krijn W. H. & Koopmans, Carl C. & van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1997. "Shopping at the labour market: A real tale of fiction," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 295-317, February.
    18. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    19. Teichert, Thorsten Andreas, 1997. "A model of ranked conjoint-data and implications for evaluation," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 461, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    20. 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.
    21. Volker Nocke & Nicolas Schutz, 2018. "Multiproduct‐Firm Oligopoly: An Aggregative Games Approach," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 523-557, March.

    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:21:y:2002:i:4:p:398-411. 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.