IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v38y2019i1p88-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accounting for Discrepancies Between Online and Offline Product Evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Daria Dzyabura

    (Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, New York 10012; New Economic School, Moscow, Russia 121353)

  • Srikanth Jagabathula

    (Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, New York 10012; Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Eitan Muller

    (Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, New York 10012; Arison School of Business, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, 46101 Herzliya, Israel)

Abstract

Despite the growth of online retail, the majority of products are still sold offline, and the “touch-and-feel” aspect of physically examining a product before purchase remains important to many consumers. In this paper, we demonstrate that large discrepancies can exist between how consumers evaluate products when examining them “live” versus based on online descriptions, even for a relatively familiar product (messenger bags) and for utilitarian features. Therefore, the use of online evaluations in market research may result in inaccurate predictions and potentially suboptimal decisions by the firm. Because eliciting preferences by conducting large-scale offline market research is costly, we propose fusing data from a large online study with data from a smaller set of participants who complete both an online and an offline study. We demonstrate our approach using conjoint studies on two sets of participants. The group who completed both online and offline studies allows us to calibrate the relationship between online and offline partworths. To obtain reliable parameter estimates, we propose two statistical methods: a hierarchical Bayesian approach and a k- nearest-neighbors approach. We demonstrate that the proposed approach achieves better out-of-sample predictive performance on individual choices (up to 25% improvement), as well as aggregate market shares (up to 33% improvement).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:38:y:2019:i:1:p:88-106
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.2018.1124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2018.1124
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.2018.1124?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. 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.
    2. Brownstone, David & Bunch, David S. & Train, Kenneth, 2000. "Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 315-338, June.
    3. Daria Dzyabura & John R. Hauser, 2011. "Active Machine Learning for Consideration Heuristics," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 801-819, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Eleanor McDonnell Feit & Mark A. Beltramo & Fred M. Feinberg, 2010. "Reality Check: Combining Choice Experiments with Market Data to Estimate the Importance of Product Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 785-800, May.
    6. 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.
    7. Rajeev Kohli & R. Sukumar, 1990. "Heuristics for Product-Line Design Using Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(12), pages 1464-1478, December.
    8. Bhat, Chandra R. & Castelar, Saul, 2002. "A unified mixed logit framework for modeling revealed and stated preferences: formulation and application to congestion pricing analysis in the San Francisco Bay area," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 593-616, August.
    9. Joffre Swait & Rick L. Andrews, 2003. "Enriching Scanner Panel Models with Choice Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 442-460, September.
    10. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    11. Timothy J. Gilbride & Peter J. Lenk & Jeff D. Brazell, 2008. "Market Share Constraints and the Loss Function in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 995-1011, 11-12.
    12. 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.
    13. Daria Dzyabura & Srikanth Jagabathula, 2018. "Offline Assortment Optimization in the Presence of an Online Channel," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2767-2786, June.
    14. Brownstone, David & Bunch, David S. & Train, Kenneth, 2000. "Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 315-338, June.
    15. A. Gürhan Kök & Marshall L. Fisher & Ramnath Vaidyanathan, 2015. "Assortment Planning: Review of Literature and Industry Practice," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Narendra Agrawal & Stephen A. Smith (ed.), Retail Supply Chain Management, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 175-236, Springer.
    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. Roelen-Blasberg, Tobias & Habel, Johannes & Klarmann, Martin, 2023. "Automated inference of product attributes and their importance from user-generated content: Can we replace traditional market research?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 164-188.
    2. Neslin, Scott A., 2022. "The omnichannel continuum: Integrating online and offline channels along the customer journey," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 111-132.
    3. Berg, Hanna & Lindström, Annika, 2021. "Online product size perceptions: Examining liquid volume size perceptions based on online product pictures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 192-203.
    4. Lin, Yun Hui & Wang, Yuan & Lee, Loo Hay & Chew, Ek Peng, 2022. "Omnichannel facility location and fulfillment optimization," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 187-209.
    5. Zhang, Ting & Feng, Xiaohui & Wang, Ningning, 2021. "Manufacturer encroachment and product assortment under vertical differentiation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(1), pages 120-132.
    6. Cai, Ya-Jun & Lo, Chris K.Y., 2020. "Omni-channel management in the new retailing era: A systematic review and future research agenda," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    7. Torsten J. Gerpott & Jan Berends, 2022. "Competitive pricing on online markets: a literature review," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(6), pages 596-622, December.
    8. Daria Dzyabura & John R. Hauser, 2019. "Recommending Products When Consumers Learn Their Preference Weights," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 417-441, May.
    9. Wai Kit Tsang & Dries F. Benoit, 2020. "Gaussian processes for daily demand prediction in tourism planning," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 551-568, April.
    10. Hamsa Bastani, 2021. "Predicting with Proxies: Transfer Learning in High Dimension," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2964-2984, May.

    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. 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.
    2. Helveston, John Paul & Feit, Elea McDonnell & Michalek, Jeremy J., 2018. "Pooling stated and revealed preference data in the presence of RP endogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 70-89.
    3. Eleanor McDonnell Feit & Mark A. Beltramo & Fred M. Feinberg, 2010. "Reality Check: Combining Choice Experiments with Market Data to Estimate the Importance of Product Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 785-800, May.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    5. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    6. Oliveira, Gabriela D. & Roth, Richard & Dias, Luis C., 2019. "Diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles considering dynamic preferences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 83-99.
    7. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    8. Ito, Nobuyuki & Takeuchi, Kenji & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "Do battery-switching systems accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles? A stated preference study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 85-92.
    9. Elisabetta Cherchi & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2011. "On the Use of Mixed RP/SP Models in Prediction: Accounting for Systematic and Random Taste Heterogeneity," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(1), pages 98-108, February.
    10. Hossan, Md Sakoat & Asgari, Hamidreza & Jin, Xia, 2016. "Investigating preference heterogeneity in Value of Time (VOT) and Value of Reliability (VOR) estimation for managed lanes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 638-649.
    11. ILes, Richard, 2017. "Government Doctor Absenteeism And Its Effects On Consumer Demand In Rural North India," Working Papers 2018-9, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, revised 12 2018.
    12. Hensher, David A., 2012. "Accounting for scale heterogeneity within and between pooled data sources," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 480-486.
    13. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    14. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    15. Axsen, Jonn & Kurani, Kenneth S., 2013. "Hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or electric—What do car buyers want?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 532-543.
    16. Tamara L. Sheldon & J. R. DeShazo & Richard T. Carson, 2017. "Electric And Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle Demand: Lessons For An Emerging Market," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 695-713, April.
    17. Anoek Castelein & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2020. "A multinomial and rank-ordered logit model with inter- and intra-individual heteroscedasticity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-069/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Zhang, Yong & Yu, Yifeng & Zou, Bai, 2011. "Analyzing public awareness and acceptance of alternative fuel vehicles in China: The case of EV," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7015-7024.
    19. Stephane Hess & John W. Polak, 2004. "An analysis of parking behaviour using discrete choice models calibrated on SP datasets," ERSA conference papers ersa04p60, European Regional Science Association.
    20. Thomas M. Fojcik & Heike Proff, 2014. "Accelerating market diffusion of battery electric vehicles through alternative mobility concepts," International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(3/4), pages 347-368.

    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:38:y:2019:i:1:p:88-106. 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.