IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v17y1971i6pb371-b385.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Laboratory Brand Preference Scales to Predict Consumer Brand Purchases

Author

Listed:
  • Edgar Pessemier

    (Purdue University)

  • Philip Burger

    (Northwestern University)

  • Richard Teach

    (State University of New York at Buffalo)

  • Douglas Tigert

    (University of Toronto)

Abstract

Laboratory measures of brand preferences and survey measures of demographic, media exposure, attitudinal, activity and opinion characteristics of individual consumers have been combined to predict brand purchases in the market. Brands in the tooth paste, liquid household cleaner and cake mix product categories were employed in a set of laboratory experiments. Preference scales derived from the experiments are used in three separate models to predict the subject's purchases recorded in seven months of diary data. The behavioral implications and predictive power of the models are interesting from both theoretical and applied points of view.

Suggested Citation

  • Edgar Pessemier & Philip Burger & Richard Teach & Douglas Tigert, 1971. "Using Laboratory Brand Preference Scales to Predict Consumer Brand Purchases," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(6), pages 371-385, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:17:y:1971:i:6:p:b371-b385
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.17.6.B371
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.17.6.B371
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.17.6.B371?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brockhoff, Klaus (Ed.), 1977. "Three papers on optimal product positioning," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 51, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    2. Philippe Jourdan & Damien de Ponthaud, 2006. "Capitalizing TM : optimization of the strategic and tactical choices that characterizes the launch of a key product - Gillette's M3Power case," Post-Print hal-01134349, HAL.
    3. 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.
    4. Silk, Alvin J. & Urban, Glen L., 1976. "Pre-test market evaluation of new packaged goods : a model and measurement methodology," Working papers 834-76., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    5. Juan Carlos Leyva López & Jesús Jaime Solano Noriega & Omar Ahumada Valenzuela & Alma Montserrat Romero Serrano, 2022. "A preference choice model for the new product design problem," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1-32, September.
    6. Urban, Glen L. & Weinberg, Bruce D. & Hauser, John R., 1994. "Premarket forecasting of really new products," Working papers 3689-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    7. H J P Timmermans, 1981. "Multiattribute Shopping Models and Ridge Regression Analysis," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 13(1), pages 43-56, January.
    8. S Tsafarakis & E Grigoroudis & N Matsatsinis, 2011. "Consumer choice behaviour and new product development: an integrated market simulation approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(7), pages 1253-1267, July.
    9. Min Ding & Young-Hoon Park & Eric T. Bradlow, 2009. "Barter Markets for Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1003-1017, June.
    10. Sudharshan, D. & Ravi Kumar, K. & Gruca, Thomas S., 1995. "NICHER: An approach to identifying defensible product positions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 292-309, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ormnsc:v:17:y:1971:i:6:p:b371-b385. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.