IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/qmktec/v18y2020i4d10.1007_s11129-020-09228-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefit Formation and Enhancement

Author

Listed:
  • Hyowon Kim

    (Case Western Reserve University)

  • Dong Soo Kim

    (Ohio State University)

  • Greg M. Allenby

    (Ohio State University)

Abstract

The identification of product attributes and features that are essential for a benefit to exist is critical to new product development and formulation. Some attributes are benefit enabling in the sense that their presence indicates that an offering is responsive to a need, and their absence points out that the product is not responsive. Not all agricultural products, for example, are seen as having safety advantages, and specific organic certification such as the USDA organic label may be needed for some consumers to consider an offering as providing a benefit of reducing the level of health risks. Benefit formation hinges on these critical attributes being present, while other attributes may only enhance a benefit that has already been formed. Benefit-forming attributes therefore create a specific form of interaction among product attributes that may be heterogeneously distributed in the population. We develop a model to identify benefit-forming attributes and apply it to three conjoint datasets where we provide evidence of their interactive effects on preferences. The counter-factual exercises across three datasets highlight the importance of benefit-forming attributes in product design as well as in preference segments.

Suggested Citation

  • Hyowon Kim & Dong Soo Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Benefit Formation and Enhancement," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 419-468, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:qmktec:v:18:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11129-020-09228-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11129-020-09228-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11129-020-09228-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11129-020-09228-5?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. John Rotondo, 1986. "Technical Note—Price as an Aspect of Choice in EBA," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 391-402.
    2. Peter Lenk & Wayne DeSarbo, 2000. "Bayesian inference for finite mixtures of generalized linear models with random effects," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 65(1), pages 93-119, March.
    3. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    4. Dong Soo Kim & Roger A. Bailey & Nino Hardt & Greg M. Allenby, 2017. "Benefit-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 54-69, January.
    5. Hanemann, W Michael, 1984. "Discrete-Continuous Models of Consumer Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 541-561, May.
    6. Cait Poynor Lamberton & Kristin Diehl, 2013. "Retail Choice Architecture: The Effects of Benefit- and Attribute-Based Assortment Organization on Consumer Perceptions and Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(3), pages 393-411.
    7. 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.
    8. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
    9. Jean-Pierre Dubé & Günter Hitsch & Puneet Manchanda, 2005. "An Empirical Model of Advertising Dynamics," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 107-144, June.
    10. Richard H. Thaler, 2016. "Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, and Future," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(7), pages 1577-1600, July.
    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. Kaye-Blake, William & Abell, Walter L. & Zellman, Eva, 2009. "Respondents’ ignoring of attribute information in a choice modelling survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-18.
    2. Joffre Swait & Fred Feinberg, 2014. "Deciding how to decide: an agenda for multi-stage choice modelling research in marketing," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 26, pages 649-660, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2006. "Estimating Heterogeneous EBA and Economic Screening Rule Choice Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 494-509, September.
    4. Nicolas Krucien & Amiram Gafni & Nathalie Pelletier‐Fleury, 2015. "Empirical Testing of the External Validity of a Discrete Choice Experiment to Determine Preferred Treatment Option: The Case of Sleep Apnea," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(8), pages 951-965, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Currim, Imran S. & Mintz, Ofer & Siddarth, S., 2015. "Information Accessed or Information Available? The Impact on Consumer Preferences Inferred at a Durable Product E-commerce Website," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 11-25.
    7. Ali Aouad & Vivek Farias & Retsef Levi, 2021. "Assortment Optimization Under Consider-Then-Choose Choice Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 3368-3386, June.
    8. Mai, Nhat Chi, 2018. "도이모이 이후 베트남의 주거 이동, 선택, 가격 결정요인 연구: 호치민시 사례 중심으로," OSF Preprints 6kdfy, Center for Open Science.
    9. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
    10. Mora Rodriguez, Jhon James, 2013. "Introduccion a la teoría del consumidor [Introduction to Consumer Theory]," MPRA Paper 48129, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Jul 2013.
    11. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    12. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    13. Heiman, Amir & Lowengart, Oded, 2011. "The effects of information about health hazards in food on consumers' choice process," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 140-147, May.
    14. Stefano Ficco & Vladimir Karamychev & Peran van Reeven, 2006. "A Theory of Procedurally Rational Choice: Optimization without Evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 06-001/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    15. Dellaert, B.G.C. & Johnson, E.J. & Baker, T., 2019. "Choice Architecture for Healthier Insurance Choices: Ordering and Partitioning Can Improve Decisions," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2019-008-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    16. Aguilar, Francisco X., 2009. "Investment preferences for wood-based energy initiatives in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2292-2299, June.
    17. Mridu Prabal Goswami & Manipushpak Mitra & Debapriya Sen, 2022. "A Characterization of Lexicographic Preferences," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 170-187, June.
    18. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    19. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 137-150.
    20. Jing Li & Edward C. Jaenicke & Tobenna D. Anekwe & Alessandro Bonanno, 2018. "Demand for ready‐to‐eat cereals with household‐level censored purchase data and nutrition label information: A distance metric approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 687-713, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Conditional subadditive utility; Lancasterian model; Conjoint analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
    • C31 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions; Social Interaction Models
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    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:kap:qmktec:v:18:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11129-020-09228-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.