IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v137y2002i2p448-458.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Real world performance of choice-based conjoint models

Author

Listed:
  • Natter, Martin
  • Feurstein, Markus

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Natter, Martin & Feurstein, Markus, 2002. "Real world performance of choice-based conjoint models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 448-458, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:137:y:2002:i:2:p:448-458
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(01)00147-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Neeraj Arora & Greg M. Allenby & James L. Ginter, 1998. "A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 29-44.
    2. Gilles Laurent & Scott Neslin & Greg Allenby & Andrew Ehrenberg & Steve Hoch & Robert Leone & John Little & Leonard Lodish & Robert Shoemaker & Dick Wittink, 1994. "A Research Agenda for Making Scanner Data More Useful to Managers," Post-Print hal-00819509, HAL.
    3. Peter E. Rossi & Robert E. McCulloch & Greg M. Allenby, 1996. "The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 321-340.
    4. Allenby, Greg M & Lenk, Peter J, 1995. "Reassessing Brand Loyalty, Price Sensitivity, and Merchandising Effects on Consumer Brand Choice," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(3), pages 281-289, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Andrew Ainslie & Peter E. Rossi, 1998. "Similarities in Choice Behavior Across Product Categories," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 91-106.
    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. Meißner, Martin & Pfeiffer, Jella & Peukert, Christian & Dietrich, Holger & Pfeiffer, Thies, 2020. "How virtual reality affects consumer choice," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 219-231.
    2. Abdul Hamid Mar Iman & Fu Yek Pieng & Christopher Gan, 2012. "A Conjoint Analysis of Buyers' Preferences for Residential Property," International Real Estate Review, Global Social Science Institute, vol. 15(1), pages 73-105.
    3. Frank Bodendorf & Manuel Lutz & Jörg Franke, 2021. "Valuation and pricing of software licenses to support supplier–buyer negotiations: A case study in the automotive industry," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(7), pages 1686-1702, October.
    4. Maldonado, Sebastián & Montoya, Ricardo & Weber, Richard, 2015. "Advanced conjoint analysis using feature selection via support vector machines," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(2), pages 564-574.
    5. Daniel Hoppe & Helen Keller & Felix Horstmann, 2022. "Got Employer Image? How Applicants Choose Their Employer," Corporate Reputation Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 25(2), pages 139-159, May.
    6. Schlereth, Christian & Stepanchuk, Tanja & Skiera, Bernd, 2010. "Optimization and analysis of the profitability of tariff structures with two-part tariffs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 691-701, November.
    7. Sattler, Henrik & Völckner, Franziska & Riediger, Claudia & Ringle, Christian M., 2010. "The impact of brand extension success drivers on brand extension price premiums," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 319-328.
    8. Danaf, Mazen & Guevara, Angelo & Atasoy, Bilge & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2020. "Endogeneity in adaptive choice contexts: Choice-based recommender systems and adaptive stated preferences surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Steiner, Michael & Wiegand, Nico & Eggert, Andreas & Backhaus, Klaus, 2016. "Platform adoption in system markets: The roles of preference heterogeneity and consumer expectations," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 276-296.
    11. Julian Schuir & Frank Teuteberg, 2021. "Understanding augmented reality adoption trade-offs in production environments from the perspective of future employees: A choice-based conjoint study," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 1039-1085, September.
    12. Nguyen Tien Thong & Hans Stubbe Solgaard & Wolfgang Haider & Eva Roth & Lars Ravn†Jonsen, 2018. "Using labeled choice experiments to analyze demand structure and market position among seafood products," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 163-189, March.
    13. Ku, Yu-Cheng & Wu, John, 2018. "Measuring respondent uncertainty in discrete choice experiments via utility suppression," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 1-18.
    14. Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.
    15. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    16. Dohyeon Kim & Su Yong Lee, 2022. "When venture capitalists are attracted by the experienced," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, December.
    17. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    18. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    19. Schlereth, Christian & Skiera, Bernd & Schulz, Fabian, 2018. "Why do consumers prefer static instead of dynamic pricing plans? An empirical study for a better understanding of the low preferences for time-variant pricing plans," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(3), pages 1165-1179.
    20. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2014. "Likelihood estimation of consumer preferences in choice-based conjoint analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 556-564.
    21. Schlereth, Christian & Eckert, Christine & Schaaf, René & Skiera, Bernd, 2014. "Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: A classification and merge of trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 185-198.
    22. Bremer, Lucas & Heitmann, Mark & Schreiner, Thomas F., 2017. "When and how to infer heuristic consideration set rules of consumers," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 516-535.

    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. Peter E. Rossi & Greg M. Allenby, 2003. "Bayesian Statistics and Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 304-328, July.
    2. Lynd Bacon & Peter Lenk, 2012. "Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 453-474, December.
    3. Kwangpil Chang & S. Siddarth & Charles B. Weinberg, 1999. "The Impact of Heterogeneity in Purchase Timing and Price Responsiveness on Estimates of Sticker Shock Effects," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 178-192.
    4. Puneet Manchanda & Asim Ansari & Sunil Gupta, 1999. "The “Shopping Basket”: A Model for Multicategory Purchase Incidence Decisions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 95-114.
    5. 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.
    6. Robert Zeithammer & Peter Lenk, 2006. "Bayesian estimation of multivariate-normal models when dimensions are absent," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 241-265, September.
    7. Jaehwan Kim & Greg M. Allenby & Peter E. Rossi, 2002. "Modeling Consumer Demand for Variety," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 229-250, December.
    8. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    9. Neeraj Arora & Ty Henderson, 2007. "Embedded Premium Promotion: Why It Works and How to Make It More Effective," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 514-531, 07-08.
    10. Yu, Jie & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2011. "Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 378-388.
    11. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    12. Kim, Chul & Jun, Duk Bin & Park, Sungho, 2018. "Capturing flexible correlations in multiple-discrete choice outcomes using copulas," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 34-59.
    13. Yu-Cheng Ku & Tsun-Feng Chiang & Sheng-Mao Chang, 2017. "Is what you choose what you want?—outlier detection in choice-based conjoint analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 29-42, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Nitin Mehta, 2007. "Investigating Consumers' Purchase Incidence and Brand Choice Decisions Across Multiple Product Categories: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 196-217, 03-04.
    16. B. P. S. Murthi & Sumit Sarkar, 2003. "The Role of the Management Sciences in Research on Personalization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(10), pages 1344-1362, October.
    17. Marc R. Dotson & Joachim Büschken & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Explaining Preference Heterogeneity with Mixed Membership Modeling," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 407-426, March.
    18. Braun, Alexander & Schmeiser, Hato & Schreiber, Florian, 2016. "On consumer preferences and the willingness to pay for term life insurance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 761-776.
    19. Demetrios Vakratsas & Frank M. Bass, 2002. "A segment-level hazard approach to studying household purchase timing decisions," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 49-59.
    20. Max J. Pachali & Peter Kurz & Thomas Otter, 2020. "How to generalize from a hierarchical model?," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 343-380, December.

    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:eee:ejores:v:137:y:2002:i:2:p:448-458. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.