IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v31y2001i3_supplementps56-s73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects

Author

Listed:
  • Paul E. Green

    (Suite 1400, Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6371)

  • Abba M. Krieger

    (Suite 3000, Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, The Wharton School)

  • Yoram Wind

    (Suite 1400, Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, The Wharton School)

Abstract

Conjoint analysis is marketers' favorite methodology for finding out how buyers make trade-offs among competing products and suppliers. Conjoint analysts develop and present descriptions of alternative products or services that are prepared from fractional factorial, experimental designs. They use various models to infer buyers' part-worths for attribute levels, and enter the part-worths into buyer-choice simulators to predict how buyers will choose among products and services. Easy-to-use software has been important for applying these models. Thousands of applications of conjoint analysis have been carried out over the past three decades.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:31:y:2001:i:3_supplement:p:s56-s73
    DOI: 10.1287/inte.31.3s.56.9676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.31.3s.56.9676
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/inte.31.3s.56.9676?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. Wittink, Dick R & Krishnamurthi, Lakshman & Nutter, Julia B, 1982. "Comparing Derived Importance Weights Across Attributes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(4), pages 471-474, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Wayne S. DeSarbo & J. Douglas Carroll & Donald R. Lehmann & John O'Shaughnessy, 1982. "Three-Way Multivariate Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 323-350.
    4. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger, 1996. "Individualized Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(6), pages 850-867, June.
    5. Jerry Wind & Paul E. Green & Douglas Shifflet & Marsha Scarbrough, 1989. "Courtyard by Marriott : Designing a Hotel Facility with Consumer-Based Marketing Models," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 25-47, February.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Paul E. Green & Ronald E. Frank & Patrick J. Robinson, 1967. "Cluster Analysis in Test Market Selection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(8), pages 387-400, April.
    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. Jong Seok Kim, 2017. "Empirical Analysis Of Consumer Willingness To Pay For Smart Phone Attributes In Multi-Countries," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(02), pages 1-37, February.
    2. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    3. Ohlwein, Martin, 2022. "Same but different - The effect of the unit of measure on the valuation of a unit price," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    4. Srinivasan, V. Seenu & Netzer, Oded, 2007. "Adaptive Self-Explication of Multi-attribute Preferences," Research Papers 1979, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    5. Krieger, Abba M. & Green, Paul E., 2006. "A tactical model for resource allocation and its application to advertising budgeting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(3), pages 935-949, May.
    6. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    9. Sinha, Ashish & Gazley, Aaron & Ashill, Nicholas J., 2008. "Measuring Customer Based Brand Equity using Hierarchical Bayes Methodology," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 3-19.
    10. YiChun Miriam Liu & Jeff D. Brazell & Greg M. Allenby, 2022. "Non-linear pricing effects in conjoint analysis," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 397-430, December.
    11. 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.
    12. B. P. S. Murthi & Sumit Sarkar, 2003. "The Role of the Mangement Sciences in Research on Personalization," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 2-2-1025, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    13. 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.
    14. Adriane Hartmann & Henrik Sattler, 2004. "Wie robust sind Methoden zur Präferenzmessung?," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 3-22, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Lieven, Theo, 2015. "Policy measures to promote electric mobility – A global perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 78-93.
    17. 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.
    18. Butori, Raphaëlle & De Bruyn, Arnaud, 2013. "So you want to delight your customers: The perils of ignoring heterogeneity in customer evaluations of discretionary preferential treatments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 358-367.
    19. Jeffrey D. Camm & James J. Cochran & David J. Curry & Sriram Kannan, 2006. "Conjoint Optimization: An Exact Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for the Share-of-Choice Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 435-447, March.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:3:p:200-213 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Thomas Nitschke & Franziska Völckner, 2006. "Präferenzmessung bei unsicheren Produkteigenschaften: Risikoberücksichtigung bei Ergebnissen aus Conjoint-Analysen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(6), pages 743-770, September.

    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:orinte:v:31:y:2001:i:3_supplement:p:s56-s73. 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.