IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attribute Importance Weights Modification in Assessing a Brand's Competitive Potential


  • Paul E. Green

    (University of Pennsylvania)

  • Abba M. Krieger

    (University of Pennsylvania)


Increasingly, researchers in marketing are recognizing the “lability” of attribute importance weights derived from measurement techniques, such as conjoint analysis. As has been suggested by Simonson and Tversky, attribute importance weights can be sensitive to competitive product context and to purchase situation. This paper describes and applies a procedure for adjusting conjoint importance weights to predict consumers' actual or potential product choices. We discuss the approach from both a descriptive and prescriptive viewpoint. In particular, the latter perspective provides strategic insights into how attribute importance modifications can increase brand share. An industry case, based on real data, is used to illustrate the approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger, 1995. "Attribute Importance Weights Modification in Assessing a Brand's Competitive Potential," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 253-270.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:14:y:1995:i:3:p:253-270

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Hauser, John R. & Urban, Glen L., 1975. "A normative methodology for modeling consumer response to innovation," Working papers 785-75., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    2. Griffin, Abbie. & Hauser, John R., 1991. "The marketing and R & D interface," Working papers #48-91. Working paper (Sl, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    3. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. " Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    4. George P. Huber, 1974. "Multi-Attribute Utility Models: A Review of Field and Field-Like Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(10), pages 1393-1402, June.
    5. John R. Hauser, 1977. "Testing the Accuracy," Discussion Papers 286, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Teichert, Thorsten Andreas, 1997. "Schätzgenauigkeit von Conjoint-Analysen," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 444, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    2. Tripathi Sanjeev & Sinha, Piyush Kumar & Sinha, Piyush Kumar, 2006. "Family and Store Choice - A Conceptual Framework," IIMA Working Papers WP2006-11-03, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    3. Sandeep R. Chandukala & Yancy D. Edwards & Greg M. Allenby, 2011. "Identifying Unmet Demand," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 61-73, 01-02.
    4. Srinivasan, V. Seenu & Netzer, Oded, 2007. "Adaptive Self-Explication of Multi-attribute Preferences," Research Papers 1979, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    5. Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
    6. Vishal Narayan & Vithala R. Rao & Carolyne Saunders, 2011. "How Peer Influence Affects Attribute Preferences: A Bayesian Updating Mechanism," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 368-384, 03-04.
    7. Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W. & Bettman, James R., 2000. "Coping with Unfavorable Attribute Values in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 274-299, March.
    8. Huang, Rong & Sarigöllü, Emine, 2008. "Assessing satisfaction with core and secondary attributes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 942-949, September.
    9. John R. Hauser & Olivier Toubia, 2005. "The Impact of Utility Balance and Endogeneity in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 498-507, August.

    More about this item


    competitive strategy; scaling methods;


    Access and download statistics


    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:14:y:1995:i:3:p:253-270. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.