IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v38y2019i6p1059-1081.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Strategic Implications of Scale in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • John R. Hauser

    (Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142)

  • Felix Eggers

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, 9747 AE Groningen, Netherlands)

  • Matthew Selove

    (The George L. Argyros School of Business and Economics, Chapman University, Orange, California 92866)

Abstract

Choice-based conjoint (CBC) studies have begun to rely on simulators to forecast equilibrium prices for pricing, strategic product positioning, and patent/copyright valuations. Whereas CBC research has long focused on the accuracy of estimated relative partworths of attribute levels, predicted equilibrium prices and strategic positioning are surprisingly and dramatically dependent on scale: the magnitude of the partworths (including the price coefficient) relative to the magnitude of the error term. Although the impact of scale on the ability to estimate heterogeneous partworths is well known, neither the literature nor current practice address the sensitivity of pricing and positioning to scale. This sensitivity is important because (estimated) scale depends on seemingly innocuous market-research decisions such as whether attributes are described by text or by realistic images. We demonstrate the strategic implications of scale using a stylized model in which heterogeneity is modeled explicitly. If a firm shirks on the quality of a CBC study and acts on incorrectly observed scale, a follower, but not an innovator, can make costly strategic errors. Externally valid estimates of scale are extremely important. We demonstrate empirically that image realism and incentive alignment affect scale sufficiently to change strategic decisions and affect patent/copyright valuations by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Suggested Citation

  • John R. Hauser & Felix Eggers & Matthew Selove, 2019. "The Strategic Implications of Scale in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 1059-1081, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:38:y:2019:i:6:p:1059-1081
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.2019.1178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1178
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.2019.1178?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. Greg Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John Howell & Peter Rossi, 2014. "Economic valuation of product features," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 421-456, December.
    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. de Palma, Andre & Ginsburgh, Victor & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1987. "On Existence of Location Equilibria in the 3-Firm Hotelling Problem," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 245-252, December.
    4. 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.
    5. de Palma, A, et al, 1985. "The Principle of Minimum Differentiation Holds under Sufficient Heterogeneity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(4), pages 767-781, July.
    6. repec:ulb:ulbeco:2013/1759 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    8. Caplin, Andrew & Nalebuff, Barry, 1991. "Aggregation and Imperfect Competition: On the Existence of Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(1), pages 25-59, January.
    9. Rhee, Byong-Duk, et al, 1992. "Restoring the Principle of Minimum Differentiation in Product Positioning," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(3), pages 475-505, Fall.
    10. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    12. John R. Hauser, 1978. "Testing the Accuracy, Usefulness, and Significance of Probabilistic Choice Models: An Information-Theoretic Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 406-421, June.
    13. Lan Luo & P. K. Kannan & Brian T. Ratchford, 2007. "New Product Development Under Channel Acceptance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 149-163, 03-04.
    14. Timothy J. Gilbride & Peter J. Lenk & Jeff D. Brazell, 2008. "Market Share Constraints and the Loss Function in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 995-1011, 11-12.
    15. Garrett Sonnier & Andrew Ainslie & Thomas Otter, 2007. "Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 313-331, September.
    16. Irmen, Andreas & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1998. "Competition in Multi-characteristics Spaces: Hotelling Was Almost Right," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 76-102, January.
    17. K. Sridhar Moorthy, 1988. "Product and Price Competition in a Duopoly," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 141-168.
    18. Economides, Nicholas, 1986. "Minimal and maximal product differentiation in Hotelling's duopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 67-71.
    19. repec:bla:jemstr:v:1:y:1992:i:3:p:475-505:a is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    21. Linda Court Salisbury & Fred M. Feinberg, 2010. "Alleviating the Constant Stochastic Variance Assumption in Decision Research: Theory, Measurement, and Experimental Test," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 1-17, 01-02.
    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. Stich, Lucas & Spann, Martin & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2022. "Paying for open access," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 273-286.
    2. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & Eggers, Felix & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2022. "Competing Standard-Setting Organizations: A Choice Experiment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    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. Tutku Tuncalı Yaman & Özgür Çakır, 2021. "A Game-Theoretical Approach to Conjoint Analysis," Alphanumeric Journal, Bahadir Fatih Yildirim, vol. 9(2), pages 179-216, December.
    5. Stefan Stremersch & Elke Cabooter & Ivan Guitart & Nuno Camacho, 2024. "Customer insights for innovation : A framework and research agenda for marketing," Post-Print hal-04731671, HAL.
    6. Felix Eggers & Fabian Eggers, 2022. "Drivers of autonomous vehicles—analyzing consumer preferences for self-driving car brand extensions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 89-112, March.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    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. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    2. Stefan Roth, 1999. "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen ökonomischer Positionierungsmodelle," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 243-266, March.
    3. Mossay, Pascal & Shin, Jong Kook & Smrkolj, Grega, 2022. "Quality Differentiation and Spatial Clustering among Restaurants," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Marks, Ulf G. & Albers, Sönke, 1995. "Experiments in competitive product positioning: An equilibrium analysis," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 364, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    6. Zhifeng Gao & Lisa A. House & Jing Xie, 2016. "Online Survey Data Quality and Its Implication for Willingness-to-Pay: A Cross-Country Comparison," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(2), pages 199-221, June.
    7. Greg M. Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John R. Howell & Peter E. Rossi, 2014. "Valuation of Patented Product Features," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(3), pages 629-663.
    8. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    9. Eggers, Felix & Sattler, Henrik, 2009. "Hybrid individualized two-level choice-based conjoint (HIT-CBC): A new method for measuring preference structures with many attribute levels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 108-118.
    10. Dongling Huang & Lan Luo, 2016. "Consumer Preference Elicitation of Complex Products Using Fuzzy Support Vector Machine Active Learning," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 445-464, May.
    11. Torbenko, A., 2015. "Linear City Models: Overview and Typology," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 25(1), pages 12-38.
    12. Heijnen, Pim & Soetevent, Adriaan R., 2018. "Price competition on graphs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 161-179.
    13. 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.
    14. Kohei Imamura & Kohei Takenaka Takano & Nobuhito Mori & Tohru Nakashizuka & Shunsuke Managi, 2016. "Attitudes toward disaster-prevention risk in Japanese coastal areas: analysis of civil preference," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 82(1), pages 209-226, May.
    15. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.
    16. Schaak, Henning & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Public preferences for pasture landscapes and the role of scale heterogeneity," FORLand Working Papers 04 (2018), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    17. Aguirre, Inaki & Paz Espinosa, Maria, 2004. "Product differentiation with consumer arbitrage," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 219-239, February.
    18. Rhee, Byong-Duk, et al, 1992. "Restoring the Principle of Minimum Differentiation in Product Positioning," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(3), pages 475-505, Fall.
    19. Bertuzzi, Giorgia & Lambertini, Luca, 2010. "Existence of equilibrium in a differential game of spatial competition with advertising," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2-3), pages 155-160, May.
    20. William Greene & David Hensher, 2010. "Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 413-428, May.

    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:ormksc:v:38:y:2019:i:6:p:1059-1081. 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.