IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting new service adoption with conjoint analysis: external validity of BDM-based incentive-aligned and dual-response choice designs


  • Nils Wlömert

    () (University of Hamburg)

  • Felix Eggers

    () (University of Groningen)


Abstract In this paper, we compare the standard, single-response choice-based conjoint (CBC) approach with three extended CBC procedures in terms of their external predictive validity and their ability to realistically capture consumers’ willingness to pay: (1) an incentive-aligned CBC mechanism (IA-CBC), (2) a dual-response CBC procedure (DR-CBC), and (3) an incentive-aligned dual-response CBC approach (IA-DR-CBC). Our empirical study features a unique sample of 2,679 music consumers who participated in a conjoint choice experiment prior to the market entry of a new music streaming service. To judge the predictive accuracy, we contacted the same respondents again 5 months after the launch and compared the predictions with the actual adoption decisions. The results demonstrate that IA-CBC and DR-CBC both increase the predictive accuracy. This result is promising because IA-CBC is not applicable to every research context so that DR-CBC provides a viable alternative. While we do not find an additional external validity improvement through the combination of both extensions, the IA-DR-CBC approach yields the most realistic willingness-to-pay estimates and should therefore be preferred when incentive alignment is feasible.

Suggested Citation

  • Nils Wlömert & Felix Eggers, 2016. "Predicting new service adoption with conjoint analysis: external validity of BDM-based incentive-aligned and dual-response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 195-210, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:27:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11002-014-9326-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-014-9326-x

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. 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.
    2. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. 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.
    4. repec:eee:ijrema:v:27:y:2010:i:1:p:25-32 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Jeff Brazell & Christopher Diener & Ekaterina Karniouchina & William Moore & Válerie Séverin & Pierre-Francois Uldry, 2006. "The no-choice option and dual response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 255-268, December.
    6. Greg Allenby & Geraldine Fennell & Joel Huber & Thomas Eagle & Tim Gilbride & Dan Horsky & Jaehwan Kim & Peter Lenk & Rich Johnson & Elie Ofek & Bryan Orme & Thomas Otter & Joan Walker, 2005. "Adjusting Choice Models to Better Predict Market Behavior," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 197-208, December.
    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. Kornprom Satraphand & Supeecha Panichpathom, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Senior Wellness Center," ERES eres2018_21, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    2. Erik Brynjolfsson & Felix Eggers & Avinash Gannamaneni, 2018. "Using Massive Online Choice Experiments to Measure Changes in Well-being," NBER Working Papers 24514, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. repec:spr:rvmgts:v:11:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11846-016-0201-4 is not listed on IDEAS


    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:mktlet:v:27:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11002-014-9326-x. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). 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.

    If CitEc recognized a 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.

    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.