IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/qmktec/v12y2014i4p421-456.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic valuation of product features

Author

Listed:
  • Greg Allenby
  • Jeff Brazell
  • John Howell
  • Peter Rossi

Abstract

We develop a market-based paradigm to value the enhancement or addition of features to a product. We define the market value of a product or feature enhancement as the change in the equilibrium profits that would prevail with and without the enhancement. In order to compute changes in equilibrium profits, a valid demand system must be constructed to value the feature. The demand system must be supplemented by information on competitive offerings and cost. In many situations, demand data is either not available or not informative with respect to demand for a product feature. Conjoint methods can be used to construct the demand system via a set of designed survey-based experiments. We illustrate our methods using data on the demand for digital cameras and demonstrate how the profits-based metric provides very different answers than the standard welfare or Willingness-To-Pay calculations. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:qmktec:v:12:y:2014:i:4:p:421-456
    DOI: 10.1007/s11129-014-9150-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11129-014-9150-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11129-014-9150-x?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
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. 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.
    5. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    6. Dong, Songting & Ding, Min & Huber, Joel, 2010. "A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 25-32.
    7. 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.
    8. Dan Horsky & Paul Nelson, 1992. "New Brand Positioning and Pricing in an Oligopolistic Market," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 133-153.
    9. Amil Petrin, 2002. "Quantifying the Benefits of New Products: The Case of the Minivan," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(4), pages 705-729, August.
    10. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    11. Trajtenberg, Manuel, 1989. "The Welfare Analysis of Product Innovations, with an Application to Computed Tomography Scanners," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(2), pages 444-479, April.
    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. Sofia B. Villas‐Boas & Kristin Kiesel & Joshua P. Berning & Hayley H. Chouinard & Jill J. McCluskey, 2020. "Consumer and Strategic Firm Response to Nutrition Shelf Labels," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(2), pages 458-479, March.
    2. Hasanzade, Vüsal & Elshiewy, Ossama & Toporowski, Waldemar, 2022. "Is it just the distance? Consumer preference for geographical and social proximity of food production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    3. Yegoryan, Narine & Guhl, Daniel & Klapper, Daniel, 2018. "Inferring Attribute Non-Attendance Using Eye Tracking in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 111, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    4. Max J. Pachali & Peter Kurz & Thomas Otter, 0. "How to generalize from a hierarchical model?," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-38.
    5. Marco J. W. Kotschedoff & Max J. Pachali, 2020. "Higher Minimum Quality Standards and Redistributive Effects on Consumer Welfare," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 253-280, January.
    6. Nino Hardt & Alex Varbanov & Greg M. Allenby, 2016. "Monetizing Ratings Data for Product Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(5), pages 713-726, September.
    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. Yegoryan, Narine & Guhl, Daniel & Klapper, Daniel, 2020. "Inferring attribute non-attendance using eye tracking in choice-based conjoint analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 290-304.
    9. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Stich, Lucas & Spann, Martin & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2022. "Paying for open access," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 273-286.
    13. Weisenfeld, Ursula & Hauerwaas, Antoniya & Elshiewy, Ossama & Halder, Pradipta & Wesseler, Justus & Cingiz, Kutay & Broer, Inge, 2023. "Beyond plastic – Consumers prefer food packaging derived from genetically modified plants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    14. Elshiewy, Ossama & Peschel, Anne O., 2022. "Internal reference price response across store formats," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 496-509.
    15. Dong Soo Kim & Roger A. Bailey & Nino Hardt & Greg M. Allenby, 2017. "Benefit-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 54-69, January.
    16. Denis Sauré & Juan Pablo Vielma, 2019. "Ellipsoidal Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 315-338, March.
    17. Johannes Dahlin & Verena Halbherr & Peter Kurz & Michael Nelles & Carsten Herbes, 2016. "Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    18. Narine Yegoryan & Daniel Guhl & Friederike Paetz, 2023. "When Zeros Count: Confounding in Preference Heterogeneity and Attribute Non-attendance," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 482, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    19. 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.
    20. Rausch, Theresa Maria & Baier, Daniel & Wening, Stefanie, 2021. "Does sustainability really matter to consumers? Assessing the importance of online shop and apparel product attributes," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    3. Cerquera Dussán, Daniel & Ullrich, Hannes, 2010. "Consumer welfare and unobserved heterogeneity in discrete choice models: The value of alpine road tunnels," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-095, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    5. Langford, Richard P. & Gillingham, Kenneth, 2023. "Quantifying the benefits of the introduction of the hybrid electric vehicle," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    9. Amil Petrin & Kenneth Train, 2003. "Omitted Product Attributes in Discrete Choice Models," NBER Working Papers 9452, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Andrew B. Bernard & Stephen J. Redding & Peter K. Schott, 2009. "Products and Productivity," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 111(4), pages 681-709, December.
    11. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    12. Sofronis Clerides, 2004. "Gains from Trade in Used Goods: Evidence from the Global Market for Automobiles," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 6-2004, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    13. Lee Branstetter & Chirantan Chatterjee & Matthew J. Higgins, 2016. "Regulation and welfare: evidence from paragraph IV generic entry in the pharmaceutical industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(4), pages 857-890, November.
    14. Weifang Lou, 2009. "Estimating the Impact of a Potential Process Innovation and the Optimal Strategy of Licensing," Working Papers 2009.03, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    15. C. Lanier Benkard & Patrick Bajari, 2004. "Demand Estimation with Heterogeneous Consumers and Unobserved Product Characteristics: A Hedonic Approach," NBER Working Papers 10278, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Hiller, R. Scott & Savage, Scott J. & Waldman, Donald M., 2018. "Using aggregate market data to estimate patent value: An application to United States smartphones 2010 to 2015," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-31.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Helveston, John Paul & Feit, Elea McDonnell & Michalek, Jeremy J., 2018. "Pooling stated and revealed preference data in the presence of RP endogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 70-89.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Product features; Conjoint; Equilibrium profits; Bayesian analysis; C11; C23; C25; C81; D12; D43; K11; L13; M3;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • M3 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising

    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:kap:qmktec:v:12:y:2014:i:4:p:421-456. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.