IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-05299752.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Market share predictions: a new model with rating-based conjoint analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Hervé Guyon

    (PESOR - UP11 - Université Paris-Sud - Paris 11)

  • Jean-François Petiot

    (IRCCyN - Institut de Recherche en Communications et en Cybernétique de Nantes - Mines Nantes - Mines Nantes - ECN - École Centrale de Nantes - EPUN - Ecole Polytechnique de l'Université de Nantes - UN - Université de Nantes - UNAM - PRES Université Nantes Angers Le Mans - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Conjoint Analysis (CA) is a technique heavily used by industry in support of product development, pricing and positioning, and market share predictions. This generic term CA encompasses a variety of experimental protocols and estimation models (e.g. rating-based or choice-based), as well as several probabilistic models for predicting market share. As for the rating conjoint, existing probabilistic models from the literature cannot be considered as reliable because they suffer from the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA) property, in addition to depending on an arbitrary rating scale selected by the experimenter. In this article, after a brief overview of CA and of models used for market share predictions, we propose a new model for market share predictions, RFC-BOLSE, which avoids the IIA problem, yields convergent results for different rating scales, and outputs predictions that match regression reliability. The model is described in details and simulations and a case study on truck tyres will illustrate the reliability of RFC-BOLSE.

Suggested Citation

  • Hervé Guyon & Jean-François Petiot, 2011. "Market share predictions: a new model with rating-based conjoint analysis," Post-Print hal-05299752, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05299752
    DOI: 10.2501/IJMR-53-6-831-857
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-05299752v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-05299752v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2501/IJMR-53-6-831-857?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. 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. Chakraborty, Goutam & Ball, Dwayne & Gaeth, Gary J. & Jun, Sunkyu, 2002. "The ability of ratings and choice conjoint to predict market shares: a Monte Carlo simulation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 237-249, March.
    3. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.
    4. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    5. Zsolt Sándor & Michel Wedel, 2002. "Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 455-475, February.
    6. Roland Helm & Armin Scholl & Laura Manthey & Michael Steiner, 2004. "Measuring customer preferences in new product development: comparing compositional and decompositional methods," International Journal of Product Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1), pages 12-29.
    7. 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.
    8. Natter, Martin & Feurstein, Markus, 2002. "Real world performance of choice-based conjoint models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 448-458, March.
    9. Butler, John C. & Dyer, James S. & Jia, Jianmin & Tomak, Kerem, 2008. "Enabling e-transactions with multi-attribute preference models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 748-765, April.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Scholl, Armin & Manthey, Laura & Helm, Roland & Steiner, Michael, 2005. "Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 760-777, August.
    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. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.
    2. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2011. "Estimation methods for choice-based conjoint analysis of consumer preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 160-167, October.
    3. Maldonado, Sebastián & Montoya, Ricardo & Weber, Richard, 2015. "Advanced conjoint analysis using feature selection via support vector machines," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(2), pages 564-574.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Xinfang (Jocelyn) Wang & Jeffrey D. Camm & David J. Curry, 2009. "A Branch-and-Price Approach to the Share-of-Choice Product Line Design Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(10), pages 1718-1728, October.
    8. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    9. Gabriela D. Oliveira & Luis C. Dias, 2020. "The potential learning effect of a MCDA approach on consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 767-787, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    12. Andrew R. Kamwendo & Mandusha Maharaj, 2022. "The Preferences of Consumers When Selecting Clothing Detergent Products," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 12(6), pages 23-36, November.
    13. Schlereth, Christian & Eckert, Christine & Schaaf, René & Skiera, Bernd, 2014. "Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: A classification and merge of trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 185-198.
    14. 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.
    15. Lee, Ungki & Kang, Namwoo & Lee, Ikjin, 2020. "Choice data generation using usage scenarios and discounted cash flow analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    16. Michael Yee & Ely Dahan & John R. Hauser & James Orlin, 2007. "Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 532-549, 07-08.
    17. 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.
    18. Kick, Markus & Littich, Martina, 2015. "Brand and Reputation as Quality Signals on Regulated Markets," EconStor Preprints 182503, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    19. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    20. Katharina Keller & Christian Schlereth & Oliver Hinz, 2021. "Sample-based longitudinal discrete choice experiments: preferences for electric vehicles over time," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 482-500, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    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:hal:journl:hal-05299752. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.