IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/20542.html

Measurement of Cannibalism Effects in buying experiments using Mixed Logit Models - The Example of a new Brand of the “Fruits of Lake Constance” Association -

Author

Listed:
  • Profeta, Adriano

Abstract

One fundamental assumption of discrete choice regression is the assumption of independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA). According to the IIA assumption no correlation is allowed between brands in buying experiments. As a consequence, in market simulations all remaining brands gain at the ratio of their starting market share if one brand is excluded from the simulation set. This often does not reflect the reality at the point-of-sale. Mixed-logit models offer the advantage that the IIA-assumption is completely relaxed. What is more, simulations based on mixed logit are able to model cannibalism effects. This paper applies mixed logit to buying behaviour research. A case study is presented where the introduction of a new apple brand at the German discounter “Penny” is simulated in a buying experiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Profeta, Adriano, 2008. "Measurement of Cannibalism Effects in buying experiments using Mixed Logit Models - The Example of a new Brand of the “Fruits of Lake Constance” Association -," MPRA Paper 20542, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:20542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20542/1/MPRA_paper_20542.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Enneking, Ulrich, 2003. "Die Analyse von Lebensmittelpräferenzen mit Hilfe von Discrete-Choice-Modellen am Beispiel ökologisch produzierter Wurstwaren," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(05), pages 1-14.
    2. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    3. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    4. Frode Alfnes, 2004. "Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: application of a mixed logit model," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(1), pages 19-37, March.
    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. Schmitz, Kim & Schmitz, P. Michael & Wronka, Tobias C., 2003. "Bewertung von Landschaftsfunktionen mit Choice Experiments," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(08), pages 1-11.
    2. Profeta, Adriano, 2008. "Interactions between Country-of-Origin, Brands and Food-Safety-Certificates in the Promotion of Beef in Germany – What is the Right Labelling Strategy? – A Consumer Preference Analysis on the Basis of a Conditional Logit Model –," MPRA Paper 20543, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Melanie Lefevre, 2011. "Willingness-to-pay for Local Milk-based Dairy Product in Senegal," CREPP Working Papers 1108, Centre de Recherche en Economie Publique et de la Population (CREPP) (Research Center on Public and Population Economics) HEC-Management School, University of Liège.
    4. Frick, Bernd & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Prinz, Joachim, 2010. "Analysing head coach dismissals in the German "Bundesliga" with a mixed logit approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 151-159, January.
    5. Basu, Debasis & Hunt, John Douglas, 2012. "Valuing of attributes influencing the attractiveness of suburban train service in Mumbai city: A stated preference approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1465-1476.
    6. Arouna, Aminou & Adegbola, Patrice Y. & Raphael, Babatunde & Diagne, Aliou, 2015. "Contract farming preferences by smallholder rice producers in Africa: a stated choice model using mixed logic," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 210957, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Solomon Tarfasa & Roy Brouwer, 2013. "Estimation of the public benefits of urban water supply improvements in Ethiopia: a choice experiment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(9), pages 1099-1108, March.
    8. Scozzafava, Gabriele & Casini, Leonardo & Marinelli, Nicola, 2012. "Modern Distribution vs. Specialised Shop: a Study on beef consumer behaviour," 2012 XX Convegno Annuale SIEA, Siracusa, Italy 130448, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA).
    9. Axsen, Jonn & Mountain, Dean C. & Jaccard, Mark, 2009. "Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: The case of hybrid-electric vehicles," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 221-238, August.
    10. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Alfnes, Frode & Steine, Gro, 2005. "None-of-These Bias in Stated Choice Experiments," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24761, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    13. J Blasch & B van der Kroon & P van Beukering & R Munster & S Fabiani & P Nino & S Vanino, 2022. "Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: a case study from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(1), pages 33-81.
    14. Jose Blandon & Spencer Henson & Towhidul Islam, 2009. "Marketing preferences of small-scale farmers in the context of new agrifood systems: a stated choice model," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 251-267.
    15. Janssen, Meike & Hamm, Ulrich, 2014. "Governmental and private certification labels for organic food: Consumer attitudes and preferences in Germany," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P2), pages 437-448.
    16. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Sarah, Acquah, 2014. "A National Survey of Consumer Preferences for Branded Gulf Oysters and Risk Perceptions of Gulf Seafood," Research Reports 190586, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    17. Lefèvre, Mélanie, 2014. "Do Consumers Pay More for What They Value More? The Case of Local Milk-based Dairy Products in Senegal," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 43(01), pages 1-20, April.
    18. Madeleine T. King & Jane Hall & Emily Lancsar & Denzil Fiebig & Ishrat Hossain & Jordan Louviere & Helen K. Reddel & Christine R. Jenkins, 2007. "Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(7), pages 703-717, July.
    19. repec:ehu:biltok:5564 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. David Hensher, 2001. "The valuation of commuter travel time savings for car drivers: evaluating alternative model specifications," Transportation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 101-118, May.
    21. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid & Shahhoseini, Zahra, 2015. "Accommodating taste heterogeneity and desired substitution pattern in exit choices of pedestrian crowd evacuees using a mixed nested logit model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 58-68.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:pra:mprapa:20542. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.