Analysis of consumer preferences for information and expert opinion using a discrete choice experiment
We present a study of consumer preferences for information in wine purchases. Consumers are presented with extra information in the form of qualitative product descriptions and quantitative expert ratings. We implement a discrete choice experiment in which we vary experimentally the presence of the descriptions and ratings and the values of the ratings themselves. Respondents are asked to choose amongst a set of 5 wine bottles in a sequence of 21 choice scenarios. We find that the presence of extra information and high expert ratings have a significant impact on the willingness to pay for a given wine. The dispersion of ratings for a given wine does not affect respondents’ choices. In our estimates high average ratings by experts carry a premium of AUD $10.
KeywordsStated preference survey Discrete choice experiments Experimental design Wine preferences Expert opinion
Funding from Australian Grape and Wine Authority is gratefully acknowledged. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the institutions with which they are affiliated. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.
- Ali H, Lecocq S, Visser M (2008) The impact of gurus: Parker grades and en primeur. wine prices, Economic Journal, this issueGoogle Scholar
- Buonanno P, Caggiano G, Galizzi MM, Leonida L (2008) Expert and peer pressure in food and wine tasting: evidence from a pilot experiment. Enometrica 1(1):51–68Google Scholar
- Cameron L, Cragg M, McFadden D (2013) The role of conjoint surveys in reasonable royalty cases. Law360Google Scholar
- Corsi AM, Cohen J, Lockshin L (2017) How consumptions occasions shape consumer preferences: a discrete choice experiment approach. In: 10Th international conference of the academy of wine business research, Sonoma State University, Rohnert ParkGoogle Scholar
- Lockshin L, Mueller S, Louviere J (2010) The influence of shelf information on consumers’ wine choice. In: AWBR 2010 5th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research Conference. AWBR 2010 5th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research ConferenceGoogle Scholar
- McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics, vol 4. Academic Press, New York, pp 105–142Google Scholar
- McFadden D (2014) The new science of pleasure: consumer choice behavior and the measurement of well-being. In: Hess S, Daly A (eds) Handbook of choice modelling. Edward Elgar, pp 7–48Google Scholar
- McFadden D (2015) Direct elicitation of indirect preferences. Society for Economic Measurement Annual Conference (Paper 144)Google Scholar
- Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
- Palma D, Dios Ortuzar JD, Casaubon G, Rizzi L, Agosin E (2013) Measuring consumer preferences using hybrid discrete choice models. Working Paper 137, AAWEGoogle Scholar
- Rossi PH, Nock SL (1982) Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach. SAGE Publications, IncorporatedGoogle Scholar
- Villas-Boas SB, Bonnet C, Hilger J (2017) Wtp 4 Weo. Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt160178v4, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley. https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/agrebk/qt160178v4.html