Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We identify gaps and propose several directions for future research in preference measurement. We structure our argument around a framework that views preference measurement as comprising three interrelated components: (1) the problem that the study is ultimately intended to address; (2) the design of the preference measurement task and the data collection approach; (3) the specification and estimation of a preference model, and the conversion into action. Conjoint analysis is only one special case within this framework. We summarize cutting edge research and identify fruitful directions for future investigations pertaining to the framework’s three components and to their integration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We refer the reader to the previous Choice Symposium papers by Ben-Akiva et al. (1994) and Louviere et al. (1999) for a summary of the benefits and difficulties of combining stated and revealed preference data.

References

  • Adamowicz, W., Bunch, D., Cameron, T.-A., Dellaert, B. G. C., Hanneman, M., Keane, M., et al. (2008). Behavioral frontiers in choice modeling. Marketing Letters, DOI 10.1007/s11002-008-9038-1.

  • Addelman, S. (1962). Symmetrical and asymmetrical fractional factorial plans. Technometrics, 4, 47–58 (February).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adomavicius, G., & Tuzhilin, A. (2005). Toward the next generation of recommender systems: a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 15(6), 734–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaldoss, W., Ho, T.-H., Krishna, A., Chen, K.-Y., Desai, P., Iyer, G., et al. (2008). Experiments on strategic choices and markets. Marketing Letters, DOI 10.1007/s11002-008-9040-7.

  • Ansari, A., Essegaier, S., & Kohli, R. (2000). Internet recommendation systems. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 363–375 (August).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, N., & Allenby, G. (1999). Measuring the influence of individual preference structures in group decision making. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 476–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, N., Ghose, A., Hess, J. D., Iyengar, R., Jing, B., Joshi, Y., et al. (2008). Putting one-to-one marketing to work: Personalization, customization and choice. Marketing Letters, in press.

  • Ben-Akiva, M., Bradley, M., Morikawa, T., Benjamin, J., Novak, T. P., Thomas, P., et al. (1994). Combining revealed and stated preference data. Marketing Letters, 5(4), 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M., McFadden, D., Train, K., Walker, J., Bhat, C., Bierlaire, M., et al. (2002). Hybrid choice models, progress and challenges. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 163–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blattberg, R. C., & George, E. I. (1992). Estimation under profit-driven loss functions. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10, 437–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleichrodt, H., & Pinto, J. L. (2000). A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Science, 46(11), 1485–1496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradlow, E. T. (2005). Current issues and a wish-list for conjoint analysis. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 4–5, 319–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradlow, E. T., Hu, Y., & Ho, T.-H. (2004). A learning-based model for imputing missing levels in partial conjoint profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(4), 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, P., & Wittink, D. R. (1982). Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaloner, K., & Verdinelli, I. (1995). Bayesian experimental design: a review. Statistical Science, 10(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, D., & Curry, D. (2005). Prediction in marketing using the support vector machine. Marketing Science, 24(4), 595–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, E. (2007). Conjoint adaptive ranking database system. Working paper, University of California at Los Angeles.

  • Dahan, E., & Hauser, J. R. (2002). The virtual customer. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 332–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, E., Lo, A., Poggio, T., Chan, N., & Kim, A. (2007a). Securities trading of concepts (STOC). Working paper, University of California at Los Angeles.

  • Dahan, E., Soukhoroukova, A., & Spann, M. (2007b). Preference markets: Organizing securities markets for opinion surveys with infinite scalability. Working paper, University of California at Los Angeles.

  • Dahan, E., & Srinivasan, V. (2000). The predictive power of internet-based product concept testing using visual depiction and animation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17, 99–109 March.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bruyn, A., Liechty, J. C., Huizingh, E. K. R. E., & Lilien, G. L. (2008). Offering online recommendations with minimum customer input through conjoint-based decision aids. Marketing Science, in press.

  • DeSarbo, W., Fong, D. K. H., Liechty, J. C., & Coupland, J. C. (2005). Evolutionary preferences/utility functions: a dynamic perspective. Psychometrika, 70(1), 179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, M. (2007). An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 214–223 (May).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, M., & Eliashberg, J. (2007). A dynamic competitive forecasting model incorporating dyadic decision-making. Management Science, 54, 820–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, M., Grewal, R., & Liechty, J. (2005). Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 67–82 (February).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, G., & Kalish, S. (1993). Heuristics for pricing and positioning a product-line using conjoint and cost data. Management Science, 7(2), 107–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T., Keane, M., Öncü, S., & Strebel, J. (2005). Learning about computers: an analysis of information search and technology choice. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 3(3), 207–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evgeniou, T., Boussios, C., & Zacharia, G. (2005). Generalized robust conjoint estimation. Marketing Science, 24(3), 415–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evgeniou, T., Pontil, M., & Toubia, O. (2007). A convex optimization approach to modeling consumer heterogeneity in conjoint estimation. Marketing Science, 26(6), 805–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Goette, L. (2007). Do workers work more if the wages are higher: evidence from a randomized field experiment. The American Economic Review, 97(1), 298–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feit, E. M., Beltramo, M. A., & Feinberg, F. M. (2007). Combining survey and market data to enhance consumer preference models. Working paper, University of Michigan.

  • Gensler, S., Theysohn, S., Hinz, O., & Skiera, B. (2007). Individually adjusted choice-based conjoint analysis. Working paper, Frankfurt University, Germany.

  • Gilbride, T. J., & Allenby, G. M. (2004). A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Marketing Science, 23(3), 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbride, T. J., Lenk, P. J., & Brazell, J. D. (2006). Market share constraints and the loss function in choice based conjoint analysis. Working paper, University of Notre Dame.

  • Gilula, Z., McCulloch, R. E., & Rossi, P. E. (2006). A direct approach to data fusion. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghose, S., & Rao, V. R. (2007). A choice model of bundles features and meta-attributes: An application to product design. Working paper, Cornell University.

  • Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), 545–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., & Muller, E. (2002). Riding the saddle: How cross-market communications can create a major slump in sales. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., Goldberg, S. M., & Montemayor, M. (1981). A hybrid utility estimation model for conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing, 45, 33–41 (Winter).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., & Krieger, A. M. (1985). Models and heuristics for product line selection. Marketing Science, 4(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., & Bansal, P. (1988). Completely unacceptable levels in conjoint analysis: a cautionary note. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 293–300 (August).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1971). Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 355–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing Research, 54, 3–19 (October).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2007). Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications (4th ed.). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haaijer, M. E., Kamakura, W. A., & Wedel, M. (2000). Response latencies in the analysis of conjoint choice experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 376–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haaijer, R., Wedel, M., Vriens, M., & Wansbeek, T. (1998). Utility covariances and context effects in conjoint MNP models. Marketing Science, 17(3), 236–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häubl, G., & Murray, K. B. (2003). Preference construction and preference in digital marketplaces: The role of electronic recommendation agents. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häubl, G., & Trifts, V. (2000). Interactive decision aids. Marketing Science, 19(1), 4–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horsky, D., Misra, S., & Nelson, P. (2006). Observed and unobserved preference heterogeneity in brand-choice models. Marketing Science, 25(4), 322–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hui, S. K., Bradlow, E. T., & Fader, P. S. (2008a). An integrated model of grocery store shopping path and purchase behavior. Working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Hui, S. K., Fader, P. S., & Bradlow, E. T. (2008b). Path data in marketing: An integrative framework and prospectus for model-building. Marketing Science, in press.

  • Iyengar, R., Jedidi, K., & Kohli, R. (2008). A conjoint approach to multi-part pricing. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(2), 195–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarnebrant, P., Toubia, O., & Johnson, E. J. (2008). The silver lining effect: Formal analysis and experiments. Working paper, Columbia Business School.

  • Jedidi, K., & Kohli, R. (2005). Probabilistic subset-conjunctive models for heterogeneous consumers. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 483–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. M. (1987). Adaptive conjoint analysis. In: Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, July, 253–265.

  • Johnson, J., Tellis, G. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (2005). Losers, winners and biased trades. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 324–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. G. (2004). Dynamic heterogeneous choice heuristics: A Bayesian hidden Markov mixture model approach. Working Paper, MIT Sloan School of Management.

  • Kim, J. G., Menzefricke, U., & Feinberg, F. M. (2005). Modeling parametric evolution in a random utility framework. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 23(5), 282–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. G., Menzefricke, U., & Feinberg, F. M. (2007). Capturing flexible heterogeneous utility curves: Bayesian spline approach. Management Science, 53(2), 340–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004a). Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 237–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004b). Extending compromise effect models to complex buying situations and other context effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 262–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, R., & Jedidi, K. (2007). Representation and inference of lexicographic preference models and their variants. Marketing Science, 26(3), 380–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, R., & Sukumar, R. (1990). Heuristics for product-line design using conjoint analysis. Management Science, 36(12), 1464–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhfeld, W. F., Tobias, R. D., & Garratt, M. (1994). Efficient experimental design with marketing applications. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), 545–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachaab, M., Ansari, A., Jedidi, K., & Trabelsi, A. (2006). Modeling preference evolution in discrete choice models: a Bayesian state-space approach. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 4, 57–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. Y., & Bradlow, E. T. (2008). Automatic construction of conjoint attributes and levels from online customer reviews. Working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Lenk, P. J., DeSarbo, W. S., Green, P. E., & Young, M. R. (1996). Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Science, 15(2), 173–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liechty, J. C., Fong, D. K. H., & DeSarbo, W. S. (2005). Dynamic models incorporating individual heterogeneity: utility evolution in conjoint analysis. Marketing Science, 24(2), 285–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liechty, J., Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2003). Global and local covert visual attention: evidence from a Bayesian hidden Markov model. Psychometrika, 68, 519–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liechty, J., Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. H. (2001). Choice menus for mass customization: an experimental approach for analyzing customer demand with an application to a web-based information service. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J., Meyer, R. J., Bunch, D. S., Carson, R., Dellaert, B., Hanemann, M., et al. (1999). Combining sources of preference data for modeling complex decision processes. Marketing Letters, 10(3), 187–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, L., Kannan, P. K., Besharati, B., & Azarm, S. (2005). Design of robust new products under variability: marketing meets design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, L., Kannan, P. K., & Ratchford, B. (2008). Incorporating subjective characteristics in product design and evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(2), 182–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, P., & Bradlow, E. T. (2002). A unified approach to conjoint analysis models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97(459), 674–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBride, R., & Zufryden, F. S. (1988). An integer programming approach to the optimal product line selection problem. Marketing Science, 7(2), 126–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalek, J. J., Feinberg, F. M., Ebbes, P., Adigüzel, F., & Papalambros, P. Y. (2007). Optimal feasible product line design for heterogeneous markets. Working paper, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University.

  • Michalek, J. J., Feinberg, F. M., & Papalambros, P. Y. (2005). Linking marketing and engineering product design decisions via analytical target cascading. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 42–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netzer, O., Schrift, R., & Toubia, O. (2008). Modeling and exploiting response time in conjoint analysis. Working paper, Columbia Business School.

  • Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2008). Adaptive self-explication of multi-attribute preferences. Working paper, Columbia Business School.

  • Otter, T., Allenby, G. M., & van Zandt, T. (2008). An integrated model of choice and response time with applications to conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, in press.

  • Park, Y. H., Ding, M., & Rao, V. R. (2008). Eliciting preference for complex products: A web-based upgrading method. Journal of Marketing Research, in press.

  • Parker, B. R., & Srinivasan V. (1976). A consumer preference approach to the planning of rural primary health-care facilities. Operations Research, 24(5), 991–1025.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66(3), 497–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prelec, D. (2001). A two-person scoring rule for subjective reports. Working Paper, Center for Innovation in Product Development, Cambridge, MA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Rao, V. R., & Steckel, J. H. (1991). A polarization model for describing group preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 108–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. E., & Allenby, G. M. (2003). Bayesian statistics and marketing. Marketing Science, 22(3), 304–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saigal, C., Dahan, E., & Cumberland, W. (2007). Measuring prostate cancer treatnment preferences with standard gambles, time tradeoffs and conjoint analysis. NIH Research Proposal.

  • Sandor, Z., & Wedel, M. (2001). Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers prior beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 430–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandor, Z., & Wedel, M. (2005). Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 210–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnier, G., Ainslie, A., & Otter, T. (2007). Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 5(3), 313–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srebro, N., Rennie, J. D. M., & Jaakkola, T. (2005). Maximum margin matrix factorization. Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems, 17.

  • Srinivasan, V. (1988). A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication of multiattributed preferences. Decision Sciences, 19, 295–305 (Spring).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V., Lovejoy, W. S., & Beach, D. (1997). Integrated product design for marketability and manufacturing. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 154–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V., & Shocker, A. D. (1973a). Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences. Psychometrika, 38(3), 337–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V., & Shocker, A. D. (1973b). Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgments. Psychometrika, 38(4), 473–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, M., & Rao, V. R. (2007). Evolution in willingness to pay at attribute level and its impact on new product adoption: a continuous conjoint analysis. Working paper, Cornell university.

  • Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2007). Risk and time preferences: experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. Working paper, California Institute of Technology.

  • Ter Hofstede, F., Kim, Y., & Wedel, M. (2002). Bayesian prediction in hybrid conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 253–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toubia, O., & Hauser, J. R. (2007). On managerially efficient experimental designs. Marketing Science, 26(6), 851–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toubia, O., Evgeniou, T., & Hauser, J. R. (2007a). Optimization-based and machine-learning methods for conjoint analysis: estimation and question design. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications(4th ed.). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toubia, O., Hauser, J. R., & Garcia, R. (2007b). Probabilistic polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: Theory and application. Marketing Science, 26(5), 596–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toubia, O., Hauser, J. R., & Simester, D. (2004). Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice based conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(1), 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toubia, O., Simester, D., Hauser, J. R., & Dahan, E. (2003). Fast polyhedral conjoint estimation. Marketing Science, 22(3), 274–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vadali, S., Liechty, J., & Rangaswamy, A. (2007). Generalized hierarchical Bayes estimation for polyhedral conjoint analysis. Working Paper, Pennsylvania State University.

  • von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management Science, 48(7), 821–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wassenaar, H. J., Chen, W., Cheng, J., & Sudjianto, A. (2005). Enhancing discrete choice demand modeling for decision-based design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 127(4), 514–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wind, J., Green, P. E., Shifflet, D., & Scarbrough, M. (1989). Courtyard by Marriott: designing a hotel facility with consumer-based marketing models. Interfaces, 19, 25–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R., & Cattin, P. (1989). Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R., Krishnamurthi, L., & Reibstein, D. J. (1989). The effect of differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint results. Marketing Letters, 1, 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yee, M., Dahan, E., Hauser, J. R., & Orlin, J. (2008). Greedoid-based noncompensatory inference. Marketing Science, 26(4), 532–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ying, Y., Feinberg, F. M., & Wedel, M. (2006). Leveraging missing ratings to improve online recommendation systems. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 355–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management at Wharton for partially supporting this research and for supporting the 7th Triennial Choice Conference held at the Wharton School. The first two authors (session co-chairs) and the third to the 12th authors are listed alphabetically.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia Business School, Columbia University, 3022 Broadway, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Oded Netzer & Olivier Toubia

  2. University of Pennsylvania, 700 Jon M. Huntsman Hall, 3730 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6340, USA

    Eric T. Bradlow

  3. UCLA Anderson School, University of California, Los Angeles, 110 Westwood Plaza, B-514, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1481, USA

    Ely Dahan

  4. INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77305, Fontainebleau, France

    Theodoros Evgeniou

  5. Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan St., Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1234, USA

    Fred M. Feinberg & Eleanor M. Feit

  6. Stern School of Business, New York University, 40 West 4th Street, New York, NY, 10012, USA

    Sam K. Hui

  7. School of Business Administration, University of Miami, 5250 University Drive, Coral Gables, FL, 33146-6554, USA

    Joseph Johnson

  8. Smeal College of Business, The Pennsylvania State University, Business Building, University Park, State College, PA, 16802, USA

    John C. Liechty

  9. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139-4307, USA

    James B. Orlin

  10. Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University, 351 Sage Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Vithala R. Rao

Authors
  1. Oded Netzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Olivier Toubia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric T. Bradlow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ely Dahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Theodoros Evgeniou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fred M. Feinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eleanor M. Feit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sam K. Hui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Joseph Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. John C. Liechty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. James B. Orlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Vithala R. Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oded Netzer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Netzer, O., Toubia, O., Bradlow, E.T. et al. Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement. Mark Lett 19, 337–354 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9046-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9046-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation