Forecasting with Conjoint Analysis

  • Dick R. Wittink
  • Trond Bergestuen

Abstract

Conjoint analysis is a survey-based method managers often use to obtain consumer input to guide their new-product decisions. The commercial popularity of the method suggests that conjoint results improve the quality of those decisions. We discuss the basic elements of conjoint analysis, describe conditions under which the method should work well, and identify difficulties with forecasting marketplace behavior. We introduce one forecasting principle that establishes the forecast accuracy of new-product performance in the marketplace. However, practical complexities make it very difficult for researchers to obtain incontrovertible evidence about the external validity of conjoint results. Since published studies typically rely on holdout tasks to compare the predictive validities of alternative conjoint procedures, we describe the characteristics of such tasks, and discuss the linkages to conjoint data and marketplace choices. We then introduce five other principles that can guide conjoint studies to enhance forecast accuracy.

Keywords

Conjoint analysis validation measures forecasts at aggregate and individual levels 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armstrong, J. S. (2001), “Judgmental bootstrapping: Inferring experts’ rules for forecasting,” in J. S. Armstrong (ed.), Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Benbenisty, R. L. (1983), “Attitude research, conjoint analysis guided Ma Bell’s entry into data terminal market,” Marketing News, (May 13), 12.Google Scholar
  3. Brodie, R. J., P. J. Danaher, V. Kumar and P. S. H. Leeflang (2001), “Econometric models for forecasting market share,” in J. S. Armstrong (ed.), Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Cattin, P. and D. R. Wittink (1982), “Commercial use of conjoint analysis: A survey,” Journal of Marketing, 46, 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cattin, P., A. Gelfand and J. Danes (1983), “A simple Bayesian procedure for estimation in a conjoint model,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, D. G. (1987), Marketing Analysis and Decision Making. Redwood City, CA: The Scientific Press, 180–192.Google Scholar
  7. Cooksey, R. W. (1996), Judgment Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Green, P. E. (1984), “Hybrid models for conjoint analysis: An expository review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Green, P. E. and V. Srinivasan (1978), “Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Green, P. E. and V. Srinivasan (1990), “Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice,” Journal of Marketing, 54, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hagerty, M. R. (1986), “The cost of simplifying preference models,” Marketing Science, 5, 298–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huber, J. C., D. R. Wittink, J. A. Fiedler and R. L. Miller (1993), “The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation procedures in predicting choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, R. M. (1987), “Adaptive conjoint analysis,” 1987 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings. Sequim, WA. Sawtooth Software Inc., pp. 253–266.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, R. M. (1991), “Comment on `attribute level effects revisited’… ”, R. Mora ed., Second Annual Advanced Research Techniques Forum. Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp. 62–64.Google Scholar
  15. Kopel, P. S. and D. Kever (1991), “Using adaptive conjoint analysis for the development of lottery games—an Iowa lottery case study, ” 1991 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, 143–154.Google Scholar
  16. Krishnamurthi, L. and D. R. Wittink (1991), “The value of idiosyncratic functional forms in conjoint analysis,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Louviere, J. J. (1988), “Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences: A review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity,” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 22, 93–119.Google Scholar
  18. Moore, W. L. (1980), “Levels of aggregation in conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 516–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Page, A. L. and H. F. Rosenbaum (1987), “Redesigning product lines with conjoint analysis: How Sunbeam does it,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4, 120–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parker, B. R. and V. Srinivasan (1976), “A consumer preference approach to the planning of rural primary health care facilities,” Operations Research, 24, 991–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Payne, J. W. (1976), “Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Poulton, E.C. (1989), Bias in Quant(ingJudgments. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Robinson, P. J. (1980), “Application of conjoint analysis to pricing problems,” in Proceedings of the First ORSA/TIMS Special Interest Conference on Market Measurement and Analysis, D.B. Montgomery and D.R Wittink (eds.), Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, pp. 193–205.Google Scholar
  24. Sawtooth Software (1997a), “1997 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Sawtooth Software (1997b), “Using utility constraints to improve the predictability of conjoint analysis,” Sawtooth Software News, 3–4.Google Scholar
  26. Srinivasan V. and C. S. Park (1997), “Surprising robustness of the self-explicated approach to customer preference structure measurement,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 286–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Srinivasan V. and P. deMaCarty (1998), “An alternative approach to the predictive validation of conjoint models,” Research Paper No. 1483, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, March.Google Scholar
  28. Srinivasan V., A. K. Jain and N. K. Malhotra (1983), “Improving predictive power of conjoint analysis by constrained parameter estimation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 433–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Srinivasan V., P. G. Flaschbart, J. S. Dajani and R. G. Hartley (1981), “Forecasting the effectiveness of work-trip gasoline conservation policies through conjoint analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 45, 157–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steenkamp, J-B. E. M. and D. R. Wittink (1994), “The metric quality of full-profile judgments and the number-of-attribute levels effect in conjoint analysis,” International-Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 275–286.Google Scholar
  31. Urban, G. L., B. D. Weinberg and J. R. Hauser (1996), “Premarket forecasting of really-new products,” Journal of Marketing, 60, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wittink, D. R. and P. Cattin (1989), “Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update,” Journal of Marketing, 53, 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wittink, D. R. and S. K. Keil (2000), “Continuous conjoint analysis,” in A. Gustafsson, A. Herrman and F. Huber (eds.) Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer, pp. 411–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wittink, D. R., L. Krishnamurthi and D. J. Reibstein (1989), “The effect of differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint results,” Marketing Letters, 1, 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wittink, D. R., W. G. McLauchlan and P.B. Seethuraman, (1997), “Solving the number-ofattribute-levels problem in conjoint analysis,” 1997 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, 227–240.Google Scholar
  36. Wittink, D. R. and D. B. Montgomery (1979), “Predictive validity of trade-off analysis for alternative segmentation schemes,” in Educators’ Conference Proceedings, Series 44, N. Beckwith et al., (eds.). Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp. 69–73.Google Scholar
  37. Wittink, D. R. and P.B. Seethuraman (1999), “A comparison of alternative solutions to the number-of-levels effect,” 1999 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
  38. Wittink, D. R., M. Vriens and W. Burhenne, (1994), “Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical reflections,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wright, P. and M. A. Kriewall (1980), “State of mind effects on the accuracy with which utility functions predict marketplace choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dick R. Wittink
    • 1
  • Trond Bergestuen
    • 2
  1. 1.Yale School of ManagementUSA
  2. 2.American ExpressUSA

Personalised recommendations