Skip to main content

Dealing with Product Similarity in Conjoint Simulations

  • Chapter
Conjoint Measurement

Abstract

One of the reasons conjoint analysis has been so popular as a management decision tool has been the availability of a choice simulator. These simulators often arrive in the form of a software or spreadsheet program accompanying the output of a conjoint study. These simulators enable managers to perform ‘what if’ questions about their market - estimating market shares under various assumptions about competition and their own offerings. As examples, simulators can predict the market share of a new offering; they can estimate the direct and cross elasticity of price changes within a market, or they can form the logical guide to strategic simulations that anticipate short- and long-term competitive responses (Green and Krieger 1988).

Originally presented at the Sawtooth Software Conference, February 2, 1999 and updated for this volume in 2006.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arora, N., Allenby, G. and Ginter, J. L. (1998), A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand, Marketing Science, 17, 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chintagunta, P., Jain, D. C. and Vilcassim, N. J. (1991), Investigating Heterogeneity in Brand Preferences in Logit Models for Panel Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 417–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., Ramaswamy, V. and Cohen, S. H. (1995), Market Segmentation with Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 6, 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elrod, T. and Kumar, S. K. (1989), Bias in the First Choice Rule for Predicting Share, Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E and Krieger, A. M. (1988), Choice Rules and Sensitivity Analysis in Conjoint Simulators, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 114–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. and Wise, G. (1978), A Conditional Probit Model for Quantitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences, Econometrica, 43, 403–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. and Zwerina, K. (1996), The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs, Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. M. (1997), ICE: Individual Choice Estimation, Sawtooth Software Technical Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W. A. and Russell, G. J. (1989), A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure, Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 339–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, P. J., DeSarbo, W. S., Green, P. E. and Young, M. R. (1996), Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs Marketing Science, 15, 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orme, B. K. and Heft, M. (1999), Predicting Actual Sales with CBC: How Capturing Heterogeneity Improves Results, Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Revelt, D. and Train, D. (1998), Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Household’s Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level, Review of Economics and Statistics, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. and Allenby, G. (1993), A Bayesian Approach to Estimating Household Parameters, Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Additional References

  • Allenby, Greg, Jeff Brazell, Tim Gilbride, and Thomas Otter (2004), Avoiding IIA Meltdown: Choice Modeling with Many Alternatives, Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orme, Bryan and Gary Baker (2000), Comparing Hierarchical Bayes Draws and Randomized First Choice for Conjoint Simulations, Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orme, Bryan and Joel Huber (2000), Improving the Value of Conjoint Simulations, Marketing Research, winter 2000.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Huber, J., Orme, B., Miller, R. (2007). Dealing with Product Similarity in Conjoint Simulations. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (eds) Conjoint Measurement. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71404-0_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics