Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forecasting with Conjoint Analysis

  • Chapter
Principles of Forecasting

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 30))

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 429.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
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

  • 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 

  • Benbenisty, R. L. (1983), “Attitude research, conjoint analysis guided Ma Bell’s entry into data terminal market,” Marketing News, (May 13), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cattin, P. and D. R. Wittink (1982), “Commercial use of conjoint analysis: A survey,” Journal of Marketing, 46, 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. G. (1987), Marketing Analysis and Decision Making. Redwood City, CA: The Scientific Press, 180–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooksey, R. W. (1996), Judgment Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. (1984), “Hybrid models for conjoint analysis: An expository review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and V. Srinivasan (1978), “Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, M. R. (1986), “The cost of simplifying preference models,” Marketing Science, 5, 298–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. M. (1987), “Adaptive conjoint analysis,” 1987 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings. Sequim, WA. Sawtooth Software Inc., pp. 253–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Moore, W. L. (1980), “Levels of aggregation in conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 516–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulton, E.C. (1989), Bias in Quant(ingJudgments. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sawtooth Software (1997a), “1997 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings,” Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawtooth Software (1997b), “Using utility constraints to improve the predictability of conjoint analysis,” Sawtooth Software News, 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Urban, G. L., B. D. Weinberg and J. R. Hauser (1996), “Premarket forecasting of really-new products,” Journal of Marketing, 60, 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R. and P. Cattin (1989), “Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update,” Journal of Marketing, 53, 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yale School of Management, USA

    Dick R. Wittink

  2. American Express, USA

    Trond Bergestuen

Authors
  1. Dick R. Wittink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Trond Bergestuen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

    J. Scott Armstrong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wittink, D.R., Bergestuen, T. (2001). Forecasting with Conjoint Analysis. In: Armstrong, J.S. (eds) Principles of Forecasting. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 30. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-7401-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-306-47630-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation