Probabilistic polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: Theory and application

Marketing Science

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 596-610

  Toubia, Olivier ^a   Hauser, John ^b   Garcia, Rosanna ^c  

^a The Sanford C Bernstein Co Center for Leadership and Ethics   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian methods; Choice models; Conjoint analysis; Estimation and other statistical techniques; International marketing; Marketing research; New product research; Product development

Indexed keywords

EID: 38549122856     PISSN: 07322399     EISSN: 1526548X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1060.0257     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Ailawadi, K. L., P. K. Kopalle, S. A. Neslin. 2005. Predicting competitive response to a major policy change: Combining gametheoretic and empirical analyses. Marketing Sci. 24(1) 12-24.
2. Allenby, G. M., N. Arora, J. L. Ginter. 1995. Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. J. Marketing Res. 32(May) 152-162.
3. Arora, N., J. Huber. 2001. Improving parameter estimates and model prediction by aggregate customization in choice experiments. J. Consumer Res. 28(September) 273-283.
4. Belloni, A., R. Freund, M. Selove, D. Simester. 2005. Optimizing product line designs: Efficient methods and comparisons. Management Sci. Forthcoming.
5. Courtney, S. 2001. Screwcap wine seals: Has Kiwi ingenuity gone too far? Wine of the Week (August). http://www.wineoftheweek. com/screwcaps/ history.html.
6. Evgeniou, T., C. Boussious, G. Zacharia. 2005. Generalized robust conjoint estimation. Marketing Sci. 24(3) 415-429.
7. Hauser, J. R., O. Toubia. 2005. The impact of utility balance and endogeneity in conjoint analysis. Marketing Sci. 24(3) 498-507.
8. Huber, J., K. Zwerina. 1996. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Marketing Res. 33(August) 307-317.
9. Kanninen, B. J. 2002. Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments. J. Marketing Res. 36(May) 214-227.
10. Liechty, J. C., D. K. H. Fong, W. DeSarbo. 2005. Dynamic models incorporating individual heterogeneity: Utility evolution in conjoint analysis. Marketing Sci. 24(2) 285-293.
11. Liu, Q., T. Otter, G. M. Allenby. 2006. Investigating endogeneity bias in marketing. Marketing Sci. 26(5) 640-648.
12. Lockshin, L., P. Quester, T. Spawton. 2001. Segmentation by involvement or nationality for global retailing: A cross-national comparative study of wine shopping behavior. J. Wine Res. 12(Dccember) 223-236.
13. Rossi, P. E., G. M. Allenby. 2003. Bayesian statistics and marketing. Marketing Sci. 22(3) 304-328.
14. Rust, R. T., P. C. Verhoef. 2005. Optimizing the marketing interventions mix in intermediate-term CRM. Marketing Sci. 24(3) 477-489.
15. Spall, J. C. 2003. Introduction to Stochastic Search and Optimization: Estimation, Simulation, and Control. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ.
16. Toubia, O., J. R. Hauser, D. I. Simester. 2004. Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. 41(February) 116-131.
17. Toubia, O., D. Simester, J. R. Hauser, E. Dahan. 2003. Fast polyhedral adaptive conjoint estimation. Marketing Sci. 22(3) 273-303.