Conjoint analysis has been used extensively in marketing research to estimate the impact of selected product (service) characteristics on customer preferences for products (services). In this paper we discuss findings obtained from a survey of commercial users of the methodology. We project that around 1,000 commercial applications have been carried out during the last decade. We discuss the manner in which the methodology is used commercially, remaining issues that deserve further exploration, and recent advances or insights obtained by researchers working in this area.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarmoneFrank J., GreenPaul E., and JainArun K. (1978), “Robustness of Conjoint Analysis: Some Monte Carlo Results,”Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (May), 300–3.
2.
CattinPhilippe (1981), “On the Estimation of Continuous Utility Functions in Conjoint Analysis,” working paper No. 60-81, Center for Research and Management Development, University of Connecticut.
3.
CattinPhilippe, GelfandAlan E., and DanesJeffrey (1981), “A Simple Bayesian Procedure for Estimation in a Conjoint Model,” working paper No. 10-81, Center for Research and Management Development, University of Connecticut.
4.
CurrimImran S., and WittinkDick R. (1980), “Issues in the Development of a Marketing Support System Using Segment-Based Consumer Preference Models,” in Market Measurement and Analysis, MontgomeryDavid B., and WittinkDick R., eds. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 386–96.
5.
CurrimCharles, WeinbergB., and WittinkDick R. (1981), “Design of Subscription Programs for a Performing Arts Series,”Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (June), 67–75.
6.
GreenPaul E. (1974), “On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives,”Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (September), 61–8.
7.
GreenJ. Douglas Carroll, and GoldbergStephen M. (1981), “A General Approach to Product Design Optimization Via Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing, 45 (Summer), 17–37.
8.
GreenJ. Douglas Carroll, and DeSarboWayne S. (1979), “Componential Segmentation in the Analysis of Consumer Trade-Offs,”Journal of Marketing, 43 (Fall), 83–91.
9.
GreenJ., StephenDouglas Carroll, GoldbergM., and MontemayorMila (1981), “A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing, 45 (Winter), 33–41.
10.
GreenJ., StephenDouglas Carroll, GoldbergM., and WileyJames B. (1981), “A Cross-Validation Test of Hybrid Conjoint Models,” working paper, University of Pennsylvania.
11.
GreenJ., StephenDouglas Carroll, GoldbergM., and SrinivasanV. (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,”Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (September), 103–23.
12.
HauserJohn R., and SimmiePatricia (1981), “Profit Maximizing Perceptual Positions,”Management Science, 27 (January), 33–56.
13.
HolbrookMorris B. (1981), “Integrating Compositional and Decompositional Analyses to Represent the Intervening Role of Perceptions in Evaluative Judgments,”Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 12–28.
14.
HolbrookMorris B., and MooreWilliam L. (1981), “Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal Versus Pictorial Presentations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (June), 103–113.
15.
JainAran K., AcitoFranklin, MalhotraNaresh K., and MahajanVijay (1979), “A Comparison of the Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decompositional Multiattribute Preference Models,”Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (August), 313–22.
16.
JohnsonRichard M. (1980), “Measurement of Consumer Values Using Computer Interactive Techniques,” in Market Measurement and Analysis, MontgomeryDavid B., and WittinkDick R., eds., Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 271–7.
17.
JohnsonRichard M. (1981), “Problems in Applying Conjoint Analysis,” paper presented at the Conference on Analytical Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning, Vanderbilt University, October.
18.
KrishnamurthiLakshman (1980), “Modeling Joint Decision Making Through Relative Influence,” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
19.
MacBrideJames N., and JohnsonRichard M. (1980), “Respondent Reaction to Computer-Interactive Interviewing Techniques,” paper presented at ESOMAR Conference, Monte Carlo, September.
20.
MadanskyAlbert (1980), “On Conjoint Analysis and Quantal Choice Models,”The Journal of Business, 53 (July), 537–44.
21.
OlshavskyRichard W., and AcitoFranklin (1980), “An Information Processing Probe into Conjoint Analysis,”Decision Sciences, 11 (July), 451–70.
22.
PekelmanDov, and SenSubrata K. (1979a), “Measurement and Estimation of Conjoint Utility Functions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (March), 263–71.
23.
PekelmanDov, and SenSubrata K. (1979b), “Improving Prediction in Conjoint Measurement,”Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (May), 211–20.
24.
PlottCharles R. (1980), “Comments on ‘On Conjoint Analysis and Quantal Choice Models,'”The Journal of Business, 53 (July), 545–6.
25.
RaoVithala R., and GautschiDavid A. (1980), “The Role of Price in Individual Utility Judgments: Development and Empirical Validation of Alternative Models,” working paper, Cornell University.
26.
ShockerAlan D. (1981), personal communication.
27.
SrinivasanV. (1980a), “Comments on ‘On Conjoint Analysis and Quantal Choice Models,'”The Journal of Business, 53 (July), 547–50.
28.
SrinivasanV. (1980b), “Comments on the Role of Price in Individual Utility Judgments,” Research Paper No. 569, Stanford University.
29.
SrinivasanV. (1981), “A Strict Paired Comparison Linear Programming Approach to Nonmetric Conjoint Analysis,” Research Paper No. 620, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
30.
SrinivasanV., and ShockerAlan D. (1973), “Linear Programming Techniques for Multi-dimensional Analysis of Preferences,”Psychometrika, 38 (September), 337–69.
31.
WittinkDick R., and MontgomeryDavid B. (1979), “Predictive Validity of Trade-off Analysis for Alternative Segmentation Schemes,” in 1979 AMA Educators’ Conference Proceedings, BeckwithNeil, eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 68–73.
32.
WittinkDick R., and CattinPhilippe (1981), “Alternative Estimation Methods for Conjoint Analysis: A Monte Carlo Study,”Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 101–6.
33.
WittinkDick R., and KrishnamurthiLakshman (1981), “Rank Order Preferences and the Part-Worth Model: Implications for Derived Attribute Importances and Choice Predictions,” in Proceedings Third ORSA/TIMS Special Interest Conference on Market Measurement and Analysis, JohnW. Keon, ed., Providence, RI: The Institute of Management Sciences, 8–20.
34.
WittinkDick R., KrishnamurthiLakshman, and NutterJulia B. (1982), “Comparing Derived Importance Weights Across Attributes,”Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (March), 471–4.
