The authors develop a model of consideration set composition. The approach taken is to compare the marginal expected benefits of including an additional brand in the consideration set with its associated costs of consideration. From an expression of the utility that a brand needs to gain membership in an existing consideration set, the authors derive an expression for set composition and optimal set size. They develop a measurement method to test the model at the individual level and apply it to the ready-to-eat cereal market. The model is tested in two ways. First, the utility function is calibrated at the individual level and the model is used to predict consideration of existing brands. The calibrated model also is used to forecast individual consideration of three new product concepts. Second, the predictive ability of a two-stage model of consideration and choice is tested against a traditional one-stage choice model. The authors conclude with a discussion of management implications of the model in terms of auditing currently available brands and new product management.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BechtelGordon (1990), “Share-Ratio Estimation of the Nested Multinomial Logit Model,”Journal of Marketing Research, 27(May), 232–7.
2.
Ben-AkivaMoshe, and LermanSteven R. (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
BettmanJames (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice.Chicago: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
4.
BrisouxJacques E., and LarocheMichel (1981), “Evoked Set Formation and Composition: An Empirical Investigation Under a Routinized Response Behavior Situation,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, MonroeKent B., ed. Washington: Association for Consumer Research, 357–61.
5.
CampbellBrian M. (1969), “The Existence of Evoked Set and Determinants of Its Magnitude in Brand Choice Behavior,” unpublished PhD dissertation, Columbia University.
6.
CraskMelvin R., and PerreaultWilliam D. (1977), “Validaton of Discriminant Analysis in Marketing Research,”Journal of Marketing Research, 14(February), 60–8.
7.
GaudryMarc, and DagenaisMarcel (1979), “The Dogit Model,”Transportation Research B, 13B, 105–11.
8.
GenschDennis H. (1985), “Empirically Testing a Disaggregate Choice Model for Segments,”Journal of Marketing Research, 22(November), 462–7.
9.
GenschDennis H. (1987a), “Empirical Evidence Supporting the Use of Multiple Choice Models in Analyzing a Population,”Journal of Marketing Research, 24(May), 197–207.
HauserJohn R., and WernerfeltBirger (1990), “An Evaluation Cost Model of Evoked Sets,”Journal of Consumer Research, 16(March), 393–408.
12.
HowardJohn A. (1963), Consumer Behavior: Application of Theory.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
13.
HowardJohn A., and ShethJagdish N. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
14.
JohnsonEric, and MeyerRobert (1984), “Compensatory Choice Models of Non-Compensatory Processes: The Effect of Varying Context,”Journal of Consumer Research, 11(June), 528–41.
15.
KeeneyRalph L., and RaiffaHoward (1976), Decision Making With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
16.
KotlerPhilip (1988), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
17.
LouviereJordan (1989), “On the Consequences of Misspecifying Consumers’ Choice Sets in Multinomial Logit Choice Models,” working paper #89–004, Department of Marketing and Economic Analysis, University of Alberta.
18.
McFaddenDaniel (1973), “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior,” in Frontiers in Econometrics, ZarembkaPhilip, ed. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
19.
NarayanaChem L., and MarkinRom J. (1975), “Consumer Behavior and Product Performance: An Alternative Conceptualization,”Journal of Marketing, 39(October), 1–6.
20.
NedungadiPrakash (1990), “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice Without Altering Brand Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 263–76.
21.
ParkinsonThomas L., and ReillyMichael (1979), “An Information Processing Approach to Evoked Set Formation,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, WilkieW. L., ed. Miami: Association for Consumer Research, 227–31.
22.
RatchfordBrian T. (1980), “The Value of Information for Selected Appliances,”Journal of Marketing Research, 17(February), 14–25.
23.
ReillyMichael, and ParkinsonThomas L. (1985), “Individual and Product Correlates of Evoked Set Size for Consumer Package Goods,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, HirschmanE., and HolbrookM., eds. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 492–7.
24.
RobertsJohn H. (1983), “A Multiattribute Utility Diffusion Model: Theory and Application to the Pre-Launch Forecasting of Automobiles,” unpublished PhD dissertation, Sloan School of Management, MIT.
25.
RobertsJohn H. (1989), “A Grounded Model of Consideration Set Size and Composition,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, SrullT., ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 749–57.
26.
RobertsJohn H., and UrbanGlen L. (1988), “Modeling Multiattribute Utilty, Risk, and Belief Dynamics for New Consumer Durable Brand Choice,”Management Science, 34(February), 167–85.
27.
ShockerAllan, Ben-AkivaMoshe, BoccaraBruno, and NedungadiPrakash (1991), “Consideration Set Influences on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice: Issues, Models and Suggestions,”Marketing Letters, forthcoming.
28.
ShuganSteven M. (1980), “The Cost of Thinking,”Journal of Consumer Research, 7(September), 99–111.
29.
StiglerGeorge (1961), “The Economics of Information,”Journal of Political Economy, 69(3), 213–25.
30.
SwaitJoffre, and Ben-AkivaMoshe (1987), “Incorporating Random Coefficients in Discrete Models of Choice Set Generation,”Transportation Research B, 21, 92–102.
31.
WeitzmanMartin L. (1979), “Optimal Search for the Best Alternative,”Econometrica, 47, 641–54.
32.
WrightPeter, and BarbourFrederick (1977), “Phased Decision Strategies: Sequels to Initial Screening,” in Multiple Criteria Decision Making: North Holland TIMS Studies in the Management Science, StarrM., and ZelenyM., eds. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 91–109.
