Korean Management Science Review (경영과학)

The Korean Operations Research and Management Science Society (한국경영과학회)
권호 표지

Evaluation of Positioning Effectiveness Based on the Preference and Similarity Data Derived from Consumers' Choice from Different Choice Sets

선택집합의 변화를 통하여 도출된 선호도 및 유사성 정보를 활용한 포지셔닝 우위 평가

  • 원지성 (동덕여자대학교 경영학과)
  • Received : 2011.01.11
  • Accepted : 2011.02.21
  • Published : 2011.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Not only the preference data but also the similarity data can be used for developing effective marketing strategies. Hahn et al.[10] proposes a methodology of representing a brand(focal brand)'s competitors in a single map called the Preference-Similarity Map, according to their relative preference to and similarity with the focal brand. They also proposes a way to derive the relative preference and similarity values from the survey collecting the choice data from differing choice sets. This study identifies the limitations of the preference and similarity measures proposed by Hahn et al.[10] and shows how these measures can be revised. This study also proposes how to implement the revised measures and analyze brands' positioning strategies. Based on the results of the previous studies on the effect of inter brand similarity on brand evaluations, this study assumes that it is important to analyze how much a specific brand is preferred to its close competitors when evaluating the effectiveness of the brand's positioning in the market. This study applies the proposed measures to the data used in Hahn et al.[10] and also show how the proposed measures are related to the parameters of the choice model proposed by Batsell and Polking[1].

Keywords

References

  1. Batsell, R.R. and J.C. Polking, "A New Class of Market Share Models," Marketing Science, Vol.4(1985), pp.177-198. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.4.3.177
  2. Batsell, R.R., J.C. Polking, R.D. Cramer, and C.M. Miller, "Useful Mathematical Relationships Embedded in Tversky's Elimination by Aspects Model," Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol.47(2003), pp.538-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2003.08.004
  3. Carpenter, G.S. and K. Nakamoto, "Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.26(1989), pp.285-298. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172901
  4. Carpenter, G.S. and K. Nakamoto, "Perceptual Position and Competitive Brand Strate gy in a Two‐Dimensional, Two Brand Market," Management Science, Vol.35, No.9(1990), pp.1029-1044.
  5. Chernev, A., "The Effect of Common Features on Brand Choice : Moderating Role of Attribute Importance," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.23, No.4(1997), pp.304-311. https://doi.org/10.1086/209485
  6. Chernev, A., "The Impact of Common Features on Consumer Preferences : A Case of Confirmatory Reasoning," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.27(2001), pp.475-488. https://doi.org/10.1086/319622
  7. Coombs, C.H., "Psychology Scaling Without a Unit of Measurement," Psychological Review, Vol.57(1950), pp.145-158. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060984
  8. Day, G.S., A.D. Shocker, and R.K. Srivastava, "Customer-Oriented Approaches to Identifying Product Markets," Journal of Marketing, Vol.43(1979), pp.8-19. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250266
  9. Debreu, G., "A Review of Individual Choice Behavior : A Theoretical Analysis," American Economic Review, Vol.50(1960), pp.186-188.
  10. Hahn, M., E.J.S. Won, H. Kang, and Y.J. Hyun, "Context Effects and Context Maps for Positioning," International Journal of Market Research, Vol.48, No.2(2006), pp.155-177.
  11. Hauser, J.R. and B. Wernerfelt, "The Competitive Implication of Relevant Set/Response Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.26(1989), pp.391-405. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172760
  12. Hsee, C.K. and F. Leclerc, "Will Product Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.25(1998), pp.175-186. https://doi.org/10.1086/209534
  13. Huber, J., J.W. Payne, and C. Puto, "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives : Violation of Regularity and Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.9(1982), pp.90-98. https://doi.org/10.1086/208899
  14. Huber, J. and C. Puto, "Market Boundaries and Product Choice : Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.10(1983), pp.31-44. https://doi.org/10.1086/208943
  15. Kahn, B., W.L. Moore, and R. Glazer, "Experiments in Constrained Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.14(1987), pp.96-114. https://doi.org/10.1086/209096
  16. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky, "Prospect Theory : An analysis of decision under risk," Econometrika, Vol.47(1979), pp.263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
  17. Kotler, P., Marketing Management. 9th, New Jersey : Prentice Hall, 1997.
  18. Krantz, D.J., "Rational Distance Functions for Multidimensional Scaling," Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol.4(1967), pp. 226-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(67)90051-X
  19. Luce, R.D., Individual Choice Behavior：A Theoretical Analysis, New York : John Wiley and Sons, 1959.
  20. McFadden, D., "Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior," in Frontier in Econometrics, Paul Zarembka, ed. New York : Academic Press, (1973), pp.105-142.
  21. McFadden, D., "Quantitative Methods for Analyzing Travel Behavior of Individuals : Some Recent Developments," Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Behavioral Travel Modeling, Adelaide Australia, 1977.
  22. McFadden, D., "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, Vol.5(1986), pp.272-297.
  23. Rumelhart, D.L. and J.G. Greeno, "Similarity Between Stimuli : An Experimental Test of the Luce and Restle Choice Models," Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol.8(1971), pp.370-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(71)90038-1
  24. Simonson, I., "Choice Based on Reasons : The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16(1989), pp.158-174. https://doi.org/10.1086/209205
  25. Simonson, I. and A. Tversky, "Choice in Context : Tradeoff Contrast and Extreme Aversion," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.29(1992), pp.281-295. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172740
  26. Tversky, A., "Elimination by Aspects : A Theory of Choice," Psychological Review, Vol.79, No.4(1972), pp.281-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032955
  27. Tversky, A. and J. Russo, "Substitutability and Similarity in Binary Choice," Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol.6(1969), pp.1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(69)90027-3
  28. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," Journal of Business, Vol.59, No.4(1986), pp.5251-5278.
  29. Tversky, A. and S. Sattath, "Preference Trees," Psychological Review, Vol.86, No.6(1979), pp.542-573 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.86.6.542
  30. Tversky, A. and I. Simonson, "Contrext‐ Dependent Preferences," Management Science, Vol.39(1993), pp.1179-1189. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.10.1179
  31. Tversky, A., "Context Effects and Argument Based Choice," paper presented at the Association for Consumer Research Conference, Maui, Hawaii, 1988.
  32. Tybout, A.M. and B. Sternthal, "Brand Positioning," In Dawn Iacobucci (eds.), Kellogg on Marketing, New York; John Wiley and Sons, Inc, 2001.
  33. Urban, G.L., Philip L. Johnson, and John R. Hauser, "Testing Competitive Market Structure," Marketing Science, Vol.3, No.2(1984), pp.83-112. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.3.2.83
  34. Won, E.J.S., "A Theoretical Investigation of the Effects of Similarity on Brand Choice Using the Elimination by Tree Model," Marketing Science, Vol.26, No.6(2007), pp.969-875. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0259