MKTG 555: Marketing Models - personal.psu.edu · 1 © Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved MKTG...
Transcript of MKTG 555: Marketing Models - personal.psu.edu · 1 © Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved MKTG...
1
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
MKTG 555: Marketing Models
Preferences and their Measurement
Arvind Rangaswamy
email: [email protected]
January 24, 2017
2
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Topics for Today
(Perception/Beliefs) Preferences Utility Choice Purchase
Modeling/Measuring preferences in Marketing (LINMAP model, Conjoint Analysis)
Preference heterogeneity
3
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
What is Preference?
Dictionary: The setting of one thing before another – precedence (order), predilection/predisposition.
Some philosophical issues:
Are preferences mental entities -- do preferences require a mental representation?
Do preferences exist independent of their revelation?
If someone buys a product, does it indicate a preference for that product, a preference for shopping, high cost of thinking, or what?
4
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
What is Measurement?
Measurement is the process of assigning numbers to characteristics of objects, persons, events, or other entities according to some specified rule. The specified rule is often referred to as a “measurement scale.”
The goal of measurement is to assign numbers (or words) such that the relationships between the assigned numbers (words) reflect as closely as possible the relationships between the true characteristics of the objects measured.
5
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Scale Rules for Assigning Example Applicable Descriptive
Numbers Statistics
Nominal Objects are either Classification Percentage in each group
identical or distinct (Sex, Religion) Modal group
Ordinal Objects are larger or Consumer ranking Median
smaller (higher or lower) of brands
Interval Intervals between adjacent Attitudes and Mean and Standard
ranks are equal Beliefs deviation
(measurement of differences)
Ratio Comparison of absolute Sales, Income All of the above and more
magnitudes and Costs
Guideline: Choose the most discriminating scale feasible, subject
to constraints imposed by the research objective, costs, and the
validity of the scale. A nominal scale has the least discrimination
while a ratio scale has the most discrimination.
Types of Measurement Scales (Rules of Assignment)
6
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Psychometric Approach to Preference Measurement
Create an axiomatic system to parsimoniously represent the laws by which individuals’ preferences for stimuli can be understood (Why is this useful?).
Develop a justifiable measurement procedure to create an index (e.g., an interval scale) such that the resulting scales denoting preferences can be mathematically manipulated to help us infer individuals’ preferences for unmeasured stimuli. (Why is this useful?)
7
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Goals of Preference Measurement
A common framework to apply across multiple situations
Ability to generalize from study to market reality
Parsimony
Predictive ability (the “as if” concept)
8
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Measuring Preference Structures of Interest to Marketers
For single-attribute products, an underlying preference scale can be constructed as follows:
If a customer tells you she prefers Blue to Red, Red to Yellow, and Blue to Yellow (transitive preferences), then you can create an underlying numeric scale with the following “utiles” to represent customer preferences for the three colors: assign 3 to Blue, 2 to Red, and 1 to Yellow; or you could assign 10 to Blue, 9.95 to Red, and 1 to Yellow. From this can we say whether this customer would prefer Orange to Red? What about White to Red?
Note: Preferences represent a higher-order construct than Value or utility, i.e., value comes from preferences.
How do we come up with an underlying scale to represent customer preferences for multi-attributed products?
9
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Preference for Matt Damon Musical?
Type Lead actor(s) MPAA
Rating
Released
Blood Diamonds Drama Leonardo DiCaprio;
Jennifer Connelly
R 2006
A Beautiful Mind Drama Russell Crowe;
Jennifer
Connely
PG-13 2001
Brokeback Mountain Drama Heath Ledger; Jake
Gyllenhaa
R 2005
Syriana Drama George Clooney;
Matt Damon
R 2005
National Treasure Action Nicolas Cage PG 2004
The Bourne
Ultimatum
Action Matt Damon; Julia
Stiles
PG-13 2007
Enchanted Musical Amy Adams; Patrick
Dempsey
PG 2007
Moulin Rouge Musical Nicole Kidman; Baz
Luhrmann
PG-13 2001
New Movie -- Name? Musical Matt Damon PG
10
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Start by assuming that people can give preference orderings for compound or conjoint objects/attributes.
If you prefer a green car from Toyota for $17,000 over a black car by Ford for $20,000, it implies that either you prefer a Toyota over a Ford, or Green over Black, or a price of $17,000 over $20,000. If you have several such pairwise preferences you can produce asymptotically interval utility scales for the Brand (Toyota, Ford), Color (Black, Green), and Money.
Shocker and Srinivasan proposed the LINMAP procedure to obtain an underlying preference scale that minimally violated pairwise rank-order preferences. (Other procedures such as PREFMAP are also available for obtaining the preference scale).
A Psychometric Approach to Multi-Attribute Preference Measurement
12
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Pictorial View of LINMAP Model
Attr 1 scale (w1)
Attr 2 scale (w2)
• Prod i
• Prod j
Cust 1 (Ideal Point)
Customer 1 prefers product j to
product i – it is closer to his/her
ideal point.
Key Point: This map represents a latent scale to represent
customer preferences, such that any other product’s (e.g., product
k) preferences can be established by locating it on this map.
• Prod k
13
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Outline of LINMAP Procedure (Srinivasan and Shocker 1973)
Consider K products (k = 1, 2, 3, …. K), each defined with respect to J attributes (j=1,2,3 … J).
The LINMAP model requires as inputs the location of the K brands on the J attributes (Y = {yk}), and several pairwise judgments of preferences for the products obtained from a customer (Ω = {m, n}), which represents the ordered pairs of products (m, n) where m is preferred to n.
The model provides as output the “ideal point” location of customer i on the J-dimensional space X = {xi} and the weights associated with the J attributes w = {wj}, such that if the distance between the location of product m ({ym}) and the ideal point {xi} is shorter than the distance between location of product n and ideal point {xi} then, m is preferred to n. Thus preferences are converted into distances (a scale) from the ideal point.
14
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Analytical Representation of LINMAP Model
Define Di as the distance between product m and an ideal point i:
This “Ideal Point” model implies that:
0 where j
ww)xy(DJ
jjijmji
1
22
(1) .... )( allfor m,nDDnm mn
The LINMAP procedure is a linear programming model that
determines the ideal point(s), X, and weights, w, such that
condition (1) is violated as minimally as possible.
15
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
LINMAP Model: Converting Preferences to Choice
One can view the inverse of the distance of product k from the ideal point as a ratio-scaled preference measure for this product.
One way to translate the preference score (Ui) into the probability that the customer would choose k (=Pk) is by applying Luce’s choice axiom:
Where c is a normalizing constant so that the sum of probabilities across the choice set is equal to 1.
estimated. be toindex an is where bD
Ubk
k
1
bk
kD
cP
16
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Some Issues Associated with Preference Measurement
Preference orderings provided by consumers did not always satisfy transitivity requirements.
Consumers did not always choose the products they preferred the most.
17
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Let PC(a) be the consumer’s probability of choosing “a” from the
choice set C. Let PC(S) be the probability of choosing one item
from S, a subset of C. Then the “choice axiom” requires that
the following properties hold for any choice sets Z, C, and S,
where S C Z.
Luce’s Choice Axiom (Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives)
If an alternative a S is dominated (i.e., there exists a, b S
such that b is always preferred to a, or equivalently, PS(a) =
0), then removing a from S does not modify the probability of
any other alternative to be chosen.
If no alternative in S is dominated, i.e., 0 < PS(.) < 1 for all a, b
S, then the choice probability is independent of the
sequence of decisions. That is:
PC(a) = PC(S)PS(a) ….(2)
18
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Luce’s Choice Axiom (Example)
Let C = {car, bus, bike}
Let a = car
Then, according to the choice axiom:
P{car,bus,bike}(car) = P{car,bus,bike}(car, bus). P{car,bus}P(car)
P{car,bus,bike}(car) = P{car,bus,bike}(car, bike). P{car,bike}P(car)
Both sequences give rise to the same value of P{car,bus,bike}(car).
19
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Luce Choice Axiom
Luce has shown that (2) is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a function U from C (the Real line), such that, for all S C, we have:
Think of U as a (fixed) utility function. It is easily seen that the result is equivalent to:
For any Choice sets S and T C, and for any alternatives a and b in S.
Sbb
aS
U
UaP )(
b
a
T
T
S
S
U
U
bP
aP
bP
aP
)(
)(
)(
)(
20
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Some Results From Early Preference Measurement Studies
There was little correspondence between predictive accuracy and violations of axioms.
There were many limitations in adapting the theoretical models to real applications.
The rank-order task was more difficult (e.g., more comparisons) but no more effective than a ratings task, where you directly ask people to provide you their interval-scaled “utility function.”
Despite several (conceptual) shortcomings, the preference models predicted choices reasonably well.
21
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Measuring Preferences in Marketing Example of Paired Comparison
Deluxe Mid-level model model Attributes
Efficiency Exceed by 9% Exceed by 5%
Delivery time 12 months 6 months
List Price 700k 700k
Delivery terms Installed, 1 year Installed, service contract
Which do you prefer?
Which one would you buy?
22
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Measuring Preferences in Marketing Example of Ratings Data
Product
Bundle
Efficiency
Delivery
Time
Price
Delivery
Terms
Rating
provided by
customer
1 Exceed_9% 6_months $600k Inst_2Yr 100
2 Exceed_9% 9_months $700k Inst_Ser 80
3 Exceed_9% 12_months $800k FOB_Ser 40 4 Exceed_9% 15_months $900k Inst_1Yr 20
5 Exceed_5% 6_months $700k Inst_1Yr 70
6 Exceed_5% 9_months $600k FOB_Ser 75
7 Exceed_5% 12_months $900k Inst_Ser 65
8 Exceed_5% 15_months $800k Inst_2Yr 70
9 Meet_target 6_months $700k Inst_Ser 50
10 Meet_target 9_months $900k Inst_2Yr 20
11 Meet_target 12_months $600k Inst_1Yr 40
12 Meet_target 15_months $700k FOB_Ser 30
13 Short_5% 6_months $900k FOB_Ser 5
14 Short_5% 9_months $800k Inst_1Yr 10
15 Short_5% 12_months $700k Inst_2Yr 10 16 Short_5% 15_months $600k Inst_Ser 0
23
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Paul Green’s Seminal Contribution
Full factorial Orthogonal arrays
Ordinal estimation Linear estimation
Focus on tests Focus on simulations
Conjoint measurement Conjoint analysis
24
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Conjoint Measurement: Determining Importance of Attributes by Measuring Preferences
The basic assumption of Conjoint measurement is that customers cannot reliably express how they weight separate features of a product (or any other entity) in forming their preferences. However, we can infer the relative weights by asking for their evaluations (or choices) of alternate product concepts through a structured process (same idea in LINMAP).
25
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Provides numerical values associated
with:
the relative importance that customers
attach to the attributes of a product
category
The value (utility or part-worth) provided
to customers by each potential feature
(attribute option) of an offering
Helps identify offering design(s) that
maximize market share or other
indices of performance.
What Does Conjoint Analysis Do?
26
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Product Option
Cuisine Distance Price Range
Preference Rank
1 Italian Near $10 2 Italian Near $15 3 Italian Far $10 4 Italian Far $15 5 Thai Near $10 6 Thai Near $15 7 Thai Far $10 8 Thai Far $15
Simple Example of Conjoint Analysis
27
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Simple Example of Conjoint Analysis
Product Option
Cuisine Distance Price Range
Preference Rank
1 Italian Near $10 8 2 Italian Near $15 6 3 Italian Far $10 4 4 Italian Far $15 2 5 Thai Near $10 7 6 Thai Near $15 5 7 Thai Far $10 3 8 Thai Far $15 1
28
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Example: Italian vs Thai = 20 – 16 = 4 util units $10 vs $15 = 22 – 14 = 8 util units
So “Thai” is worth $2.50 more than “Italian” for this customer: )50.2$)1015(
8
4(
Can use this result to obtain value to
customer of service (non-price)
attributes.
How to Use in Design/Tradeoff Evaluation
29
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Overview of Conjoint-Based Analysis
Perceptions (Product
Attributes)
Customer Preferences
Advertising
Customer Characteristics and Constraints
(e.g. Budget)
Revenue/ Profit
Market Share
Customer Choices
Costs
Availability
Competitive Offerings
We can also “reverse” the process by determining which product attributes maximize market share or revenue.
30
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
• Type of crust (3 types)
• Type of cheese (3 types)
• Price (3 levels)
Attributes • Topping (4 varieties)
• Amount of cheese (2 levels)
A total of 216 (3x4x3x2x3) different pizzas can be developed from these options!
Crust Topping Type of cheese
Pan
Thin
Thick
Pineapple
Veggie
Sausage
Pepperoni
Romano
Mixed cheese
Mozzeralla
Amount of cheese Price
2 Oz.
6 Oz.
$9.99
$8.99
$7.99
Designing a Frozen Pizza
Note: The example in the
handout also has a 4 oz option
for amount of cheese.
31
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Aloha Meat-Lover’s Special treat
Crust Pan Thick
Topping Pineapple Pepperoni
Type of cheese Mozzarella Mixed cheese
Amount of cheese 2 Oz 6 Oz
Price $8.99 $9.99
Which do you prefer?
Which one would you buy?
Designing a Frozen Pizza Example Paired Comparison Data
35
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
U(P) =S S ijxij
k
i=1
m
j=1
P: A particular product/concept of interest
U(P): The utility associated with product P
ij: Utility associated with the j th level (j = 1, 2, 3...kj) on
the i th attribute (referred to as part-worth)
kj: Number of levels of attribute i
m: Number of attributes
xij: 1 if the j th level of the i th attribute is present in
product P, 0 otherwise
Conjoint Utility Computations
j
Note: Once part-worths (ij) are determined, utilities can be computed (i.e.,
numbers can be assigned on the measurement scale) even for products not rated
by the customers.
36
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Market Share Computation: (Designing a Frozen Pizza)
Cust 1 Cust 2 Cust 3
Base* 0 45 30
Thin crust 10 -5 0
Thick crust 15 10 0
Veggie 10 0 50
Sausage 25 5 0
Pepperoni 30 20 0
Mixed Cheese 3 -10 0
Mozzarella 10 10 -5
6 oz 10 15 -20
$ 8.99 20 -5 10
$ 7.99 35 -10 20
Customer’s Utility (Part-worth)
*Base product is: Pan pizza with pineapple, 2 oz of Romano cheese, and priced at $9.99.
37
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Define the competitive set – this is the set of products from which customers in the target segment make their choices. Some of them may be existing products and, others concepts being evaluated. We denote this set of products as P1, P2,...PN.
Select Choice rule
Single choice model
Share of preference model
Logit choice model
Other rules
Market Share and Revenue Share Forecasts
38
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Single Choice Model (Example)
MS PConsumers who prefer i the most
Ki
k
K
( ) 1
Under this choice rule, each customer selects the product that offers him/her the highest utility among the competing alternatives. Market share for product Pi is then given by:
K is the number of consumers who participated in the study.
39
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Choice Based on Share of Preference
is the estimated utility for individual i for product k.
First proposed by Luce (1959) for computing choice probabilities if the choice-axiom is satisfied, namely, choice probabilities of any subset of alternatives depend only on the alternatives included, and not on alternatives excluded. Also referred to as IIA (Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives), Proportional Draw property, or Red bus, Blue bus problem. This axiom is more likely to be satisfied if the alternatives are distinct from each other.
The utilities have to satisfy ratio-scale properties (note that if you add a constant to all , the estimated probabilities change).
productsofsettheisK
U
UP
K
k
ik
iki
k ;
1
ikU
ikU
40
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Logit Choice Rule
is the estimated utility for individual i for product k.
This rule is similar to the share of utility rule, except that it gives larger probabilities to more preferred alternatives and smaller probabilities to less preferred alternatives.
The utilities can be interval-scaled, but not ratio-scaled (if you add a constant to all , the estimated probabilities do not change, but if you multiply all by a constant, they do change).
This measure is subject to the IIA (Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives) problem.
There is no theoretical justification for this model when using deterministic measures of .
productsofsettheisK
e
eP
K
k
U
Ui
k ik
ik
;
1
ikU
ikU
ikU
ikU
41
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Market Share Computation (Designing a Frozen Pizza)
Consider a market with three customers and three products:
Aloha Special Meat-Lover’s Treat Veggie Delite
Crust Pan Thick Thin
Topping Pineapple Pepperoni Veggie
Type of Cheese Mozzarella Mixed Cheese Romano
Amount of Cheese 6 oz 6 oz 2 oz
Price $8.99 $9.99 $7.99
42
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Market Share Computation (Designing a Frozen Pizza)
Utility (Value) of each product for each customer.
Aloha Special Meat-Lover’s Treat Veggie Delite
Customer 1 40 58 55
Customer 2 65 80 30
Customer 3 15 10 100
Single Choice Model: If we assume customers will only buy the product with the highest utility, the market share for Meat Lover’s treat is 2/3 and for Veggie Delite is 1/3.
Share of Preference Model: If we assume that each customer will buy each product in proportion to its utility relative to the other products, then market shares for the three products are: Aloha Special (25.1%), Meat Lover’s Treat (30.5%) and Veggie Delite (44.4%).
43
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Preference Heterogeneity
Preference structures vary across people, and also vary for the same person over time, and contexts.
Inter-personal variations
Experiential – each one of us has a different set of experiences
Genetic differences
Intra-personal variations
Short-term variations (e.g., cue-induced preferences)
Long-term variations (changes due to new experiences)
44
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Modeling Heterogeneity of Preferences Across People
Post-hoc Segmentation: Cluster analysis of part-worths computed from Conjoint Analysis (e.g., K-Means and Hierarchical Clustering methods). For the pizza example, we used hierarchical clustering.
Finite Mixture Modeling: Assumes each customer has some probability of belonging to an unknown number of segments (“mixing” distribution). The data enables us to estimate both the number of segments, and the probabilities of each customer belonging to each segment.
Hierarchical Bayes Modeling: Customer preferences differ from each other according to a heterogeneity distribution with unknown parameters that is estimated from data.
All three approaches result in models that are not subject to the IIA, at least at the aggregate level. IIA may still hold within segments.
45
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Finite Mixture Modeling Example (Latent Class Segmentation)
Part-worths of a respondent can be represented by the following linear model:
ik
M
m
N
nmn
smnik
m
XY
where
i = respondent, i = 1, 2, 3,… I
S = number of unknown latent classes (segments), s = 1, 2, …S
k = product rated by respondent, k = 1, 2, …K
m = an attribute of the product, m = 1, 2. 3 …M
n = level of an attribute, n = 1, 2, 3, …Nm
Xmn = 1 if attribute m at level n is present in product k, 0 otherwise
= partworth for level n of attribute m if respondent i is in segment s
Yik = rating given by respondent i to product k; Denote as Yi the
(K 1) vector of responses from respondent i.
smn
46
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Finite Mixture Modeling Example (Latent Class Segmentation)
We assume that i (the K1 vector of error terms for respondent i) is Multivariate Normal (0, Ss). Further to reduce number of parameters for estimation, let .
Then,
Iss2S
),,X|Y(f),X,,S|Y(f ss
is
S
ssi SS
1
where
s is the probability that a respondent will be
assigned to segment s (i.e., it is the proportion of the
total respondents in segment s).
47
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Finite Mixture Modeling Example (Latent Class Segmentation)
The parameters can be estimated by maximizing Log Likelihood as follows (What assumption are we making here?)
),,X|Y(fLnLLn s
sI
i
S
siss S
1 1
algorithm) EM (e.g., methods numerical via and, , estimate We s
s ˆˆ,ˆS S
Typically, the optimal number of segments are
chosen by minimizing a criterion called BIC – the
lower the better.
48
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Finite Mixture Modeling Example (Latent Class Segmentation)
To determine the part-worths for each individual, we do the following computations.
In practical segmentation studies, respondent i can be assigned to the segment to which he/she has the highest probability of belonging.
S
s
si
S
ss
siss
ss
iss
ˆ)si(Pˆ
S,...,s;
)ˆ,ˆ,X|Y(fˆ
)ˆ,ˆ,X|Y(fˆ)si(P
1
1
21
S
S
49
© Arvind Rangaswamy, All Rights Reserved
Hierachical Bayes Approach (Will be Covered More Fully on Mar 14)
Allows continuous heterogeneity, instead of discrete latent classes as in the finite mixture model.
We have flexibility in selecting the distribution for βi (the heterogeneity distribution), although we have specified normal distribution here. We also need to specify prior distributions for , , and , which result in hyperparameters to be estimated.
HB models are estimated using Gibbs sampler and MCMC (Markov Chain Monte Carlo) methods.
),(N~
)I,(N~),X,|Y(f
i
ii
20