Multiattribute perceptual mapping with idiosyncratic brand and attribute sets

This article proposes an extremely flexible procedure for perceptual mapping based on multiattribute ratings, such that the respondent freely generates sets of both brands and attributes. Therefore, the brands and attributes are known and relevant to each participant. Collecting and analyzing such idiosyncratic datasets can be challenging. Therefore, this study proposes a modification of generalized canonical correlation analysis to support the analysis of the complex data structure. The model results in a common perceptual map with subject-specific and overall fit measures. An experimental study compares the proposed procedure with alternative approaches using predetermined sets of brands and/or attributes. In the proposed procedure, brands are better known, attributes appear more relevant, and the respondent’s burden is lower. The positions of brands in the new perceptual map differ from those obtained when using fixed brand sets. Moreover, the new procedure typically yields positioning information on more brands. An empirical study on positioning of shoe stores illustrates our procedure and resulting insights. Finally, the authors discuss limitations, potential application areas, and directions for research.

[1]  Michael D. Johnson,et al.  On the Perceived Usefulness of Scaling Techniques in Market Analysis , 1996 .

[2]  J. Douglas Carroll,et al.  Psychometric Methods in Marketing Research: Part II, Multidimensional Scaling , 1997 .

[3]  William R. Dillon,et al.  Decision Issues in Building Perceptual Product Spaces with Multi-attribute Rating Data , 1985 .

[4]  T. Gleason On redundancy in canonical analysis. , 1976 .

[5]  V. Rao,et al.  Research for product positioning and design decisions: An integrative review , 1995 .

[6]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Contrast Effects in Consumer Judgments: Changes in Mental Representations or in the Anchoring of Rating Scales? , 1991 .

[7]  Scot Burton,et al.  The accuracy of brand and attribute judgments: The role of information relevancy, product experience, and attribute-relationship schemata , 2001 .

[8]  Niels Asger Nielsen,et al.  A comparison of five elicitation techniques for elicitation of attributes of low involvement products , 1999 .

[9]  Frank R. Kardes,et al.  The role of prior knowledge and missing information in multiattribute evaluation , 1992 .

[10]  Allan D. Shocker,et al.  A Customer-oriented Approach for Determining Market Structures , 1984 .

[11]  Felix Eggers,et al.  Hybrid individualized two-level choice-based conjoint (HIT-CBC): A new method for measuring preference structures with many attribute levels , 2009 .

[12]  M. Holbrook,et al.  Using Canonical Correlation to Construct Product Spaces for Objects with Known Feature Structures , 1982 .

[13]  H. V. Trijp,et al.  Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques , 2005 .

[14]  B. Wansink,et al.  The Validity of Attribute-Importance Measurement: A Review , 2007 .

[15]  J. Berge,et al.  Perceptual Mapping Based on Idiosyncratic Sets of Attributes , 1994 .

[16]  Frank R. Kardes,et al.  Persistent Preferences for Product Attributes: The Effects of the Initial Choice Context and Uninformative Experience , 2001 .

[17]  J. Berge,et al.  Tucker's congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. , 2006 .

[18]  Yuho Chung,et al.  Unfolding large-scale marketing data , 2010 .

[19]  Rodney H. Green,et al.  Testing the Reliability of Weight Elicitation Methods: Direct Rating versus Point Allocation , 2000 .

[20]  E. Greenleaf Improving Rating Scale Measures by Detecting and Correcting Bias Components in Some Response Styles , 1992 .

[21]  Maria L. Cronley,et al.  Consumer Inference: A Review of Processes, Bases, and Judgment Contexts , 2004 .

[22]  K. Lancaster,et al.  Consumer Demand. A New Approach. , 1972 .

[23]  Allan D. Shocker,et al.  Customer-Oriented Approaches to Identifying Product-Markets , 1979 .

[24]  Tammo H. A. Bijmolt,et al.  Generalized canonical correlation analysis of matrices with missing rows: a simulation study , 2006, Psychometrika.

[25]  J. Leeuw,et al.  OVERALS: nonlinear canonical correlation with k sets of variables , 1994 .

[26]  P. Groenen,et al.  Nonmetric Unfolding of Marketing Data: Degeneracy and Stability , 2011 .

[27]  J. Steenkamp,et al.  Task experience and validity in perceptual mapping: a comparison of two consumer-adaptive techniques. , 1996 .

[28]  JAN-BENEDICT STEENKAMP,et al.  Attribute Elicitation in Marketing Research: A Comparison of Three Procedures , 1997 .

[29]  William R. Dillon,et al.  Understanding What's in a Brand Rating: A Model for Assessing Brand and Attribute Effects and Their Relationship to Brand Equity , 2001 .

[30]  Paul E. Green,et al.  A simple procedure for finding a composite of several multidimensional scaling solutions , 1988 .

[31]  Joel Huber,et al.  Using Attribute Ratings for Product Positioning: Some Distinctions among Compositional Approaches , 1979 .

[32]  Martin Natter,et al.  Managerial applicability of graphical formats to support positioning decisions , 2010 .

[33]  Einar Breivik,et al.  Elicitation of product attributes in an evaluation context: A comparison of three elicitation techniques , 2003 .

[34]  Allan D. Shocker,et al.  Multiattribute Approaches for Product Concept Evaluation and Generation: A Critical Review , 1979 .

[35]  Tammo H. A. Bijmolt,et al.  Assessing brand image through communalities and asymmetries in brand-to-attribute and attribute-to-brand associations , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[36]  Yoshio Takane,et al.  Generalized canonical correlation analysis with missing values , 2009, Computational Statistics.

[37]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Alternative Perceptual Mapping Techniques: Relative Accuracy and Usefulness , 1979 .

[38]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Probabilistic Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Theory and Application , 2007 .

[39]  Lee G. Cooper A Review of Multidimensional Scaling in Marketing Research , 1983 .