late unique effects of each soft attribute
on derived brand equity.
It’s a bit tricky to properly scale the
coefficients derived for the “soft”
attributes to be compatible with the price
and performance utilities from the conjoint exercise so they work well in the
simulator. The sum of the rescaled utilities for the soft attributes must equal the
utility of brand for each respondent. ●
Response to Bill Neal
Marco Vriens, marketing research consultant,
and Curtis Frazier, account group director, Millward Brown IntelliQuest
We agree with Bill Neal that the basic
notion of linking brand perceptions to
consumer decision making is not new. In
fact, we acknowledge in our article that
there have been attempts in the literature
to quantify this notion. We did not refer
to Neal’s work or approaches that have
been
implemented
by
Research
International. Having read Neal’s 1999
Marketing Research article, and some of
the white papers that are available on his
Web site, we conclude that there are
fall 2003
indeed similarities in our approaches
conceptually. We thank Neal for pointing
this out to us. His experience further
provides real-life support for the validity
of the concepts.
Though our approaches are conceptually very similar, our technical implementation is different from Neal’s. For example, in his 1999 MR article he
recommends doing three conjoint exercises (i.e. a brand-price trade-off, a fullprofile conjoint, and a discrete choice
Marketing
Workshop
conjoint). We, instead, derive brand
equity estimates directly from one discrete conjoint choice task. By utilizing
the hierarchical Bayes framework to estimate the discrete conjoint choice model,
we can get individual-level brand utilities
derived from consumer responses to
choice sets. Hence, our utilization of
hierarchical Bayes methods allows us to
quantify our conceptual framework
using only one conjoint exercise.
Finally, we believe one of the primary
strengths of our approach is the ability to
fully integrate the discrete choice and
regression stages. This means it’s possible to construct a decision support tool
that allows our clients to construct
“what if” scenarios in which they can
manipulate not only concrete product
features, but also brand positioning or
relationship attributes. Having this integrated allows clients to view the difference between marketing communications
designed to enhance, for example,
awareness vs. changing the price of the
product. ●
The Hyatt Lodge
at McDonald’s Office Campus
Oakbrook, IL
October 27-30, 2003
Who’s in charge of the Marketing Workshop? You are. Because you
choose the topics that are critical to your needs today. And the result
is a personal training program that’s tailored to your success.
The all-tutorial
training event
that’s created
by you
For full conference and travel information or to register,
visit www.marketingpower.com/workshop
or call 800.AMA.1150
Hurry! Space is limited.
american marketing association
44
Fall 2003
the source