Abstract
While conjoint analysis has been applied in a wide variety of different contexts in Marketing, most applications fail to explicitly consider retaliatory reactions from competitors. In this paper, a methodological extension is developed for conjoint analysis by explicitly modeling competition in a game theoretic context. The Nash equilibrium concept is employed to model competitive reactions to produce design, and its implications for reactive product strategies are discussed. The optimal product design problem for each firm is formulated as a nonlinear integer programming problem, which is solved via a specialized branch and bound method combined with a heuristic. In order to compute a Nash equilibrium, a sequential iterative procedure is proposed. The proposed procedure is illustrated under several scenarios of competition using previously published conjoint data.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Carpenter, Gregory S. (1989). “Perceptual Position and Competitive Brand Strategy in a Two-Dimensional, Two-Brand Market,”Management Science 35, 1029–1044.
Choi, S. Chan, Wayne S. DeSarbo, and Patrick T. Harker. (1990). “Product Positioning under Price Competition,”Management Science 36, 175–199.
Choi, S. Chan, Wayne S. DeSarbo, and Patrick T. Harker. (1992). “A Numerical Approach to Deriving Long-Run Equilibrium Solutions: A Research Note,” Forthcoming,Management Science 38, 75–86.
DeSarbo, Wayne S., and Vithala Rao. (1986). “A Constrained Unfolding Model for Product Positioning,”Marketing Science 5, 1–19.
DeSarbo, Wayne S., M. Wedel, M. Vrien, and V. Ramaswamy. (1992). “Latent Class Metric Conjoint Analysis,”Marketing Letters 3, 273–288.
Dobson, Gregory, and Shlomo Kalish. (1993). “Heuristics for Pricing and Positioning a Product-Line Using Conjoint and Cost Data,”Management Science 39, 160–175.
Friedman, James. (1990).Game Theory with Applications to Economics (2nd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Green, Paul E. (1978).Analyzing Multivariate Data. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
Green, Paul E., J. Douglas Carroll, and Stephen M. Goldberg. (1981). “A General Approach to Product Design Optimization via Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing 45, 17–31.
Green, Paul E., and Wayne S. DeSarbo. (1979). “Componential Segmentation in the Analysis of Consumer Tradeoffs,”Journal of Marketing Research 43, 83–91.
Green, Paul E., and Abba M. Krieger. (1985). “Models and Heuristics for Product Line Selection,”Marketing Science 4, 1–19.
Green, Paul E., and Abba M. Krieger. (1992). “An Application of a Product Positioning Model to Pharmaceutical Products,”Marketing Science 11, 117–132.
Green, Paul E., and Vithala R. Rao. (1971). “Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data,”Journal of Marketing Research 8, 355–363.
Green, Paul E., and V. Srinivasan. (1978). “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,”Journal of Consumer Research 5, 103–123.
Green, Paul E., and V. Srinivasan. (1990). “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing Research: A Review of New Developments.”Journal of Marketing 54, 3–19.
Kohli, Rajeev, and R. Sukumar. (1990). “Heuristics for Product-Line Design Using Conjoint Analysis,”Management Science 36, 1464–1478.
Rubinstein, Ariel. (1991). “Comments on the Interpretation of Game Theory,”Econometrica 59, 909–924.
Shocker, Alan D., and V. Srinivasan. (1979). “Multiattribute Approaches for Product Concept Evaluation and Generation: A Critical Review,”Journal of Marketing Research 16, 159–180.
Wittink, Dick R., and Philippe Cattin. (1989). “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update,”Journal of Marketing 53, 91–96.
Zufryden, Fred S. (1982). “Product Line Optimization by Integer Programming.”Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of ORSA/TIMS, San Diego.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research has been supported by the Henry Rutgers Research Fellowship, Rutgers University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Choi, S.C., Desarbo, W.S. Game theoretic derivations of competitive strategies in conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters 4, 337–348 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994352
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994352