New IJM now accepts submissions exclusively via the Editorial Scholar portal — a dedicated submission & review system.
Go to Editorial Scholar →
Associated Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. | COPE Member · ID: JM07589
Scopus Q3 UGC-CARE ABDC: C |
Indian Journal of Marketing logo

Indian Journal of Marketing

ISSN: 0973-8703 Frequency: Monthly Peer Review: Double-blind Published since: 1968 Language: English
A publication of AMCPL
amcon.co.in
New Delhi, India
Indexed in: Scopus Q3 UGC-CARE Group II ABDC: C Google Scholar J-Gate NAAS NISCAIR Crossref

Original Article

Open Access Original Article

Belief - Based Marketing vs. Conjoint : An Illustration Using the Indian Mobile Phone Market

Philip Truscott1Michael Chiam2

1 Associate Professor, Southwest Baptist University, 1600 University Avenue, Bolivar, Missouri 65613

2 Senior Lecturer, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, 535, Clementi Road, Singapore 599489

Volume 49
Issue 4
Pages 7–19
Year 2019
Received: Jan. 15, 2018 Accepted: Feb. 20, 2019 Published: April 2, 2019
Abstract

Many market research surveys conducted in the past have been engineering surveys and not genuine surveys of consumer beliefs. Brand managers should not only be able to simulate the market share of a newly designed product, but show the market share changes that result from changing consumer beliefs about existing products. The current research contrasted traditional conjoint with a variant that also collected data on consumer beliefs about what features a product has: the Boolean user belief (BUB) approach. This study compared BUB to the existing fixed data (FD) approach. Random assignment allocated 608 respondents one of the three methods: ACA, ACBC, and a self-explicated scale. Though the predictive accuracy of the research method improved using the BUB approach, the current research was more important, as an illustration, of how product feature surveys can impact market shares earlier in a product's life cycle than is possible now with most forms of conjoint. Where brand managers can single out one or two popular features that the public is not aware of, marketing messages can increase sales without a product re-design. In the case of traditional conjoint surveys, brand managers are limited to predicting changes in market share that would result from a new combination of features, rather than changing beliefs about existing products. If a manager finds that his/her product has a popular feature that consumers are unaware of, that feature becomes the advertising focus.

Keywords Conjoint Analysis Self-explication Choice Models Perceptions
How to Cite

Philip Truscott, Michael Chiam (2019). Belief - Based Marketing vs. Conjoint : An Illustration Using the Indian Mobile Phone Market. Indian Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijom/2019/v49/i4/142973

References
  1. Azhagaiah, R., & Ezhilarasi, E. (2012). Consumer behavior regarding durable goods. Indian Journal of Marketing, 42 (2), 27 - 39.
  2. Economist. (2012, February 25). Clicks and bricks. The Economist. Retrieved from <a href=http://www.economist.com/node/21548241 target="_blank">http://www.economist.com/node/21548241</a>
  3. Goyal, A., & Shiva, A. (2016). Investigating the consumer’s perception on selection of mid segment cars by students : A conjoint approach. Indian Journal of Marketing, 46(9), 53 - 63. DOI : <a href=https://doi.org/10.17010/ijom/2016/v46/i9/101041 target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.17010/ijom/2016/v46/i9/101041 </a>
  4. Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1971). Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(3), 355-363. DOI : <a href=https://doi.org/10.2307/3149575 target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2307/3149575</a>
  5. Lemke, F., Clark, M., & Wilson, H. (2010). Customer experience quality: An exploration in business and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (6), 846 - 869.
  6. Marder, E. (1997). The laws of choice : Predicting customer behavior. New York : Free Press.
  7. Marder, E. (1999). The assumptions of choice modelling: Conjoint analysis and SUMM. (Single unit marketing model). Canadian Journal of Market Research, 18 (1), 1 - 12.
  8. Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2011). Adaptive self-explication of multi attribute preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 140 - 156. DOI : <a href=https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.1.140 target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.1.140</a>
  9. SSI. (2007). ACA technical paper. Sawtooth Software Inc. Retrieved from <a href=http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/aca-related-papers/aca-technical-paper-2007 target="_blank">http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/aca-related-papers/aca-technical-paper-2007 </a>
  10. SSI. (2014). The adaptive choice based conjoint (ACBC) technical paper. Sawtoth Software Incorporated. Retrieved from <a href=http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/adaptive-cbc-papers/acbc-technical-paper-2009 target="_blank">http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/adaptive-cbc-papers/acbc-technical-paper-2009 </a>
  11. Tomar, V. S. (2017). Analysis of breakfast attributes and utility among Indian urban youth. Indian Journal of Marketing, 47(12), 7 - 18. doi : <a href=https://doi.org/10.17010/ijom/2017/v47/i12/119897 target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.17010/ijom/2017/v47/i12/119897 </a>
  12. Toubia, O., Hauser, J., & Garcia, R. (2007). Probabilistic polyhedral methods for adaptive choice - based conjoint analysis: Theory and application. Marketing Science, 26 (5), 589 - 730. DOI : <a href=https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0257 target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0257 </a>
Editorial Scholar

Submit your Research to IJM

Submit your Manuscript → Author Guidelines