What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose

Mueller, S; Lockshin, L; Louviere, JJ

What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose

Mueller, S Lockshin, L Louviere, JJ

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Marketing Letters, 2010, 21 (4), pp. 335 - 350
Issue Date:: 2010-12-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2008008001OK.pdf		396.04 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Mueller, S	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Lockshin, L	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Louviere, JJ https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7688-164X	en_US
dc.date.issued	2010-12-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Marketing Letters, 2010, 21 (4), pp. 335 - 350	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0923-0645	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/13945
dc.description.abstract	We compared a direct way to measure the relative importance of packaging and other extrinsic cues like brand name, origin, and price with the relative importance of these variables in an indirect discrete choice experiment. We used best-worst scaling (BWS) with visual and verbal presentation of the attribute descriptions as a way to directly ask consumers about wine packaging relevance. Both direct methods gave low packaging importance scores contrary to anecdotal industry evidence and beliefs. BWS results indicated all visual extrinsic cues were less important than verbal cues, with small variance among respondents, suggesting strong agreement about non-importance. We compared those results with a multi-media-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) that varied label and packaging attributes to produce shelf-like choice scenarios. The DCE results revealed much higher impacts due to packaging-related attributes, as well as significant preference heterogeneity. Our results suggest considerable caution in using direct importance measures with visual packaging attributes. © 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Marketing Letters	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s11002-009-9098-x	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Marketing	en_US
dc.title	What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	4	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	21	en_US
utslib.for	150505 Marketing Research Methodology	en_US
utslib.for	1505 Marketing	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CENSOC - Study of Choice
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	4	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	21	en_US

Abstract:

We compared a direct way to measure the relative importance of packaging and other extrinsic cues like brand name, origin, and price with the relative importance of these variables in an indirect discrete choice experiment. We used best-worst scaling (BWS) with visual and verbal presentation of the attribute descriptions as a way to directly ask consumers about wine packaging relevance. Both direct methods gave low packaging importance scores contrary to anecdotal industry evidence and beliefs. BWS results indicated all visual extrinsic cues were less important than verbal cues, with small variance among respondents, suggesting strong agreement about non-importance. We compared those results with a multi-media-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) that varied label and packaging attributes to produce shelf-like choice scenarios. The DCE results revealed much higher impacts due to packaging-related attributes, as well as significant preference heterogeneity. Our results suggest considerable caution in using direct importance measures with visual packaging attributes. © 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/13945