Identifying Unmet Demand

References

• Allenby G. M., Ginter J. L. Using extremes to design products and segment markets. J. Marketing Res. (1995) 32(4):392–403Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allenby G. M., Arora N., Ginter J. L. Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. J. Marketing Res. (1998) 32(2):152–162Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allenby G., Fennell G., Bemmaor A., Bhargava V., Christen F., Dawley J., Dickson P., et al. Market segmentation research: Beyond within and across group differences. Marketing Lett. (2002) 13(3):233–243Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anupindi R., Dada M., Gupta S. Estimation of consumer demand with stock-out based substitution: An application to vending machine products. Marketing Sci. (1998) 17(4):406–423Link, Google Scholar
• Ashok K., Dillon W. R., Yuan S. Extending discrete choice models to incorporate attitudinal and other latent variables. J. Marketing Res. (2002) 39(1):31–46Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernardo J. M., Smith A. F. M.Bayesian Theory (1994) (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bettman J. R., Park C. W. Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis. J. Consumer Res. (1980) 7(3):234–248Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bradlow E. T., Hu Y., Ho T.-H. A learning-based model for imputing missing levels in partial conjoint profiles. J. Marketing Res. (2004) 41(4):369–381Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brucks M. The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. J. Consumer Res. (1985) 12(1):1–16Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chapman R. G., Staelin R. Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. J. Marketing Res. (1982) 19(3):288–301Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chib S., Greenberg E. Understanding the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm. Amer. Statistician (1995) 49(4):327–335Google Scholar
• Clyde M., George E. I. Model uncertainty. Statist. Sci. (2004) 19(1):81–94Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fennell G., Allenby G. M. No brand level segmentation? Let's not rush to judgment. Marketing Res. (2002) 14(1):14–18Google Scholar
• Fong D. K. H., DeSarbo W. S. A Bayesian methodology for simultaneously detecting and estimating regime change points and variable selection in multiple regression models for marketing research. Quant. Marketing Econom. (2007) 5(4):427–453Crossref, Google Scholar
• George E. I., McCulloch R. E. Variable selection via Gibbs sampling. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1993) 88(423):881–889Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geweke J., Bernando J. M., Berger J. O., Dawid A. P., Smith A. F. M. Variable selection and model comparison in regression. Bayesian Statistics 5: Proc. Fifth Valencia Internat. Meeting (1996) (Oxford University Press, New York) 609–620Google Scholar
• Gilbride T. J., Allenby G. M., Brazell J. D. Models for heterogeneous variable selection. J. Marketing Res. (2006) 43(3):420–430Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green P. E., Krieger A. M. Attribute importance weights modification in assessing a brand's competitive potential. Marketing Sci. (1995) 14(3, Part 1):253–270Link, Google Scholar
• Green P. E., Rao V. R. Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. J. Marketing Res. (1971) 8(3):355–363Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green P. E., Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. J. Consumer Res. (1978) 5(2):103–123Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haijer R., Wedel M., Virens M., Wansbeek T. Utility covariances and context effects in conjoint MNP models. Marketing Sci. (1998) 17(3):236–252Link, Google Scholar
• Horsky D., Misra S., Nelson P. Observed and unobserved preference heterogeneity in brand-choice models. Marketing Sci. (2006) 25(4):322–335Link, Google Scholar
• Kalyanam K., Borle S., Boatwright P. Deconstructing each item's category contribution. Marketing Sci. (2007) 26(3):327–341Link, Google Scholar
• Kennedy R., Ehrenberg A. There is no brand segmentation. Marketing Res. (2001) 13(1):4–7Google Scholar
• Lenk P. J., DeSarbo W. S. Bayesian inference for finite mixtures of generalized linear models with random effects. Psychometrika (2000) 65(1):93–119Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lenk P. J., DeSarbo W. S., Green P. E., Young M. R. Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: Recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Sci. (1996) 15(2):173–191Link, Google Scholar
• Louviere J. J., Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. J. Marketing Res. (1983) 20(4):350–367Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luo L., Kannan P. K., Ratchford B. T. Incorporating subjective characteristics in product design and evaluations. J. Marketing Res. (2008) 45(2):182–194Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newton M. A., Raftery A. E. Approximate Bayesian inference with the weighted likelihood bootstrap. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B (1994) 56(1):3–48Google Scholar
• Patrick J.How to Develop Successful New Products (1997) (American Marketing Association and NTC Business Books, Chicago) Google Scholar
• Rossi P. E., Allenby G. M., McCulloch R.Bayesian Statistics and Marketing (2005) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang S., Allenby G. M., Fennell G. Modeling variation in brand preference: The roles of objective environment and motivating conditions. Marketing Sci. (2002) 21(1):14–31Link, Google Scholar