Monetizing Ratings Data for Product Research

References

• Allenby GM, Rossi PE (1998) Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. J. Econom. 89(1):57–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allenby GM, Brazell JD, Howell JR, Rossi PE (2014) Economic valuation of product features. Quant. Marketing Econom. 12(4):421–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bacon L, Lenk P (2012) Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses. Quant. Marketing Econom. 10(4):453–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumgartner H, Steenkamp J-BEM (2001) Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. J. Marketing Res. 38(2):143–156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Böckenholt U (2004) Comparative judgments as an alternative to ratings: Identifying the scale origin. Psych. Methods 9(4):453–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Büschken J, Otter T, Allenby GM (2013) The dimensionality of customer satisfaction survey responses and implications for driver analysis. Marketing Sci. 32(4):533–553.Link, Google Scholar
• Chandukala SR, Kim J, Otter T, Rossi PE, Allenby GM (2008) Choice models in marketing: Economic assumptions, challenges and trends. Chandukala SR, Kim J, Otter T, Rossi PE, Allenby GM, eds. Foundations and Trends in Marketing, Vol. 2 (Now Publishers Inc., Hanover, MA), 97–184.Google Scholar
• Geman S, Geman D (1984) Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intelligence PAMI-6(6):721–741.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green PE, Rao VR (1971) Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. J. Marketing Res. 8(3):355–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hastings WK (1970) Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 57(1):97–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson TR (2003) On the use of heterogeneous thresholds ordinal regression models to account for individual differences in response style. Psychometrika 68(4):563–583.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krosnick JA (1991) Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl. Cognitive Psych. 5(3):213–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luo L, Kannan PK, Ratchford BT (2008) Incorporating subjective characteristics in product design and evaluations. J. Marketing Res. 45(2):182–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meade AW, Craig SB (2012) Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psych. Methods 17(3):437–455.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Metropolis N, Rosenbluth A, Rosenbluth M, Teller A, Teller E (1953) Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J. Chemical Phys. 21(6):1087–1092.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rossi PE, Gilula Z, Allenby GM (2001) Overcoming scale usage heterogeneity: A Bayesian hierarchical approach. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 96(453):20–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sonnier G, Ainslie A, Otter T (2007) Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quant. Marketing Econom. 5(3):313–331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Rosmalen J, van Herk H, Groenen PJF (2010) Identifying response styles: A latent-class bilinear multinomial logit model. J. Marketing Res. 47(1):157–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams RL (2008) Effective sample size. Lavrakas PJ, ed. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winkler JD, Kanouse DE, Ware JE (1982) Controlling for acquiescence response set in scale development. J. Appl. Psych. 67(5):555–561.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ying Y, Feinberg F, Wedel M (2006) Leveraging missing ratings to improve online recommendation systems. J. Marketing Res. 43(3):355–365.Crossref, Google Scholar