Quantitative Marketing and Economics

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 421–456 | Cite as

Economic valuation of product features

  • Greg M. Allenby
  • Jeff D. Brazell
  • John R. Howell
  • Peter E. Rossi


We develop a market-based paradigm to value the enhancement or addition of features to a product. We define the market value of a product or feature enhancement as the change in the equilibrium profits that would prevail with and without the enhancement. In order to compute changes in equilibrium profits, a valid demand system must be constructed to value the feature. The demand system must be supplemented by information on competitive offerings and cost. In many situations, demand data is either not available or not informative with respect to demand for a product feature. Conjoint methods can be used to construct the demand system via a set of designed survey-based experiments. We illustrate our methods using data on the demand for digital cameras and demonstrate how the profits-based metric provides very different answers than the standard welfare or Willingness-To-Pay calculations.


Product features Conjoint Equilibrium profits Bayesian analysis 

JEL Classification

C11 C23 C25 C81 D12 D43 K11 L13 M3 



Rossi would like to acknowledge the Collins Chair, Anderson School of Management, UCLA for research funding. Allenby thanks the Fisher College of Business at Ohio State University for generous research support. All correspondence may be addressed to the authors at the UCLA, Anderson School of Management, 110 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095; or via e-mail at


  1. Allenby, G.M., Brazell, J., Howell, J., Rossi, P.E. (2014). Valuation of Patented Product Features. Journal of Law and Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  2. Berry, S., Levinsohn, J., Pakes, A. (1995). Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica, 63 (4), 841–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brazell, J., Diener, C., Karniouchina, E., Moore, W., Severin, V., Uldry, P.-F. (2006). The no-choice option and dual response choice designs. Marketing Letters, 17 (4), 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chintagunta, P.K., & Nair, H. (2011). Discrete-choice models of consumer demand in marketing. Marketing Science, 30 (6), 977–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi, S.C., & DeSarbo, W.S. (1994). A conjoint-based product designing procedure incorporating price competition. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 451–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ding, M., Grewal, R., Liechty, J. (2005). Incentive-aligned conjoint. Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dong, S., Ding, M., Huber, J. (2010). A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27 (25-32).Google Scholar
  8. Horsky, D., & Nelson, P. (1992). New brand positioning and pricing in an oligolopolistic market. Marketing Science, 11 (2), 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McFadden, D.L. (1981). In M. Intrilligator, Z. Griliches, D.L. McFadden (Eds.) Econometric models of probabilistic choice (pp. 1395–1457). North-Holland.Google Scholar
  10. Ofek, E., & Srinivasan, V. (2002). How much does the market value an improvement in a product attribute. Marketing Science, 21 (4), 398–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Orme, B.K. (2001). Assessing the monetary value of attribute levels with conjoint analysis. Discussion paper, Sawtooth Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Orme, B.K. (2009). Getting started with conjoint analysis. Research Publishers, LLC.Google Scholar
  13. Petrin, A. (2002). Quantifying the benefits of new products: The case of the Minivan. Journal of Political Economy, 110 (4), 705–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rossi, P.E. (2014). Bayesian non- and sem-parametric methods and applications, The Econometric and Tinbergen Institutes Lectures. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rossi, P.E., Allenby, G.M., McCulloch, R.E (2005). Bayesian statistics and marketing. Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Rossi, P.H., Wright, J.D., Anderson, A.B. (1983). Handbook of survey research. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Sonnier, G., Ainslie, A., Otter, T. (2007). Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 5, 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Srinivasan, V., Lovejoy, W.S., Beach, D. (1997). Integrated product design for marketability and manufacturing. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (1), 154–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Train, K.E. (1998). Recreational demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics, 74 (2), 230–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Trajtenberg, M. (1989). The welfare analysis of product innovations, with an application to computed tomography scanners. Journal of Political Economy, 97 (2), 444–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Uldry, P., Severin, V., Diener, C. (2002). Using a Dual Response Framework in Choice Modeling. In AMA Advanced Research Techniques Forum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Greg M. Allenby
    • 1
  • Jeff D. Brazell
    • 2
  • John R. Howell
    • 3
  • Peter E. Rossi
    • 4
  1. 1.Fisher College of BusinessOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.The ModellersSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.Smeal College of BusinessPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  4. 4.UCLA, Anderson School of ManagementLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations