Conjoint Analysis Session: March 22-26; 2010 1. Objectives/Purpose An extremely powerful and useful analysis tool Used to determine the relative importance of various attributes to respondents, based on their making trade-off judgments Useful in Helping to select features on a new product/service Predicting sales Understanding decision processes/consumer judgments Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day 1. Objectives (ctd) E.g. UvT: What drives students’ choice of (and willingness to pay for) a room? How can Albert Heijn compose its assortment of cereals to improve customer appeal? Nike: What are the optimal features for a new type of sneakers? Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day 2. Steps Design Assumptions Model estimation and fit Interpreting results Validation Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day 2.1. Design Method: Select attributes (number, type) Choose model form (additive? dependent variable?) Individual or aggregate estimation? Traditional, Choice-based or Adaptive conjoint? Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day 2.1. Design Stimuli: Factor (= Attribute) selection Criteria: Differentiate Able to communicate Actionable Price Could enter as separate attribute, mind correlations or infeasible stimuli Levels: Strive for Balance Range: Feasible, Relevant, Stretch Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day 2.1. Design Stimuli: Utility specification Part worth, Ideal Point or Linear model? Main effects or interactions? Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Alternative Models Linear Ideal Point 7,5 8 7 7 6 6,5 5 6 4 5,5 3 5 2 4,5 1 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 No sugar 35 Part Worth 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1000cc Marketing Research 7th Edition 2000cc Aaker, Kumar, Day 3000cc Medium Sweetness 2.1. Design Data collection: Presentation: Trade-off Full profile (Fractional factorial)? Preference Measure: Ranking Rating Choice (no-) Task per respondent (Regular, Adaptive, Hybrid?) Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Example: Sneakers 3 attributes, 3 levels each: 3 2 1 Sole: Rubber, Polyurethane, Plastic 1 2 3 Upper: Leather, Canvas, Nylon 1 2 3 Price: 30$, 60$, 90$ Fractional Factorial: 9 out of 27 profiles (3 sole x 3 upper x 3 price) evaluated Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Example: Profiles for Sneakers Stimulus Sole = attribute 1 Upper Price = attribute 2 = attribute 3 1 Rubber (1) Leather (1) 30 (1) 2 Rubber (1) Canvas (2) 60 (2) 3 Rubber (1) Nylon (3) 90 (3) 4 Polyurethane (2) Leather (1) 60 (2) 5 Polyurethane (2) Canvas (2) 90 (3) 6 Polyurethane (2) Nylon (3) 30 (1) 7 Plastic (3) Leather (1) 90 (3) 8 Plastic (3) Canvas (2) 30 (1) 9 Plastic (3) Nylon (3) 60 (2) Marketing Research 7th Edition (attribute level) Aaker, Kumar, Day 2.2. Assumptions Few statistical assumptions Theory-driven design, estimation and interpretation Overfitting? GIGO (Garbage in Garbage out)? Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day 2.3. Model Estimation and Fit E.g. Additive Model, part-worths: m ki U ( X ) ij xij i 1 j 1 where U(X)=utility of alternative X, m=# attributes, ki=#attribute levels of attribute i, xij=1 for level j of i, 0 elsewhere, ij=part worth for level j of i Bv (Usneakers2)= 11 + 22 + 32 2.3. Model Estimation and Fit (ctd) Purpose: Find levels of ij that reflect consumers’ stimuli evaluations as closely as possible Method: Ranking: MONANOVA, Linmap Rating: Dummy-variable regression Choice: MNL or Probit model Fit: Correlate actual/predicted ranks Hit rate R2 Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Example: Profiles for Sneakers Stimulus Sole Upper Price = attribute 1 = attribute 2 = attribute 3 1 Rubber (1) Leather (1) 30 (1) 2 Rubber (1) Canvas (2) 60 (2) 3 Rubber (1) Nylon (3) 90 (3) 4 Polyrethane (2) Leather (1) 60 (2) 5 Polyrethane (2) Canvas (2) 90 (3) 6 Polyrethane (2) Nylon (3) 30 (1) 7 Plastic (3) Leather (1) 90 (3) 8 Plastic (3) Canvas (2) 30 (1) 9 Plastic (3) Nylon (3) 60 (2) Marketing Research 7th Edition (attribute level) Aaker, Kumar, Day 2.3. Model Estimation and Fit (ctd) Example Sneakers: Preference ratings and Variable Indicator Coding (last level = Base) : Sneaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Preference Rating Rubber 9 7 5 6 5 6 5 7 6 Poly 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sole Marketing Research 7th Edition Leather Canvas 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Upper Aaker, Kumar, Day 60$ 30$ 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Price 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2.3. Model Estimation and Fit (ctd) Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.967 R Square 0.934 Adjusted R Square 0.738 Standard Error 0.667 Observations 9 Intercept Sole1 Sole 2 Upper 1 Upper 2 Price 1 Price 2 Marketing Research 7th Edition 4,222 b11=1.000 b12=-0.333 b21=1.000 b22=0.667 b31=2.333 b32=1.333 0.588 0.544 0.544 0.544 0.544 0.544 0.544 Aaker, Kumar, Day 7,181 1,837 -0.612 1,837 1,225 4,287 2,449 0.019 0.208 0.603 0.208 0.345 0.05 0.134 2.4. Interpreting results Assess part-worths for attribute levels Evaluate attribute importance Use choice simulator Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Assess part-worths for attribute levels Example: Indicator Coding, Attribute=Sole b11= coëfficiënt Sole1=1 b12= coëfficiënt Sole2=-.333 b13=0 Average: (1-.333+0)/3=.222 Calculate part worths such that sum = 0? -> 11= b11-Average=1-.222=. 778 12= b12-Average=-.333-.222-.556 13= b13-Average=-.222 Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Example Sneakers: Outcome Part worth calculations Sole: 11=.778, 12= -.556, 13= -.222 Upper: 21=.445, 22= .111, 23= -.556 Price: 31=1.111, 32= .111, 33=-1.222 Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Part Worths Sneakers Upper Sole 1 0,6 0,8 0,4 0,6 0,2 0,4 0,2 0 0 -0,2 Leather -0,2 rubber Poly Canvas Plas -0,4 -0,4 -0,6 -0,6 -0,8 -0,8 Price 1,5 1 0,5 0 30 60 -0,5 -1 -1,5 Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day 90 Nylon Wi Evaluate attribute importance Ii m I i i I i max j ( ij ) min j ( ij ) where i=attribute, j= attribute level, m= number of attributes, Ii = range of part worths for attribute, Wi = attribute importance (share) Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Attribute importance Example Sneakers: Sole: .286 Upper: .214 Price: .5 100 € Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day 60 € Calculating Attribute importance Sole Upper Price Marketing Research 7th Edition Ii .778+.556 =1.334 .445+.556 =1.001 1.111+1.222 =2.333 = 4.668 Aaker, Kumar, Day Wi 1.334/4.668=.286 1.001/4.668=.214 2.333/4.668=.5 2.5. Validation On holdout sample? Clusters of respondents Alternative Models? Significance (overfitting)? Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day 3. Case: Channel and Price Offers for Safety Products Problem Statement A company specialized in safety-related products, intends to improve its channel- and pricing approach for different types of products. Preferred combination, by consumers, of information channel, selling channel, and price level? Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Problem Statement (ctd) Consumers can obtain information, and/or purchase products, through the internet (company’s website) from a safety consultant /advisor (in home) in B&M stores Prices can deviate from a ‘recommended price’ Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Research Setup Use conjoint analysis to assess consumer preference for alternative channel/price combinations Conduct analysis for three types of products: Bicycle Lock Fire Blanket Alarm system Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Design: Stimuli Attributes Attribute Information Channel Acquisition Channel Price Levels Internet Advisor Internet Advisor Recommended –10% Recommended Utility: Part worths, additive Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Brick&Mortar Store Brick&Mortar Store Recommended +10% Design: Data Collection Traditional Method: Full Profile approach 27 possible combinations: fractional, orthogonal design -> 9 profiles/product/respondent Preference measure: rating Respondent task: regular, 2 products Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Data Collection (ctd) Info products/recommended prices (e.g. fire blanket 46.05Euros, Alarm system 315.70Euros, ) Info channels: B&M store (where, what, chain) Internet (site, what) Advisors: where, education/expertise Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Scenario (Stimulus) 1 Imagine You use the internet to gather information on the fire blanket You purchase the fire blanket in the store The recommended price is 46.05Euros In the store, you pay this recommended price –10% How do you rate this scenario? …./100 Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Model and Variable Coding Dataset: see File Caseconj.sav Cases= respondents*profiles Dummy variable regression per product and across respondents, dependent = rating Independent = 6 dummy variables (TI, TA, II, IA, PR, PL): reference scenario =transaction and info in B&M, higher price. Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Estimation Results See output file Caseconj.spo Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Interpretation Part Worths and Attribute importance E.g. Fire Blanket: Information channel no significant impact Transaction channel (.365): Internet -7.78, Advisor -.1, Store 7.88 Price (.635) Low 15.22, Medium –2.83, High –12.38 Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Validation Estimation Sample: Correlation between true and predicted scores? (Fire Blankets: .435) Holdout sample: Re-estimate and compare coefficients? Correlate true and predicted scores in holdout Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Outcome Attribute importance? E.g. Bicycle Lock: First price (27.6%), then transaction channel (15.7%), info channel not important (1.5%) Most appealing offer customer: E.g. Bicycle Lock: Store, Low price. Utility: 7.88 +15.23 =23.11 Trade off: e.g. Bicycle Lock Store, medium price: 7.88-2.83=5.05 Internet, low price: -7.78+15.22=7.44 Prefer latter option! Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day Outcome (ctd) Customer heterogeneity? E.g. Male vs female Individual analysis? Product differences in attribute significance, importance, part worths! E.g. Best info channel depends on product: Bicycle Lock: store, Alarm system: advisor Marketing Research 7th Edition Aaker, Kumar, Day