Conjoint

1. Study design
Our chosen product category is soft drinks and the attributes that we consider the most important in terms of the buying decision are: ingredients, drink type, packaging type and price. We chose the experimental design template #3 and split each attribute into the following categories:
1. Ingredients 100% natural, blended, or synthetic
2. Drink Type caffeinated ornon-caffeinated
3. Packaging Type aluminium can, glass bottle, plastic bottle, Tetra Pak
4. Price GBP 0.50, 1.00, 2.00
We designed the questionnaire to collect the data as follows:

2. Data Collection
The questionnaire was completed by all members of our study group and five additional respondents. The dummy coding for the different attributes in our product profiles are addressed below.3. Data Analysis
3.1 For this first task we picked 10 out of the 11 respondents and performed a regression analysis for each of them. We estimated each respondent’s part-worth as follows:

To analyse the best and worst possible products for a given respondent we chose the sample No. 1 because it had the highest adjusted R square.

From the results, it can be concluded that the bestpossible product for this respondent is a 100% natural caffeinated soft drink, packaged in a plastic bottle with a retail price of £0.50. On the other hand, however, a synthetic non-caffeinated that costs £2.00 and is packaged in a glass bottle is the worst product.
3.2 The most important attribute for the chosen respondent is the composition of ingredients, followed by price, drink type andpackaging. The following chart summarizes the importance of each attribute:

3.3 Our initial hypothesis was that high/mid-prices would have negative part-worths. For three of our chosen respondents (No1, No2, and No3), the price sensitivity is in line with what was expected. The other two samples (No4 and No5), however, were outside of our expectations with some positive net-worths for high/mid-price.[Yusuke: this is the assignment instruction]

We believe that the opposite trend is primarily driven by the relatively lower importance of price attribute in the last two samples (e.g. the relative importance of price in Brenda is 17.4%), where the price attribute has been sometimes ignored in making its rating. [Yusuke: I wanted to say: 1. The net-worths for higher-price or mid-price inBrenda/Yusuke is indicating a opposite direction with in others. 2. The reason for that is Brenda/Yusuke’s lower importance of price attribute. 3. Brenda or Yusuke’s relatively higher rating for the products with higher/mid price is likely to be driven by other factors (packaging or ingredient.). In this case, the price attribute is likely to be less weighted in terms of their decision making factors.]
3.4 The two new products that we defined were:
* Product X A non-caffeinated, 100% natural soft drink with a GBP 0.50 price and packaged in a plastic bottle
* Product Y A caffeinated, synthetic soft drink with a GBP 0.50 price and packaged in a Tetra Pak carton

Based on the responses in the questionnaires, the expected market share for each of these products would be:

3.5 Thecharacteristics of the three additional product profiles that we analysed were:

* Product A A non-caffeinated, synthetic soft drink with a GBP 1.00 price and packaged in an aluminium can
* Product B A caffeinated, blended soft drink with a GBP 1.00 price and packaged in a Tetra Pak carton
* Product C A caffeinated, 100% natural soft drink with a GBP 1.00 price and packaged in analuminium can
The following chart summarizes the three product profiles as well as the profiles of Products X and Y:

We do not believe that Product A would be successful in gaining market share from Product X due to its ingredients and price. Product A is a synthetic soft drink, which was a characteristic highly disliked by each respondent when compared to a blended or 100% natural option. On...