Conjoint Analysis

What is conjoint analysis:

A general class of procedures for measuring, analyzing and predicting
consumers responses to:
1. new products
2. new features of existing products
Decomposes consumers preferences for any product into utilities for
each option of each feature or attribute.
Utilities (part-worths) can be combined to predict preferences for any
product that can be developed using those features or attributes
Can determine optimal product concept
Can identify segments that value a product concept highly
Conjoint Analysis
Statistics & Terms
Part-worth functions - utility of each level of each attribute
Relative importance weights - which attributes are important in choice of a brand, etc.
Attribute levels - feature options available in product
Full profiles - all attributes and levels included in product profiles
Pairwise tables - two attributes with all levels evaluated at a time
Full factorial design - all combinations of all attributes levels included in profiles
Fractional factorial designs - subset of full factorial design
Orthogonal arrays - fractional design to capture only main effects
Conjoint Analysis
Steps in conjoint analysis
Formulate the problem
Construct the stimuli
Determine form of input data
Select a conjoint procedure
Interpret results
Assess reliability & validity
Conjoint Analysis
Formulate the problem
1. Select attributes - salient in influencing preference & choice;
-- not similar across products
2. Select attribute levels - ranges beyond availability in market, but believable
Attribute & Level Selection.
Assume:
A. Product = Bundle of Attribute levels
B. Utility of Product = f (Utility of Attribute levels)
C. Highest Utility = pr (Purchases) highest
 D. Exhaustive set of attributes & levels
E. No redundancy
F. High External Validity re: Buying Action.
Conjoint Analysis
Construct the stimuli
Two Methods
1. Paired Comparison - two-factor (attribute/feature) evaluation
2. Full Profile - multiple-factor (attribute/feature) evaluations
1. Paired - Comparison
Easier for respondents
Requires more evaluations than full profile
Evaluations may be unrealistic
Conjoint Analysis
Tradeoff Matrix - Pairwise Comparisons
RANK 1 TO 9 FOR EACH MATRIX
Course Course Course
Grading 1 2 3
1 1 4 3
2 9 2 5
3 8 7 6

Conjoint Analysis
Tradeoff Matrix - Pairwise Comparisons
RANK 1 TO 9 FOR EACH MATRIX
Command Command Command
Grading 1 2 3
1 4 3 2
2 5 1 6
3 8 7 9

Course Course Course

Grading 1 2 3
1 9 3 2
2 8 1 4
3 5 6 7
etc.

Conjoint Analysis
2. Full Profile Methods
A. Full Factorial *** Multiple Factors
determines both main & interaction effect
(recall ANOVA, multiple regression)
B. Fractional Factorial -
Balanced Design = Independence of Attributes
 i.e. Attribute Levels are Uncorrelated
Conjoint Analysis
2. Full Profile Methods
Fractional factorial
1. Randomized Block - homogeneous groups are independent
Group 1 E (R) O1 X O3
e.g., Family C (R) O2 O4
Group 2 E (R) X O5
Individual C (R) O6
2. Orthogonal arrays
substitute new factor for interaction presumed negligible
main effects only - uncorrelated with other main effects
Conjoint Analysis
2. Full Profile Methods
Latin Square (example: Computer use in schools)
Operating system: (5)Win95 (8)Win98 (M)MAC
Software for: 1 Course 2-courses 3-courses
Monitor: 15 17 19
Full Factorial Latin Square
5 8 M 5 8 M
1 5,7,9 5,7,9 5,7,9 1 5 7 9
2 5,7,9 5,7,9 5,7,9 2 7 9 5
3 5,7,9 5,7,9 5,7,9 3 9 5 7
Conjoint Analysis
2. Full Profile Methods
Latin Square
Example 2
COURSE REQUIREMENTS
GRADING Heavy Moderate Light
Generous Good Fair Poor
Moderate Fair Poor Good
Strict Poor Good Fair
Within cell - COMMAND OF SUBJECT

Conjoint Analysis
Determine form of input data
1. Nonmetric - rank order profiles / pairs
2. Metric - rate on a scale
a. Form of scale
 e.g., Likert (1 = not preferred; 7 = greatly preferred)
b. Dependent variable
i. Preference
ii. Intent to buy (e.g., probability of purchase)
iii. Choice
iv. Actual purchase
v. Attitude (e.g., Liking Scale)
Conjoint Analysis
Select a conjoint procedure
Goal: Decompose overall responses into utilities of various attribute levels.
Model:
m ki

U ( X ) ij xij
i 1 j 1

where: U(X) = overall utility of brand

= part worth of jth level of ith attribute
ki = number levels of attribute I
m = number of attributes
= part-worth or utility of level of attribute
x = level of attribute or feature
Conjoint Analysis
Select a conjoint procedure
Technique: Regress Rank or Rate on Attribute Levels
Tools: OLS regression, LINMAP, MONANOVA, Logit
OLS regression:
Independent variables (IV) are Dummy Variables
==> number of levels - 1 (the referent level)
Dependent variables (DV) are ratings or rankings
If ratings, use directly as DV
If rankings, convert to 0 or 1 by making paired comparisons between brands
Conjoint Analysis
Interpret results
* Can predict preference for any attribute level combination
* Graph part worths for each attribute to illustrate results
* Determining importance of attributes
Self-explicated (reported)
Self-rated
5-point scale (1 = of no importance to 5 = extremely important)
 snake plot to visualize
Anchored measures
10 points to most important
0 to 10 points to all other attributes
Constant-sum
0 to 100 points divide among attributes

Conjoint Analysis
Interpret results
* Determining importance of attributes
Problems with self-explicated (reported) importance
self-rated scales dont force tradeoffs or hierarchies among attributes
anchored scales are more difficult to administer
constant sum have independence from irrelevant needs (IIN) problem: more needs
= fewer points allocated per need
everyone wants best at lowest price
report desirability better than importance (regress towards mean)
importance depends on range of attribute values, e.g., price cut-off.
Conjoint Analysis
Interpret results
* Revealed importance of attribute = Difference between highest and lowest
attribute level utilities.
Importance of an attribute = [Max (ij) - Min (ij)] for each i
To determine importance relative to other attributes, normalize importance
that is:
m
I
Wi m i such that Wi 1
Ii i 1
i 1

Conjoint Analysis
Assess reliability and validity
Goodness-of-fit: R2 in dummy variable regression
Reliability: Correlate response to stimuli used early and late in the
study
Internal validity: Predict values in a holdout sample
Stability: Compare subsamples in an aggregate-level analysis
Conjoint Analysis
Using Conjoint Analysis
 Determining relative importance of attributes in consumer choice
Estimating market share of brands that differ in attribute levels
Determining composition of the most preferred brand
Segmenting the market based on similarity of preferences for attribute
levels
Conjoint Analysis
Using Conjoint Analysis
a. As a market / choice simulator:
compare estimated & known brand market shares.
highest utility = highest preference
aggregate preferences to form market share estimates
prior vs. post aggregation.
- average responses - estimate individual part-worths
- run conjoint on averages - cluster (analysis) on basis of
part-worth values
Logit analysis ===> greater detail, but, ratio data needed
Conjoint Analysis
Using Conjoint Analysis
b. Independence of attributes -- handling dependence
i. interaction terms
ii. multiplicative (not additive) model.
c. Perceptual Mapping / Joint Space vs. Conjoint Analysis
Conjoint stimuli are attribute levels not products or brands
Conjoint Compliments * PM/JS Analysis
PM/JS link perception to preference of product benefits
Conjoint links features to preference and perception
Engineering needs => attribute level importance
Conjoint Analysis
Using Conjoint Analysis
d. Limitations
assumes important attributes can be identified
may not consider brand name or image variables
assumes consumers evaluate choice alternatives based on these attributes
assumes consumers make tradeoffs (compensatory model)
tradeoff model may not respresent choice process (non-compensatory models?
data collection can be difficult and complex
hybrid conjoint
adaptive conjoint (ACA by Sawtooth Software)