| Full Profile Conjoint | Choice
Modeling | Compositional Conjoint | Profiling (Simalto) | Rating
Model |
| Task | Rank ordering of a set of product
descriptions -usually personal interview / Mall Intercept or phone-mail -phone
are used. | Select choice of purchase of a number of cases (8-10 cases)
each - often mail or phone-mail is used. | Rank a set of attribute levels
including price in order of importance - often by mail , phone-mail or interview) | A
series of exercises of selecting, ranking and identifying attribute levels - usually
personal interview (mall Intercept) | A series of attribute ratings of competitive
products and concepts and an importance scale (preferably a constant-sum). |
|---|
| Limits | In practice should not handle more than seven attributes
or more than 27 cards which limits levels. Only single situation can be tested. | Usually
only a couple of attributes can be included due to the interaction with brand.
Only single situation can be tested. | While as many as 83 attribute levels
have been used, we suggest less than 20. Multiple situations can be tested. | Large
number of attributes and attribute levels (> 100). Multiple situations can
be tested. | Only a few attributes can be considered with a few competitors,
typically < 16 attributes and <6 competitors. |
|---|
| Simulated
Decision | Broad product selection simulation | Purchase process
choice simulation | Negotiation simulation | Negotiation or a design
decision | Satisfaction model |
|---|
| Underlying Assumptions | Consistent
trade-off respondent behavior based on primary effects. It is assumed that respondent
can better select complete offerings than attribute levels. | Consistent
trade-off decision behavior by respondents with interaction of attributes (particularly
price) with brand. | Respondent is able to trade-off attribute levels. There
is some explicit value of attributes. | Ability of respondent to describe
past and future purchases in regards to attribute levels and values. | Ratings
and importance of attributes are comparable. Ratings and importance are ratio
scale values. |
|---|
| Results | Attribute level value &
market simulation | Market Model | Attribute level value & market
simulation | Market simulation and attribute values | Product, attribute
position, market simulation. |
|---|
| Full Profile Conjoint | Choice Modeling | Compositional
Conjoint | Profiling (Simalto) | Rating Model |
| Aggregation | Either
on a respondent basis or aggregated. | Due to the large number of cases
needed, only aggregated data is used. | Done on a respondent basis | Done
on a respondent basis | Either on a respondent bases or aggregated. |
|---|
| Analysis | Regression on the respondent and averages. Monotonic
Regression is sometimes used. Rankings are usually scaled to dollars. | Regression
on the aggregated data. Logit transformed share and maximum likelihood loss regression. | Rankings
of attribute levels scaled to dollars and segment clusters usually also done. | Represented
as tabular data and through market simulation. | Position maps (Factor Maps
and MDS) for distance, segment clustering, value modeling, ratings and importance
presented as tabulations. |
|---|
| Market Model | Market
simulations based on value, share based on either winner takes all or proportional. | Share
(stochastic) market model is inherent in this method. | Market simulations
based on value. | Multiple simulation models, based on: value, ideal case,
last purchase and satisfaction. | Model based on Fisher model: (Ratings
x importance) |
|---|
| Fault Tolerance | Fault intolerant | Fault
intolerant | Somewhat fault tolerant | Fault tolerant | Fault
tolerant |
|---|
| Problems | Prone to decision model problems
as well as design problems. Major problems are interaction and unrealistic cases.
Task size is another problem. | Aggregation, design and task size are the
major problem. There is no ability to examine market details. | Inability
of the respondent to rate prices against other attributes. Alternatively, there
is a problem of selecting appropriate price levels. | Complexity and cost
are the major fielding difficulties in this method. Selection of an appropriate
market model is also a major problem. | Usually not accurate. No evaluation
of attribute level - No direct recommendations for action. |
|---|
| Full Profile Conjoint | Choice
Modeling | Compositional Conjoint | Profiling (Simalto) | Rating
Model |
| Advantage | Simulates a selection process
without an explicit buyer model. It has industry credibility. | Simulates
the buying process. It is also being presently "hyped" | Low costs,
ability to provide multiple situations and easy integration with other surveys. | Flexibility
and in-depth analysis. | Simple and widely undertaken as customer satisfaction. |
|---|
| Relative Costs | Fairly high costs if personal interview
is used, otherwise medium cost range. | Usually expensive due to large sample
size required. | Usually very inexpensive and can be coupled to existing
survey. | Usually very expensive due to the need for personal interviews. | Usually
inexpensive and coupled to existing survey. |
|---|
| Successful Cases | Organizational
and group decision making, packaged goods, big ticket consumer products, pharmaceuticals,
etc. | Competitive pricing studies. | Agricultural chemicals, industrial
and medical products, services. | Industrial and medical products, consumer
soft-goods, and big ticket consumer purchases. | Consumer, industrial and
service products. |
|---|
| Rules | Min. # of cards = 1.5 x ( attribute
levels -1)+1 | Min. # of exercises cards = 1.5 x ( attribute levels -1)+1 | | | |
|---|