Example conjoint analysis report for preferences in ice-cream cones.
Feature and claim selection and measuring willingness to pay for features for a single product.
- Flavour (Fudge, Vanilla, Strawberry, and Mango)
- Size (from 120g to 200g)
- Price (from $1.95 to $3.50)
We collected over 1,500 good quality responses in this test (even though this report would be robust enough with a hundred complete answers). It turns out that variation of price was a more important driver of people’s decision-making than differences in both flavour and size of the cone combined:
Unsurprisingly, people preferred larger and cheaper cones. Fudge and vanilla were the two top flavours:
But when we look at confidence intervals, we notice that we are much less certain about average preferences for flavours than for size or price:
It is probably because if we simulate preference shares for four concepts with varied flavours but fixed price and size, we observe that the distribution of people who pick different options is not extremely skewed towards one flavour:
But when we do simulation analysis with different price points, we clearly see that more people prefer to pay a lower price. Even though some still stick with a higher price, probably due to price-quality inference.
Another useful output of the study is marginal willingness to pay, which shows the equivalent amount of money for upgrade from the less preferred to the more preferred features:
If you want to pick the topmost preferred combination of product features, you can take a look at the following ranking as well:
It looks like a large dollop of modestly-priced Frosty Vanilla is the winner today.