• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Conjoint class project
 

Conjoint class project

on

  • 1,430 views

This is conjoint class project to assist a bakery in optimizing its product offerings. It was completed as part of a Conjoint/Discrete Choice for the MMR program at UGA. Any questions can be sent to ...

This is conjoint class project to assist a bakery in optimizing its product offerings. It was completed as part of a Conjoint/Discrete Choice for the MMR program at UGA. Any questions can be sent to michaelbystry@yahoo.com.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,430
Views on SlideShare
1,424
Embed Views
6

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
36
Comments
0

3 Embeds 6

http://www.slideshare.net 3
http://www.linkedin.com 2
http://02ed924.netsolhost.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Conjoint class project Conjoint class project Presentation Transcript

    • Sweet Tooth Bakery Cake preference conjoint analysis Michael Bystry, Stacy Comrie, Shannon Goyda, Prochi Jain, Amy Kasten
    • Background/Problem Statement
      • Sweet Tooth Bakery wants to create a new cake offering for its customers
      • The cake will be 9”x13” and sell for $17.99
      • In order to build the most appealing cake, the bakery needs to understand consumer preference for different cake components
    • Background/Problem Statement
      • Cake components:
        • Cake Flavor
          • White, Chocolate, Yellow, Marble
        • Frosting/Filling Flavor
          • Chocolate/Raspberry, Vanilla/Raspberry, Vanilla/Lemon, Cream Cheese/Raspberry, Cream Cheese/Lemon
        • Number of Layers
          • Two or three
    • Design
      • Full-profile conjoint
        • Minimum design size=9 profiles
        • Full factorial design=40 profiles
        • Selected Design=20 profiles
          • D-efficiency=99.5% with only one violation
          • No canonical correlations >.316
        • Two hold-out tasks added to the design
          • Final design size=22 profiles
            • D-efficiency=98.7%
            • No canonical correlations >.316
    • Analysis and Results
      • 44 usable completes
      • Validation procedure
        • Correlations between 20 test profiles and two holdout profiles were examined
          • Seven respondents removed
            • Responses to holdout tasks not consistent with responses to test profiles
          • 37 remaining respondents used for analysis of importance scores and market share
    • Analysis and Results
      • Importance and Part-worths
        • Average, maximum, and minimum part-worths calculated for each attribute
        • Importance scores calculated for each attribute
      Cake Component Highest Average Part-Worths Lowest Average Part-Worths Importance Scores Cake White (5.2) Marble (-4.69) 37% Frosting/filling Chocolate/Raspberry (11.12) Cream cheese/lemon (-14.23) 55% Layers Two (0.98) Three (-.098) 8%
    • Analysis and Results
      • Share Simulator Usage
      • Base State
      • Updated with new selections
      Analysis and Results
    • Analysis and Results
      • Customer clusters
        • Segmentation based on importance scores as derived from individuals’ utility functions
        • Two-, three-, and four-cluster solutions examined
          • Three-cluster solution gave best results
    • Analysis and Results
      • Segments of cake buyers
        • 1. Frosting/filling segment (38%)
          • High importance given to frosting/filling attribute
        • 2. Cake flavor segment (19%)
          • High importance given to cake flavor attribute
        • 3. Holistic segment (43%)
          • Higher than average importance give to layers
          • Relative equality given to cake flavor and frosting/filling
    • Analysis and Results
    • Limitations
      • Due to the nature of conjoint analysis
        • No information about purchase intent
          • Only preference information
        • All possible options not included in design
          • Some cake, filling, and frosting options removed
        • No information about possible interactions
          • Frosting/filling may interact with cake flavor
        • The model doesn’t capture pricing information
          • Conjoint not well suited to capturing price
    • Limitations
      • Due to limited time and resources
        • Respondents drawn from convenience sample
        • Sample size is too small for statistically-meaningful results
          • Results can not be projected onto the general population
        • Sample size is too small to allow for use of holdout sample for validation
          • Holdout tasks were used instead
    • Questions/Comments?