Apple is considering introducing a new spill-proof laptop. A conjoint analysis was conducted with 32 students to determine consumer preferences for laptop attributes and the potential demand for a spill-proof laptop. The attributes tested were screen size, RAM size, hard drive space, price, operating system, and whether the laptop was spill-proof. Based on the part-worth utilities, consumers preferred larger screen sizes, more RAM, and the Mac operating system. While a spill-proof feature was preferred, the utility was not significantly higher than other attributes to recommend its introduction alone. The most important attribute was screen size.

1. Spill-proof Laptop Study:
A Conjoint Analysis for Apple
Prepared in MKT 402 (Consumer Behavior)
Arizona State University / W.P. Carey School of Business
Professor John Lastovicka
Nicole Baron Dietrich
Wesley Berg
Anna Bayles Depp
Matthew Lawler
Geyang Li
Noah Oropeza
Nicholas Sfreddo

2. Introduction
Problem
Apple is one of the largest technology designers and the creators of devices such as the
iPhone, iPad, Mac notebooks and desktop computers. In the third calendar quarter of 2014,
Apple reached its highest Laptop market share ever reported. The company gained ground with
13.4 percent of the US Laptop market, edging out Lenovo to grab the number three spot behind
HP (27.7 percent) and Dell (24 percent). Although Apple has been gaining ground on its
competitors in the US, they are looking to remain competitive by introducing a new product with
a spill-proof feature.
In order for Apple to move forward with this new product, management requires research
data to support the product’s potential sales. Although Apple has an extensive internal marketing
department, they chose to outsource this project in order to administer a full conjoint analysis on
the market. This study considers laptops’ attributes and attribute levels that allow definition of
new product possibilities from Apple as well as existing competitors’ products. Apple has
decided to stick to its premium price point because of their highly established brand equity. They
have recently innovated spill-proof casing for their product line. The product look or weight is
not different either. The following study will simulate its effect on the market and will allow us
to determine if introducing spill-proof computers will be beneficial to Apple.
Attributes/Levels
The new laptop that Apple is particularly interested in introducing is currently priced at
$1000, and comes in a 13-inch screen, with a RAM size of 4GB, total hard drive space of
250GB, and is run by a Mac operating system. Not to mention the new attribute, which is the
ability to withstand spills. Other attributes and prices being tested in the analysis are shown in
Table 1.1. After consulting Apple’s main competitors, pricing is set at either $600 or $1000. The
laptops possible screen sizes vary from 11” to 13” to 15” with the largest being 17”. Among the
competitors, three levels of storage are offered for both RAM size and total hard space. We
chose these sizes because these are the most standard sizes in the industry and the core sizes
demanded by consumers. Among the competitors, three levels of storage are offered for both
RAM size and total hard space. The levels of RAM and total hard space were also relatively
standard for modern laptops, offering options that would satisfy most, if not all laptop users. We
chose MAC and Windows operating systems because they are the two most commonly used
around the world. We chose to introduce a spill-proof feature because we believed there was a
large market of people who have spilled on their laptop before, and thus would find the feature
valuable.

3. Table 1.1 Attributes & Attribute Levels
Attributes Laptop Screen
Size
Spill-proof RAM
Size
Total Hard
Space
Price OS
Levels 11” Spill-proof 2 GB 125 GB $600 Mac
13” Not Spill-proof 4 GB 250 GB $1,000 Windows
15” 8 GB 500 GB
17”
After identifying those attributes, the attributes were then used to define the current
competitors in the market as well as the types of laptops they currently offer to consumers.
Apple’s existing product, their potential new product and their competition is shown in Table 1.2
below. Images of select existing products are shown in Figures 1.1 through 1.4.
Table 1.2 Competitors
Products Price
Attribute
Level
Laptop Screen
Size Attribute
Level
Total Hard
Space
Attribute
Level
RAM Size
Attribute
Level
OS
Attribute
Level
Spill-proof
Attribute Level
Windows 7 Acer
Competitor
$600 15” 125 GB 4 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
Windows Dell
Inspiron
Competitor
$1,000 15” 250 GB 8 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
Windows Lenovo
Competitor
$600 13” 125 GB 2 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
MacBook Pro
Existing Client
Product
$1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proof
MacBook Spill
New Client Product
$1,000 13” 250 GB 4 GB Mac Spill-proof

4. Visual images of current Apple and competitor products in the marketplace are shown on this
page.
Figure 1.1 Windows 7 Acer Figure 1.4 MacBook Pro
Figure 1.2 Windows Dell Inspiron
Figure 1.3 Windows Lenovo
Figure 1.2 Windows Dell Inspiron

5. Data Collection
Data
Data was collected from 32 different consumers who were Arizona State students that
had purchased a laptop in the last five years. These students were deemed appropriate for this
study because they answered our screener questions and fit the qualifications we were looking
for. In addition, the consumers were not biased towards this study because they do not work in
the laptop industry or in any advertising or marketing related field. The screening questions used
to qualify the study’s participants can be seen in Appendix A: Screening Questions.
Questions 1 and 2 are demographic questions that don’t qualify the respondents. The
consumers must answer, “Yes” to questions 3, 4, and 5 to be qualified. These specific questions
state that the respondents currently have a laptop, have purchased a laptop in the last five
months, and they have used both windows and mac operating systems.
Each of the 16 product concepts was put into cards and was created using the DESIGN
software. Every respondent was asked to rank the cards on a scale of 1 to 16 with their most
preferred card being 16 and their least preferred being 1. In order to save paper and time, the
cards were formatted into a spreadsheet and printed into line strips. This also allowed the
respondents to easily sort the cards into the order they wanted. The official instructions on how
to rank the cards can be found under Appendix B and the actual cards that were created using the
DESIGN software can be found under Appendix C.
We asked specific screener questions in hopes of determining if there were any relevant
correlations to our study. Our qualifications included being an ASU student between 17 and 28,
who has operated both Windows and Mac operating systems. They must currently own a laptop
and they must have purchased a laptop in the last five years. We asked each respondent whether
or not he or she had spilled on a laptop before. This was our market segment. We then tested the
significance of whether they had spilled on their laptop and if they would consider purchasing
the spill-proof laptop.

6. Preliminary Analysis
In order to evaluate the accuracy of our sample’s responses, multiple-R statistics were
computed in analyzing each consumer’s conjoint ranking data. The multiple-R reflects (on a
consumer-by-consumer basis) the conjoint model’s ability to describe each consumer’s rankings.
Low multiple-R’s reflect respondents that either did not understand the ranking instructions, did
not follow the ranking instructions, or were not knowledgeable enough to give informed
preferences about laptops in general.
The preliminary study included respondents with multiple-R levels of 0.5 and above. Out
of the 32 participants, we kept all of them. 30 of the respondents have R levels above 0.7,
although there were two R levels below this mark we felt their responses, as being above 0.5
were appropriate for the total sample as they met the qualifications in both screener questions
and as reliable data. If they had been below 0.5 for R, we would not have included them. The
average multiple-R of the 32 respondents was 0.956977586.
Table 1. 3 Multiple-R Values from Regressions
Respondent Code# Multiple R Values
11 0.864037
12 0.694011
13 0.922433
14 0.962856
15 0.504561
16 0.972225
17 0.979335
21 0.983504
22 0.961769
23 0.972414
24 0.92752
25 0.930488
31 0.98593
32 0.972414
41 0.908093
42 0.892576
43 0.934628
44 0.976187
51 1
52 0.884299
53 0.99484
54 0.99336
55 0.987235
56 0.952744
61 0.979008
62 0.955633
63 0.94849
71 0.995927
72 0.937941
73 0.738639
74 0.99908
75 1
Average multiple-R of the 32 respondents retained:
0.956977586

7. Overall Market Analysis
Utilities
From the regression analysis conducted on each of the respondents in the study, part-
worth utilities were estimated for 32 consumers. These individual part-worth utilities were then
averaged. The results are shown in Graph 1.1 and demonstrate the part-worth utilities for all 32
consumers.
When the price of the Apple laptop increased from $600.00 to $1,000.00, the utility
decreased slightly. With respect to operating system (essentially brand) preference, Apple’s
MAC was high on perceived utilities, so respondents preferred Apple over Windows operating
system. In the overall market, the most significant utilities were the laptop screen size and the
RAM size. An 11-inch screen size was preferred over a 13-inch, but ranked significantly lower
than a 15-inch or 17-inch screen size. The utility for RAM size proved the second most
significant. Respondents’ average part-worth utility increased by 1 util from 2GB to 4GB, and
increased by 1 util from 4GB to 8GB. Utility increased when the laptop included the spill-proof
feature, so consumers in this study preferred spill-proof laptops. The difference in this part-worth
utility for a spill-proof attribute was not significant enough - in relation to the part-worth utilities
of the other attributes - for us to recommend that Apple introduce this feature.
Graph 1.1 Average Part-Worth Utilities
The average importance of the attributes for the entire market was also computed by
calculating the importance of each attribute for each consumer, and then by computing the
average importance of each attribute across all consumers. These averages are reported in Table
1.4. Graph 1.2 shows each attribute’s relative importance in a pie chart.
The attribute that was most important on average was the laptop screen size. The attribute
levels of a 11-inch, 13-inch, 15-inch, or 17-inch, were the most important factors in choosing a

8. laptop. On average, price was the least important attribute; there was little difference between a
$600 laptop and a $1,000 laptop. In addition, the spill-proof feature proved to be the second least
significant attribute. Attributes that fell in the middle in importance included the total hard space,
the operating system, and the RAM size.
Table 1.4 Average Attribute Importance
Attribute Importance
Laptop Screen Size 26%
Spill-proof 10%
RAM Size 22%
Total Hard Space 17%
Price 6%
OS 20%
SUM 100%
Graph 1.2 Average Attribute Importance

9. Willingness to Pay
To determine the trade-offs consumers were willing to make between price and desired
attribute levels, exchange rates and willingness to pay were considered. The exchange rate is the
dollar amount per utility, computed as:
Exchange Rate = $(the change in price)______________________
(the corresponding difference in utilities for the price attribute)
For instance, the first respondent in the study had a utility of 2.5 utils for a drop in price from
$1,000 down to $600. This utility increase corresponds to a drop in price of $400. Therefore, the
exchange rate for this consumer is:
Exchange Rate = $400/2.5 util = $160/util
When all of the exchange rates were computed, an average exchange rate for all
consumers of $466.04 per util was estimated. The average exchange rate, calculated in terms of
dollars/util, indicates that on average, 1 util of any given attribute is worth $466.04.
This exchange rate allows for the calculation of a consumers “willingness to pay”. A
measure of willingness to pay shows how much value an individual consumer places on a good
or service. It is measured in terms of money. This ratio represents a characteristic of each
consumer for each non-price attribute level. In the calculation of willingness to pay, each
consumer’s exchange rate is used to value each consumer’s utilities in dollars (as opposed to
utils). After determining the willingness to pay for each individual, the average willingness to
pay among all respondents is shown in Table 1.7 below.
Table 1.7 Average Willingness To Pay Calculations
Willingness to pay: Spill-proof over Not Spill-Proof -$103.19
Willingness to pay: MAC over Windows $427
Willingness to pay: 17-inch over 11-inch $1,237.83
Willingness to pay: 8GB over 2GB $1696.45

10. MarketSimulations
Analysis of the current products provided by competitors was necessary in assessing if a
spill-proof laptop would advance Apple’s position in the laptop marketplace. In order to provide
a standard upon which the market’s response to a new product can be gauged, an existing Apple
product was included in the simulations. The competitors and existing product that were
analyzed in the first simulation are shown in Table 1.5.
Table 1.5 Existing Products in the Marketplace
Price Screen
Size
Hard Drive
Space
RAM
Size
OS Spill-proof
P1-Existig Product $1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proof
P2 –Acer $600 15” 125 GB 4 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
P3 –Dell Insipron $1,000 15” 250 GB 8 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
P4 - Lenovo $600 13” 125 GB 2 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
In order to simulate a total market, the utilities of competitors’ products were calculated
with respect to the consumer’s part-worth utilities. For example, choices for each consumer were
simulated by allocating the choice to the product P1-P4 in table 1.5 with the highest utility for
each. Through this simulation a total market was made in which market shares for each product
were computed.
The calculated market shares for each product within the simulated total market are
shown in Graph 1.3. Over half of the consumers prefer P1 from Apple, running Mac operating
software, costing $1,000, with a screen size of 13-inches, 500 GB of total hard space, and 8 GB
of RAM that does not withstand spills. The product that was liked least by the consumers in the
simulation market was Windows Lenovo, costing $600, with a screen size of 13-inches, 125 GB
of total hard space, and 2 GB of RAM, that also does not have a spill-proof attribute.
Graph 1.3 Existing Market Shares:

11. Once a total market was simulated and customer preferences of this market were
established, the new product design was applied to a second simulation to determine how
consumers in the market would react to the new product idea.
The second market simulation consisted of the product design at the higher price as well
as the competitors in the market. The product idea that was simulated in the market had the
following attribute levels: $1,000 + 15-inch + 500 GB of Total Hard Space + 4GB of RAM +
Mac + Spill-proof. This product design is displayed in Table 1.6 as P1.
Table 1.6 Introduction of First New Product Concept
Price Screen Size Hard Drive Space RAM Size OS Spill-proof
P1- New (A) $1,000 13” 250 GB 4 GB Mac Spill-proof
P2- Existing $1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proof
P3- Acer $600 15” 125 GB 4 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
P4- Dell $1,000 15” 250 GB 8 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
P5- Lenovo $600 13” 125 GB 2 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
In the second simulation the market share for the first new product at a higher price,
$1,000, with the spill-proof attribute, was preferred by only 22% of the consumers. The
introduction of Apple’s spill-proof laptop had no effect on the market shares for the Dell
Inspiron and Lenovo competitors whose shares stayed constant at 22% and 6% respectively. The
majority of the first new product’s market shares came from the existing client product in the
simulation, which decreased from 53% to 38%. One thing of importance to note was that Acer’s
market shares dropped 7%, from 19% in the market simulation down to 12% in the simulation of
the first new product concept introduction. The simulation with the first new product design is
illustrated in Graph 2.1 as P1.
Graph 1.4 Simulation #2: Market Shares

12. In the third market simulation a product design at the lower price, as well as the existing
competing products in the market were included. The second new product design, identified as
P1 had the following attribute levels: $600 + 15-inch + 500 GB of Total Hard Space + 4GB of
RAM + Mac + Spill-proof. Table 1.7 illustrates the competing product as well as the second new
product included in the third simulation.
Table 1.7 Introduction of Second New Product Concept
Price Screen Size Hard Drive Space RAM Size OS Spill-proof
P1-New (B) $600 13” 250 GB 4 GB Mac Spill-proof
P2- Existing $1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proof
P3- Acer $600 15” 125 GB 4 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
P4- Dell $1,000 15” 250 GB 8 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
P5- Lenovo $600 13” 125 GB 2 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
This third simulation in which the second new product concept was introduced identified
that consumers were more attracted to the new product at a lower price, $600. With the decrease
in the new product’s price from $1,000 down to $600, the apple market shares increased from
22% to 34%. The existing client product’s market share further dwindled from 38% in the first
new product simulation, to 16% in the second new product simulation. The market shares for P3,
the Windows 7 Acer that had fallen between the market simulation and first introduction saw a
4% increase from 12% to 16% at the introduction of the second new product. The Windows
Lenovo competitor who had stayed constant in market shares saw a 10% increase from 6% in the
first two simulations to 16% in the third simulation. The simulation of the introduction of the
second new product concept into the market is shown below in Graph 1.5.
Graph 1.5 Simulation #3: Market Shares

13. Market Segment Analysis
In order to better understand the part-worth utilities of the consumers in the market, the
total market was divided into two market segments. The market was segmented into those who
had spilled and those who had not spilled on their laptop prior.
SegmentAnalysis
The market segment that included those who have spilled on their laptops was chosen for
further analysis. The idea was to market a spill-proof laptop to consumers that have spilled
alcoholic beverages on their laptops in the past, who would have a greater appreciation for a
laptop that is spill-proof due to their past accidents spilling on their laptops.
Table 2.5 Attribute Importance Average: Those who have spilled beverages on their laptops
Attribute Importance
Laptop Screen Size 24%
Spill-proof 5%
RAM Size 18%
Total Hard Space 24%
Price 11%
OS 18%
The average importance of the attributes for the entire market was computed by
calculating the importance of each attribute for each consumer, and then by computing the
average importance of each attribute across all consumers. These averages are reported in Table
2.5.
The attribute that was most important on average remained the laptop screen size, holding
24% importance. The attribute levels of a 11-inch, 13-inch, 15-inch, or 17-inch, were the most
important factors in choosing a laptop. In addition, the Total Hard Space proved equally
significant, at a comparable 24%. On-average, the Spill Proof feature was the least important
attribute, at 5%. Price was the second least important attribute; there was little difference
between a $600 laptop and a $1,000 laptop. Attributes that fell in the middle in importance
included the price, the operating system, and the RAM size. It is important for Apple to consider
the importance of various attributes in deciding what they want to introduce to the marketplace.
This helps them determine what consumers are looking for. Graph 2.9 is graphical representation
of our findings.

14. Graph 2.9 Attribute importance: Those who have spilled beverages on their laptops
Additionally, the average willingness to pay of this segment of those who have spilled on their
laptops can be found below in table 2.6:
Table 2.6 Those who have spilled on their laptops Average Willingness To Pay
Willingness to pay: Spill-proof over Not Spill Proof -$166.16
Willingness to pay: MAC over Windows $208.65
Willingness to pay: 17-inch over 11-inch -$101.51
Willingness to pay: RAM Size 8 GB over 2 GB $803.99
Table 2.7 Those who have spilled on their laptops Attribute Importance
Attribute Importance
Laptop Screen Size 24%
Spill-proof 5%
RAM Size 18%
Total Hard Space 24%
Price 11%
OS 18%
We found it very important to consider market segments to help push towards realistic
customers. Initially we believe the spill-proof feature would appeal to many people who have
spilled on their laptops or knew someone who had spilled on their laptop. Upon further analysis
we have found the spill-proof feature did not add any value or incentive for consumers. Total
hard space and laptop screen size were the most influential features and spill-proof was least
influential. Conducting an additional study that offered larger screen size and/or larger total hard
space is a lucrative opportunity in the market to capture more market-share. The implementation
of the new spill-proof attribute for laptops only proved viable oddly with a high market price.

15. MarketSimulations in the Segment
Using the existing product alternative, we conducted a simulation using the segment
market. Table 1.5 is shown again are we conducting the same simulation only with the segment
this time.
Table 1.5 Existing Products in the Marketplace (Repeat)
Price Screen
Size
Hard Drive
Space
RAM Size OS Spill-proof
P1 -Existing $1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proof
P2- Acer $600 15” 125 GB 4 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
P3- Dell $1,000 15” 250 GB 8 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
P4- Lenovo $600 13” 125 GB 2 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
Graph 3.0 SegmentSimulation for Existing Products
As for the first simulation regarding the segmented market, the results show that the
consumers favor the Apple laptop or P1. Graph 3.0 clearly illustrates the 50% market-share.
We conducted the same simulation for the new product introduction as we did for the
overall market earlier. Refer to Table 1.6, to see the specification of the new product and the
other products. Graph 3.1 shows that with the introduction of the new product alternate Apple
gained 7% market-share.
14%
22%
14%
50%
Simulation-Existing
Windows 7 Acer
Windows Dell Inspiron
Windows Lenovo
MacBook Pro

16. Table 1.6 Introduction of First New Product Concept (Repeat)
Price Screen
Size
Hard Drive
Space
RAM
Size
OS Spill-proof
P1- New (A) $1,000 13” 250 GB 4 GB Mac Spill-proof
P2- Existing $1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proof
P3- Acer $600 15” 125 GB 4 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
P4- Dell $1,000 15” 250 GB 8 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
P5- Lenovo $600 13” 125 GB 2 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
Graph 3.1 Segment Spill-proof Simulation
The final simulation for the segment mirrors the third overall market simulation. We factor a
lower price for this specific segment. Table 1.7 is shown again to illustrate the product alternatives. The
findings tell us that Apple will get 8% more market-share with a lower price point for new product.
Table 1.7 Introduction of Second New Product Concept (Repeat)
Price Screen
Size
Hard Drive
Space
RAM Size OS Spill-proof
P1-New (B) $600 13” 250 GB 4 GB Mac Spill-proof
P2- Existing $1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proof
P3- Acer $600 15” 125 GB 4 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
P4-Dell $1,000 15” 250 GB 8 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
P5- Lenovo $600 13” 125 GB 2 GB Windows Not Spill-proof
7%
22%
14%43%
14%
Simulation-Spill-proof
Windows 7 Acer
Windows Dell Inspiron
Windows Lenovo
MacBook Pro
MacBook Spill

17. Graph 3.3 Segment Simulation With Lower Price
7%
21%
14%
29%
29%
Simulation-price
Windows 7 Acer
Windows Dell Inspiron
Windows Lenovo
MacBook Pro
MacBook Pro2

18. Conclusion
Final Discussion
In summary, this research study has helped Apple enhance its current line of laptops and
remain competitive in the marketplace. Through understanding of what consumers want, as well
as the attributes that they desire in products, we have developed the outline of a desirable new
product design for Apple. Based on the results of customer importance levels and the market
share levels we found that the new spill-proof feature is not regarded as important by consumers
but may help capture market-share nonetheless. The feature did not matter to our segmented
respondents either.
Screen size (26%)* was the most important attribute to our overall market. It was closely
followed by RAM size (22%) and the operating system (20%). The preferred levels for screen
size, RAM size, and OS was 17”, 8GB, and Mac OS. We suggest further studies and simulations
to look into larger screen sizes and upgraded specifications in RAM and Hard Drive space
(17%). These are valued more highly than the spill-proof attribute.
However the introduction of the product alternative for Apple gained market-share in all
simulations, except for the lower price spill-proof in overall market, which actually saw the
cannibalization as a negative overall effect. In all other cases, the market share cannibalization
was a net benefit. Apple gained 10% in market-share in the first overall market simulation with
the high price. For the segment, Apple’s existing share was lower than the overall, but they
managed to gain 7% and 8% in both simulations. Based on the results in both overall and
segment markets, Apple should not introduce a lower price spill-proof product rather the higher
price.
We did notice the results that the overall market favored the spill-proof feature in both
Willingness to Pay (-109.19 vs -166.16), and Attribute Importance (10% vs 5%). This tells us
that the segment market, those who have spilled on their laptop may actually be currently
satisfied with the durability of their laptop. Having already spilt on their laptop they may have
experienced that their laptop is adequately protected from spills, compared to those who have not
spilled ever. Those who have not spilled maybe more inclined to see the value in spill-proof as
they can only imagine the consequences of such action. In addition, the segment market also
favored smaller screen size, which may attribute to their collective results, as it is harder to spill
on smaller laptops. It is recommended that any possible marketing programs utilize the fear of
spills to help highlight the attributes importance in the consumers’ eyes.
We recommend more research into possible product attributes combinations. Based off
our results alone the introduction of the spill-proof product alternative would prove to be
beneficial as they capture a significant market share away from competitors.
Note 1*: Percentages in parentheses correspond to overall attribute importance.

19. Reflection
We encountered numerous problems with our research.
Notably we found that the sample size conducted for this analysis was much too small
and contained limited reach. The sample was too homogenous in nature as we only interviewed
people who primarily went to Arizona State. The sample was not random and was not
heterogeneous. Alternatively, a sample size of 50 or more from various places, not exclusively
college, would much more ideal.
In addition, all interviewers saw a near total brand preference for Mac OS except for our
foreign student team member whose interviewees had a complete preference for Windows OS.
The bias is apparent in the simulations as although there were many offering with important
attributes that had preferred attribute levels were viewed more favorably, Apple’s existing
product still held a majority market-share. More respondents would have smoothed over the bias
we encountered.
Building off the fact Apple’s new and existing product alternatives had inferior attribute
levels compared to the windows offerings; we should have conducted market simulations with
the Apple laptops having similar attribute levels. As the simulation took account for the attribute
importance, clearly Apple would have had much greater market-share with comparable
attributes.
The attribute level for price on Apple laptops should have been taken to with more
thought, as all Apple computer are priced high. The limitation to two prices for the products,
although necessary, skewed the data in some respects. Additional studies with differing prices
should be arranged in the future to have better comparative data.
We should have designated outliers to generate a more accurate simulation results. We
thought about removing the two respondents with weaker Multiple-R scores, but ultimately
decided not to when we realized we had gone far into the project, as removing those results
would have changed the entire amount of data. We agreed as a group that although the two
respondents were below 0.7, they still qualified being above 0.5. In future analysis, we would
recommend stricter requirements for Multiple-R.
All in all, the analysis was great learning experience.

20. Appendix A
Screener Questions
1. Are you an Arizona State student? Yes No
2. Select the age category that you fall into?
a. 17-20 b. 21-24 c. 25-28 d. None of the above
3. Do you own a laptop? Yes No
4. Have you purchased a laptop in the last five years? Yes No
5. Have you operated on both Windows and Mac operating systems?
Yes No
6. Have you ever spilled on your laptop? Yes No
7. If so, was it alcohol that you spilled? Yes No

21. Appendix B
Instructions
Sort the 16 laptop profiles shown on the 16 cards (labeled 1 through 16) into three piles:
the cards you like most, the cards you like the least, and the cards in between. Then use
this preference scale to rank each card.
Preferred Least Preferred Most
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Rate the profile you preferred most with a 16 and the profile you preferred least with a 1.
Then assign each of the other numbers from 2 to 15 to indicate your rank-ordered level of
preference for the remaining cards. Each card should have a different number from 1 to
16.

22. Appendix C
Cards
Card 1
Laptop Screen Size
11'
Spill-proof
Spill-proof
RAM Size
2 GB
Total Hard Space
250 GB
Price
$600
OS
Mac
Card 2
Laptop Screen Size
17'
Spill-proof
Spill-proof
RAM Size
4 GB
Total Hard Space
500 GB
Price
$6000
OS
Mac
Card 3
Laptop Screen Size
15'
Spill-proof
Not Spill-proof
RAM Size
2 GB
Total Hard Space
125 GB

23. Price
$600
OS
Mac
Card 4
Laptop Screen Size
11'
Spill-proof
Not Spill-proof
RAM Size
4 GB
Total Hard Space
125 GB
Price
$1,000
OS
Windows
Card 5
Laptop Screen Size
11'
Spill-proof
Spill-proof
RAM Size
8 GB
Total Hard Space
125 GB
Price
$600
OS
Windows
Card 6
Laptop Screen Size
17'
Spill-proof
Not Spill-proof
RAM Size
8 GB

24. Total Hard Space
250 GB
Price
$1,000
OS
Mac
Card 7
Laptop Screen Size
11'
Spill-proof
Not Spill-proof
RAM Size
4 GB
Total Hard Space
500 GB
Price
$1,000
OS
Mac
Card 8
Laptop Screen Size
17'
Spill-proof
Spill-proof
RAM Size
4 GB
Total Hard Space
125 GB
Price
$6000
OS
Windows
Card 9
Laptop Screen Size
17'
Spill-proof
Not Spill-proof
RAM Size

25. 2 GB
Total Hard Space
125 GB
Price
$1,000
OS
Windows
Card 10
Laptop Screen Size
15'
Spill-proof
Not Spill-proof
RAM Size
8 GB
Total Hard Space
500 GB
Price
$600
OS
Windows
Card 11
Laptop Screen Size
13'
Spill-proof
Not Spill-proof
RAM Size
4 GB
Total Hard Space
250 GB
Price
$6000
OS
Windows
Card 12
Laptop Screen Size
13'
Spill-proof
Spill-proof

26. RAM Size
8 GB
Total Hard Space
125 GB
Price
$1,000
OS
Mac
Card 13
Laptop Screen Size
15'
Spill-proof
Spill-proof
RAM Size
4 GB
Total Hard Space
125 GB
Price
$1,000
OS
Mac
Card 14
Laptop Screen Size
13'
Spill-proof
Not Spill-proof
RAM Size
4 GB
Total Hard Space
125 GB
Price
$600
OS
Mac
Card 15
Laptop Screen Size
13'

27. Spill-proof
Spill-proof
RAM Size
2 GB
Total Hard Space
500 GB
Price
$1,000
OS
Windows
Card 16
Laptop Screen Size
15'
Spill-proof
Spill-proof
RAM Size
4 GB
Total Hard Space
250 GB
Price
$1,000
OS
Windows