MARKETING ANALYTICS CONJOINT ANALYSIS

Group 2
150101025
150103041
150103054
150103115
150103082
150103077

Anuja Singh
Arka Jyoti Mitra
Bhavin Somani
Prakhar Khandelwal
Kumar Rishank
Khanjire Snehal Sujay

Objectives
To understand trade-offs between fashion and price, a
full profile conjoint study is designed with the following
attributes:

Fashion Quality Price

Modern
High
Lower
vs
vs
vs
Traditional Low
Higher

To understand the:
Importance of the attributes
Individual variances

Survey Options
Gender (Male / Female)
Age Group (16-24 / 25-39 / 40+)
Rating 1
Higher)
Rating 2
Lower)
Rating 3
Higher)
Rating 4
Lower)

(Fashion = Traditional, Quality = Low, Price =

(Fashion = Traditional, Quality = Low, Price =
(Fashion = Traditional, Quality = High,Price =
(Fashion = Traditional, Quality = High,Price =

Rating 5 (Fashion = Modern, Quality = Low, Price = Higher)

Rating 6 (Fashion = Modern, Quality = Low, Price = Lower)
Rating 7 (Fashion = Modern, Quality = High, Price = Higher)
Rating 8 (Fashion = Modern, Quality = High, Price = Lower)
Sample Size: 400 randomly chosen respondents with 8 profiles evaluated by each

Plan

Conjoint Analysis would be used to understand

Relative importance of the attributes which make up the
buying decision (based on their utility).
The role that the levels within each attributes and their
interaction effects has in deciding a consumers utility

Considering the 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 profiles, we would

be able to understand all the possible
combinations of the levels in the attributes which
may comprise the consumers utility.
Using a rating scale instead of ranking the profiles
may give us information on a set of profiles, which
are indifferent, as far as utility is concerned
Part worth estimates would be calculated and
overall utility would be derived for the above

Result 1
For Fashion
Fashion attribute,
attribute, utility
utility of
of
For
Modern fashion
fashion level
level is
is highest.
highest.
Modern

Importance value
value of
of Fashion
Fashion
Importance
attribute is
is highest.
highest.
attribute

The overall
overall Goodness
Goodness of
of Fit
Fit is
is
The
99.0% and
and is
is statistically
statistically significant
significant
99.0%
at the
the 95%
95% confidence
confidence level
level
at

Result 2
ID
22
26
82
159
182
188
197
202
228
229
232
261
269
294
306
313
319
324
352
375
376
377
380
381
387
390
400

Pearson's Pearson's Kendall's Kendall's tau

R
sig
tau
sig
0.632
0.720
0.612
0.456
0.609
0.583
0.596
0.625
0.681
0.645
0.642
0.596
0.704
0.752
0.408
0.692
0.562
0.678
0.429
0.698
0.562
0.507
0.414
0.601
0.649
0.596
0.609

0.046
0.022
0.053
0.128
0.054
0.065
0.060
0.049
0.031
0.042
0.043
0.060
0.026
0.016
0.158
0.029
0.074
0.032
0.144
0.027
0.074
0.100
0.154
0.058
0.041
0.060
0.055

0.511
0.504
0.510
0.401
0.536
0.403
0.495
0.491
0.624
0.625
0.591
0.502
0.480
0.450
0.286
0.560
0.554
0.588
0.320
0.598
0.340
0.532
0.353
0.490
0.572
0.490
0.500

0.047
0.053
0.047
0.110
0.043
0.095
0.063
0.050
0.027
0.028
0.026
0.055
0.059
0.074
0.196
0.034
0.041
0.027
0.149
0.034
0.127
0.044
0.124
0.059
0.043
0.067
0.056

TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE

TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE

FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE

TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE

Any
Criteria
Failed?
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE

27 respondents
respondents are
are
27
either not
not significant
significant or
or
either
have
low
values
for
have low values for
Pearsons
Correlation
Pearsons
Correlation
coefficient or
or Kendalls
Kendalls
coefficient
tau
or
a
combination
of
tau or a combination of
both. Hence,
Hence, these
these are
are
both.
removed
removed

Legend:
A: Correlation
Significant?
B: Variance
Explanation
Significant ?
C: Correlation > .
707 ?
D: At least 50%
Variance
explained?

Result 3

45 respondents
respondents have
have aa
45
substantially lower
lower part
part
substantially
worth difference,
difference, after
after
worth
rescaling,
than
the
rescaling,
than
the
others (reversals
(reversals that
that
others
may be
be removed)
removed)
may

fashion1 fashion2 quality1 quality2

sum_part_wor fashion1 fashion2 quality1 quality2
quality_di
id 1
1
1
1
price11 price21 ths
2
2
2
2
price12 price22 f
109
0
1.5
1
0
0.5
0
3
0
150
100
0
50
0
-100
110
0
1.75
1.25
0
1.75
0
4.75
0 110.53
78.95
0 110.53
0
-78.95
112
0
2.5
1
0
1
0
4.5
0 166.67
66.67
0 66.67
0
-66.67
119
0
3
1
0
1
0
5
0
180
60
0
60
0
-60
121
0
1.25
1.25
0
1.75
0
4.25
0
88.24
88.24
0 123.53
0
-88.24
125
0
1.75
0.75
0
1.75
0
4.25
0 123.53
52.94
0 123.53
0
-52.94
130
0
2
0.5
0
0
0
2.5
0
240
60
0
0
0
-60
137
0
1.75
1.25
0
0.75
0
3.75
0
140
100
0
60
0
-100
143
0
2
1
0
1
0
4
0
150
75
0
75
0
-75
158
0
2
1.5
0
0
0
3.5
0 171.43 128.57
0
0
0 -128.57
163
0
1.25
1.25
0
1.25
0
3.75
0
100
100
0
100
0
-100
171
0
2
1.5
0
0.5
0
4
0
150
112.5
0
37.5
0
-112.5
177
0
1.75
0.75
0
1.75
0
4.25
0 123.53
52.94
0 123.53
0
-52.94
184
0
1.75
0.75
0
0.75
0
3.25
0 161.54
69.23
0 69.23
0
-69.23
191
0
2.25
0.75
0
1.25
0
4.25
0 158.82
52.94
0 88.24
0
-52.94
208
0
2
0.5
0
0
0
2.5
0
240
60
0
0
0
-60
211
0
2.25
1.25
0
0.75
0
4.25
0 158.82
88.24
0 52.94
0
-88.24
214
0
2
1
0
1.5
0
4.5
0 133.33
66.67
0
100
0
-66.67
215
0
2.75
0.75
0
0.25
0
3.75
0
220
60
0
20
0
-60
219
0
2.25
1.25
0
1.25
0
4.75
0 142.11
78.95
0 78.95
0
-78.95
220
0
0.75
1.25
0
2.25
0
4.25
0
52.94
88.24
0 158.82
0
-88.24
221
0
2.25
0.75
0
1.25
0
4.25
0 158.82
52.94
0 88.24
0
-52.94
227
0
1.75
0.75
0
0.25
0
2.75
0 190.91
81.82
0 27.27
0
-81.82
229
0
1.5
0.5
0
0
0
2
0
225
75
0
0
0
-75
231
0
2
1
0
1.5
0
4.5
0 133.33
66.67
0
100
0
-66.67
236
0
2.25
1.25
0
0.75
0
4.25
0 158.82
88.24
0 52.94
0
-88.24
237
0
2.5
1
0
1
0
4.5
0 166.67
66.67
0 66.67
0
-66.67
241
0
1.25
0.75
0
2.25
0
4.25
0
88.24
52.94
0 158.82
0
-52.94
249
0
2.25
1.25
0
0.75
0
4.25
0 158.82
88.24
0 52.94
0
-88.24
252
0
0.75
1.25
0
2.25
0
4.25
0
52.94
88.24
0 158.82
0
-88.24
253
0
2
1
0
1
0
4
0
150
75
0
75
0
-75
260
0
1.75
0.75
0
1.25
0
3.75
0
140
60
0
100
0
-60
261
0
1.5
0.5
0
0.5
0
2.5
0
180
60
0
60
0
-60
271
0
2
1
0
1.5
0
4.5
0 133.33
66.67
0
100
0
-66.67
280
0
2.25
0.75
0
0.25
0
3.25
0 207.69
69.23
0 23.08
0
-69.23
282
0
0.25
1.25
0
2.25
0
3.75
0
20
100
0
180
0
-100
283
0
2.25
0.75
0
0.25
0
3.25
0 207.69
69.23
0 23.08
0
-69.23
291
0
1.25
0.75
0
0.75
0
2.75
0 136.36
81.82
0 81.82
0
-81.82
294
0
2.25
0.75
0
0.75
0
3.75
0
180
60
0
60
0
-60
295
0
1.5
1
0
1
0
3.5
0 128.57
85.71
0 85.71
0
-85.71
296
0
1.75
0.75
0
1.25
0
3.75
0
140
60
0
100
0
-60
297
0
0.75
0.75
0
1.25
0
2.75
0
81.82
81.82
0 136.36
0
-81.82
298
0
2.25
1.25
0
0.75
0
4.25
0 158.82
88.24
0 52.94
0
-88.24
313
0
1.5
0.5
0
0.5
0
2.5
0
180
60
0
60
0
-60
368
0
2.5
1
0
0.5
0
4
0
187.5
75
0
37.5
0
-75

Interpretation

We find that there are multiple individual level variations as

suggested by the goodness of fit analysis. Hence the overall
results cannot be accepted
Hence, we discard the previous analysis and proceed by
splitting the data into demographic segments with the help
of the below categories, and then comparing the segments
for similarities or dissimilarities:
Age

16-24 Years

25-39 Years

40+ Years
Gender

Male

Female

Revised Approach

New Approach

Conjoint Analysis would be used to understand

Relative importance of the attributes which make up the
buying decision (based on their utility) amongst
Conventionalists & Contemporarists
The role that the levels within each attributes and their
interaction effects has in deciding a consumers utility

Part worth estimates would be calculated and

overall utility would be derived for the data
segmented by Age category and Gender
Since there are no holdout cases, validation of the
model would be done by splitting the data into 2
equal random samples and evaluating the
coefficients for correlation

Goodness of Fit by Segments

.456
.583
.408
.625
.562
.507
.596
.609
.642
.596
.692
.429
.698
.414
.649

Pearson's R
Sig
.128
.065
.158
.049
.074
.100
.060
.055
.043
.060
.029
.144
.027
.154
.041

Kendall's
tau
.401
.403
.286
.491
.340
.532
.490
.500
.591
.502
.560
.320
.598
.353
.572

182

.609

.054

.536

.043

TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE

197

.596

.060

.495

.063

TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE

228

.681

.031

.624

.027

TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE

269

.704

.026

.480

.059

TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE

294

.752

.016

.450

.074

TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE

22

.632

.046

.511

.047

TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE

82

.612

.053

.510

.047

TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE

324

.678

.032

.588

.027

TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE

229
319
381

.645
.562
.601

.042
.074
.058

.625
.554
.490

.028
.041
.059

TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE

TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE

Demog. Segment

Id

Pearson's R

Male, 16-24 Years

Male, 16-24 Years
Male, 16-24 Years
Male, 25-39 Years
Male, 25-39 Years
Male, 25-39 Years
Male, 25-39 Years
Male, 25-39 Years
Male, 40+ Years
Male, 40+ Years
Male, 40+ Years
Male, 40+ Years
Male, 40+ Years
Male, 40+ Years
Male, 40+ Years
Female, 16-24
Years
Female, 16-24
Years
Female, 16-24
Years
Female, 16-24
Years
Female, 16-24
Years
Female, 25-39
Years
Female, 25-39
Years
Female, 25-39
Years
Female, 40+ Years
Female, 40+ Years
Female, 40+ Years

159
188
306
202
319
377
197
400
232
261
313
352
375
380
387

Kendall's tau
Criterio
A
B
C
D
Sig
n
.110
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.095
TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.196
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.050
TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.127
TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.044
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
.067
TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.056
TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.026
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
.055
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
.034
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
.149
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.034
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
.124
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.043
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE

These respondents
respondents
These
are
either
not
are
either
not
significant or
or have
have
significant
low
values
for
low
values
for
Pearsons Correlation
Correlation
Pearsons
coefficient
or
coefficient
or
Kendalls tau
tau or
or aa
Kendalls
combination of
of the
the
combination
above.
Hence,
these
above. Hence, these
are cases
cases to
to be
be
are
considered
for
considered
for
elimination
elimination

Result 1s (1/2)
Fashion
Demographic
Segment \
Tradition
Modern
Utilities
al

Quality
Low

High

Price
Consta
Lower Higher nt

Male, 16-24
1.357 2.713 0.658 1.316 -1.004 -2.007 1.353
Years
Male, 25-39
1.226 2.451 0.982 1.963 -0.921 -1.841 1.061
Years
Male, 40+ Years
0.794 1.589 1.149 2.298 -0.835 -1.669 1.460
Female, 16-24
1.765 3.530 0.372 0.744 -0.897 -1.795 0.863
Years
Female, 25-39
1.403
2.807
0.767
1.534
-0.994
-1.989 1.188
Utility for the Modern fashion
is highest
across
Lower and
Middle
aged respondents,
Years
whereas the utility for higher quality apparels is highest for the Upper aged respondents.
Female, 40+
0.934 1.868 1.147 2.294 -1.000 -2.000 1.434
Years
Higher prices contribute towards the lowest utility. We also see that the monotonic
relationship between price levels is true in all segments

Result 2)

Importance of Utilities
29.6

Female, 40+ Years

27.8
29.0

Female, 25-39 Years

43.2

26.0
23.7

Female, 16-24 Years

50.3

27.1

Male, 40+ Years

33.0
29.2

Male, 25-39 Years

10.0

20.0
Fashion

42.7

30.0
Quality

40.0

34.7
36.2

29.4
27.9

Male, 16-24 Years

0.0

37.0
33.5

40.0

50.0

60.0

Price

Importance of Fashion attribute is significantly higher for all demographic segments other than
those who have crossed 40 years of age. For the latter, the most important attribute is Quality.

Validation with 2 random samples of 200 each With 2 random

samples of sample size 200
Fashion
Segment
\
Tradition
Modern
Utilities
al
Random
Split 1

1.324

Random
Split 2

1.294

Low

Price

Consta
High Lower Higher nt

1.71
8 0.924
1.39
2.588 0.699
8 0.949
2.648 0.859

Segment
Random
Split 1
Random
Split 2

Quality

High correlation
1.048 indicated
1.848
1.336
1.898

Statistical
Significance
Pearsons Kendall
s
R

0.988

0.929

0.992

1.000

These are statistically significant at 95%

confidence level

Segment-wise Interpretations (1/8)

Attribute / Factor

Level

Fashion

Traditional

Quality

Low

Price

Higher

Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
1.357 0.658 -2.007 1.360
8
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
1.226 0.982 -1.841 1.427
8
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
0.794 1.149 -1.669 1.734
8
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
1.765 0.372 -1.795 1.205
8
Female, 25-39
Key Insights:
Insights:
Years
1.188
1.403 0.767 -1.989 1.369
8
Key

This is
is an
an obvious
obvious and
and expected
expected result
result
This
Female,
40+
Years
1.434
0.934
1.147
1.515

The
lowest
utility
is
from
a
combination
of Traditional
Traditional clothes
clothes which
which are
are
of Low
Low -2.000
Quality and
and are
are
priced Higher
Higher8
The lowest utility is from a combination of
of
Quality
priced
The relative
relative utility
utility (as
(as indicated
indicated by
by the
the common
common lowest
lowest rank
rank 8,
8, is
is the
the same
same across
across all
all segments)
segments)
The

Segment-wise Interpretations (2/8)

Attribute / Factor

Level

Fashion

Traditional

Quality

Low

Price

Lower

Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
1.357 0.658 -1.004 2.364
6
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
1.226 0.982 -0.921 2.348
7
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
0.794 1.149 -0.835 2.569
6
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
1.765 0.372 -0.897 2.103
6
Female, 25-39
Key Insights:
Insights:
Key
Years
1.188
1.403 0.767 -0.994 2.364
6

All
segments
indicate
the
relative
utility
of
this
Profile
to
be
almost
similar
All segments indicate the relative utility of this Profile to be almost similar
Female,
40+ Years
1.434
0.934 1.147 -1.000 2.515
6

Segment-wise Interpretations (3/8)

Attribute / Factor

Level

Fashion

Traditional

Quality

High

Price

Higher

Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
1.357 1.316 -2.007 2.018
7
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
1.226 1.963 -1.841 2.409
6
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
0.794 2.298 -1.669 2.883
5
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
1.765 0.744 -1.795 1.577
7
Female, 25-39
Years
1.188
1.403 1.534 -1.989 2.136
7
Key Insights:
Insights:
Key
All segments
segments
indicate
the relative
relative utility
utility
of this
this Profile
Profile to
to be
be almost
almost similar
similar
All
indicate
the
of
Female,
40+
Years
1.434
0.934
2.294 -2.000 2.662
5

Segment-wise Interpretations (4/8)

Attribute / Factor

Level

Fashion

Traditional

Quality

High

Price

Lower

Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
1.357 1.316 -1.004 3.022
4
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
1.226 1.963 -0.921 3.329
4
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
0.794 2.298 -0.835 3.718
2
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
1.765 0.744 -0.897 2.474
5
Female, 25-39
Key Insights:
Insights:
Years
1.188
1.403 1.534 -0.994 3.131
4
Key
The respondents
respondents belonging
belonging to
to the
the Older
Older age
age category
category indicate
indicate aa preference
preference for
for Traditional
Traditional clothes
clothes of
of High
High quality
quality
The
Female,
40+
Years
1.434
0.934
2.294
-1.000
3.662
2
which
are
relatively
low
priced
which are relatively low priced
The other
other respondents
respondents do
do not
not prefer
prefer Traditional
Traditional clothes
clothes as
as much
much as
as they
they prefer
prefer Modern
Modern day
day clothes
clothes
The

The analysis
analysis of
of this
this profile
profile affirms
affirms the
the Price-Quality
Price-Quality trade-off
trade-off
The

Segment-wise Interpretations (5/8)

Attribute / Factor

Level

Fashion

Modern

Quality

Low

Price

Higher

Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
2.713 0.658 -2.007 2.717
5
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
2.451 0.982 -1.841 2.652
5
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
1.589 1.149 -1.669 2.528
7
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
3.530 0.372 -1.795 2.970
4
Female, 25-39
Key Insights:
Insights:
Years
1.188
2.807 0.767 -1.989 2.773
5
Key

There is
is aa tendency
tendency of
of females
females belonging
belonging to
to the
the Younger
Younger Age
Age category
category to
to prefer
prefer Modern
Modern day
day clothes,
clothes, irrespective
irrespective of
of
There
Female,
40+
Years
1.434
1.868
1.147
-2.000
2.449
7
the
lower
quality
and
higher
price.
They
seem
to
be
overlooking
to
the
price-quality
trade-off
in
their
decision
the lower quality and higher price. They seem to be overlooking to the price-quality trade-off in their decision
This is
is an
an undesirable
undesirable Profile
Profile for
for other
other segments
segments
This

Segment-wise Interpretations (6/8)

Attribute / Factor

Level

Fashion

Modern

Quality

Low

Price

Lower

Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
2.713 0.658 -1.004 3.721
2
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
2.451 0.982 -0.921 3.573
3
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
1.589 1.149 -0.835 3.363
4
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
3.530 0.372 -0.897 3.868
2
Female, 25-39
Years
1.188
2.807 0.767 -0.994 3.767
2
Key Insights:
Insights:
Key
The respondents
respondents
belonging
the Older
Older
age category
category1.868
indicate aa lower
lower
preference
for this
this Profile
Profile
in comparison
comparison
The
age
indicate
preference
for
in
Female,
40+ belonging
Years toto the
1.434
1.147
-1.000
3.449
4 toto
others. As
As seen
seen earlier,
earlier, they
they may
may prefer
prefer Traditional
Traditional clothes
clothes of
of High
High quality
quality which
which are
are relatively
relatively low
low priced
priced
others.
The other
other respondents
respondents are
are willing
willing to
to go
go for
for Modern
Modern day
day clothes,
clothes, given
given the
the Price
Price Quality
Quality trade-off
trade-off
The

Segment-wise Interpretations (7/8)

Attribute / Factor

Level

Fashion

Modern

Quality

High

Price

Higher

Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
2.713 1.316 -2.007 3.375
3
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
2.451 1.963 -1.841 3.634
2
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
1.589 2.298 -1.669 3.677
3
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
3.530 0.744 -1.795 3.342
3
Female, 25-39
Key Insights:
Insights:
Years
1.188
2.807 1.534 -1.989 3.540
3
Key

The
analysis
of
this
profile
reaffirms
the
Price-Quality
trade-off,
and
indicates
that
all
are
willing
to
pay
a
high
price for
for
The analysis of this profile reaffirms the Price-Quality trade-off, and indicates that all are willing to pay a high price
Female,
40+
Years
1.434
1.868
2.294
-2.000
3.596
3
high quality
quality modern
modern clothes
clothes
high

Segment-wise Interpretations (8/8)

Attribute / Factor

Level

Fashion

Modern

Quality

High

Price

Lower

Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
2.713 1.316 -1.004 4.379
1
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
2.451 1.963 -0.921 4.555
1
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
1.589 2.298 -0.835 4.512
1
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
3.530 0.744 -0.897 4.239
1
Female, 25-39
Key Insights:
Insights:
Years
1.188
2.807 1.534 -0.994 4.534
1
Key

This is
is an
an obvious
obvious and
and expected
expected result
result
This
Female,
40+
Years
1.434
1.868
2.294
-1.000
1

The
highest
utility
is
from
a
combination
of Modern
Modern day
day
clothes which
which
are of
of High
High
Quality and
and4.596
are priced
priced Lower
Lower
The highest utility is from a combination of
clothes
are
Quality
are
This supports
supports the
the Contemporary
Contemporary view,
view, and
and is
is uniform
uniform across
across all
all segments
segments
This

Conclusion

The segment of customers who are of higher age (40

years) are more sensitive to quality, than others
The segment of female customers and of younger age
(16-24 years) are more concerned of modern
fashionable clothes
Hence, different products needs to be designed for the
above segments and this should be complemented by
effective communication to highlight the differences in
quality and fashion factors

Appendix

Appendix 1: Syntax of Conjoint Analysis & Scaling

Appendix 1: Analysis by Segments

Thank You

Thank You !