Archive for the ‘conjoint analysis’ Category

Articles

Musings from Sawtooth/Skim European Conjoint Conference

In analysis,conjoint analysis,market research,pricing,product design,questionnaire design on April 15, 2013 by sdobney

The Sawtooth/Skim European Conjoint Conference took place in Berlin last week with papers and advice on new or best practice in conjoint analysis, hierarchical bayes analysis and related techniques. Rather than trying to follow up on any single paper, these are more musings about how conjoint is changing (or needs to change) in a world of big sample studies and changes to research¬† in general. For instance, I was struck by the relative simplification of conjoint studies in terms of attributes and levels as presented (though not at a statistical level), while more surveys are being run with extremely large sample sizes. Obviously there are moves to newer forms of conjoint (ACBC, Menu-based etc). But that left me wondering if some radical changes to the way we use conjoint are coming/needed… Read More »

Advertisements

Articles

Making good quality surveys and conjoint designs

In conjoint analysis,market research,questionnaire design on April 15, 2013 by sdobney

In the past few weeks we’ve run into a flurry of market research surveys and conjoint analysis projects that have clearly been written or created by people who haven’t been that experienced in designing surveys. With standard consumer market research it’s often thought not to be a problem. The relatively small size of the sample versus the total population means that a poorly written or poorly thought through questionnaire can be discarded when the results turn out to be relatively poor. However, for more technical areas like conjoint where the quality of the design is quite critical to the quality of the responses, it is very easy to get wrong results, but not realise, or have enough expertise to know that the results are misleading. And for niche areas, like business-to-business, where the available contacts are small, poor questionnaires can drive customers potty, so much so that it becomes impossible to collect further data. Read More »

Articles

Combining telephone and web interviewing

In conjoint analysis,market research,market research fieldwork on January 30, 2013 by sdobney

We’ve become so used to web-based interviewing that it’s easy to forget that just a few years ago telephone interviewing was the major means of collecting data for market research surveys. The switch to web has been so rapid that many telephone fieldwork companies are now struggling. However, we’ve also seen situations where response rates to, say, email invites from a companies own lists have dropped dramatically. For some business-to-business research telephone has come back into fashion, but this time we can use combined phone and web (web-assisted telephone interviewing).

Read More »

Articles

Should the researcher have a view before the research?

In conjoint analysis,market research on April 25, 2012 by sdobney

People pay researchers to go out and find out what consumers or customers or potential customers might think of an idea or a product or an advert or other piece of marketing. The job of the researcher is therefore to design the survey, collect the opinions and report and interpret those opinions back to the end client. But along the way, researchers pick up quite a lot of knowledge and understanding of what works and what doesn’t work. So when you’re asked to research something your experience suggests won’t do too well, should you say or bite your tongue?

Read More »

Articles

Design factors for conjoint analysis

In conjoint analysis on October 6, 2011 by sdobney Tagged: , , , , , ,

Underpinning conjoint analysis design is the use of a fractional factorial design to simplify the number of profiles that need to be shown, whilst maximising the amount of statistical information that can be collected. Design efficiency (d-efficiency) is one way of looking at the quality of the design, but researchers should also look at the design from the respondent’s point of view.

Read More »