Comparison of New Conjoint Methodes 2009 - English

Mitgliedern des GfK Vereins stehen die Studienberichte zum Download zur Verfügung

Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. Method overview
2.1 Preferences and decision-making
2.2 Conjoint methods at a glance
2.3 Overview of ACBC
2.4 Overview of HILCA
3. Study specification
4. Results
4.1 Internal validity across Holdout Tasks
4.2 Spread of relative levels of importance
4.3 Validity of measuring non-compensatory buying behaviour
4.4 Monotonies
4.5 Perception of the interviews conducted
4.6 Interview time
4.7 Conclusion
Annex
Sources

Description

Knowing all about customer preferences is an essential prerequisite for the success of products or services, because it is the only way in which an optimal arrangement of products and services can be established. This is one of the most important parameters of the marketing mix. In recent years the measurement of customer preferences has made significant progress. An important step in this came with the development of the HILCA method (Wildner et al, 2006) by GfK Association in collaboration with Ansgar Hölscher (McKinsey) and Professor Markus Voeth (University of Hohenheim). HILCA validly measures preferences for products with many attributes, provides information on purchase decisions and tracks the natural purchase-decision process.

Sawtooth Software, in cooperation with leading academic figures, has spent the last five years developing the new ACBC (Adaptive Choice Based Conjoint) approach (Sawtooth Software 2009). The new process has been available for commercial users, along with its corresponding software, since March 2009. This process displays various parallels with HILCA and has received a great many plaudits at an early stage.

At present, different processes often exhibit specific strengths and weaknesses. In order to obtain the specific strengths and weaknesses of HILCA in comparison with ACBC, a method test was conducted to compare both processes. The result provides a general suitability profile which also allows measures to be derived in order to further maintain the HILCA instrument’s competitiveness.

Another undoubtedly positive effect is the benefit GfK derives in terms of experience and knowledge. The comparative study makes GfK one of the few institutes which can demonstrate early project experience with this new instrument.

This paper first presents a short overview of the state of the art within the conjoint field by focussing on the two methods, namely HILCA and ACBC. This is followed by a description of the study’s structure and a comparison of both processes with the help of assorted criteria.