IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dug/actaec/y2013i6p43-56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Application of Conjoint Analysis to Consumer Preference for Beverage Products in Nigeria

Author

Listed:
  • Emmanuel Olateju Oyatoye

    (University of Lagos)

  • Sulaimon Olanrewaju Adebiyi

    (Fountain University)

  • Bilqis Bolanle Amole

    (University of Lagos)

Abstract

Conjoint analysis is a technique for establishing the relative importance of different attributes in the provision of a good or a service. In this study, conjoint analysis was applied to characterize beverage product preferences for customers. information during buyer-seller purchasing decision interactions. It identify the influence certain consumers preferences have on beverage purchasing behavior. Using focus group discussion, major attributes were specified. The attributes were then used to generate a plan card using the orthogonal array method. A conjoint based survey using 29 ranked beverages attributes formed the basis of the questionnaires that were randomly administered to 200 purchasers. of beverages drinks between January and March 2013 to specify their preferences. Conjoint analysis was used and the result indicates that the preference range that would deliver the most utility for beverage consumers include products attributes such as reduced price (- 0.478), cylindrical package (-5.822), moderately dissolving beverage granule (-1.833) and taste (- 0.333). The findings conclude that producer need to take the issue of packaging serious in production by ensuring that their product is packaged in cylindrical container which will attract optimum attention of consumers thereby leading to profitability in the long run.

Suggested Citation

  • Emmanuel Olateju Oyatoye & Sulaimon Olanrewaju Adebiyi & Bilqis Bolanle Amole, 2013. "An Application of Conjoint Analysis to Consumer Preference for Beverage Products in Nigeria," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 9(6), pages 43-56, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:dug:actaec:y:2013:i:6:p:43-56
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.univ-danubius.ro/index.php/oeconomica/article/view/2118/1986
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harrison, R. Wes & Mclennon, Everald, 2004. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Biotech Labeling Formats," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Harrison, R. Wes & Stringer, Timothy & Prinyawiwatkul, Witoon, 2002. "An Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Value-Added Seafood Products Derived from Crawfish," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 31(2), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Harrison, R. Wes & Ozayan, Aylin & Meyers, Samuel P., 1998. "A Conjoint Analysis Of New Food Products Processed From Underutilized Small Crawfish," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    5. Verlegh, Peeter W. J. & Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., 1999. "A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin research," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 521-546, October.
    6. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    7. Sethuraman, Raj & Kerin, Roger A. & Cron, William L., 2005. "A field study comparing online and offline data collection methods for identifying product attribute preferences using conjoint analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(5), pages 602-610, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    2. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    3. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    4. Shakila Yasmin & Khaled Mahmud & Farzan Afrin, 2016. "Job Attribute Preference of Executives: A Conjoint Analysis," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(2), pages 1-68, February.
    5. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    6. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    7. Ashok K. Mishra & Jeffrey M. Gillespie, 2016. "Hiring Preferences for Nonimmigrant Labor: The Case of the Seafood Processing Industry," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 83-99.
    8. Harrison, R. Wes & Mclennon, Everald, 2004. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Biotech Labeling Formats," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 1-13, April.
    9. Shuto Mikami & Yutaka Ito & Hernan Gabriel Oyola Gonzales, 2021. "Assessing Peruvian University Students’ Preferences for Labor Conditions in Mining Site," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-13, August.
    10. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 238-252, October.
    11. Cai, Zhen & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2013. "Consumer stated purchasing preferences and corporate social responsibility in the wood products industry: A conjoint analysis in the U.S. and China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 118-127.
    12. P. De Pelsmacker & L. Driesen & G. Rayp, 2003. "Are fair trade labels good business ? Ethics and coffee buying intentions," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 03/165, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    13. Aguilar, Francisco X., 2009. "Investment preferences for wood-based energy initiatives in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2292-2299, June.
    14. Pesek, John D., Jr. & Bernard, John C. & Gupta, Meeta, 2011. "Consumer Interest in Environmentally Beneficial Chicken Feeds: Comparing High Available Phosphorus Corn and Other Varieties," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1-15, August.
    15. Nikou, Shahrokh & Bouwman, Harry, 2012. "Mobile service platform competition," 19th ITS Biennial Conference, Bangkok 2012: Moving Forward with Future Technologies - Opening a Platform for All 72515, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    16. Roest, Henk & Rindfleisch, Aric, 2010. "The influence of quality cues and typicality cues on restaurant purchase intention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 10-18.
    17. Wirth, Ferdinand F. & Davis, Kathy J., 2003. "Shrimp Purchasing Behavior And Preferences Of Seafood Dealers," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35151, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Florian Schreiber, 2017. "Identification of customer groups in the German term life market: a benefit segmentation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 365-399, July.
    19. Chou, Yuntsai, 2014. "A compensation model developed to liberalize spectrum in the G4 era," 20th ITS Biennial Conference, Rio de Janeiro 2014: The Net and the Internet - Emerging Markets and Policies 106897, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    20. Yutaka Ito & Shuto Mikami & Hyongdoo Jang & Abbas Taheri & Kenta Tanaka & Youhei Kawamura, 2020. "University Students’ Preferences for Labour Conditions at a Mining Site: Evidence from Two Australian Universities," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dug:actaec:y:2013:i:6:p:43-56. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Daniela Robu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fedanro.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.