IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mtk/febawb/46.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analyzing Customer Value Using Conjoint Analysis: The Example Of A Packaging Company

Author

Listed:
  • Andrus Kotri

Abstract

The fulfillment of customers’ wishes in a profitable way requires that companies understand which aspects of their product and service are most valued by the customer. Conjoint analysis is considered to be one of the best methods for achieving this purpose. Conjoint analysis consists of generating and conducting specific experiments among customers with the purpose of modeling their purchasing decision. This article will give an overview of the method and apply it to an Estonian packaging company. As a result of the empirical study the author is able to estimate the value creation models of 34 respondents (customers) both on a group and individual basis.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrus Kotri, 2006. "Analyzing Customer Value Using Conjoint Analysis: The Example Of A Packaging Company," University of Tartu - Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper Series 46, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu (Estonia).
    • Handle: RePEc:mtk:febawb:46
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mjtoimetised.ut.ee/febpdf/febawb46.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abbie Griffin & John R. Hauser, 1993. "The Voice of the Customer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27.
    2. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dimas Maulana & Sudarso Kaderi Wiryono & Mustika Sufiati Purwanegara, 2019. "Investigating Consumer Preference in Banking Services: A Conjoint Analysis Study," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(3), pages 187-197.
    2. Minjung Kwak, 2021. "Monte Carlo Simulation of the Effect of Heterogeneous Too-Cheap Prices on the Average Price Preference for Remanufactured Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-11, August.
    3. Dian Palupi Restuputri & Ayun Fridawati & Ilyas Masudin, 2022. "Customer Perception on Last-Mile Delivery Services Using Kansei Engineering and Conjoint Analysis: A Case Study of Indonesian Logistics Providers," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Wittmer, Andreas & Rowley, Edward, 2014. "Customer value of purchasable supplementary services: The case of a European full network carrier's economy class," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 17-23.
    5. Gabriela D. Oliveira & Luis C. Dias, 2020. "The potential learning effect of a MCDA approach on consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 767-787, October.

    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. 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.
    2. Richard A. Wolfe & Daniel S. Putler, 2002. "How Tight Are the Ties that Bind Stakeholder Groups?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 64-80, February.
    3. Furrer, Olivier & Sudharshan, Devanathan & Tsiotsou, Rodoula H. & Liu, Ben S., 2016. "A framework for innovative service design," FSES Working Papers 476, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    4. Artem Timoshenko & John R. Hauser, 2019. "Identifying Customer Needs from User-Generated Content," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 1-20, January.
    5. Jonas Jasper, 2019. "A Var Analysis of the Connection between FDI and Economic Growth: A Case Study from Vietnam after 30 Years Reforms," International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 4(6), pages 51-67, Februaury.
    6. Hasmat Malik & Asyraf Afthanorhan & Noor Aina Amirah & Nuzhat Fatema, 2021. "Machine Learning Approach for Targeting and Recommending a Product for Project Management," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-29, August.
    7. Kullak, Franziska S. & Baier, Daniel & Woratschek, Herbert, 2023. "How do customers meet their needs in in-store and online fashion shopping? A comparative study based on the jobs-to-be-done theory," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    8. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    9. 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.
    10. Li, Yan-Lai & Tang, Jia-Fu & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Jiang, Yu-Shi & Han, Yi & Pu, Yun, 2011. "Estimating the final priority ratings of engineering characteristics in mature-period product improvement by MDBA and AHP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 575-586, June.
    11. Ellen H.M. Moors & Rogier Donders, 2009. "Understanding consumer needs and preferences in new product development: the case of functional food innovations," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 09-03, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2009.
    12. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    13. Fusco, Elisa, 2023. "Potential improvements approach in composite indicators construction: The Multi-directional Benefit of the Doubt model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    14. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    16. Veronika Belousova & Nikolay Chichkanov, 2016. "Knowledge-Intensive Business Services in Russia: 2014–2015 Crisis Aftermath," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 10(4), pages 46-58.
    17. J-B Yang & D-L Xu & X Xie & A K Maddulapalli, 2011. "Multicriteria evidential reasoning decision modelling and analysis—prioritizing voices of customer," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(9), pages 1638-1654, September.
    18. Kowalska-Pyzalska, Anna & Michalski, Rafał & Kott, Marek & Skowrońska-Szmer, Anna & Kott, Joanna, 2022. "Consumer preferences towards alternative fuel vehicles. Results from the conjoint analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    19. Yuncong Li & Fang Wang & Sheng-hua Zhong, 2023. "A More Fine-Grained Aspect–Sentiment–Opinion Triplet Extraction Task," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-14, July.
    20. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    customer value; conjoint analysis; market research methods;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:mtk:febawb:46. 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: Liis Roosaar (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/febutee.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.