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. 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.
    2. Abbie Griffin & John R. Hauser, 1993. "The Voice of the Customer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    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. Artem Timoshenko & John R. Hauser, 2019. "Identifying Customer Needs from User-Generated Content," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 1-20, January.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. John R. Hauser & Steven M. Shugan, 2008. "Defensive Marketing Strategies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 88-110, 01-02.
    9. 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.
    10. Meinel, Martin & Eismann, Tobias T. & Baccarella, Christian V. & Fixson, Sebastian K. & Voigt, Kai-Ingo, 2020. "Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 661-671.
    11. Ohlwein, Martin, 2022. "Same but different - The effect of the unit of measure on the valuation of a unit price," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Jinsung Kim & Minseok Kim & Sehyeuk Im & Donghyun Choi, 2021. "Competitiveness of E Commerce Firms through ESG Logistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-15, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Shuo-Fang Liu & Yu-Shan Wei & Hong-Kai Guo & An-Yu Su, 2023. "An Application of Quality Function Deployment to Explore a Product Design Concept—A Case Study of a Triple-Effect Green Energy Generator for the Taiwan Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Dufhues, T. & Buchenrieder, G., 2004. "Der Beitrag der Conjoint Analyse zur nachfrageorintierten Entwicklung des ländlichen Finanzsektors in Vietnam," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 39.
    17. Cooper, Marjorie J. & Gwin, Carol F. & Wakefield, Kirk L., 2008. "Cross-functional interface and disruption in CRM projects: Is marketing from Venus and information systems from Mars?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 292-299, April.
    18. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    20. Minho Seo & Seiyong Kim, 2021. "A Comparative Evaluation of Utility Value Based on User Preferences for Urban Streets: The Case of Seoul, Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, April.

    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.