Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Group 2
150101025
150103041
150103054
150103115
150103082
150103077
Anuja Singh
Arka Jyoti Mitra
Bhavin Somani
Prakhar Khandelwal
Kumar Rishank
Khanjire Snehal Sujay
Objectives
To understand trade-offs between fashion and price, a
full profile conjoint study is designed with the following
attributes:
To understand the:
Importance of the attributes
Individual variances
Survey Options
Gender (Male / Female)
Age Group (16-24 / 25-39 / 40+)
Rating 1
Higher)
Rating 2
Lower)
Rating 3
Higher)
Rating 4
Lower)
Plan
Result 1
For Fashion
Fashion attribute,
attribute, utility
utility of
of
For
Modern fashion
fashion level
level is
is highest.
highest.
Modern
Importance value
value of
of Fashion
Fashion
Importance
attribute is
is highest.
highest.
attribute
The overall
overall Goodness
Goodness of
of Fit
Fit is
is
The
99.0% and
and is
is statistically
statistically significant
significant
99.0%
at the
the 95%
95% confidence
confidence level
level
at
Result 2
ID
22
26
82
159
182
188
197
202
228
229
232
261
269
294
306
313
319
324
352
375
376
377
380
381
387
390
400
0.046
0.022
0.053
0.128
0.054
0.065
0.060
0.049
0.031
0.042
0.043
0.060
0.026
0.016
0.158
0.029
0.074
0.032
0.144
0.027
0.074
0.100
0.154
0.058
0.041
0.060
0.055
0.511
0.504
0.510
0.401
0.536
0.403
0.495
0.491
0.624
0.625
0.591
0.502
0.480
0.450
0.286
0.560
0.554
0.588
0.320
0.598
0.340
0.532
0.353
0.490
0.572
0.490
0.500
0.047
0.053
0.047
0.110
0.043
0.095
0.063
0.050
0.027
0.028
0.026
0.055
0.059
0.074
0.196
0.034
0.041
0.027
0.149
0.034
0.127
0.044
0.124
0.059
0.043
0.067
0.056
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
Any
Criteria
Failed?
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
27 respondents
respondents are
are
27
either not
not significant
significant or
or
either
have
low
values
for
have low values for
Pearsons
Correlation
Pearsons
Correlation
coefficient or
or Kendalls
Kendalls
coefficient
tau
or
a
combination
of
tau or a combination of
both. Hence,
Hence, these
these are
are
both.
removed
removed
Legend:
A: Correlation
Significant?
B: Variance
Explanation
Significant ?
C: Correlation > .
707 ?
D: At least 50%
Variance
explained?
Result 3
45 respondents
respondents have
have aa
45
substantially lower
lower part
part
substantially
worth difference,
difference, after
after
worth
rescaling,
than
the
rescaling,
than
the
others (reversals
(reversals that
that
others
may be
be removed)
removed)
may
Interpretation
16-24 Years
25-39 Years
40+ Years
Gender
Male
Female
Revised Approach
New Approach
Pearson's R
Sig
.128
.065
.158
.049
.074
.100
.060
.055
.043
.060
.029
.144
.027
.154
.041
Kendall's
tau
.401
.403
.286
.491
.340
.532
.490
.500
.591
.502
.560
.320
.598
.353
.572
182
.609
.054
.536
.043
197
.596
.060
.495
.063
228
.681
.031
.624
.027
269
.704
.026
.480
.059
294
.752
.016
.450
.074
22
.632
.046
.511
.047
82
.612
.053
.510
.047
324
.678
.032
.588
.027
229
319
381
.645
.562
.601
.042
.074
.058
.625
.554
.490
.028
.041
.059
Demog. Segment
Id
Pearson's R
159
188
306
202
319
377
197
400
232
261
313
352
375
380
387
Kendall's tau
Criterio
A
B
C
D
Sig
n
.110
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.095
TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.196
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.050
TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.127
TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.044
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
.067
TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.056
TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.026
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
.055
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
.034
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
.149
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.034
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
.124
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
.043
TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
These respondents
respondents
These
are
either
not
are
either
not
significant or
or have
have
significant
low
values
for
low
values
for
Pearsons Correlation
Correlation
Pearsons
coefficient
or
coefficient
or
Kendalls tau
tau or
or aa
Kendalls
combination of
of the
the
combination
above.
Hence,
these
above. Hence, these
are cases
cases to
to be
be
are
considered
for
considered
for
elimination
elimination
Result 1s (1/2)
Fashion
Demographic
Segment \
Tradition
Modern
Utilities
al
Quality
Low
High
Price
Consta
Lower Higher nt
Male, 16-24
1.357 2.713 0.658 1.316 -1.004 -2.007 1.353
Years
Male, 25-39
1.226 2.451 0.982 1.963 -0.921 -1.841 1.061
Years
Male, 40+ Years
0.794 1.589 1.149 2.298 -0.835 -1.669 1.460
Female, 16-24
1.765 3.530 0.372 0.744 -0.897 -1.795 0.863
Years
Female, 25-39
1.403
2.807
0.767
1.534
-0.994
-1.989 1.188
Utility for the Modern fashion
is highest
across
Lower and
Middle
aged respondents,
Years
whereas the utility for higher quality apparels is highest for the Upper aged respondents.
Female, 40+
0.934 1.868 1.147 2.294 -1.000 -2.000 1.434
Years
Higher prices contribute towards the lowest utility. We also see that the monotonic
relationship between price levels is true in all segments
Result 2)
Importance of Utilities
29.6
27.8
29.0
43.2
26.0
23.7
50.3
27.1
33.0
29.2
10.0
20.0
Fashion
42.7
30.0
Quality
40.0
34.7
36.2
29.4
27.9
37.0
33.5
40.0
50.0
60.0
Price
Importance of Fashion attribute is significantly higher for all demographic segments other than
those who have crossed 40 years of age. For the latter, the most important attribute is Quality.
1.324
Random
Split 2
1.294
Low
Price
Consta
High Lower Higher nt
1.71
8 0.924
1.39
2.588 0.699
8 0.949
2.648 0.859
Segment
Random
Split 1
Random
Split 2
Quality
High correlation
1.048 indicated
1.848
1.336
1.898
Statistical
Significance
Pearsons Kendall
s
R
0.988
0.929
0.992
1.000
Level
Fashion
Traditional
Quality
Low
Price
Higher
Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
1.357 0.658 -2.007 1.360
8
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
1.226 0.982 -1.841 1.427
8
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
0.794 1.149 -1.669 1.734
8
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
1.765 0.372 -1.795 1.205
8
Female, 25-39
Key Insights:
Insights:
Years
1.188
1.403 0.767 -1.989 1.369
8
Key
This is
is an
an obvious
obvious and
and expected
expected result
result
This
Female,
40+
Years
1.434
0.934
1.147
1.515
The
lowest
utility
is
from
a
combination
of Traditional
Traditional clothes
clothes which
which are
are
of Low
Low -2.000
Quality and
and are
are
priced Higher
Higher8
The lowest utility is from a combination of
of
Quality
priced
The relative
relative utility
utility (as
(as indicated
indicated by
by the
the common
common lowest
lowest rank
rank 8,
8, is
is the
the same
same across
across all
all segments)
segments)
The
Level
Fashion
Traditional
Quality
Low
Price
Lower
Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
1.357 0.658 -1.004 2.364
6
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
1.226 0.982 -0.921 2.348
7
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
0.794 1.149 -0.835 2.569
6
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
1.765 0.372 -0.897 2.103
6
Female, 25-39
Key Insights:
Insights:
Key
Years
1.188
1.403 0.767 -0.994 2.364
6
All
segments
indicate
the
relative
utility
of
this
Profile
to
be
almost
similar
All segments indicate the relative utility of this Profile to be almost similar
Female,
40+ Years
1.434
0.934 1.147 -1.000 2.515
6
Level
Fashion
Traditional
Quality
High
Price
Higher
Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
1.357 1.316 -2.007 2.018
7
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
1.226 1.963 -1.841 2.409
6
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
0.794 2.298 -1.669 2.883
5
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
1.765 0.744 -1.795 1.577
7
Female, 25-39
Years
1.188
1.403 1.534 -1.989 2.136
7
Key Insights:
Insights:
Key
All segments
segments
indicate
the relative
relative utility
utility
of this
this Profile
Profile to
to be
be almost
almost similar
similar
All
indicate
the
of
Female,
40+
Years
1.434
0.934
2.294 -2.000 2.662
5
Level
Fashion
Traditional
Quality
High
Price
Lower
Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
1.357 1.316 -1.004 3.022
4
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
1.226 1.963 -0.921 3.329
4
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
0.794 2.298 -0.835 3.718
2
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
1.765 0.744 -0.897 2.474
5
Female, 25-39
Key Insights:
Insights:
Years
1.188
1.403 1.534 -0.994 3.131
4
Key
The respondents
respondents belonging
belonging to
to the
the Older
Older age
age category
category indicate
indicate aa preference
preference for
for Traditional
Traditional clothes
clothes of
of High
High quality
quality
The
Female,
40+
Years
1.434
0.934
2.294
-1.000
3.662
2
which
are
relatively
low
priced
which are relatively low priced
The other
other respondents
respondents do
do not
not prefer
prefer Traditional
Traditional clothes
clothes as
as much
much as
as they
they prefer
prefer Modern
Modern day
day clothes
clothes
The
The analysis
analysis of
of this
this profile
profile affirms
affirms the
the Price-Quality
Price-Quality trade-off
trade-off
The
Level
Fashion
Modern
Quality
Low
Price
Higher
Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
2.713 0.658 -2.007 2.717
5
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
2.451 0.982 -1.841 2.652
5
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
1.589 1.149 -1.669 2.528
7
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
3.530 0.372 -1.795 2.970
4
Female, 25-39
Key Insights:
Insights:
Years
1.188
2.807 0.767 -1.989 2.773
5
Key
There is
is aa tendency
tendency of
of females
females belonging
belonging to
to the
the Younger
Younger Age
Age category
category to
to prefer
prefer Modern
Modern day
day clothes,
clothes, irrespective
irrespective of
of
There
Female,
40+
Years
1.434
1.868
1.147
-2.000
2.449
7
the
lower
quality
and
higher
price.
They
seem
to
be
overlooking
to
the
price-quality
trade-off
in
their
decision
the lower quality and higher price. They seem to be overlooking to the price-quality trade-off in their decision
This is
is an
an undesirable
undesirable Profile
Profile for
for other
other segments
segments
This
Level
Fashion
Modern
Quality
Low
Price
Lower
Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
2.713 0.658 -1.004 3.721
2
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
2.451 0.982 -0.921 3.573
3
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
1.589 1.149 -0.835 3.363
4
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
3.530 0.372 -0.897 3.868
2
Female, 25-39
Years
1.188
2.807 0.767 -0.994 3.767
2
Key Insights:
Insights:
Key
The respondents
respondents
belonging
the Older
Older
age category
category1.868
indicate aa lower
lower
preference
for this
this Profile
Profile
in comparison
comparison
The
age
indicate
preference
for
in
Female,
40+ belonging
Years toto the
1.434
1.147
-1.000
3.449
4 toto
others. As
As seen
seen earlier,
earlier, they
they may
may prefer
prefer Traditional
Traditional clothes
clothes of
of High
High quality
quality which
which are
are relatively
relatively low
low priced
priced
others.
The other
other respondents
respondents are
are willing
willing to
to go
go for
for Modern
Modern day
day clothes,
clothes, given
given the
the Price
Price Quality
Quality trade-off
trade-off
The
Level
Fashion
Modern
Quality
High
Price
Higher
Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
2.713 1.316 -2.007 3.375
3
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
2.451 1.963 -1.841 3.634
2
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
1.589 2.298 -1.669 3.677
3
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
3.530 0.744 -1.795 3.342
3
Female, 25-39
Key Insights:
Insights:
Years
1.188
2.807 1.534 -1.989 3.540
3
Key
The
analysis
of
this
profile
reaffirms
the
Price-Quality
trade-off,
and
indicates
that
all
are
willing
to
pay
a
high
price for
for
The analysis of this profile reaffirms the Price-Quality trade-off, and indicates that all are willing to pay a high price
Female,
40+
Years
1.434
1.868
2.294
-2.000
3.596
3
high quality
quality modern
modern clothes
clothes
high
Level
Fashion
Modern
Quality
High
Price
Lower
Utility
Demographic
Utility
Utility (Quality Utility Overall Overall
Segment
(Constant) (Fashion)
) (Price) Utility Rank
Male, 16-24 Years
1.353
2.713 1.316 -1.004 4.379
1
Male, 25-39 Years
1.061
2.451 1.963 -0.921 4.555
1
Male, 40+ Years
1.460
1.589 2.298 -0.835 4.512
1
Female, 16-24
Years
0.863
3.530 0.744 -0.897 4.239
1
Female, 25-39
Key Insights:
Insights:
Years
1.188
2.807 1.534 -0.994 4.534
1
Key
This is
is an
an obvious
obvious and
and expected
expected result
result
This
Female,
40+
Years
1.434
1.868
2.294
-1.000
1
The
highest
utility
is
from
a
combination
of Modern
Modern day
day
clothes which
which
are of
of High
High
Quality and
and4.596
are priced
priced Lower
Lower
The highest utility is from a combination of
clothes
are
Quality
are
This supports
supports the
the Contemporary
Contemporary view,
view, and
and is
is uniform
uniform across
across all
all segments
segments
This
Conclusion
Appendix
Thank You
Thank You !