toy horse conjoint analysis

16
Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis Leonardo Zhang

Upload: leonardo-zhang

Post on 13-Feb-2017

182 views

Category:

Documents


12 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

Toy  Horse  Conjoint    Analysis  Leonardo  Zhang  

Page 2: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

Executive  Summary    Key  Points  and  Recommendations:    u Through  bene8it  segmentation  we  found  3  consumer  segments  and  the  product  No.  15,  No.  13  and  No.  2  are  best  target  to  each  segment.  

 u  Through  priori  segment  level  conjoint  analysis  we  con8irmed  and  quanti8ied  age/

gender  differences  in  styling  preferences.  No.  12  meets  the  overall  group’s  needs,  gender  differences  are  more  signi8icant  than  age.  

 u Through  simulate  market  shares  and  pro8its  for  different  product-­‐line  scenarios  we  suggest  EarlyRiders  modify  existing  No.  13  product  to  No.  15,  drop  No.  5  product  and  add  No.  2  product.    

             Taken  competitor’s  reaction  into  consideration.  A  new  product  with  No.  15  and  No.  2  products  will          generate  the  highest  pro8it  ($158,333,  82.58%  increase  compared  with  statue  quo  $86,657).  By  then  the  market  share  of  EarlyRiders  will  increase  from  36.4%  to  65%.    u Combined  two  segmentation  analyses  together  we  found  No.  15  is  very  suitable  for  targeting  girls  and  1~2  year-­‐old  group,  and  product  No.  2  is  more  preferred  by  boys  and  3~4  year-­‐old  group.  We  recommend  EarlyRiders  tailor  packing  images,  locations  for  ads  and  promotion  events  accordingly.  

Page 3: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

1:  BeneJit  Segmentation  via  Cluster  Analysis  of  Conjoint  Part-­‐Utilities    Test  cluster  approaches  and  select  the  best  –  3  clusters    u Approach  1:  “toclust”  function  (result:  3  clusters)  toclust  =  partworths;  pm1  =  pamk(toclust,scaling=TRUE)  pm1$nc    u Approach  2:  use  sum  of  squares  plot  (result:  3  clusters)  Test  2,  3  and  4  clusters  3  clusters  8its  best    

Page 4: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

Segmentation  output  

u Segment  size  

Constant                    Price              Height              Motion                              Style  

u Segment  center  data  

u Segment  description  and  targeted  product    segment  1:    Prefer:  Price=119.99,  Height=26’,  Motion=rocking,  Style=glamorous.  (“height”  is  the  most  important  attribute)  Product  that  best  targets  this  segment:  Product  ID  15  $139.99+26’+rocking+glamorous  (Meet  all  their  preferences  except  price,  not  very  price  sensitive)    segment  2:    Prefer:  P=119.99,  H=18’,  M=rocking,  S=glamorous.  (“price”  and  “motion”  are  the  most  important  attributes,  style  is  the  least  in8luential  attribute)  Product  that  best  targets  this  segment:  Product  ID  13  $139.99+18’+rocking+glamorous  (Meet  all  their  preferences  except  price,  not  very  price  sensitive)    segment  3:    Prefer:  P=119.99,  H=26’,  M=bouncing,  S=racing.  (“price”  is  the  most  important  attribute,  “height”  is  the  least  in8luential  attribute)  Product  that  best  targets  this  segment:  Product  ID  2  $119.99+18’+bouncing+racing  (Meet  all  their  preferences  except  height,  since  they  are  very  price  sensitive  we  set  a  lower  price.  Consider  our  cost  and  the  less  in8luential  of  height,  we  will  give  them  18’)  

segment  segment  segment  

Page 5: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

2:  Priori  segment  level  conjoint  analysis      Overall  regression  result  without  segment  

"price"  is  the  most  in8luential  attribute    "style"  attribute  is  the  least  important    In  average,  moving  from  0  to  1  on  "price",  "height”  and  "style"  attributes  increase  utility,  on  "motion"  decrease  utility    overall  preferred  feature:  “price”=119.99,  “height”=26',  “motion”=bouncing,  “style”=glamorous  (Product  ID  12)  

Price  Height    Motion  Style  

Page 6: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

Segment  by  age  

Only  "height"  and  "motion”  have  signi8icant  difference.  Means  1~2  year-­‐old  age  group  has  different  part-­‐worth  in  H  and  M  attributes  compared  to  overall  group.    1~2  year-­‐old  group  is  more  prefer  “height”=26  and  “motion”=bouncing.    3~4  year-­‐old  group    is  less  sensitive  with  “height”.  

Overall  1~2  year-­‐old  

3~4  year-­‐old  

Page 7: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

Segment  by  gender  

All  attributes  are  signi8icant.  Means  female  group  has  different  part-­‐worth  in  all  attributes  compared  to  overall  group.    Female  group  more  prefer  "height"=26,  "motion"=rocking  and  "style"=glamorous,  and  less  sensitive  in  “price”.    Male  group  is  more  price  sensitive,  and  prefer  "motion"=bouncing  and  "style"=racing.  

Overall  Female  

Male  

Page 8: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

EarlyRider's  product  ID  

Competitor's  product  ID  

EarlyRider's  market  share  

Competitor's  market  share  

EarlyRider's  pro8it  ($)  

Competitor's  pro8it  ($)  

13&5   7   0.364   0.636   86,657   180,950  

Status  Quo  

Scenario  1:  Add  No.  15  &  No.  2        Because  No.  13,  No.  15  &  No.  2  best  target  3  segments  we  analyzed  before.  EarlyRider's  product  ID  

Competitor's  product  ID  

EarlyRider's  market  share  

Competitor's  market  share  

EarlyRider's  pro8it  ($)  

Competitor's  pro8it  ($)  

13&5&15&2   7   0.979   0.021   223,148   13,364  

Scenario  2:  Add  No.  15  &  No.  2,  Drop  No.  5      Because  No.  5  is  less  appealing,  when  provided  with  No.  13  &  No.  7  at  the  same  time,  all  3  segments  will  not  select  No.  5.  EarlyRider's  product  ID  

Competitor's  product  ID  

EarlyRider's  market  share  

Competitor's  market  share  

EarlyRider's  pro8it  ($)  

Competitor's  pro8it  ($)  

13&15&2   7   0.977   0.023   240,708   -­‐12,732  

Scenario  2’:  Consider  competitor  lower  price      However,  in  Scenario  2,  the  competitor  will  try  to  decrease  price  and  win  back  market  share  and  pro8it,  so  our  actual  pro8it  will  be  $142,733.    EarlyRider's  product  ID  

Competitor's  product  ID  

EarlyRider's  market  share  

Competitor's  market  share  

EarlyRider's  pro8it  ($)  

Competitor's  pro8it  ($)  

13&15&2   8   0.662   0.338   142,733   54,346  

3:  Simulate  market  shares  &  proJits  for  different  product-­‐line  scenarios      

Page 9: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

Scenario  3  and  Scenario  4:  Choose  between  15  and  13  

15&2   7   0.973   0.027   256,725   -­‐11,469  15&2   8   0.65   0.35   158,222   56,986  13&2   7   0.758   0.242   193,609   56,462  13&2   8   0.462   0.538   99,637   98,338  

EarlyRider's  product  ID  

Competitor's  product  ID  

EarlyRider's    market  share  

Competitor's    market  share  

EarlyRider's  pro8it  ($)  

Competitor's  pro8it  ($)  

After  take  a  deeper  look  at  the  products  combination  in  Scenario  2,  we  8ind  that  15  and  13  are  similar  and  may  cause  cannibalization.  Thus,  we  test  the  scenarios  of  only  producing  1  product  of  those  two.  Still  in  both  scenarios,  competitor  will  lower  price  for  it’s  own  interest.  

As  a  result,  When  producing  15  &  2  and  competitor  products  8,  EarlyRider  will  yield  a  pro8it  of  $158,222,  which  is  higher  than  that  when  producing  13  &  2.    

Scenario  5:  Treat  the  market  as  a  whole?  If  we  treat  the  market  as  a  whole,  the  most  favorable  for  all  people  is  product  12  ($119.99,  26”,  Rocking,  Glamour),  so  we  test  the  scenario  of  only  produce  product  5.    Also  competitor  in  this  scenario  will  lower  his  price.  

EarlyRider's  product  ID  

Competitor's  product  ID  

EarlyRider's    market  share  

Competitor's    market  share  

EarlyRider's  pro8it  ($)  

Competitor's    pro8it  ($)  

12   7   0.928   0.072   228,666   2,749  12   8   0.596   0.404   139,704   68,863  

Page 10: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

To  conclude,  EarlyRide  should  develop  a  product  line  with  produce  No.  15  &  No.  2    

No.15:  $139.99,  26”,  Rocking,  glamorous    No.  2:  $119.99,  18”,  Bouncing,  Racing  

 According  priori  segment  level  conjoint  analysis  by  gender  in  Part  2,  No.  15  is  very  suitable  for  targeting  girls.            And  product  No.  2  is  more  preferred  by  boys.            Also  since  1~2  year-­‐old  group  is  more  height  sensitive,  No.  15  product  is  more  suitable  for  it  and  No.  2  product  is  more  suitable  for  3~4  year-­‐old  group.  

Implications  for  the  company's  marketing  plans  

Price   Height   Motion   Style  

Female   Less  price  sensitive   26’   Rocking   Glamorous  

No.  15   $139.99   26’   Rocking   Glamorous  

Price   Height   Motion   Style  

Male   More  price  sensitive   Less  height  sensitive   Bouncing   Racing  

No.  2   $119.99   18’   Bouncing   Racing  

Page 11: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

4:  Concrete  Recommendations  to  EarlyRiders  

Use  different  marketing  approaches  for  No.  15  and  No.  2  to  better  targeting  different  groups.  Avoid  cannibalization  and  gain  each  consumer  segments’  market  shares  as  more  as  possible.    For  No.  15  product:  u Targeting  to  girls  and  1~2  year-­‐old  group  u Design  feminine  packing  images  and  product  appearance  u Tailor  product  design  better  meet  1~2  year-­‐old  group’s  8igure  u Choose  toddler  zone  in  toy  stores/  TV  shows  and  cartoons  targeting  girls  for  ads  u Promotion  event  idea:  different  customs  for  toy  house  as  gift  u Emphasize  product  functions  in  marketing      For  No.  2  product:  u Targeting  to  boys  and  3~4  year-­‐old  group  u Design  masculine  packing  images  and  product  appearance  u Tailor  product  design  better  meet  3~4  year-­‐old  group’s  8igure  u Choose  3~4  year-­‐old  kids  zone  in  toy  stores/  TV  shows  and  cartoons  targeting  boys  for  ads  

u Promotion  event  idea:  toy  horse  racing  competition,  collaborate  with  kindergartens  u Emphasize  low  price  and  boy  preferred  features  in  marketing    

Page 12: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

Appendix  

Plot  (2  clusters)   Plot  (4  clusters)  

Not  chosen  segmentation  output    

Page 13: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

GenderD   AgeD  

1   female   1~2  year-­‐old  

0   male   3~4  year-­‐old  

Values  of  dummy  variables  used  in  regressions  

Product  ID   Price   Height   Motion   Style  1   0   0   0   0  2   1   0   0   0  3   0   1   0   0  4   1   1   0   0  5   0   0   1   0  6   1   0   1   0  7   0   1   1   0  8   1   1   1   0  9   0   0   0   1  10   1   0   0   1  11   0   1   0   1  12   1   1   0   1  13   0   0   1   1  14   1   0   1   1  15   0   1   1   1  16   1   1   1   1  

Price   1  =  119.99   0=139.99  Height   1=26"   0=18"  Motion   1=Rocking   0=Bouncing  

Styles   1=Glamorous    0=Racing  

Page 14: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

Scenario  2  utility  simulation  

No.  13  Product  

No.  5  Product  

No.  7  Product  

Segment  1   61   50   66  Segment  2   47   46   39  Segment  3   13   19   24  

Page 15: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis

Simulation  Code  

Page 16: Toy Horse Conjoint Analysis