From the focus group discussion, the following
factors were to be taken into the consideration set in this study. The
following were the factors thoroughly discussed:
1. Packaging design
2. Packaging material
3. Cover design
4. Outer color of the product
5. Marketing Campaigns
Observations
from the data
The utilities are obtained
as shown in the table below:
Utility Estimate
|
Std. Error
|
||
pkg_design
|
Design1
|
2.225
|
1.149
|
Design2
|
-1.030
|
1.149
|
|
Design3
|
-1.190
|
1.149
|
|
Design4
|
-.005
|
1.149
|
|
pkg_material
|
Protective
|
-1.520
|
.884
|
Convenience
|
.585
|
1.037
|
|
EcoFriendly
|
.935
|
1.037
|
|
cover
|
Simple
|
-2.995
|
.663
|
Smart
|
2.995
|
.663
|
|
color
|
Color1
|
-2.425
|
1.149
|
Color2
|
-.730
|
1.149
|
|
Color3
|
1.015
|
1.149
|
|
Color4
|
2.140
|
1.149
|
|
mkg_campaign
|
yes
|
-.525
|
1.327
|
no
|
-1.050
|
2.653
|
|
(Constant)
|
9.667
|
2.109
|
|
This table shows the
utility (part-worth) scores and their standard errors for each factor level.
Higher utility values indicate greater preference.
From the table above, we
can infer that
Ø Design1
is the most sought after package design as compared to any of the other designs
Ø Eco-friendly
packaging is preferred over both protective and convenience package material
Ø A
smart cover design beats a simple cover design
Ø Colors
have a linear relationship, that is, color 4 is most preferred and color 1 is
least preferred
Ø As
expected, there is an inverse relationship between marketing campaign and
utility, with higher values corresponding to lower utility (larger negative
values mean lower utility)
IMPORTANCE VALUES
|
|
pkg_design
|
20.901
|
pkg_material
|
17.886
|
cover
|
31.670
|
color
|
24.720
|
mkg_campaign
|
4.823
|
No comments:
Post a Comment