Conjoint analysis on a dataset containing customer preference for multiple Product Profiles.

1. 1
Marketing Analytics
Nidhi Arora
Jessica Hudson
Niam
Katie

2. 2
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................3
1. Identifying the product for analysis.................................................................................................3
2. Interview purpose and process.........................................................................................................5
2.2 Interview results...............................................................................................................................6
3. The attributes and levels tested ........................................................................................................7
3.1 Generating product profiles............................................................................................................8
3.2 Creating and distributing the survey.............................................................................................8
4. The Conjoint Analysis.......................................................................................................................9
4.1 Generating dummy variables .........................................................................................................9
4.2 Regression analysis..........................................................................................................................9
Segmentation Discussion......................................................................................................................13
Error analysis and suggested improvements to survey design............................................................13
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................14
Appendix 1: Interview Questions.......................................................................................................17
Appendix 2: Experimental Design Table...........................................................................................18
Appendix 3: Survey Questions ...........................................................................................................19
Appendix 4: Attribute Importance ....................................................................................................20

3. 3
Introduction
This report aims to investigate which consumer preferences drive shopping behaviour in
relation to a greater sustainability context. Packaged produce will be used to guide this
research. Interviews will be conducted to gather attributes that have the greatest impact on the
attractiveness of produce packaging to be identified. Upon recognising the most relevant levels
of each attribute, product profiles will be generated and included as part of a survey. The data
collected will be used to run a conjoint analysis and the results will be discussed. This report
will be divided into five sections. Section one will discuss the chosen product outlining its
importance, how we expect to improve it, what we seek to learn about this product and finally,
the impact this research will have. Section two will discuss the surveys conducted and the
results. The third section will analyse the conjoint analysis and evidence from literature will be
used to reinforce findings. The final section will discuss segmentation, an error analysis and
further implications will be included.
1. Identifying the product for analysis
After several group brainstorming sessions and advice from our module professor, our team
agreed that an FMCG would relate to a large market. Practically, this category would increase
the probability of collecting >50 responses to our survey; effectively, this also would imply
that our findings may offer meaning to a larger population (irrespective of level of
environmental consciousness) and would provide greater potential for future research that
could isolate and build on narrower segments. In line with this logic, we narrowed down the
selection to fresh produce as an appropriate product category for our research, as it shares
inherent qualities with themes of environmental sustainability, and therefore, offers greater
contextual implications to be drawn from this research.

4. 4
This product selection was also relevant on an academic level, as current literature is limited
on the influence of packaging attributes on customer purchasing decisions for fresh produce
(Koutsimanis et al., 2012). Research on intrinsic attitudes toward produce purchases is
naturally a priori, owing to the difficulties in measuring the influence of attributes on purchase
behaviour of food products. However, extrinsic attributes that consumers choose to add is
packaging, which facilitates retrospective analysis of attitudes that motivate and drive
sustainable behaviour (Koutsimanis et al., 2012).
It is also vital to delve deeper into the subject of produce packaging as it currently has a
profound negative impact on the environment. Most fruits and vegetables are packaged in
plastic, which is not widely recycled in most countries. This plastic packaging of fresh food
contributes significantly to various countries’ plastic waste (White & Lockyer, 2020). It is for
this reason that produce packaging was chosen to be analysed in this study, to identify how
consumers’ beliefs and attitudes surrounding packaging-waste and pollution motivate shopping
behaviour that supports the use of either sustainable or unsustainable materials for food
packaging, and other products in the greater FMCG market.
To identify points of intervention and improve greater environmental impacts, this study
investigates the influence that different types of produce packaging have on purchase
preferences, in comparison to two other variables: product quality and price. Additionally, the
consumption of “loose” produce (fresh produce without packaging), is becoming increasingly
popular in recent times due to social pressures for increased sustainability measures (Whyte &
Lockyer, 2020) and because of marketing efforts that aim to alleviate the guilt that consumers
feel when acting against social norms of sustainable consumption (McDonald et al., 2006).
Accordingly, results from this study illuminate how consumers (indirectly) feel about this
solution to the pollution issue, and whether produce packaging is necessary from their
perspective. Therefore, this study aims to provide insights about the appropriate use of produce
packaging, and in turn, to help improve the product offering by eliminating the unnecessary
use of plastic and unrecyclable materials, to increase its environmentally responsible attributes
and thus add value to the customer purchase experience (including post-purchase emotions).

5. 5
2. Interview purpose and process
To select a specific product from the “fresh produce” category, we interviewed six
environmentally conscious individuals (i.e., consumers who have broadly demonstrated
environmentally friendly shopping beliefs and behaviour), to gain as much direction as possible
for the product profiles that facilitated data-collection for the analyses that would inform the
research objective. Interviewees consisted of four females and two males, between the ages of
24-60 years old. Five of the six individuals were interviewed at their homes, and one was
interviewed via phone call due to COVID-19 restrictions. These semi-structured interviews
used broad and open-ended questions, to allow for exploration of the consumers’ attitudes,
beliefs and recollection of their sustainable shopping behaviour (Appendix 1). Interview
transcripts were used to extract codes that were clustered into themes. From these, the three
most important attributes to sustainable fresh produce shopping behaviour were identified and
used to generate twelve product profiles for the ensuing survey.
Based on the insights gained from the six exploratory interviews of environmentally conscious
consumers, product quality (i.e., organic versus non-organic), packaging materials and design,
as well as price and purchase frequency were identified as the most significant factors in
shopping behaviour when considering more or less sustainable options (Appendix 2). While
product profile levels would qualitatively be specified according to the interview outcomes, the
range for number of levels per attribute was kept close, between three and four (except for
inherently binary attributes) to avoid the number-of-levels effects (Hüttl-Maack et al., 2016).
Using the “expert” interviewees to specify the product attributes and levels, offers an advantage
in that it extends the research beyond our extant assumptions about fresh produce packaging,
which might exclude segments’ perspectives and miss out on valuable consumer insights (Lee
and Bradlow, 2011).
As the following sections will discuss in further detail, apples were selected as the product for
our structured research that investigated which consumer preferences drive shopping behaviour

6. 6
in the greater context of a sustainability lens – provided that this specific iteration of fresh
produce can commonly be found as an organic or non-organic offer, which is regularly
packaged in more and less sustainable materials (e.g. cardboard, plastic bags, etc.) as well as
the “loose produce” variation, and as such is sold at varying price points.
2.2 Interview results
The exploratory interviews revealed consumer attitudes that reflect trends toward increased
sustainability preferences, whereby consumers choose environmentally conscious
packaging, when possible, especially when it comes to packaged produce. One interviewee
explained: “I will buy loose where I can; I also look out for shrink-wrapped foods as there is
less waste.” This agrees with current literature which suggests that customers prefer and
actively seek sustainably focused options to help decrease pollution (Magnier and Schoormans,
2015). Comparative variables, such as price, were also highlighted by interviewees to evaluate
the strength of the sustainability preference: “Even if it's more expensive, I still like to purchase
what supports my values. But on everyday items, especially food, I think I'm more price
sensitive... Because you just have to buy it so much so that the cost of it accrues”. Again, this
agreed with literature, which identified price to have a considerable impact on consumer
choices (De Toni et al., 2018). From our interviews, sustainably conscious participants were
willing to pay 10-20% more for sustainably packaged produce as long as it offered them added
value, such as greater control over disposal methods or possibilities to repurpose packaging.
Therefore, consumers are environmentally conscious, but price sensitivity remains a
prerequisite in sustainable purchase decisions.
While most participants commented that they “buy loose where I can”, they also pointed out
the small, thin plastic bag that most supermarkets provide to customers for loose produce. One
participant explained that “it is so difficult to buy things without plastic these days. [But] I buy
loose produce, such as a single carrot or pepper, put it in my bag and hope it doesn’t get
damaged”. This participant would rather forego the optional plastic bag and expose the produce
in their shopping bag than use additional plastic. Another participant highlighted that these
plastic bags are merely a “thin, thin, thin plastic”, which this interviewee repurposes after
purchase – demonstrating self-justification of what was recognised as unsustainable behaviour,
“I'll go for the packaging… and be annoyed at the same time”. This form of denial is common
for consumers who hope to diminish feelings of guilt that result from their unsustainable
choices (McDonald et al., 2006).
When further reflecting on their purchases, participants mentioned that the type of packaging
played a role in their decisions, “certain fruit, such as oranges, I always buy in cardboard and
most of the vegetables bought are shrink wrapped”. Participants associated sustainable

7. 7
packaging with classifications of either “more compact with less waste” or how “compostable”
it was, given the control it extends to the consumer (rather than third parties) in its disposal and
eventual impact on the environment: “I don't think they really recycle properly when they do
plastic. ...nothing really beats composting. If it composts, I want it”.
Participants also interpreted the quality of the product based on the packaging: “I think
packaging represents what's inside”, further mentioning associations between plastic packaging
and possible health concerns such as microplastics or toxins entering the body. Therefore, the
importance of organic versus non-organic produce was mentioned by interviewees, where
participants classified organic as a more sustainable offering: “When I think of sustainable
packaging it makes me believe the product inside is organic and of good quality”. De Toni et
al. (2018) mention that the relationship between environmental concerns and organic, green
food is increasing. They also found in their study that sustainability is becoming a global trend
which is escalating the demand for organic produce to improve health and well-being.
Accordingly, the three extracted levels for the packaging attribute became: “loose” (no
packaging), plastic bag, and cardboard box. The price points were set close to the 10-20%
margin and based on either low to premium store values. Finally, product quality was
represented using organic versus non-organic options. To incorporate the chosen attributes and
levels of packaged produce into the survey, these were entered into an orthogonal design
builder in Microsoft Excel to generate twelve statistically variant product profiles (Appendix
2). The structured survey, which was created using Qualtrics software, displayed these product
profiles in a matrix format that uses Likert scales to collect respondent ratings. (Appendix 3)
3. The attributes and levels tested
After analysing the six exploratory interviews, price, packaging materials and perceived
produce quality evidently influenced consumer preferences most when purchasing packaged
produce. These included two qualitative attributes (produce quality and packaging materials)
as well as one quantitative attribute (price), which were chosen for the test and subsequent
analysis. Including the binary “product quality” attribute, the number of levels per attribute
ranged from two to four, to avoid overestimating the importance of any particular attribute, i.e.,
to avoid the number-of-level effects (Hüttl-Maack et al., 2016). Produce quality contained two

8. 8
levels (organic versus non-organic) and packaging materials had three (plastic bag, cardboard
box and no packaging). The number of levels for price was four: €0.80, €1, €1.20, and €1.40.
Figure 1 illustrates this attribute and level design.
Attributes Level One Level Two Level Three Level Four
Produce Quality Organic Non-organic
Materials Plastic bag Cardboard box No packaging
Price 80c €1 €1.20 €1.40
Fig. 1
These attributes and levels were used in conjunction with the orthogonal design builder that
produced eleven product profiles for data collection on consumer purchasing preferences via
the online survey.
3.1 Generating product profiles
From the attributes and levels in Figure 1, the full design resulted in twenty-four product
profiles. Using the experimental design builder in Excel, however, a subset of twelve unique
product profiles was generated (Appendix 2). These profiles were used to ask survey
respondents to score each profile using a seven-point Likert scale with 1 = strong dislike and
7= strong like (Appendix 3).
3.2 Creating and distributing the survey
Additional questions for demographic and behavioural data of respondents included age,
gender, country of origin, whether they consider themselves as environmentally conscious (or
not), and whether they are the primary shopper for their households (Appendix 3). Pre-defined
age options were defined according to generational age ranges, so that our findings would align
with existing literature. The resulting cross sectional data was collected for the segmentation
analysis that followed (Appendix 6). For example, product profile rankings by individuals who
were interested in sustainability could be compared to those generated by individuals who were
not interested in sustainability. This would inform the value of segments for practical research
implications.

9. 9
The survey was distributed digitally via a link to the researchers’ networks. Through this
snowball sampling technique, fifty-two individual responses were successfully collected.
4. The Conjoint Analysis
4.1 Generating dummy variables
The data that the survey collected on product profiles created unique ratings for each profile,
which provided the dependent variables for the regression analysis in figure 2. To process the
data in Excel, these ratings had to be translated using dummy variables. Therefore, the matrix
for each respondent was repeated for each of the identical fifty-two product profiles, and a
unique rating – according to the survey responses – was assigned to each.
4.2 Regression analysis
To analyse this data, a regression analysis was carried out using Excel. The dependent
variable range was inputted, followed by the independent variables and the confidence
interval, which was set to 95%. The product profile excluded for analysis was organic,
plastic bag and 80c. The results for the regression analysis can be seen on Figure 2 below.
Fig 2. Regression Analysis

10. 10
Figure 2 shows that the R-squared value is 0.19, which indicates that the attributes explain
19% of variation in consumers ranking. This implies that there are additional attributes that
consumers consider when purchasing packaged produce. The P-values highlighted in figure 2
indicate the attributes that customers care about as they are under 0.5%.
The coefficients determine the extent to which customers care about these attributes. Figure 3
shows that, relative to organic produce, customers had a weak preference towards non-
organic produce at -0.7699982. Customers also had a weak preference for the prices of 1.20
and 1.40 relative to eighty cents. Finally, customers have a strong preference towards,
primarily, cardboard boxes and, secondarily, toward no packaging relative to plastic bags.
Therefore, organic produce in a cardboard box at a price of eighty cents is the ideal product
profile.
Fig. 3 The ideal profile – Organic,
Cardboard Box and 80c.
According to the attribute importance
table (in Appendix 4), customers pay
43% attention to packaging, 24% to
produce quality (type of produce), and 33% to price. This indicates that customers consider
packaging the most when buying packaged produce in comparison to price and produce
quality. The difference in preferences for the unique product profiles (in Appendix 5) would
indicate that the sample represents the general population. However, this conclusion depends
on other variables too, which were not in range. Furthermore, the ideal profile, Product A, is
the most preferred profile. Interestingly, the second most preferred profile is Product B which
is 1.93 more favourable than the excluded profile of organic, plastic bag and 80c. This shows
that although the general population demonstrate a level of interest in sustainability, it is not
to the same extent as the interviewees. This was expected, given that the interviewees were
selected because they are environmentally conscious “experts” and provided a contextual
benchmark.

11. 11
After running the initial regression and analysing the results, it was decided to do a post-
analysis segmentation. Another regression was run on the 18–24-year-old segment, as well as
customers who have an interest in sustainability. Individuals with an interest in sustainability
were chosen to compare how their preferences differed to the overall population. As well as
this, research suggests that young people are becoming more sustainably focused, and we
wanted to investigate this further.
Post-analysis segmentation one: 18-24
From the regression run on the post-analysis segmentation, it is evident that there is a strong
preference for organic produce with no packaging at the price of 80c among 18–24-year-olds.
This is a similar result to the original regression of the complete sample, with the difference
that the 18–24-year-old segment prefer to forego packaging rather than choose cardboard. This
is consistent with the literature, which suggests that young people are becoming more
sustainably focused.
Post-analysis segmentation two: Sustainably focused customers

12. 12
It is clear that the customers who have an interest in sustainability have a strong preference for
produce with no packaging. A price of eighty cents is preferable to these customers. These
findings are consistent with the results of the interviews. This segment best reflects the
customer base as respondents are actively interested in sustainability. In comparison to the 18-
24 segment, individuals interested in sustainability showed similar preferences in terms of
price. Interestingly, among each segment tested for this analysis, individuals shared similar
preferences in relation to packaged produce, regardless of their interest in sustainability.
5. Discussion

13. 13
Segmentation Discussion
Clustering was used to segment the participants into four segments to determine the relative
importance of each attribute within each cluster. Ideal profiles for four clusters were found,
along with their relative attribute importance. From the results (Appendix 6), it is evident that
packaging is the most important attribute to each cluster.
Error analysis and suggested improvements to survey design
While our analysis offers several insights, the r2
score was low, which means that these
conclusions may not apply for a vast majority of the population. On the experimental
level, the low r2
score resulted from low variability among survey responders’ product
profile ranking. This may relate to two potential issues:
1. The deeper meaning of the chosen attributes was not understood by survey
respondents. For example, it was assumed that survey responders would understand
that each form of packaging offers varying sustainability impacts. Making the
sustainability of each material explicit could have offered the variables more
differentiation, and therefore, could have increased the r2
score. To illustrate: the
description preceding the profile-ranking question should explain that plastic is not
recycled in many countries, that cardboard is recycled and can be composted, and that
loose produce imposes no negative impact on the environment. Additionally, there
should be explicit information on the differences between organic and non-organic
produce, as these demonstrated extremely low preference variability, and it would be
beneficial to establish whether this similarity is an accurate reflection of shopping
preferences or if the sample theoretically assumed their quality as relatively equal.
The challenge in this latter intervention would be not to communicate more meaning
for one level compared to another, i.e. the text that explains level differences must not
distort the sample’s own opinions temporarily while they respond to the survey.
2. There were too few attributes to create meaningful variation among product profile
choices. Therefore, adding another attribute could have improved the low r2
score.
We had chosen to limit attributes and levels according to literature recommendations,
to help conserve responders’ attention and prevent mid-survey abandonment.
However, if we had added a fourth attribute according to important attributes

14. 14
identified by interviewees, this would further have included the design of packaging
in the profile ranking criteria. This would have increased complexity for survey
responders, but also in research design, as this attribute was identified to influence
purchases, on the condition that these are not items regularly bought. This may have
required a separate set of profiles (i.e. a second collection of profiles in a separate
survey question) and cross-correlation. Moreover, images may have had to be
included in the survey, which introduces further issues as design and visual appeal
may be subjective to responders. Therefore, this research adjustment would require
extreme design differences, that can group at least two levels as objectively appealing
versus unappealing, with little subjective interpretation skewing the results. Because
this would be carried out according to a second orthogonal design, it is important to
consider which sustainability-related attributes commonly compose more or less
sustainable design. For example, an elaborate carved and coloured glass bottle versus
a monotone recycled plastic-sheathed carton.
Conclusion
This study aimed to provide insights about the appropriate use of produce packaging, and in
turn, to help improve the fresh produce offering by identifying whether plastics (and other
environmentally unsustainable materials) are unnecessary and could be eliminated. This
agenda would increase environmentally responsible attributes and thus add value to the
customer purchase experience, for those who valued sustainability.
From our analysis of packaged produce, we confirmed the preliminary research insights that
were collected during the six exploratory interviews, which stated that customers who
consider themselves interest in sustainability have a strong preference for produce with no
packaging. As there was strong positive correlation between the 18-24 year olds and these
sustainably-minded respondents, eliminating plastics and other harmful packaging would add
value to the produce offering for this combined segment of customers. Additionally, as
alluded to in the interviews, all consumers are price sensitive. This price-sensitivity remained
strong for all segments in the analysis, who preferred the eighty cents option.

15. 15
In response to the research objective, these findings (assuming they could be used for
interpretation despite the low r2
and the high Significance F), imply that a cutting out plastics
and packaging pollutants would improve the value of fresh produce offerings if a
segmentation strategy targeted 18-24 year olds. As this generation is a dominant economic
contributor, these findings offer great practical potential for environmental improvements.
References
De Toni, D., Eberle, L., Larentis, F., Sperandio Milan, G. (2018) ‘Antecedents of Perceived
Value and Repurchase Intention of Organic Food’, Journal of Food Products
Marketing, 24(4), 456-475.

16. 16
Hüttl-Maack, V., Helm, R. and Steiner, M., 2016. A customer-based approach for selecting
attributes and levels for preference measurement and new product development.
International Journal of Product Development, 21(4), p.233.
Koutsimanis, G., Getter, K., Behe, B., Harte, J. and Almenar, E., 2012. Influences of
packaging attributes on consumer purchase decisions for fresh produce. Appetite,
59(2), pp.270-280.
Lee, T.Y. and Bradlow, E.T. (2011) ‘Automated marketing research using online customer
reviews’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48, pp.881–894.
McDonald, S., Oates, C., Young, C. and Hwang, K., 2006. Toward sustainable consumption:
Researching voluntary simplifiers. Psychology and Marketing, 23(6), pp.515-534.
Whyte, A., Lockyer, S. (2020) ‘Removing plastic packaging from fresh produce – what’s the
impact? Nutrition Bulletin, 45(1), pp.35-40

17. 17
Appendix 1: Interview Questions
Interview Questions
Testing Awareness (Cognition) Q1. What have you noticed about produce
packaging, both sustainable and traditional?
Testing Customer Journey (Behaviour) Q2. How does this affect your shopping
behaviour?
Sub-Q3. Do you consider packaging or
alternative materials when you shop?
Sub-Q4. Do you bring your own bags?
Testing future Customer Journey
(Behaviour)
Q4. If renewable materials replaced
traditional ones:
A. How does that make you feel?
B. How would that affect how your
shopping?
Testing Attitudes (Willingness to Pay) Q5. If renewable alternatives cost more,
would that change your shopping behavior?
A. How much more would you expect to
pay?
B. Would you be willing to pay [that much]
more?

18. 18
Appendix 2: Experimental Design Table
Profile Attribute 1: Price Attribute 2: Packaging Attribute 3: Quality
Level Level Level
1 2 1 Euro 3 No packaging 2 Non-organic
2 1 80 Cent 2 Cardboard box 1 Organic
3 2 1 Euro 1 Plastic bag 1 Organic
4 2 1 Euro 2 Cardboard box 1 Organic
5 4 1.40 Euro 2 Cardboard box 2 Non-organic
6 3 1.20 Euro 3 No packaging 1 Organic
7 3 1.20 Euro 2 Cardboard box 2 Non-organic
8 1 80 Cent 1 Plastic bag 2 Non-organic
9 1 80 Cent 3 No packaging 2 Non-organic
10 4 1.40 Euro 3 No packaging 1 Organic
11 3 1.20 Euro 1 Plastic bag 1 Organic
12 4 1.40 Euro 1 Plastic bag 2 Non-organic

19. 19
Appendix 3: Survey Questions
https://qfreeaccountssjc1.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4IvVQFxlaRqam46
Survey Questions Responses required
Demographic Questions
Q1. Which country are you from? If you
associate with more than one country, please
indicate the one you associate with most.
• Ireland
• Germany
• The United States
• Other
Q.2 Are you the primary shopper for your
household?
• Yes, I shop for my household.
• No, someone else shops for my
household.
Q3. How old are you? • Under 18.
• 18-24.
• 25-40.
• Over 40.
Product Profiles
Suppose you were buying 10 apples. We will
ask you to consider several offers including the
following options:
• Organic or non-organic.
• Pre-packaged plastic bag, cardboard
box or loose (no packaging).
Please rate the following options by choosing a
number on the 7-point preference scale. 1 =
strong dislike and 7 = strong like.
Q1.
Non-organic apples without packaging, 1€
• Rate from 1-7.
Q2.
Organic apples in cardboard box, 0.80€
• Rate from 1-7.
Q3.
Organic apples in plastic bag, 1€
• Rate from 1-7.
Q4.
Organic apples in cardboard box, 1€
• Rate from 1-7.
Q5.
Non-organic apples in cardboard box, 1.40€
• Rate from 1-7.
Q6.
Organic apples without packaging, 1.20€
• Rate from 1-7.
Q7.
Non-organic apples in cardboard box, 1.20€
• Rate from 1-7.
Q8.
Non-organic apples without packaging, 0.80€
• Rate from 1-7.
Q9
Organic apples without packaging, 1.40€
• Rate from 1-7.
Q10.
Organic apples in plastic bag, 1.20€
• Rate from 1-7.
Q11.
Non-organic apples in plastic bag, 1.40€
• Rate from 1-7.
Customer Interest
Q1. Are you generally interested in
environmental sustainability?
• Yes.
• No.

20. 20
Appendix 4: Attribute Importance
Appendix 5: Consumer Choice
Appendix 6: Segmentation Analysis
Cluster 1: Organic, No Packaging and 0.8 Euro.
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Type Packaging Price
Attribute
Importance

21. 21
Cluster 2: Organic, Cardboard, 0.80 Euro.
Cluster 3: Organic, Cardboard, 1.4 Euro.

22. 22
Cluster 5: Organic, Without Packaging and 1.2 Euro