Credit Cards CONJOINT
Directions for the development of new products and adjustment of the existing propositions
The Challenge:
Our client has requested a market research study in order to provide directions for the development of new products and adjustment of the existing propositions of credit cards.
The Client wanted to fine-tune credit card acquisition strategy aimed at attracting new customers and at the same time boosting the loyalty of the current ones via offering best total value offer for credit cards.
The research objectives were to identify which are the most important factors influencing the customer choice of credit cards and to understand what is the relative importance of each factor, to evaluate the partial utility of card attribute levels, to identify the card offer which best performs within different target groups and to identify opportunities for current credit card improvement based on the total utility score.
The Approach:
We designed a quantitative survey – CONJOINT / Discrete Choice Analysis:
to calculate the choice data, main effects and joint effects as well as relative preference (how many times a concept including that level is chosen, divided by the number of times a concept including that level appeared in the choice task).
to determine the best combination of items.
The Outcome:
When directly questioned, there was no clear preference with regards to monthly vs. annual interest rate regardless of respondent profile by card usage and personal income.
By calculating the CONJOINT relative factor importance, however, the standard interest rate was much more significant with almost double importance compared to all other factors. The annual fee, interest promotions and cash-back were in a group of second most important factors
Different types of insurances and grace period have low relative importance.
We outlined the offer that generates the highest reach if launched alone. In addition it has participated in all wining coalitions as a main donor if portfolio of two or three cards is considered. It presents a monthly instead annual interest rate – thus, a conclusion can be made that monthly interest rate drive higher preference.
HEALTHY FOOD
Is the food we eat nowadays of a high quality? Are we prone to pay more for a quality food and are we doing it for real? What does it mean the term quality food and how to know whether the food is such or not? These are the questions which are not a subject of a philosophical theory, but we all ask ourselves – some of us as consumers and others – as producers or retailers of food.
Just to be clear when talking about this subject – we asked 100 people whose dietary behavior assumed more attention and awareness in the selection of food and nutritional products.*
It turned out this audience is quite reserved and pessimistic. ¾ of the participants in the survey share their opinion the quality of the food we eat today is worse than it was in the past. Half of the respondents are even extreme in their views and consider that nowadays the food quality is much worse than it was before.
All respondents claim to spend more money specifically for buying a higher quality food or nutritional products, and one in five believes that he/she paid even more for this.
With a big lead over the price and taste of the products, the label (content) is the most frequently mentioned source of information for assessing whether certain food is qualitative or not. The brand or manufacturer are rarely mentioned as factors in this consideration. The place of purchase, the product origin, Bulgarian producers standards, the “bio” mark and even recommendations are mentioned by few.
It’s interesting thing to observe that among this target group, men are being more pessimistic about their food perceptions, while women are rather moderate in their opinions. ¼ of the women consider the food quality is better or at least the same as it always was. In general the ladies are prone to spend more money in order to get a product, they consider as qualitative.
The younger participants in the survey share the most positive attitude to the food quality of products on the market, while the most negative are those among 25 and 29 years old. The oldest respondents (30-40 years old) believe at the greatest extent the food quality remains constant in the time.
However, spending money for buying food of a high quality increased with the increasing age. The price is a benchmark for quality more frequently to the younger part of the participants in comparison with the older. On the other hand, the younger participants count very little on the brand and the producer when choosing, while the older respondents devote much more importance on them.
It seems the existing pessimism about the food quality is the main challenge in the marketing among the healthy oriented audience aged between 20 and 40 years. In order to be well oriented about the quality of food, consumers rely heavily on tools which are entirely in the hands of the producers and traders (such as the content and price of the product). The successful producers and traders of food will be these who found the best balance between the presented information in the content and the price of their products. It looks like the consumers should remain demanding for manufacturers and retailers of food who value the morality more than the economic laws.
*the presented data is from a survey conducted among residents of the capital aged between 20 and 40 years who consumes at least once intentionally and without prescription certain foods that are considered to be healthy/ good for one’s health.
BODY CARE CUSTOMER PREFERENCES
Look through our presentation at the 2016 Category Retail Forum – an exclusive survey about what the most “active” segment of our target group does and wants when it comes to deodorants, soaps, shower gels and body lotions! Do not miss the chance to prove sir Winston Churchill wrong about Bulgarians!
