Have an idea?

Visit Sawtooth Software Feedback to share your ideas on how we can improve our products.

Calculating the Monetary Value of 36 Attributes

We have a client that currently offers its customers 5 product categories with varying benefits.  They have a list of 36 benefits (with 2 to 6 levels) that make up the 5 products.  They wish to simplify their product offering by removing some of these benefits from their list.  To do this, they wish to know the monetary value of each of these benefits.
We were thinking of using Partial-Profile CBC, or some type of Max-Diff.  If anyone has any ideas about how this can be done most effectively, your opinion would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much,

asked Apr 25, 2013 by Shahrokh (155 points)
retagged Jun 29, 2014 by Walter Williams

1 Answer

+2 votes
Best answer
I do think that CBC or MaxDiff could be used effectively to figure out which benefits could be removed from the list.  But, assessing the monetary value of levels is problematic.  (See our paper on this: https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/monetary.pdf).

One might think about dividing the utility of each of these benefits (vs. not including them) by the cost of providing each of them to come up with a relative "profitability" index for each benefit.  But, better to treat this as a relative scale instead of trying to nail down monetary values for each.
answered Apr 25, 2013 by Bryan Orme Platinum Sawtooth Software, Inc. (153,080 points)
selected Apr 25, 2013 by Shahrokh
Thanks Bryan.  Interesting paper, thanks for sharing it.  It gives great insight into the monetary issue.  However, in terms of running the partial-profile CBC design, if we conduct the study among 1000 respodnents, include 30 attributes in the final design (we have a limit of 30 attributes in our software), show each respondent 6 attributes at a time, 2 product options (with a none option), ask 15 questions - do you think the results we get will be valid?  We are using a paper-and-pencil design with as many versions as necessary.

Thank you again!