The difference between 'less bad' and 'much better': Helping conjoint to live up to its promises by leveraging 'behavioural economics'
Recently, market researchers have become increasingly interested in integrating insights from 'Behavioural Economics' into their traditional research approaches. However, this was pretty much restricted to an inductive transfer of selected insights into designs and questionnaires on a case-by-case basis.
Moreover, there was no systematic merging of these insights with the classical blockbuster tools of market research. Conjoint analysis is definitely such a blockbuster tool and probably the one with the most advanced analytical basis. What we will show here is how conjoint analysis can for the first time be seamlessly merged with the most important insights from 'Behavioural Economics', making predictions more valid while maintaining the core advantages of conjoint analysis. We will argue that instead of continuously searching for better conjoint variants that are 'less bad' than previous ones, 'much better' solutions can be found by merging the strengths of these divergent or, at the very least, complementary approaches.