Conjoint Analysis Examples by Industry
Why Industry Examples Matter
Conjoint analysis works differently depending on what you're testing and who you're asking. A CPG company testing packaging options faces different design challenges than a hospital system measuring treatment preferences. Seeing how other organizations have structured their studies, what they learned, and how they used the results gives you a practical template for your own research.
The examples below come from five industries where conjoint is used most frequently. Each includes the study setup (attributes, levels, sample), the key findings, and the business decision that followed.
CPG: Beverage Packaging Optimization
The Business Question
A North American beverage company was planning a packaging refresh for its flagship product line. The internal team had three competing proposals: a new label design, a switch from plastic to aluminum cans, and a premium glass bottle option. Each had different cost implications, and the marketing team disagreed on which would drive the most incremental sales.
Study Design
They ran a CBC conjoint with 6 attributes:
| Attribute | Levels |
|---|---|
| Container type | Plastic bottle, Aluminum can, Glass bottle |
| Size | 12 oz, 16 oz, 20 oz |
| Price | $1.49, $1.99, $2.49, $2.99 |
| Label design | Current, Redesign A, Redesign B |
| Cap color | Blue, Green, Clear |
| Shelf position | Eye level, Top shelf, Bottom shelf |
Sample: 400 consumers, recruited from a panel of category buyers (purchased the category at least once in the past 30 days). Each respondent completed 14 choice tasks with 4 profiles per task.
Key Findings
Container type had 3x the relative importance of label design (28% vs. 9%). Aluminum cans were the clear winner within container type, driven largely by the 18-34 age segment. Glass bottles appealed to a niche (about 15% of respondents), but their utility dropped sharply at price points above $2.49.
The two label redesigns performed statistically identically to the current label. Cap color was the least important attribute at 4%.
Business Decision
The company shelved the label redesign project (saving approximately $800K in design and production costs) and redirected investment toward an aluminum can launch. They used the market simulator to identify the optimal price-size combination: 16 oz aluminum at $1.99, which captured the highest predicted share of preference in simulations against the current competitive set.
Healthcare: Patient Treatment Preferences
The Business Question
A pharmaceutical company developing a new treatment for Type 2 diabetes needed to understand how patients weigh the trade-offs between efficacy, side effects, dosing convenience, and cost. The clinical development team had two formulation paths: a daily oral tablet with higher efficacy or a weekly injection with lower side effect risk. Both would reach market at similar timelines, but only one could be prioritized for Phase III trials.
Study Design
They used CBC conjoint with 5 attributes, designed in consultation with endocrinologists and patient advocacy groups:
| Attribute | Levels |
|---|---|
| HbA1c reduction (efficacy) | 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0% |
| Side effect risk | 5%, 10%, 20%, 30% |
| Dosing frequency | Daily tablet, Weekly injection, Monthly injection |
| Out-of-pocket cost | $25/mo, $75/mo, $150/mo, $300/mo |
| Monitoring requirements | No extra monitoring, Quarterly blood tests, Monthly blood tests |
Sample: 500 diagnosed Type 2 diabetes patients, recruited through healthcare panels with physician confirmation of diagnosis. 15 choice tasks per respondent.
Key Findings
Dosing frequency was the second most important attribute (26%), behind only out-of-pocket cost (31%). Patients would accept a 0.5% reduction in HbA1c improvement to move from daily to weekly dosing. Side effect risk mattered most at the extremes: the difference between 5% and 10% risk was small, but the jump from 20% to 30% caused a steep drop in preference.
Monthly injection had lower utility than weekly injection for most segments, suggesting that "less frequent" doesn't always mean "more convenient" when injections are involved.
Business Decision
The company prioritized the weekly injection formulation for Phase III development. The conjoint data was included in their regulatory submission as evidence of patient preference, following the FDA's Patient Preference Initiative framework, which recommends stated-preference methods like conjoint for understanding treatment trade-offs.
SaaS: Pricing and Feature Tier Design
The Business Question
A B2B project management SaaS company was restructuring its pricing tiers. They'd grown from a single plan to a fragmented set of five tiers with overlapping features, and customers consistently reported confusion during the purchase process. The product team wanted to consolidate to three tiers but needed to know which features should differentiate each tier and how much to charge.
Study Design
CBC conjoint with 5 attributes:
| Attribute | Levels |
|---|---|
| Price | $15/user/mo, $25/user/mo, $45/user/mo, $75/user/mo |
| User seats | 5, 15, 50, Unlimited |
| Storage | 10 GB, 100 GB, 1 TB, Unlimited |
| Integrations | 3 integrations, 10 integrations, Unlimited integrations |
| Support | Community forum, Email (48h), Chat (4h), Dedicated CSM |
Sample: 350 B2B decision-makers (director level or above, at companies with 50-500 employees), recruited through a professional panel.
Key Findings
User seats dominated, with a relative importance of 32%. Price came in second at 27%. The "unlimited users" level had the single highest utility of any level in the study, worth approximately $35/month per user in willingness-to-pay terms.
Integrations showed an interesting pattern: the jump from 3 to 10 integrations was worth nearly as much as the jump from 10 to Unlimited. This suggested that customers cared about having enough integrations for their stack, not about the theoretical maximum.
Dedicated CSM support had surprisingly low utility compared to chat support. The WTP difference between the two was only $6/month per user, far less than the cost of providing dedicated CSM at scale.
Business Decision
The company restructured to three tiers, using unlimited users as the key differentiator for the top tier (priced at $45/user/mo). They dropped dedicated CSM from the standard offering and made it an add-on. The simplification reduced customer confusion during sales calls, and the top tier's unlimited users positioning increased upgrade conversions by 18% in the first quarter.
Telecom: Mobile Plan Configuration
The Business Question
A Canadian telecom provider was losing market share to flanker brands offering simplified plans. They wanted to understand which plan features were actually driving switching behavior and which features they could remove without losing subscribers.
Study Design
CBC conjoint with 6 attributes:
| Attribute | Levels |
|---|---|
| Monthly data | 5 GB, 15 GB, 25 GB, Unlimited |
| Monthly price | $35, $50, $65, $85 |
| Network coverage | Nationwide, Urban-only |
| International calling | Not included, 100 min/mo, Unlimited |
| Device subsidy | No subsidy (bring your own), $200 off, $400 off, Free device |
| Contract length | No contract, 1 year, 2 years |
Sample: 600 Canadian mobile subscribers (300 current customers, 300 competitor customers), recruited through an online panel.
Key Findings
Monthly data and price together accounted for 62% of relative importance. The "unlimited" data level had 3x the utility of 25 GB, confirming that unlimited data is table stakes for competitive plans.
Contract length was the third most important attribute (15%). "No contract" had strong positive utility, particularly among the 25-44 age segment. Device subsidies partially offset contract aversion: a free device with a 2-year contract was nearly as preferred as a no-contract plan at full price, but only for respondents aged 18-24.
International calling had minimal impact (6% importance). Removing it from base plans would save costs without meaningfully affecting preference.
Business Decision
The provider launched a simplified plan structure: all plans included unlimited data, no contracts, and no international calling (available as an add-on). Device financing replaced subsidies. The simplified positioning helped close the perception gap with flanker brands, and subscriber churn decreased by 8% over two quarters.
Automotive: Vehicle Configuration
The Business Question
An automotive manufacturer was designing the option packages for a new crossover SUV. They needed to decide which features belonged in the base model, which went into a mid-tier package, and which justified a premium package with a $5,000+ price premium.
Study Design
CBC conjoint with 7 attributes:
| Attribute | Levels |
|---|---|
| Engine | 2.0L turbocharged, 2.5L naturally aspirated, Hybrid |
| Safety package | Basic (ABS, airbags), Advanced (lane assist, blind spot), Full (autonomous emergency braking, adaptive cruise) |
| Infotainment | 8" touchscreen, 10" with wireless CarPlay, 12" with heads-up display |
| Seating | Cloth, Heated leather, Ventilated leather with memory |
| Sunroof | None, Standard sunroof, Panoramic sunroof |
| Color options | 5 colors, 10 colors, 15 colors including custom |
| Price premium over base | +$0, +$2,500, +$5,000, +$8,000 |
Sample: 500 in-market crossover shoppers (actively researching or planning to purchase within 12 months), recruited through automotive intender panels.
Key Findings
Safety package was the most important attribute (24%), followed by price premium (22%) and engine type (18%). The hybrid engine had strong preference among urban buyers but neutral-to-negative preference in suburban/rural segments.
Infotainment had moderate importance (14%), with the 10" wireless CarPlay option hitting a sweet spot. The 12" heads-up display upgrade added only marginal utility over it. Panoramic sunroof had higher utility than standard, but the difference didn't justify the manufacturing cost for the base model.
Color options were the least important attribute (3%). Offering 5 vs. 15 colors made almost no difference in choice probability.
Business Decision
The manufacturer restructured their packages: advanced safety became standard across all trims (absorbing the cost as a competitive differentiator), the mid-tier added heated leather and 10" CarPlay, and the premium tier focused on the full safety suite plus hybrid engine. They dropped color customization from their differentiation strategy entirely.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I use these examples as templates for my own study?
The attribute structures are good starting points, but you'll need to customize levels for your market. The price ranges, feature options, and competitor landscape differ by company. Use these examples to understand what good conjoint design looks like, then adapt.
How large should my sample be for industry studies?
Most of these examples used 350-600 respondents. For a standard commercial study, 300-500 is the practical range. Healthcare and automotive tend to go larger because of the segment analysis requirements. See the sample size requirements guide for specific formulas.
Do I need industry-specific expertise to run conjoint?
The statistical methodology is the same across industries. What changes is the attribute design. Healthcare studies need clinical input on realistic treatment attribute levels. CPG studies need category purchase data to set realistic price ranges. If you don't have domain expertise in-house, partner with a research team that does.
Related Guides
- Conjoint Analysis: Complete Guide -- Full methodology overview
- Conjoint Analysis in Healthcare -- look closely at patient preference research
- Conjoint Analysis for CPG -- Package design, pricing, and shelf optimization
- How to Interpret Conjoint Results -- Reading utilities, importance, and simulations
- How to Design a Conjoint Study -- Attribute and level selection guidance
- Concept Testing -- For testing complete product concepts rather than feature trade-offs
Run conjoint studies across any industry -- try Quali-Fi free for 14 days.