1. Alternative Evaluation and Selection
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Alternative Evaluation
and Selection

2. Alternative Evaluation and Selection Process
16-1
Evaluative criteria
Importance of criteria
Alternatives considered
Evaluation of alternatives on each criterion
Decision rules applied
Alternative selected

3. Perceptual Mapping of Beer Brand Perceptions
16-2 •
Heineken
Michelob
Corona
Coors
Rolling Rock
Bud
Strohs
Oly
Miller
Hamms
Schlitz Malt Liquor
Pabst
Rainier
Busch
Milwaukee’s Best
Generic Beer
Schlitz
Hamms Light
Michelob Light
Natural Light
Oly Gold
Generic Light
Bud Light
Coors Light
High price, high quality, high status
Low price, low quality, low status
Light taste,
less calories, less filling
Heavy taste,
more calories, more filling

4. Using Conjoint Analysis to Determine the Importance of Evaluative Criteria
16-3
Design features
Design options
Processor
MMX/233
MMX/300
Integrated Modem
Yes No
Weight
3.5 lsbs
5.1 lbs
Price level
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
These design attributes produce 24 alternative computer design configurations.
One design possibility
Processor: MMX/300
Modem: No
Weight: 5.1 lbs
Price level: $2,500

5. Using Conjoint Analysis to Determine the Importance of Evaluative Criteria
16-3 (II)
Consumer preferences 3 2 1
Preference
$2,000 $2,500 $3,000
3.5lbs lbs
No Yes
MMX/233 MMX/300 •
Price Weight Modem Processor

6. Using Conjoint Analysis to Determine the Importance of Evaluative Criteria
16-3 (III)
Relative importance
Evaluative criteria Importance
Processor 45%
Modem 5
Weight 25
Price level 25
Processor is the most important feature in this example, and MMX/300 is the preferred option.
While price and screen size are also important, price becomes a factor between $2,500 and $3,000.

7. Decision Rules Used by Consumers
16-4
Conjunctive: Select all (or any or first) brands that surpass a minimum level on each relevant evaluative criterion.
Disjunctive: Select all (or any or first) brands that surpass a satisfactory level on any relevant evaluative criterion.
Elimination- Rank the evaluative criteria in terms of importance and establish by-aspects satisfactory levels for each. Start with the most important attribute and eliminate all brands that do not meet the satisfactory level. Continue through the attributes in order of importance until only one brand is left.
Lexicographic: Rank the evaluative criteria in terms of importance. Start with the most important criterion and select the brand that scores highest on that dimension. If two or more brands tie, continue through the attributes in order of importance until one of the remaining brands outperforms the others.
Compensatory: Select the brand that provides the highest total score when the performance ratings for all the relevant attributes are added (with or without importance weights) together for each brand.