UNDERSTANDING HOW A CUSTOMER VALUES INTERCHANGEABLE CAMERA LENS ATTRIBUTES
Introduction
In the digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera industry, even the simplest of interchangeable lenses can be quite costly. Consequently, many photographers conduct extensive research before purchasing a new one. For a camera retail store, it may be useful to know what informed customers prefer.
This project interprets answers of a photographer by using conjoint analysis and focuses on only three product attributes*: the focal length, price, and brand. The results will provide insight to a single customer’s preference of different attributes--what they may be looking for and what they are willing to pay for. If replicated many times amongst its customers, the store can use this information to guide its future product offerings.
*for more accurate results, a study should consider including aperture as a fourth attribute
Objectives
Determine how a consumer values three attributes of interchangeable lenses
Provide actionable insights for lens retailers and manufacturers
Methods
Lens Combination Matrix
The three attribute levels measured were brands, focal lengths, and prices. Of twenty-seven different combinations, nine were selected to be presented in a 3x3 matrix.
Each of the three attributes was equally represented in the matrix. The different combinations were intentionally randomized in terms of visual arrangement to mitigate potential bias for any particular brand, focal length, or price.
The survey participant, a 19-year-old male photographer, was asked to rank each combination on a scale from 1-10, with 1 being highly unlikely to purchase and 10 being highly likely to purchase.
Scoring & Importance
The utility scores were then calculated by averaging the survey responses for each attribute level.
The importance of each attribute level was then calculated by dividing utility score ranges by the total of the utility score ranges.
Results
Ranking
The respondent ranked each lens combination from 1-10, with 10 being the most likely to purchase, and 1 being the least likely to purchase.
A $1900 Sigma 24-70mm lens ranked the highest while an $1800 Nikon 28-300mm ranked the lowest.
Utility Scores
Based on his responses, the participant seems to value the Sigma-brand, the 24-70mm focal length, and a $1,900 price tag the most.
Importance
As for the importance of each attribute in the decision-making process, the participant valued the lens focal length the most.
Analysis
For the purpose of demonstrating a possible course of action, the analysis and recommendations section assumes that the above results are representative of the population.
However, it is worth highlighting that this study only analyzes the responses of a single, male participant.
For a real study — so that the retailer may have comprehensive data to make the most effective decision — this study should be replicated with multiple consumers from diverse backgrounds, etc.
The above information can be helpful for lens retailers (and possibly manufacturers) to decide on pricing, stocking, targeting, and messaging among others.
Sigma’s current 24-70mm lens retails for around $900. The participant in this study seemed to prefer was the highest priced lenses. This may be for a variety of reasons--one being that premium prices are often correlated with premium quality. This could be a point of further investigation if either Sigma or the camera retailer desires further insight.
It is important to note that most camera brands do not allow retailers to price their products below a certain price point — a price threshold — to prevent competition amongst retailers selling their products. Let’s say that the the minimum selling price is $1500. The retailer might profit more if they sell at $1900, but people may not necessarily buy from them if other retailers charge less.
What the results of this study could influence, then, is the minimum selling price. The retailer could attempt to negotiate with the lens manufacturer using data such as the that analyzed in this project. Of course, they would need a larger study with more respondents to demonstrate that there is a sizable population within this target segment — significantly beneficial enough for them to consider raising their minimum price.
At worst, this information tells the brand and the retailer that they do not have to worry about this particular respondent in terms of a lens’s costliness. They might, instead, want to reconsider future price drops. Since the respondent seems to favor $1900 over $1800 and $1700, a cheaper price on a Sigma 24-70mm might deter this customer. This could be due to a depreciation of perceived value, quality, etc. It may, then, be beneficial to build a strong brand narrative around quality to keep the perceived value despite any future price fluctuations.
It is worth noting that the respondent finds the lens’s focal length most important in his decision-making process. Though data indicates a preference of the Sigma brand over a Nikon brand lens and a $1900 lens over an $1800 lens, the 24-70mm is still preferable over, say, a 28-300mm. If additional research reflects similar results, the retailer may want to consider ordering more 24-70mm lenses when purchasing additional inventory for the store.
As for targeting and messaging, the retailer can reach out to consumers and consumer segments with more relevant information — including specific attributes about products and services that they would be inclined to purchase. For example, a retailer might create a social media advertisement about an in-store deal on 24-70mm lenses to attract this (and similar) consumers.