An example using the Conjoint Market Simulator to explore product changes for a laundry detergent brand based on 363 responses.
The Research Question
A brand manager at PureBloom is preparing for a line review. Their detergent currently sells in Liquid format, Lavender Mist scent, at $12.49. They want to know three things:
- How does their current product perform against the competitive set?
- What would happen if they dropped price?
- Is there a better product configuration they should consider?
Before running simulator scenarios, the analyst reviews the ZCD chart and table outputs to understand the preference landscape.
ZCD output: Understanding the preference landscape
The table below shows the full ZCD, Importance, and Relative Importance output from the study:
| Attribute | Level | Zero-Centered Difference | Importance | Relative Importance |
| Brand | EverClean | 22.27 | 124.24 | 31.06% |
| Brand | PureBloom | 3.19 | ||
| Brand | Store Brand | -3.23 | ||
| Brand | SwiftWash | -22.23 | ||
| Price | $8.99 | 13.68 | 95.88 | 23.97% |
| Price | $12.49 | 10.28 | ||
| Price | $15.99 | -4.02 | ||
| Price | $19.49 | -19.94 | ||
| Format | Concentrated | 5.27 | 91.62 | 22.91% |
| Format | Liquid | -1.92 | ||
| Format | Single-Use Pods | -3.35 | ||
| Scent | Fresh Linen | 13.16 | 88.26 | 22.07% |
| Scent | Lavender Mist | 4.32 | ||
| Scent | Fragrance-Free | -17.48 |
Key pre-simulation observations:
- Brand is the most important attribute (31.06%), but all four attributes sit within a 9-point band of each other (22.07%–31.06%), meaning no single attribute dominates. This is a highly competitive, multi-dimensional category. EverClean holds a strong brand advantage (ZCD: 22.27 vs. PureBloom's 3.19).
- Price sensitivity is asymmetric, and the penalty for high prices is steep (−19.94 at $19.49) while the reward for low prices is moderate (13.68 at $8.99). Fresh Linen is the clear scent preference, and Fragrance-Free carries significant negative preference (−17.48).
Step 1: Set up the baseline competitive scenario
The analyst populates the simulator with a realistic shelf set that includes the products a shopper would actually encounter in-store:
The simulator returns the following results:
| Alternative | Configuration | Share of Preference | First Choice |
| 1 | EverClean / Fresh Linen / Liquid / $12.49 | 31% | 27% |
| 2 (PureBloom) | Lavender Mist / Liquid / $12.49 | 16% | 13% |
| 3 | SwiftWash / Fresh Linen / Liquid / $9.99 | 18% | 15% |
| 4 | Store Brand / Fragrance-Free / Liquid / $8.99 | 9% | 7% |
| 5 | EverClean Concentrated / Fragrance-Free / $15.99 | 8% | 6% |
| None | None of these | 18% | 32% |
|
Insight from baseline: EverClean is the clear preference leader consistent with its high ZCD (22.27) and top Brand importance score. PureBloom trails by 15 points on Share of Preference despite being at price parity, confirming that the gap is driven by brand equity, not price. The high 'None' First Choice share (32%) signals that a meaningful segment of shoppers is not well-served by the current shelf set — potentially an opportunity for a better-configured product. |
Step 2: Price sensitivity test
The PureBloom brand manager asks: what happens if we drop to $9.99? The analyst changes only Alternative 2's price, using the simulator's price interpolation to test $1 increments between the anchor points.
| PureBloom Price | Share of Preference | First Choice | Change vs. Baseline |
| $12.49 (baseline) | 16% | 13% | — |
| $11.49 | 18% | 15% | +2 pts |
| $10.49 | 20% | 17% | +4 pts |
| $9.99 | 22% | 19% | +6 pts |
The analyst also tracks where PureBloom's gained share is coming from:
| Alternative | Baseline Share | Share at PureBloom $9.99 | Change |
| EverClean / $12.49 | 31% | 29% | -2 pts |
| PureBloom / $9.99 | 16% | 22% | +6 pts |
| SwiftWash / $9.99 | 18% | 13% | -5 pts |
| Store Brand / $8.99 | 9% | 8% | -1 pt |
| EverClean Concentrated / $15.99 | 8% | 8% | 0 pts |
| None | 18% | 20% | +2 pts |
|
Insight: Dropping from $12.49 to $9.99 recovers 6 share points for PureBloom, but the gains come primarily from SwiftWash (−5 pts), not from EverClean (−2 pts). This is consistent with the ZCD data: PureBloom (3.19) and SwiftWash (−22.23) occupy very different brand positions, but at similar price points they compete for the same value-conscious shoppers. Price-cutting attracts value switchers, not EverClean loyalists. Whether a $2.50 price reduction is worth a 6-point share gain is a margin question the researcher flags for the client. |
Step 3: Format Innovation Test
Format has an importance score of 91.62 (22.91%), and Concentrated holds the highest ZCD within the attribute (5.27 vs. −1.92 for Liquid and −3.35 for Single-Use Pods). The analyst asks: what if PureBloom switched from Liquid to Concentrated format at the same $12.49 price point?
| PureBloom Configuration | Share of Preference | First Choice |
| Lavender Mist / Liquid / $12.49 (current) | 16% | 13% |
| Lavender Mist / Concentrated / $12.49 | 18% | 15% |
| Fresh Linen / Concentrated / $12.49 | 21% | 18% |
|
Insight: Switching to Concentrated adds 2 share points at no price change. This is a modest but margin-friendly improvement. Combining the format change with a scent switch from Lavender Mist (ZCD: 4.32) to Fresh Linen (ZCD: 13.16) adds a further 3 points, for a total gain of 5 points from reconfiguration alone, without touching price. The ZCD gap between Fresh Linen and Lavender Mist (8.84 points) makes scent reformulation one of the more actionable levers available to PureBloom. |
Step 4: Finding the optimal configuration
The analyst now tests PureBloom's theoretically best combination by taking the highest-ZCD level from each attribute (Fresh Linen, Concentrated, $8.99) to establish an upper-bound benchmark:
| PureBloom Configuration | Share of Preference | First Choice |
| Lavender Mist / Liquid / $12.49 (current) | 16% | 13% |
| Fresh Linen / Concentrated / $12.49 | 21% | 18% |
| Fresh Linen / Concentrated / $9.99 | 26% | 22% |
| Fresh Linen / Concentrated / $8.99 (upper bound) | 29% | 25% |
|
Insight: An optimized PureBloom configuration at $8.99 would approach EverClean's baseline share of 31%, closing a 15-point gap to within 2 points. However, this scenario requires both a format change and a $3.50 price reduction simultaneously. These are two major business decisions with different cost implications. The analyst presents this as an upper-bound scenario, not a standalone recommendation, and notes that a phased approach (scent/format first, then price) may be more commercially realistic. |
Step 5: Cannibalization check
The brand manager also manages EverClean (hypothetically, same company). They need to know: if PureBloom launches at $9.99 with Fresh Linen / Concentrated, does it cannibalize EverClean?
| Alternative | Baseline Share | PureBloom Optimized ($9.99) | Change |
| EverClean / Fresh Linen / Liquid / $12.49 | 31% | 27% | -4 pts |
| PureBloom / Fresh Linen / Concentrated / $9.99 | 16% | 26% | +10 pts |
| SwiftWash / Fresh Linen / Liquid / $9.99 | 18% | 10% | -8 pts |
| Store Brand / Fragrance-Free / Liquid / $8.99 | 9% | 8% | -1 pt |
| EverClean Concentrated / $15.99 | 8% | 7% | -1 pt |
| None | 18% | 22% | +4 pts |
|
Insight: PureBloom's optimized configuration gains 10 share points, but 8 of those come from SwiftWash and only 4 from EverClean. The combined portfolio (EverClean + PureBloom) moves from 47% to 53% share, which is a net positive for the brand family. The cannibalization that does occur is concentrated in EverClean's lower-engagement shoppers, not its core loyalists (who have strong positive brand utility and are unlikely to defect on format or scent alone). |
The Research Deliverable
From these simulator runs, grounded in the ZCD data, the analyst distills the following findings for the client presentation:
|
Finding 1: PureBloom's primary vulnerability is brand equity, not format or scent. Even at price parity, EverClean leads by 15 share points. Brand is the highest-importance attribute (31.06%), and EverClean's ZCD advantage (22.27 vs. PureBloom's 3.19) is the largest level-to-level gap in the study. Reconfiguring format and scent closes only about 5 points of that gap. The remaining gap requires either price investment or longer-term brand-building. |
|
Finding 2: Price is PureBloom's most powerful short-term lever, but it targets value switchers, not EverClean loyalists. Dropping to $9.99 recovers 6 share points, and share gains come primarily from SwiftWash (−5 pts) rather than EverClean (−2 pts). The price ZCD curve is asymmetric: the penalty at $19.49 (−19.94) is far steeper than the reward at $8.99 (13.68), confirming that avoiding high prices matters more than aggressively pursuing low prices. |
|
Finding 3: A scent reformulation to Fresh Linen is the most margin-friendly improvement available. Fresh Linen (ZCD: 13.16) outperforms Lavender Mist (ZCD: 4.32) by 8.84 ZCD points within the Scent attribute. Combined with a Concentrated format switch, this reconfiguration adds 5 share points at no price change — making it the highest return-on-investment product change available without a pricing commitment. |
|
Finding 4: The high "None" opt-out rate represents an unmet need worth investigating. 32% of respondents chose 'None of these' as their First Choice in the baseline scenario. The strongly negative ZCD for Fragrance-Free (−17.48) suggests this level is actively disliked by the majority, which may be driving opt-out behavior among fragrance-sensitive shoppers who don't find a suitable alternative on the current shelf. Segmentation analysis is recommended to determine whether a distinct Fragrance-Free segment exists with different attribute priorities. |
|
Finding 5: The four attributes are unusually balanced in importance, requiring a whole-bundle approach to optimization. Relative importance spans a narrow 9-point range (22.07%–31.06%) across all four attributes. No single attribute dominates consumer choice. This means that product optimization requires coordinated decisions across brand positioning, pricing, format, and scent — rather than focusing on any one dimension in isolation. It also means that competitors cannot easily neutralize PureBloom's gains by responding on only one attribute. |
A Note on Interpretation
All simulated share figures are directional estimates, not market share forecasts. The simulator operates in a closed world that does not reflect the full competitive market. With 363 respondents, share differences smaller than approximately 3–5 percentage points should be interpreted with caution. The value of the simulator lies in comparing scenarios against each other and identifying the levers most likely to drive meaningful change, and not in the absolute share numbers themselves.