Phlished Survey???

[Wardy]

I got it and because of my postcode it went to the next step - silly really so I gave some pretty silly answers - I was jumping between any membership that had guarnateed grandfinal tickets and parking included - some of the scenarios were hilarious!! (although I reckon everyone would like for the membership to be tax deductible!) it was very badly worded though - my closing comments were "this is rubbish"

[cruiser]

I hated the survey. Took ages, too much to read in all those package options and I very nearly clicked on that cross up in the top right hand corner of my computer a couple of times. Likewise, how the hell can I even guess how many AFL games I watched on TV last year.

[AnnieH]

I spoke to the lady at the swans member office yesterday whilst I was picking up tickets for GS14 and his family ... I mentioned how some people doing the survey got redirected to emailcash; and some people sat through the 20 minutes of crap. She said that in the first three hours there were over 500 responses, and the first questions are designed as a filter. She encouraged me to fill it out.
I told her that I wasn't going to, as I'm happy with the membership package I have now. The membership packages don't need to be tweeked.

[Zlatorog]

That survey was crap. I didn't like the coice of memberships. Very difficult to compare between them. Wouldn't be easier to just check what is more important to us instead of showing us different packages with very little relevance to what we really want.

[Wardy]

the whole Idea was to pin point the common denominator of what people wanted, but were they prepared to pay for it.? Whilst the packages were over the top and out of whack/proportion they would be able to see a trend in certain "wants" that people chose out of all packages on offer. So whilst I kept picking packages with "grandfinal guarantee" they could cost $100 - or $2000 - that was my common thing. But when it came to buying the package I'd say "no" so whilst I wanted GF guarantee I wasnt going to pay some overly inflated cost for the promise when you consider that you still had to purchase the ticket. God only knows what result they will get - Keen to see whats on offer next year.

[reigning premier]

What an absolutely appalling survey. And when I tried to tell them at the end exactly what was wrong with it, I was told that I couldn't use more than 500 characters and had to try again.

There's a surprise Liz... You using 786 words when 23 would of done the job just as well....

[AussieAnge]

I emailed the club to see who comissioned the survey. They responded that it is a genuine request but wasn't sent out the way they wanted it to (they didn't elaborate).

[Legs Akimbo]

the whole Idea was to pin point the common denominator of what people wanted, but were they prepared to pay for it.? Whilst the packages were over the top and out of whack/proportion they would be able to see a trend in certain "wants" that people chose out of all packages on offer. So whilst I kept picking packages with "grandfinal guarantee" they could cost $100 - or $2000 - that was my common thing. But when it came to buying the package I'd say "no" so whilst I wanted GF guarantee I wasnt going to pay some overly inflated cost for the promise when you consider that you still had to purchase the ticket. God only knows what result they will get - Keen to see whats on offer next year.

In theory, they will see that you have placed a high utility on grand final tickets, but that you are not going to buy the package at the prices tested. The reality is of course, that they won't see 'your' response at all, only what the modelled utility values for each package attribute and level. From that they will estimate the potential uptake across permissable combinations of attribute levels and thereby determine what are the optimal packages to offer.

IMHO, yhey would have been better off doing a choice model rather than a conjoint, - choice modelling allows a 'none of these' option together with the options given. Anyway, like I said, a poorly designed conjoint study by the people at TNS. They should know better.

[Wardy]

In theory, they will see that you have placed a high utility on grand final tickets, but that you are not going to buy the package at the prices tested. The reality is of course, that they won't see 'your' response at all, only what the modelled utility values for each package attribute and level. From that they will estimate the potential uptake across permissable combinations of attribute levels and thereby determine what are the optimal packages to offer.

IMHO, yhey would have been better off doing a choice model rather than a conjoint, - choice modelling allows a 'none of these' option together with the options given. Anyway, like I said, a poorly designed conjoint study by the people at TNS. They should know better.

you have a very good point - perhaps a mix n match package might be an option. Pay a higher price but get exactly what you want without the fluff items that they throw in supposedly.