Which factors survive the trade-off?
An anonymized, illustrative design for understanding what buyers say matters, what they trade off, and how a rival response may change the choice.
Research partnership
ETK is NOMAS’s research partner. Brand Compass™, Distances Matrix™ and Triple-Helix™ are ETK methodologies, attributed to ETK—not presented as inventions of NOMAS.
Four questions sales history cannot answer by itself
The study frames the questions—not observed answers—as: who is considering the next vehicle; which specifications they will pay for; how a rival’s price move may alter choice; and where potential buyers and value could sit under explicit assumptions.
Next-vehicle buyer
Specification trade-offs
Competitor response
Potential buyers and value
Source / figure note: ETK automotive illustrative report, p.2; ETK automotive HTML report, “The decision at stake.” Rationale only; no sales, buyer incidence, price estimate or forecast is presented as a finding.
The ranking changes as the question changes
The source uses ETK’s Triple-Helix™ framing to distinguish stated importance, forced trade-offs and a modelled predictive ordering. Ranks describe an ordinal order only; the source provides no factor percentages.
Cognitive · stated importance
What buyers say matters when asked directly; a rank, not a percentage share.
- 1Driving range
- 2Purchase price
- 3Charging speed
- 4Brand standing
- 5Interior technology
- 6Resale value
Behavioural · repeated trade-offs
What moves under forced-choice trade-offs; arrows show movement in rank versus stated order.
- 1Brand standing · up 3
- 2Resale value · up 4
- 3Purchase price · down 1
- 4Driving range · down 3
- 5Interior technology · unchanged
- 6Charging speed · down 3
Predictive · after rival response
The ordering shown by the source when competitor responses are modelled.
- 1Resale value · up 1
- 2Brand standing · down 1
- 3Service network · new factor
- 4Purchase price · down 1
- 5Driving range · down 1
- 6Interior technology · down 1
Source and reading note: ETK, anonymized automotive illustrative report, “Triple-Helix” figure, p.4. Rankings are synthetic. The source names five markets and nine geographies separately; these are not a sample-size claim and should not be conflated.
Illustrative interpretation: driving range moves from rank 1 stated to rank 4 in trade-offs; resale value moves from rank 6 stated to rank 1 in the predictive layer. This is not an observed finding about Gulf buyers.
Source / figure note: ETK automotive illustrative report, p.4; ETK automotive HTML report, “Triple-Helix”. Cognitive, behavioural and predictive values are ranks, not shares or market percentages.
Qualitative discovery → integrated choice modelling → qualitative confirmation
The three phases connect vocabulary and hypotheses to one quantitative instrument, then return to people to check whether the model’s segments make sense.
Discover · qualitative
Mini-groups and interviews in each market, grouped around the vehicle body type participants intend to buy next. Their own buying language and hypotheses inform the survey.
Measure · quantitative
The proposed programme combines segmentation, choice-based conjoint and a market-sizing framework on the same respondents. The sources state five markets and nine geographies but provide no defensible respondent count.
Confirm · qualitative
A follow-up qualitative wave recruits people into the modelled segments to assess whether the segments are recognisable and useful in practice.
When segments are defined by attitudes versus choice trade-offs
Schematic only: conventional attitude clusters can look distinct yet show similar sensitivity; latent-class CBC estimates segments and utilities jointly from choice data. No numeric utilities, segment sizes, prices or observed outcomes are supplied.
Conventional · similar response
Latent-class CBC · varied response
| Approach | What the report illustrates |
|---|---|
| Attitude-based clustering | Several portraits may have near-identical trade-off curves. |
| Latent-class choice-based conjoint | The source contrasts more divergent synthetic price-response patterns by segment. |
Source / figure note: ETK, automotive illustrative report, p.7 and ETK automotive HTML report, section “The first choice, shown.” Curves are qualitative/synthetic; axes have no numeric units, utility values or prices.
Brand Compass™
ETK positioning framework: factor analysis, TwoStep cluster analysis, correspondence analysis and ETK’s proprietary penetration measure to explore positioning and whitespace.
Distances Matrix™
ETK method combining modified correspondence analysis with driver regression to examine brand perceptions alongside perceptions of users.
Bayesian competitor-response model
The source describes modelling competitor response with stated uncertainty. It is a partner capability within a commissioned study—not a live simulator on this website.
Source / figure note: ETK automotive report, p.6; ETK automotive HTML methodology. Brand Compass™ and Distances Matrix™ are ETK methods; the research report describes scenario tools as a partner capability.
Source / figure note: ETK automotive illustrative report, pp.5–8; ETK automotive HTML report, programme architecture and analytical core. “CAPI” and the nine-geography framing are source descriptions, not a verified sample size.
Evidence can inform six decisions; leadership still decides
- 01Specification and trim: which configuration is worth testing for which segment?
- 02Pricing by segment: where might price hold, and what needs validation?
- 03Competitor response: consider rival changes without presenting a point forecast.
- 04Volume and revenue planning under explicit client assumptions—not actual sales.
- 05Positioning and communication: explore open territory and brand–user image gaps.
- 06Market prioritisation: direct further research toward addressable audiences, not population totals.
Source / figure note: ETK automotive report, p.9; ETK automotive HTML report, “What it puts within reach.” Decisions supported by a proposed study, not completed work or promised outcomes.
Start with the question your evidence needs to answer.
These examples are not client outcomes. A real engagement begins with your context, scope and evidence needs.