MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE WOOD-CONCRETE PRODUCT MARKET RESEARCH

University of Northern British Columbia

Wood Concrete Marketing

PRELIMINARY SHORT SURVEY:

When: Spring 2009

Where: the National Green Builders Products

Expo in Las Vegas

Who: 46 Industrial (e.g., home builders and

designers) and Professional (e.g., home

contractors and renovators) consumers

How: conduct a short survey about MPBWCP at

the trade booth.

Why: to solicit maximum green industry

feedback on Wood Concrete products

PRELIMINARY SHORT SURVEY (CONT’D)

Findings (a 7 point scale: 1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree):

I think MPBWCP (Mountain Pine beetle Wood Concrete Product) is a

marketable product: mean = 5.06

I think MPBWCP is an environmentally friendly product: mean = 5.17

I think MPBWCP is an economically sustainable product for

communities: mean = 4.90

I would switch from my usual brands and buy MPBWCP: mean = 3.79

I would often compare package label information about the

environmental friendliness of the MPBWCP: mean = 4.88

I would often compare package label information about the economic

community sustainability of the MPBWCP: mean = 4.69

PRELIMINARY SHORT SURVEY (CONT’D)

Findings (a 7 point scale: 1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree):

I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP: mean =

3.51

I would pay attention to advertisements about MPBWCP: mean

= 5.22

How willing would you be to pay for MPBWCP? (Check mark the

premium or discount in percent: 1= -15%, 7= +15%): mean =

0-5%

Average age: 39.9

Average income: $249,642

PHASE I: FOCUS GROUPS

When: Fall 2009

Where: Vancouver, Prince George, and Los Angeles

Who: Randomly recruited 76 participants of Industrial

consumers (e.g., home builders and designers),

Professional consumers (e.g., home contractors and

renovators), do-it-yourself home renovators, and

environmental organizations

How: 12 focus groups by a marketing research firm

Why: To explore reactions to Wood Concrete, a product

derived from the combination of concrete with wood

that has been destroyed by the pine beetle 

PHASE I: FOCUS GROUPS (RESULTS)

General perception: Most participants were very

positively responded to this product. However,

industrial/professional consumers wanted to know more

about its technical specs.

Greenness: It has green properties such as employing an

otherwise unusable component. However, there is

skepticism because of the energy used to produce

concrete.

Potential applications: flooring or patio tiles, garden

blocks, countertops, and furniture

Pricing: People might consider this product if it were 10%

higher or lower than what it is replacing 

PHASE I: SHORT SURVEY

When: Fall 2009

Where: Vancouver, Prince George, and Los Angeles

Who: Randomly recruited 219 participants of

Industrial consumers (e.g., home builders and

designers), Professional consumers (e.g., home

contractors and renovators), do-it-yourself home

renovators, and environmental organizations

How: conduct an online survey (after watching a

video clip about MPBWCP)

Why: To explore detailed reactions to Wood Concrete  

PHASE I: SHORT SURVEY (RESULTS)

a 7 point scale: 1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree):

I think MPBWCP (Mountain Pine beetle Wood Concrete Product) is a

marketable product: mean = 6.05 (mean = 5.06)

I think MPBWCP is an environmentally friendly product: mean =

5.80 (mean = 5.17)

I think MPBWCP is an economically sustainable product for

communities: mean = 5.73 (mean = 4.90)

I would switch from my usual brands and buy MPBWCP: mean =

5.12 (mean = 3.79)

I would often compare package label information about the

environmental friendliness of the MPBWCP: mean = 5.45 (mean

= 4.88)

PHASE I: SHORT SURVEY (CONT’D)

I would often compare package label information about the economic

community sustainability of the MPBWCP: mean = 5.30 (mean = 4.69)

I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP: mean = 4.71

(mean = 3.51)

I would pay attention to advertisements about MPBWCP: mean = 5.80

(mean = 5.22)

How willing would you be to pay for MPBWCP? (Check mark the premium

or discount in percent: 1= -15%, 7= +15%): mean = 0-5% (mean = 0-5%)

Average age: 47.34 (39.9)

Median income: $70,000-$80,000 ($249,642)

City: PG (42), Vancouver (108), LA (69)

Segment: Industrial consumers (67), Professional consumers (50), DIY

consumers (51), Environmental Groups (51)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS

When: Spring 2010

Where: Vancouver, Prince George, and Los Angeles

Who: Randomly recruited 151 participants of do-it-yourself

home consumers

Why: To explore consumers’ attitudes toward product attributes

(e.g., price level, color, wood chip size, green certification, and

location of production) of three major applications (countertops,

floor tiles, and garden blocks) suggested by focus groups

 How: Provided participants with 20 product bundles (with

different levels of product attributes) for each of the three

applications and asked them to rate each bundle according to

their preference on a 1-100 scale. 

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (CONT’D)

Each label depicts a different bundle of five attributes (each attribute has two or three levels):Relative price (low/moderate/high)Colour (bright/natural/dark)Wood chip size (small/mixed/large)Green certification (yes/no)Location of production (locally/N.A./abroad)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (CONT’D)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS)

General preference toward attributes: Location of production is

rated as the most important attribute. Green certification is rated

as the least important attribute.

 

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS)

Five segments based on preference (Countertops)

 

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS)

Five segments based on preference (Floor tiles)

 

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS)

Five segments based on preference (Garden blocks)

 

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS)

Relative Importance of Attributes (Countertops)

 

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS)

Relative Importance of Attributes (Floor tiles)

 

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS)

Relative Importance of Attributes (Garden Blocks)

 

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS)

Rank of Attributes (Countertops)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS)

Rank of Attributes (Floor Tiles)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS)

Rank of Attributes (Garden Blocks)