Ford Ka Analysis (with R Software)
FORD Ka (B) Case:
1) After using the similarity data provided for the Ford Ka market research study to perform a MDS analysis on the whole sample, the map (exhibit 1) shows the position of the different cars relative to each other. We can see two groups: one of them made of Peugeot 106, Ford Fiesta and Opel Corsa (practical and safe cars), the other one made of Nissan Micra and Fiat 500 (dull and outdated cars). The other cars cannot be grouped together but there are all the same similarities between cars in the light of the two dimensions: it allows us for example to see similarity concerning the second dimension between Toyota Rav 4 and VW Polo.
It is important here to keep in mind that it is an analysis on the WHOLE sample, it is the reason why the two dimensions cannot be easily labeled. The first dimension (coordinate 1) shows us if the car is considered as more and less youthful by the respondents. Indeed by using the adjectives associated with each car by "Ka Choosers" and "Non-Choosers" provided in the preliminary report we can see that there is no crucial difference concerning this aspect. But for the second dimension it is not that easy because it does not seem to have a consensus and so I decided to not label this dimension. In this case the fact that the MDS analysis does not distinguish between the "Choosers" and "Non-Choosers" makes more complicated the naming of the coordinate 2, even if it allows us to see which cars are close to each other or not, according to all respondents.
2) To see more clearly we need to differentiate the MDS between "Ka Choosers" and "Non-Choosers". The two maps provided by this analysis are not exactly the same (see exhibit 2), but they solve the issue of the coordinate 2. Indeed concerning the first dimension there is almost no difference: the "Choosers" and "Non-Choosers" have a similar perception of "youthful" of a car. The difference between the two maps is due to the second dimension which is not the same if you
1) After using the similarity data provided for the Ford Ka market research study to perform a MDS analysis on the whole sample, the map (exhibit 1) shows the position of the different cars relative to each other. We can see two groups: one of them made of Peugeot 106, Ford Fiesta and Opel Corsa (practical and safe cars), the other one made of Nissan Micra and Fiat 500 (dull and outdated cars). The other cars cannot be grouped together but there are all the same similarities between cars in the light of the two dimensions: it allows us for example to see similarity concerning the second dimension between Toyota Rav 4 and VW Polo.
It is important here to keep in mind that it is an analysis on the WHOLE sample, it is the reason why the two dimensions cannot be easily labeled. The first dimension (coordinate 1) shows us if the car is considered as more and less youthful by the respondents. Indeed by using the adjectives associated with each car by "Ka Choosers" and "Non-Choosers" provided in the preliminary report we can see that there is no crucial difference concerning this aspect. But for the second dimension it is not that easy because it does not seem to have a consensus and so I decided to not label this dimension. In this case the fact that the MDS analysis does not distinguish between the "Choosers" and "Non-Choosers" makes more complicated the naming of the coordinate 2, even if it allows us to see which cars are close to each other or not, according to all respondents.
2) To see more clearly we need to differentiate the MDS between "Ka Choosers" and "Non-Choosers". The two maps provided by this analysis are not exactly the same (see exhibit 2), but they solve the issue of the coordinate 2. Indeed concerning the first dimension there is almost no difference: the "Choosers" and "Non-Choosers" have a similar perception of "youthful" of a car. The difference between the two maps is due to the second dimension which is not the same if you