For each individual the option with greatest appeal determines choice.
So how can the most popular option be the least generally appealing, and the most unpopular option be the most generally appealing?
Here's one example of how:
OPTION APPEAL
Cases
A
B
C
Choice
1
45
-35
40
A
2
45
-35
40
A
3
45
-35
40
A
4
45
-35
40
A
5
45
-35
40
A
6
45
-35
40
A
7
-75
50
40
B
8
-75
50
40
B
9
-75
50
40
B
10
-75
50
40
B
Average appeal
-3
-1
40
12
Share of choice
60%
40%
0%
100%
The appeal scale here ranges from, say, +100 to -100.
Positive ratings show the degree of attractiveness and
negative ratings the degree of unattractiveness. A rating
of zero would indicate indifference.
While A is the most popular choice its average appeal is actually negative. Also negative is the appeal of B, which has the second largest share of choice. While across-the-board appeal of C is substantially positive, it is not chosen by anyone.
From, say, a government policy view, wanting a rule that applies to everyone, C is most likely to be generally acceptable. No sub-group is likely to strongly oppose its adoption which would probably happen if A or B were chosen.
From a marketing view, separate targeting of A and B, or sequential targeting of A then B, would most likely yield maximum appeal and gain maximum share. Adoption of C would leave open segmentable opportunities for competitors.
