The Challenge

As my company partnered with vendors to install public EV charging stations, leadership began exploring whether adding our branding to those chargers would increase usage. The hypothesis was simple: customers trust our brand, and that trust might influence their charging behavior. We had strong customer satisfaction scores and brand affinity, but it wasn’t clear if those metrics would translate into behavioral change. 

Branding these chargers wasn’t free. Vendors charged a fee to display our logo, and leadership wanted to ensure that any branding investment would yield a measurable return. Specifically, would customers go out of their way to use a branded charger over other available options? Before moving forward, we needed to know whether branding was actually a key driver of customer choice or whether other factors like location, price, or convenience carried more weight. 

Our Approach
We chose conjoint analysis, a research method specifically designed to reveal how customers make tradeoffs in realistic scenarios. After confirming we had a statistically valid sample size, we designed a custom conjoint study to evaluate how people prioritize key factors when choosing a public charger. Rather than directly asking, “Would you prefer a branded charger?”, we gave respondents simulated charging scenarios. Each scenario presented a choice between options that varied in:  

• 
  Branding
• 
  Location
• 
  Price
• 
  Distance
• 
  Renewable energy sourcing

By analyzing their selections, we could determine the relative importance of each factor, including whether branding made a meaningful difference. 
Why Conjoint Analysis?
Conjoint analysis simulates real world decision making by requiring respondents to weigh competing factors. It’s widely used in pricing, product design, and brand preference research across industries from transportation and energy to tech and retail. That said, executing a valid conjoint requires time, experience, and a lot of people to survey. Poorly designed studies can create false confidence and bad decisions. In this case, we addressed several unique methodological challenges: Key Research Challenges and Solutions 
1. Controlling for Tesla Network Bias
The Problem: Tesla drivers heavily favor their Supercharger network, which could skew results.
The Fix: We framed the study scenarios so Superchargers were not available, forcing Tesla owners to choose among alternative public chargers. 2. Setting a Realistic Battery Threshold
The Problem: If the simulated battery level was too high, choices were hypothetical. Too low, and respondents would choose the nearest charger regardless of other features.
The Fix: Based on pretesting, we used 50 miles of remaining range, low enough to create urgency but high enough to make a logical decision. We also screened out vehicles with total ranges under 100 miles to make 50 a realistic decision point. 3. Standardizing Price Terminology
The Problem: Customers view pricing in different ways including by the kWh, per minute, and per mile. Leading to inconsistent interpretations.
The Fix: We standardized cost as “price per 50 miles of charge,” which all drivers could relate to. We also controlled for charge speed to eliminate another potential variable. Why This Matters
Conjoint analysis, when done correctly, reveals how people make actual choices, not just what they say matters. By controlling for assumptions, biases, and inconsistent interpretations, we ensured that:  

• 
  Respondents interpreted scenarios consistently
• 
  Behavior was modeled as closely as possible to real-world conditions
• 
  Leadership could trust the results to guide business decisions

This same methodology could be used for evaluating product features, pricing tiers, or service bundles in any industry. 
Key Findings
The analysis was clear: price was by far the dominant factor in decision making. Branding, by contrast, had minimal influence. Even other considerations such as renewable energy sourcing ranked below price, location, and convenience. Customers weren’t choosing chargers based on the logo. They were choosing based on what was easiest, closest, and cheapest. The Solution
Based on these results, the recommendation was simple: don’t invest in charger branding. It wouldn’t significantly influence behavior, and the ROI just wasn’t there. More importantly, the study surfaced broader operational concerns:  

• 
  Some vendors reported vandalism tied to branded chargers
• 
  Customers might associate equipment failures with our brand, even when we weren’t responsible
• 
  Branding could introduce confusion about ownership, liability, or uptime expectations

This wasn’t a failure. It was a success in knowing when to stop. Research showed that branding would not deliver value and might even create risk. 
Impact
Thanks to a strong research approach, we avoided a costly branding decision that would have created minimal benefit. We preserved budget, protected brand equity, and left room for more strategically aligned opportunities down the road. This case demonstrates a key truth across industries: Research isn’t just about pushing ideas forward. Sometimes, its greatest value is in knowing when to walk away.    

Are you trying to make a business case with incomplete data—or struggling to know when a good idea might not be the right fit?

 If you need help separating intuition from insight or pressure-testing an initiative before it costs you time and budget, I’d be glad to help. Let’s talk about how rigorous research can keep your next decision on track.