Have a CBC with alternative specific design. Looking to compare sets of features (BASIC and PREMIUM). There are 4 options on each task, 2 BASIC (in positions 1 and 2) and 2 PREMIUM (in positions 3 and 4).
The alternative specific design comes in because the prices for BASIC are different than the prices for PREMIUM. Same with an additional subscription price. So we will have 5 attributes but only showing each option with only 3 pieces of information: BASIC or PREMIUM, a base price, and a subscription price.
So far so good. We start to run into a little trouble because a lot of the prices and subscriptions overlap between BASIC and PREMIUM. Meaning that we will get a lot of BASIC options that cost more than PREMIUM options (the interplay between base price and subscription sometimes counterbalances but sometimes both cost more for the BASIC). We don't want to waste people's time by providing obvious choices so we have put in prohibitions for some of these combinations - but not all. By the same token in several cases, respondents will see 1 BASIC option being obviously cheaper than the second BASIC option - the choice between the 2 BASIC options presented to them is then easy but they still have to compare and choose versus the 2 PREMIUM options on the page.
I wanted to ask if having a few of the options presented be 'obvious' choices would detrimentally affect the utilities. I wouldn't think so, but wanted to confirm. At the end of the day, want to have my simulator allow me to configure a BASIC and a PREMIUM product each with a base price and subscription price in the market and tell me share of each - vs. none.