Consumer Preferences for Repair Subsidy Design: Insights from an Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis

Abstract

This study examines how consumers evaluate alternative designs of repair subsidies for professional repair services. Using an Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint (ACBC) survey with 972 participants in Austria, we estimate the relative importance of key subsidy attributes–funding level, maximum payout, cost coverage, application and payment procedure, number of applications, source of funds, and participating repair stores-—and derive part-worth utilities for each level. We also assess preference heterogeneity through segmentation and examine whether observed differences are associated with respondent characteristics and prior program experience. Funding level is the most influential attribute, but convenience-related design features, especially application and payment modalities, and perceived legitimacy, reflected in the source of funds, are nearly as decisive. Cluster analysis reveals three distinct preference segments: (1) financially oriented consumers, prioritizing generous support and high payout caps; (2) source-sensitive consumers, strongly preferring manufacturer-financed schemes over tax-based financing; and (3) process-oriented consumers, placing greatest weight on simple, low-effort procedures and immediate benefits. Prior experience with the Austrian program is associated with less negative evaluations of application-based procedures, suggesting that non-users may overestimate administrative burdens. Overall, the results imply that effective repair subsidies should combine meaningful financial support with low-friction access and clear communication that reduces misperceptions and uncertainty.