Влияние маркетинговых стимулов на потребителя
Введение
потребитель маркетинговый стимул
Актуальность темы исследования. Изучению потребителей
отводится важное место в маркетинговой науке и практике. Фирмы вкладывают
значительные ресурсы в исследования особенностей восприятия и оценки
потребителями рыночных предложений, а также их поведения на рынке. Понимание
данных аспектов позволяет фирмам предпринимать стратегические и тактические
действия, обладающие большей убедительностью для потребителей и, как следствие,
большей эффективностью для самой фирмы. Потребители, подобно фирмам, также
накапливают информацию и знания о рынке и механизмах его функционирования через
личный опыт взаимодействия с рынком, средства массовой информации или другие
источники. При этом имеющиеся у потребителей знания об используемых фирмами
инструментах воздействия во многом определяют последующую реакцию потребителей
на маркетинговые стимулы и поэтому представляют непосредственный интерес как с
практической, так и с теоретической точки зрения.
Исследователями было неоднократно доказано, что потребители,
обладающие различным объемом и содержанием знаний об используемых фирмами
маркетинговых инструментах воздействия, по-разному реагируют на маркетинговые
стимулы, с которыми они сталкиваются на рынке. В частности, при контакте с маркетинговым
стимулом реакция потребителя на данный стимул будет обусловлена тем,
воспринимает ли потребитель его как намеренную попытку воздействия со стороны
фирмы, или, выражаясь иначе, осознает ли он воздействие маркетингового стимула.
Осознание воздействия маркетингового стимула влечёт за собой изменение реакции
потребителя на данный стимул.
Особый интерес представляет собой изучение роли осознания
потребителями воздействия со стороны фирмы при взаимодействии с маркетинговыми
стимулами, которые потенциально могут ввести потребителя в заблуждение. Феномен
«введение в заблуждение» имеет место тогда, когда представления потребителей о
том, «как должно быть» не сходятся с тем, «как есть» в действительности.
Примером маркетинговой тактики, которая может ввести потребителя в заблуждение,
является уменьшение размера продукта (package downsizing). Данная тактика часто
используется фирмами, чтобы «скрыть» увеличение цены продукта: вместо открытого
увеличения цены за упаковку продукта, производители уменьшают количество
продукта в упаковке так, что цена за упаковку продукта остается на прежнем
уровне. При этом цена за единицу веса или объема продукта увеличивается.
Потребители в силу многих причин часто не обращают внимания на вес упаковки
продукта и не осознают того факта, что цена за единицу веса или объема продукта
увеличилась. Таким образом, они продолжает приобретать продукт, что,
несомненно, является благоприятным фактом для фирм, практикующих подобные
маркетинговые тактики, но неблагоприятно сказывается на благосостоянии самих
потребителей.
Однако потребители не находятся «в вакууме» и постоянно
накапливают знания о маркетинговых инструментах, используемых фирмами, на
основании собственного опыта или внешней информации. Таким образом, со временем
потребители в большей степени склонны осознавать воздействие на них
маркетинговых стимулов. В связи с этим представляется актуальным изучение того,
как осознание потребителями воздействия со стороны фирм влияет на реакцию
потребителя на различные маркетинговые стимулы и уменьшение размера продукта, в
частности.
Степень разработанности проблемы. Интерес к изучению
феномена осознания потребителями воздействия со стороны фирм постоянно
усиливается, что подтверждается растущим количеством исследований в данной
области. Существующие исследования затрагивают широкий спектр маркетинговых
стимулов, используемых в области рекламы, ценообразования, связей с
общественностью, прямых продаж, управления брендами, ритейл-маркетинга и др.
Исследования тактики уменьшения размера продукта (package downsizing)
представлены в крайне ограниченном количестве в академической литературе по
маркетингу. Существуют исследования, в которых доказывается, что уменьшение
размера продукта оказывает позитивное влияние на прибыльность фирм. В то же
время, есть исследования, согласно которым уменьшение размера продукта может
иметь негативные последствия для фирм в условиях, когда потребители осознают,
что упаковка продукта была уменьшена, что проявляется в ухудшении репутации
фирмы в глазах потребителей, снижении покупательских намерений в отношении
продукта и распространении негативной информации о фирме, использовавшей данную
тактику. С учетом высокой актуальности вопроса для российского рынка, а также
его ограниченного развития в существующей литературе была сформулирована цель
исследования.
Целью исследования является изучение
влияния, которое оказывает осознание потребителем воздействия со стороны фирмы
на формирование реакции на уменьшение размера продукта в контексте российского
рынка.
Для достижения указанной цели были поставлены следующие задачи
исследования:
) Изучить сущность феномена «осознание воздействия» с
позиции существующих теорий потребительского поведения;
) Определить степень разработанности вопроса осознания
потребителями воздействия маркетинговых стимулов в контексте уменьшения размера
продукта;
) Эмпирически протестировать, как осознание
воздействия со стороны фирмы влияет на реакцию потребителя на уменьшение
размера продукта;
) Разработать практические рекомендации по применению
полученных в рамках исследования выводов в управленческой практике.
Объектом исследования является реакция
потребителей на уменьшение размера продукта.
Предметом исследования является роль осознания
воздействия маркетинговых стимулов в формировании реакции потребителя.
Структура исследования подчинена поставленным
задачам. В первой главе производится теоретический анализ феномена «осознание
воздействия» с позиции существующих теорий потребительского поведения. Во
второй главе определяется степень разработанности вопроса осознания
потребителями воздействия маркетинговых стимулов в контексте уменьшения размера
продукта, реализуется эмпирическое исследование и разрабатываются практические
рекомендации.
Теоретическую и методологическую базу
исследования составляют работы российских и зарубежных авторов в области теории
маркетинга, маркетинговых исследований, поведения потребителей и
поведенческой экономики. При проведении исследования используются общенаучные
методы познания и методы статистического анализа.
Информационная база исследования включает в себя
результаты экспериментального исследования потребителей.
Основные результаты работы. В данной работе
предпринята попытка рассмотреть феномен осознания потребителями воздействия
маркетинговых стимулов, объединив различные его аспекты в единый концептуальный
конструкт, а также систематизировать его факторы и последствия. Проведенный
обзор существующих исследований показал, что, когда потребитель интерпретирует
маркетинговый стимул как намеренно инициированную фирмой попытку воздействия,
то он, во-первых, более критически оценивает его, препятствуя тому, чтобы
маркетинговый стимул произвел «задуманный» эффект, и во-вторых, изменяет свои
оценочные суждения относительно связанных с попыткой воздействия продуктов или
фирм. Сформулированные на основании проведенного обзора литературы заключения
протестированы на примере тактики уменьшения размера продукта (package downsizing) в контексте российского
рынка. Результаты исследования демонстрируют, что уменьшение размера продукта
может быть выгодной с точки зрения сохранения продаж тактикой, но может
привести к репутационным потерям в условиях осознания потребителями воздействия
со стороны фирмы.
Теоретическая значимость исследования. На основании обзора
существующих теоретических и эмпирических работ, во-первых, раскрывает сущность
феномена осознания потребителем воздействия маркетинговых стимулов и,
во-вторых, обобщает факторы, обуславливающие возникновение феномена, и
последствия его возникновения для потребителей и фирм.
Практическая значимость исследования. С учетом выявленной в
работе значимости осознания потребителями воздействия маркетинговых стимулов
для функционирования фирм, представляется логичной и актуальной рекомендация
включить данный феномен в число изучаемых и постоянно контролируемых
показателей со стороны фирм.
1. Теоретические основы проблемы осознания
потребителем воздействия маркетинговых стимулов
По материалам научного доклада «When
Consumers Activate Persuasion Knowledge: Review of Antecedents and
Consequences». Working Paper # 5 (E) - 2016. Graduate School of Management, St.
Petersburg State University: SPb, 2016.
Companies invest significant resources in
consumer research. Understanding the peculiarities of consumer behavior in the
market allows companies to take strategic and tactical actions that are more
convincing for consumers and, as a consequence, more effective for the firm.
Consumers, like companies, accumulate information and knowledge about the
market mechanisms through personal experience, media exposure or other sources.
A special type of knowledge consumers develop over time is persuasion knowledge
that includes consumer beliefs about marketing tactics used by firms to
influence consumers.in research on persuasion knowledge is constantly increasing,
as evidenced by the growing number of articles in this area (see Appendix 1).
Existing research on the role of persuasion knowledge in consumer response to
marketing stimuli embraces a wide range of marketing tools used in the field of
advertising [Jewell, Barone, 2007], pricing [Hardesty et al., 2007], public
relations [Foreh, Grier, 2003], interpersonal selling [Williams et al., 2004],
brand management [Van Horen, Pieters, 2012], retail marketing [Lunardo,
Mbengue, 2013], and others.spite of the fact that the studies are linked by
common theoretical construct «persuasion knowledge», they are mostly fragmented
and cover different aspects of the construct. Moreover, research results are
quite diverse and there is a need of systematization.purpose of this article is
to develop an integrated model that clarifies the role of persuasion knowledge
in consumer response to marketing stimulus. The article gathers empirical
evidence on the problem of persuasion knowledge activation for the purpose of
further theory development. Firstly, it sheds light on how different aspects of
phenomenon are addressed in the extant studies, and shows how the studies are
connected. Secondly, the author systematizes the antecedents and consequences
of persuasion knowledge activation. Ultimately, future research directions are
highlighted in the article.the first section of the article the author
introduces persuasion knowledge model (PKM) [Friestad, Wright, 1994] as well as
its adaptation to the consumer behavior context. The second section includes
analysis of key concepts related to PKM and their relationships. The third and
fourth sections summarize the antecedents and consequences of persuasion
knowledge activation respectively. The article concludes with possible
practical implications and promising directions for future research in this
area.
Consumer Response to Marketing Stimuli: Persuasion Knowledge
Perspective
Interactions with consumers are the core of
marketing practice. Inter alia, interactions include marketers’ attempts to
persuade and influence consumers using stimulus related to 4Ps [Kotler, Keller,
2012]. Consumer response to this stimulus is dependent upon a variety of
individual and external factors, and persuasion knowledge is one of them.
The term «persuasion knowledge» was firstly
coined in the seminal article by Friestad and Wright [1994]. The authors
positioned persuasion knowledge as a part of a broader model - Persuasion
Knowledge Model (PKM) - that embraces the key elements and mechanisms involved into
persuasion episodes (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Persuasion Knowledge Model
(and influence) is a process that involves an
agent and a target. The term «targets» refers to those people for whom a
persuasion attempt is intended (e.g., consumers, voters). The term «agent»
represent whomever a target identifies as being responsible for designing and
constructing a persuasion attempt (e.g., the company responsible for an
advertising campaign; an individual salesperson). Persuasion attempt
describes the target's perception of an agent's strategic behavior in
presenting information designed to influence someone's beliefs, attitudes,
decisions, or actions (e.g., ad, sales presentation, or message). Persuasion
episode implies a directly observable part of persuasion attempt, from
consumers’ point of view. For instance, if a consumer, when confronted with a
particular advertising message, treats it as a company's attempt to persuade
the consumer to buy the advertised product, the contact with an advertising
message, per se, is regarded as a persuasion episode impacts and consumer
thoughts about the nature, motives, and causes of persuasion tactics are
perceived persuasion attempt. When the target recognizes persuasion attempt, he
tries to cope with it. Coping can be in form of maintaining control over
the outcome or more active resistance to a persuasion attempt.the consumer
recognizes persuasion attempt or not, depends on consumer knowledge about an
agent, topic, and persuasion, per se. Agent knowledge may be information
regarding manufactures’ credibility [Artz, Tybout, 1999]; topic
knowledge may be information about brands [Wei, Fischer, Main, 2008] or
issues raised in the message (e.g. environmental issues) [Xie, Kronrod, 2012].
The authors pay special attention to persuasion knowledge which is «a
set of interrelated beliefs about (a) the psychological events that are
instrumental to persuasion, (b) the causes and effects of those events, (c) the
importance of the events, (d) the extent to which people can control their
psychological responses, (e) the temporal course of the persuasion process, and
(f) the effectiveness and appropriateness of particular persuasion tactics»
[Friestad, Wright, 1994]. The following elements (aspects) of persuasion
knowledge are worth being highlighted:
· Recognition of
persuasion attempt implies beliefs related to a mere
acknowledgement that the marketing stimulus is used as a persuasion tool;
· Inferences of
persuasion motives are beliefs about the possible end goals of
marketer;
· Beliefs about
the effectiveness of marketing tactics relate to how much the
marketing stimulus may affect his mental processes and behavior;
· Beliefs about
the appropriateness of marketing tactics are based on the comparison
of the marketing tactics with the «rules of the game», including notions of
fairness which are typically built into the culture, meaning they are shared by
many members of the socio-cultural environment in which the consumer lives.
Persuasion knowledge is an important construct
for consumers, because almost every interaction with marketing stimulus can be
regarded as a persuasion episode, in which the company is trying to convince
consumers that the product possesses some qualities, that the company is
socially responsible, etc. and, thus, influence consumers’ behavior (for
example, to persuade consumers to purchase the product). At the moment of
interaction with a specific marketing stimulus consumer may use his accumulated
knowledge to interpret the marketing stimulus and form an appropriate response
to it.differ in the volume and content of persuasion knowledge (between-subject
differentiation), which partly explains the differences in the interpretations,
and consequently, in the reactions of different consumers to the same marketing
stimulus. Furthermore, persuasion knowledge is a dynamic structure that may
change over time due to various factors, so the consumer may have different
volume and content of persuasion knowledge (within-subject differentiation) at
different times, and interprets and responds to the same marketing stimulus
differently.illustrate how consumer knowledge can influence the perception of a
marketing stimulus, we refer to the study of Kasherski and Kim [2010], who
examined consumer perceptions of different price presentation. They asked
respondents «Why do you think some retailers indicate the price taking into
account the cost of delivery (inclusive prices), while others indicate the cost
of delivery separately (partitioned prices)?». Some respondents interpreted
inclusive prices as a deliberate concealment of price structure that prevents
the correct assessment of the price, and preferred partitioned price
presentation; others perceived partitioned prices as a format that makes the
consumer focus on the base price of the product and leads to an underestimation
of the total costs, and preferred inclusive prices. Differences in
interpretations suggest that different consumers have different views how
different pricing tactics affect them and why firms use some tactics, which is,
inter alia, due to differences in persuasion knowledge.response to a marketing
stimulus depend on whether the consumer perceives it as a deliberate persuasion
attempt. Recognition of persuasion attempt entails a change in the consumer
reaction to a given stimulus («change of meaning» [Friestad, Wright, 1994]). To
demonstrate this principle, we can refer to research on children perceptions of
advertising. For example, Robertson and Rossiter [1974] found that when
watching television commercials children can identify two types of advertising
intents: informational («commercials are designed to transmit facts and
information») and persuasive («commercials are designed to affect consumer
attitude to the product or consumer buying behavior»). It was found that with
age children more often prescribe to the advertising persuasive intents as
opposed to informational intents, thus changing the interpretation of the
commercial over time. Along with the change of meaning there are changes in
children’s reaction to commercials: reduced confidence and deteriorating
attitude towards commercials, decreased motivation to buy the advertised
product, etc.knowledge is not the only factor that influences consumer
interpretation of marketing stimuli. Figure 2 is a diagram integrating the
antecedents and consequences of consumer persuasion knowledge activation,
which, in the author’s opinion, provides a comprehensive understanding of the
role of persuasion knowledge activation in the consumer response to marketing
stimuli. In more detail the model elements will be reviewed in the following
paragraphs.
Figure 2. Antecedents and Consequences of
Persuasion Knowledge Activation
Persuasion Knowledge: Terminological Analysis
Understanding the role of persuasion knowledge
activation in consumer response to marketing stimuli is impossible without a
clear understanding of distinctions and relations between the terms
«accumulated persuasion knowledge» and «situationally activated persuasion
knowledge» as well as their elements. Heretofore, accumulated persuasion
knowledge is considered as consumer persuasion-related beliefs which the
consumer has at a specific point in time and which have been accumulated on the
basis of previous marketplace experiences or external information, and
situationally activated persuasion knowledge is beliefs activated at the moment
of exposure to a marketing stimulus [Campbell, Kirmani, 2008] (see Figure
2).exposed to a marketing stimulus, consumers may activate thoughts about the
persuasion nature of a stimulus (How does the marketer persuade me?), about the
firm’s motives (Why does the marketer try to persuade me?), about the
effectiveness and appropriateness of persuasion attempts (To what extent is a
persuasion attempt effective and appropriate?). Undoubtedly, the distinction
between the above mentioned elements is conditional and is undertaken in order
to facilitate understanding of the possible directions of consumers’ thoughts.have
shown that the more persuasion knowledge and expertise consumers possess, the
more likely they recognize marketing tactics as persuasion attempts [Verlegh et
al., 2013]. However, it is not universal. For instance, even when consumers
know that firms can exaggerate the positive properties of the product in
advertising to influence the consumer's opinion, they can fail to recognize the
persuasion attempt at the moment of exposure to a particular advertisement and
believe the advertising information on the properties of the product under the
influence of other factors.and developing the ideas set out in the PKM, the
researchers operate with a variety of terms, which are to some extent related
to the concept of persuasion knowledge. An attempt to systematize the
terminology used in the literature is undertaken in Table 1.
Table 1. Overview of the Terms Related to
Persuasion Knowledge
Term
|
Source
|
Definition
|
Elements of persuasion
knowledge
|
Nature of the construct
|
|
|
|
Awareness of persuasion
tactics
|
Inferred motives
|
Effectiveness judgments
|
Fairness judgments
|
Accumulated
|
Situationally activated
|
Suspicion
|
[Fein 1996; Ferguson,
et al., 2011]
|
Psychological state
when a consumer assumes that an agent might have some hidden motive.
|
+
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
+
|
Advertising skepticism
|
[Obermiller, Spangenberg, 1998]
|
General tendency to
distrust advertising messages.
|
+
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
Situational skepticism
|
[Foreh, Grier, 2003]
|
Situational state of
distrust to others and their motives.
|
+
|
+
|
|
|
|
+
|
Dispositional
skepticism
|
[Foreh, Grier, 2003]
|
General tendency to
distrust others.
|
+
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
Sentiment toward
marketing
|
[Gaski and Etzel, 1986]
|
General tendency to
think that firms are customer-oriented or not.
|
+
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
Inferred sincerity of
the motives
|
[Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, Schwarz, 2006]
|
Judgements related to
how agent’s stated motives correspond to real motives.
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+
|
Inferences of hidden
motives
|
[Campbell, Kirmani,
2000]
|
Judgements about the
presence of agent’s hidden egoistic motives.
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+
|
Prior knowledge about
agents’ motives
|
[Verlegh et al., 2013]
|
Consumer knowledge
about agents’ motives that has been accumulated prior to a particular episode
of consumer-agent interaction.
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
Perceived effectiveness
|
[Xie, Johnson, 2015]
|
Consumer judgements
related to how a tactic might influence himself and others.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
Perceived harm
|
[Xie, Madrigal, Boush,
2015]
|
Expected severity of
negative consequences cause by a marketing tactics.
|
|
|
+
|
+
|
|
+
|
Inferences of
manipulative intent
|
[Campbell, 1995]
|
Consumer judgements
that an agent might have an intent to persuade or influence consumer in an
inappropriate and manipulative manner.
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
Perceived deception
|
[Xie, Madrigal, Boush,
2015]
|
An extent to which a
marketing tactic is perceived as deceptive or misleading.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
+
|
Perceived procedural
fairness
|
[Kukar-Kinney, Xia, Monroe, 2007]
|
Consumer judgements
related to the correspondence of marketing tactics, procedures, and processes
to the existing norms and rules.
|
|
|
|
+
|
+
|
+
|
Subjective persuasion
knowledge
|
[Bearden et al., 2001]
|
Subjective consumers’
evaluation of their knowledge of marketing tactics.
|
+
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
Pricing tactics
persuasion knowledge
|
[Hardesty et al., 2007]
|
Consumer knowledge of
different pricing tactics used in the marketplace, their influence
mechanisms, and agents’ intents behind their usage.
|
+
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
Terminological analysis revealed a significant
number of terms used by researchers to describe consumers' perceptions of
persuasion attempts. This terminological diversity can be explained with, at
least, several reasons:
a) The use of different terms to describe
similar concepts in different contexts
Inter alia, differences in terminology occur due
to the existence of different research traditions. For example, researchers in
the field of advertising used the construct «skepticism» long before the PKM
[Nelson, 1975]. Researchers in the field of pricing have traditionally used the
construct «fairness» to describe consumer judgments about the appropriateness
of price setting procedures, price presentations, and established price levels
[Campbell, 1999]. The later constructs «inferences of manipulative intent» and
«perceived deception» are conceptually similar constructs used in another
context.
b) The use of different terms to describe
different aspects of the phenomenon
Researchers used a variety of ways to categorize
consumer inferences of firms’ motives. In particular, in the studies there have
been used such dichotomous categories as «private vs public interests» [Foreh,
Grier, 2003], «increase profits vs compensate of costs of production»
[Campbell, 1999], and others., researchers of skepticism revealed a variety of
aspects of the phenomenon: situational skepticism, suggesting the presence of
the consumer of certain feelings or thoughts at some point of time, and
dispositional skepticism associated with the general consumer attitudes to the
world [Foreh, Grier, 2003].
c) The use of different operationalization
approaches
Using different operationalization approaches is
not a problem, per se. The difficulties arise when measurement scales relate to
incommensurate concepts that are masked by a single term. For example,
persuasion knowledge in the studies of Bearden et al. [2001] and Hardesty et
al. [2007] is defined similarly, but operationalized using different scales
which essentially measure the two different types of persuasion knowledge -
subjective («what consumers think they knows») and objective («what consumers
really know»).use of different terms to describe similar concepts, due to
differences in the historical trajectory of scientific fields, or the desire to
highlight a particular aspect of the phenomenon does not bring to
complications, provided that there is a clear understanding of the
relationships between these concepts. Despite that, researchers have repeatedly
argued for a more «economical» attitude towards the usage of terminology to avoid
the theoretical and empirical contradictions caused by terminological
negligence [Campbell, Kirmani, 2008].
Antecedents of Persuasion Knowledge Activation
It is important to note that the accumulated
consumer persuasion knowledge cannot always result in activation of
persuasion-related inferences in a particular situation. The differences in the
ability of consumers to activate persuasion knowledge can be due to a variety
of factors, including:
a) Individual characteristics
Among the characteristics that have an impact on
the ability to recognize persuasive nature of marketing stimuli, the age and
field of consumer professional activities have been identified [Boush,
Friestad, and Rose 1994; Friestad and Wright 1995]. Kirmani and Zhu [2007]
examined the role of regulatory focus (regulatory focus characterizes the
individual's strategy for achieving their goals) and came to the conclusion
that consumers focused on achieving positive results are more likely to realize
the persuasive nature of marketing stimuli than consumers focused on minimizing
negative results.
b) Marketing stimulus characteristics
Some marketing incentives are more likely to be
perceived as persuasion attempts. For example, commercials, wherein the
disclosure of the advertised brand occurs only at the end with the purpose to
attract consumer attention by creating a sense of suspense, are perceived by
consumers as more manipulative than traditional commercials, where disclosure
of the brand comes in the beginning [Campbell, 1995]. Partitioned prices that
have already been mentioned in the article are more often perceived by
consumers as «created with the intention to convince and influence» than
inclusive prices [Kachersky, Kim, 2010].
c) Situational characteristics
For example, Campbell and Kirmani [2000] have
shown that persuasion knowledge activation depends on whether the individual
acts as a direct recipient or the observer of persuasion episode. The cognitive
intensity of the situations differs. The recipient usually spends more
cognitive resources to solve problems arisen within the episode than an
observer. Thus, the recipient will have fewer cognitive resources to spend on
persuasion-related inferences than the observer, so the observer is more
inclined to recognize persuasion attempts than a direct participant in the
episode of exposure.
Consequences of Persuasion Knowledge Activation
In the existing literature there is a significant
number of attempts undertaken to investigate the response of consumers to
various marketing stimuli in a situation of persuasion knowledge activation.
Research of the consequences of persuasion knowledge activation covers a wide
range of marketing tools used in various fields of marketing practices. Despite
the diversity of marketing stimulus, consumer response is exhibited in a
limited number of «coping tactics»:
) Critical assessment of the product offering,
counterargument and counterbehavior (the formation of attitudes and behaviors
that are contrary to those instigated in the marketing stimulus);
) Less favorable assessment of the marketing
stimulus (in comparison with a situation where the consumer does not recognize
persuasive nature of marketing stimulus);
) Less favorable assessment of the product;
) Weakening of consumer intentions and behaviors
in relation to the product;
) Less favorable assessment of the company
initiating marketing tactics;
) Less favorable assessment of related subjects
(e.g. the sponsored event; distributor’s products);
) Supportiveness of the legal regulation of
marketing activities.of the above stated coping responses are given in Table 2.
Table 2. The Effect of Persuasion Knowledge
Activation on Consumer Response to Marketing Stimulus
Marketing area
|
Marketing stimulus
|
Source
|
Main findings
|
Type of response*
|
Advertising
|
Comparative advertising
|
[Jewell, Barone, 2007]
|
Within-category
comparisons were perceived as a more appropriate tactic and were thus more
effective in positioning the focal brand than were between-category
comparisons.
|
2, 3
|
|
Guilt appeals
|
[Hibbert et al., 2007;
Cotte et al., 2005]
|
Guilt arousal is positively
related to donation intention, and that persuasion and agent knowledge impact
the extent of guilt aroused. Manipulative intent and the respondents'
skepticism toward advertising tactics in general are negatively related to
guilt arousal but that their affective evaluation and beliefs about a charity
are positively related to feelings of guilt. However, there is a positive
direct relationship between perceived manipulative intent and the intention
to donate.
|
1, 2, 4, 5
|
|
Brand placement
|
[Wei et al., 2008]
|
Persuasion knowledge
activation can negatively affect consumer evaluations of embedded brands;
however, negative effects are qualified by perceived appropriateness of
covert marketing tactics and by brand familiarity. Further evidence indicates
a condition under which activation can actually have a positive effect on
consumer evaluations.
|
2, 5, 6
|
|
Advertising frequency
|
[Campbell, Keller,
2003]
|
Negative thoughts about
tactic inappropriateness were seen to arise with repetition, particularly for
an ad for an unfamiliar brand, driving, in part, the decreases in repetition
effectiveness.
|
2, 3
|
Pricing
|
Price increase
|
[Campbell, 1999]
|
When participants
inferred that the firm had a negative motive for a price increase, the
increase was perceived as significantly less fair than the same increase when
participants inferred that the firm had a positive motive. Perceived
unfairness leads to lower shopping intentions.
|
2, 4
|
|
Tensile price claims
|
[Hardesty et al., 2007]
|
Individuals with higher
levels of pricing tactic persuasion knowledge (PTPK) were shown to have more
knowledge-related thoughts regarding pricing tactic information and exhibited
more purchase interest following exposure to tensile claim offers than those with
low levels of PTPK.
|
4
|
|
Baseline omission
|
[Xie, Johnson, 2015]
|
Consumers tend to
perceive baseline omission as more effective on others than on themselves.
The self-others difference is more salient among consumers with more
persuasion knowledge. Consumers’ concerns about its effectiveness on
themselves, rather than on others, better predict their supportiveness to
regulate the use of baseline omission.
|
7
|
Interpersonal selling
|
Asking intention
questions
|
[Williams et al., 2004]
|
When persuasive intent
is attributed to an intention question, consumers adjust their behavior as
long as they have sufficient cognitive capacity to permit conscious
correction. When respondents are educated that an intention question is a
persuasive attempt, the behavioral impact of those questions is attenuated.
|
1
|
Public Relations
|
Sponsorship
|
[Foreh, Grier, 2003]
|
Consumer evaluation of
the sponsoring firm was lowest in conditions when firm-serving benefits were
salient and the firm outwardly stated purely public-serving motives. The
potential negative effects of skepticism were the most pronounced when
individuals engaged in causal attribution prior to company evaluation.
|
5
|
|
Video news releases
|
[Nelson, Park, 2015]
|
Viewers’ beliefs about
and perceptions of credibility in a news story are altered when they acquire
persuasion knowledge about VNRs and learn that the source of the story was an
unedited VNR.
|
2
|
Branding
|
Brand imitation
|
[Van Horen, Pieters,
2012]
|
Consumers consider
feature imitation to be unacceptable and unfair, which causes reactance
toward the copycat brand. Yet, even though consumers are aware of the use of
theme imitation, it is perceived to be more acceptable and less unfair, which
helps copycat evaluation.
|
2, 3
|
|
Brand names and slogans
|
[Laran et al., 2011]
|
Brands cause priming
effects (i.e., behavioral effects consistent with those implied by the
brand), whereas slogans cause reverse priming effects (i.e., behavioral
effects opposite to those implied by the slogan). For instance, exposure to
the retailer brand name «Walmart,» typically associated with saving money,
reduces subsequent spending, whereas exposure to the Walmart slogan, «Save
money. Live better,» increases it.
|
1
|
Product policy
|
Versioning
|
[Gershoff, Kivetz,
Keinan, 2012]
|
The production method
of versioning may be perceived as unfair and unethical and lead to decreased
purchase intentions for the brand.
|
2, 4
|
|
Default options
|
[Brown, Krishna, 2004]
|
A default option can
invoke a consumer's «marketplace metacognition,» his/her social intelligence
about marketplace behavior that leads to different predictions than accounts
based on cognitive limitations or endowment: in particular, it predicts the
possibility of negative or «backfire» default effects.
|
1
|
Retailing
|
Atmosphere of the
retail store
|
[Lunardo, Mbengue, 2013]
|
Incongruent store
environments urge consumers to make inferences of manipulative intent from
the retailers, and that those inferences negatively influence consumer's
perception of the retailers' integrity, and attitudes toward the atmosphere
and the retailers.
|
5
|
*The number in the row corresponds to the
following coping tactics: [1] Critical assessment of the product offering,
counterargument and counterbehavior; [2] Less favorable assessment of the
marketing stimulus; [3] Less favorable assessment of the product; [4] Weakening
of consumer intentions and behaviors in relation to the product; [5] Less
favorable assessment of the company initiating marketing tactics; [6] Less
favorable assessment of related subjects; [7] Supportiveness of the legal
regulation of marketing activities.Correction of judgment and behavior usually
occurs in a direction opposite to that intended with marketing stimulus.
Instead of the expected favorable attitude to the product and higher purchase
likelihood, when consumers perceive marketing stimulus as a persuasion attempt,
they tend to react in the opposite way: less favorable attitude toward the
product, the manufacturer, as well as intermediaries involved in the process.
This, as a result, reduces purchase likelihood and accelerates switching to
competitive offerings. Moreover, the lack of trust between the consumer and the
firm can lead to resistance to buy not only a particular product, but all
products related to the firm [Reichheld, Schefter, 2000]. However, it is worth
noting that despite the dominant number of adverse consequences for businesses
resulting from persuasion knowledge activation, there is a precedent when
persuasion knowledge activation had a positive impact on the assessment of the
brand [Wei et al., 2008].above examples demonstrate the importance of consumer
perceptions of marketing stimulus for consumers themselves, companies that
initiate marketing activities, and intermediaries that implement marketing
activities (e.g., distributors and media agencies). Let us consider in more
detail the possible outcomes of firm-consumer interactions when persuasion
knowledge is activated and inhibited (see Figure 3).
3. Matrix of
Firm-Consumer Interaction Outcomes
equivalent interaction can take place when
neither the company intends to persuade the consumer, nor the consumer
mistakenly attributes persuasion intent to marketing stimuli. However, this
situation is very unlikely in the context of modern highly competitive
environment wherein marketers use a wide arsenal of marketing tools to attract
attention and retain customers. An equivalent interaction also occurs when a
firm intention fully understood by the consumer and the firm correctly
evaluates consumer persuasion knowledge that may affect its response to the
tactics used. When a company has no information about consumer persuasion
knowledge, it is in a vulnerable position, since the expected efficiency of the
marketing stimulus may differ from the real effect produced by the use of the
stimulus. That point highlights the importance for companies to study consumers
under a new angle: not only consumers’ perceptions of companies and products
are important, but also their perceptions of marketing tools used by companies.
If the firm lacks understanding of this aspect, it could lead to a kind of
«marketing myopia» [Levitt, 1960].situation when the consumer is not aware of
persuasion intent, as a rule, leads to an unfavorable outcome for the consumer
(e.g., psychological dissatisfaction or financial losses). It can occur when
the consumer has insufficient amount of knowledge and experience. Such a
situation may arise in the case of immature consumers (children and
adolescents) [Robertson et al., 1974], consumers in the new or emerging market,
who have not yet developed immunity to the marketing tactics of influence used
by companies and are easily influenced by marketing tools [Feick, Gierl, 1996;
La Ferle, Kuber, Edwards, 2013].is worth noting that despite persuasion
knowledge allows consumers to use the arsenal of coping tactics in response to
marketing persuasion attempts, it may not always be properly activated. As
previously mentioned, the consumer may attribute to the firms’ actions ulterior
motives even in the absence of such intentions on the side of the firm [Koslow,
2000]. The reasons for such an outcome may be a false attribution of the
recipient caused by excessive skepticism about marketing in general, about
certain marketing tools, such as advertising, about certain products or firms.
This situation, of course, is problematic for the company, because it reduces
the effectiveness of a marketing stimulus. It can also lead to consumers’
disadvantages, because it distorts objective information and prevents consumers
from selecting the best alternative.persuasion knowledge plays an important
role in the consumer response to various marketing stimuli. A review of the
empirical studies has shown that, when consumers interpret marketing stimuli as
persuasion attempts, firstly, they evaluate these marketing stimuli more
critically and, secondly, modify their judgements and behavior with respect to
marketing stimuli, related products and firms. Generally, this leads to adverse
consequences for firms. However, it is not justified to claim that persuasion
knowledge activation always results in unfavorable outcomes for companies. For
instance, when consumers perceive persuasion attempt as «fair» or
«appropriate», they cannot modify their behavior. Different persuasion-related
beliefs as well as its antecedent and consequences are discussed in the
article.the persuasion knowledge has a significant effect of consumer response
to marketing stimuli, it is reasonable for firms to include it in the list of
permanently tracked consumer characteristics. Together with economic,
demographic and other characteristics of consumers, persuasion knowledge can be
regarded as a basis for consumer segmentation, so that firms can tailor
marketing stimuli to each group of consumers. In addition to taking persuasion
knowledge as given, firms can take an active part in their formation and
management with the help of marketing communications and consumer education.the
variety of empirical studies on persuasion knowledge, the conceptual core of
the phenomenon remained unchanged and almost did not get a theoretical
extension since the introduction of the concept into scientific discourse in
1994. Furthermore, some empirical studies have generated conflicting results,
which provides fertile grounds for further researching and strengthening the
theoretical foundations of persuasion knowledge. It seems promising to further
test the relationship between accumulated and situationally activated
persuasion knowledge, which has been done only once so far in [Verlegh et al.,
2013]. It is also worth examining how persuasion knowledge change over time. The
need to include into the economic theory some factors that take into account
the ability of economic agents to learn their surroundings and change their
economic behavior based on acquired information has been announced long before
the PKM [Simon, 1959]. In the PKM it becomes even more appealing to undertake
longitudinal studies that trace consumer persuasion knowledge over time,
because consumers are not «in a vacuum»: they constantly update their knowledge
and, in turn, alter the reaction to a marketing stimulus. Thus, the consumer
reaction to the same marketing incentive may be different at different times,
which certainly should be considered marketing practices in the planning and
implementation of marketing activities aimed at consumers.
2. Исследование роли осознания потребителем
воздействия со стороны фирмы в формировании реакции на уменьшение размера
продукта
.1 Уменьшение размера продукта как ценовая
тактика
По материалам статьи «Цена и размер продукта как
альтернативные инструменты влияния на поведение потребителей на рынке товаров
повседневного спроса». Маркетинг и маркетинговые исследования 6 (2014):
424-432.
Растущая конкуренция на многих рынках товаров и услуг
заставляет компании постоянно искать новые способы привлечения внимания и интереса
потребителей. Сохранение и упрочнение рыночных позиций невозможно без понимания
поведенческих реакций потребителей на принимаемые фирмой маркетинговые решения.
Превращение потребителя в центральную фигуру на высококонкурентных рынках
подчеркивает важность изучения поведения потребителей с точки зрения
потребности бизнеса и необходимость выявления новых паттернов их поведения,
способных повлиять на деятельность компании.
Несмотря на долгую традицию изучения потребительского
поведения, актуальность данной области исследований продолжает оставаться
высокой. Ограниченность экономического подхода, преобладавшего на более раннем
этапе развития науки о потребителе и потреблении, способствует обращению
интереса современных ученых к междисциплинарным исследованиям, опирающимся на
социологические, психологические и антропологические методы. Использование
междисциплинарного подхода дает возможность комплексно посмотреть на поведение
потребителя, позволяя конструировать модели потребительского поведения,
наиболее точно и подробно описывающие реальную картину.
В данной работе исследуется вопрос влияния на потребителя
таких маркетинговых инструментов, как цена и размер продукта. На основании
обзора существующих работ по данному вопросу определяется степень разработанности
проблемы, и выявляются малоизученные направления исследований, которые являются
перспективными как с теоретической, так и с практической точек зрения.
Покупательское поведение потребителей на рынке товаров
повседневного спроса
Под покупательским поведением потребителей, как правило,
понимается совокупность психологических процессов и физических действий
отдельных лиц или групп лиц, которые имеют место при осуществлении ими покупки
товаров и услуг с целью конечного потребления [3].
Согласно определению покупательское поведение потребителей
можно условно разделить на психологическую (когнитивную / аффективную) и
поведенческую компоненты. Психологическая компонента может выражаться в
отношении к продукту/ бренду/ производителю, суждениях о качестве продукта и
др., а поведенческая компонента, связанная с действиями потребителя в отношении
продукта - в намерении покупателя совершить покупку, готовности платить за
продукт определенную цену, выбор продукта из ряда альтернатив и др.
Процесс покупки товаров повседневного спроса часто
характеризуется низкой степенью вовлеченности. В результате чего потребители не
производят глубокого поиска и анализа информации о продукте, а полагаются на
такие внешние индикаторы, как цена продукта, упаковка продукта (в том числе ей размер),
страна-производитель, известность бренда продукта и др.
Влияние цены и размера продукта на поведение потребителей:
текущее состояние вопроса
Цена как объект изучения экономической науки имеет длинную
историю. В микроэкономике цена продукта является основополагающим фактором,
определяющим потребительский спрос на продукт, наряду с доходом потребителя
ценами на конкурентные товары (товары-заменители). Раздел микроэкономики, в
котором изучается вопрос о том, какой товар или набор товаров выбирает потребитель
при заданных ограничениях, называется теорией потребительского выбора и спроса.
Согласно закону спроса, для большинства товаров между ценой и
спросом на продукт существует обратная зависимость: снижение цены провоцирует
за собой увеличение спроса на продукт при прочих равных условиях. Для того
чтобы измерить реакцию покупательского спроса к изменению цены используется
коэффициент эластичности спроса, который определяется как процентное изменение
количества спроса, деленное на процентное изменение цены.
Подход к влиянию изменения цены на поведение потребителя,
используемый в маркетинге, несмотря на схожесть по ключевым вопросам, несколько
отличается от микроэкономического подхода, в том числе своей терминологической
базой. Так, спрос на продукт обусловлен восприятием потребителями ценности
продукта, которая в свою очередь зависит от соотношения воспринимаемых выгод
(размер продукта, качество продукта и др.) и воспринимаемых затрат на
приобретение продукта (цена, время, потраченное на приобретение и др.) [16].
Продукты, обладающие более высокой воспринимаемой ценностью для потребителя,
как правило, пользуются большим потребительским спросом: из двух одинаковых по
своим характеристикам и предоставляемым выгодам альтернатив потребитель
предпочтет тот, цена на который ниже.
Производя оценку изменения цены, потребитель не просто
количественно измеряет изменение своих выгод, но и делает суждения относительно
того, было ли данное изменение справедливым или несправедливым, существенным
или несущественным, большим или маленьким, что в конечном итоге также оказывает
влияние на спрос на данный продукт [1].
Также в маркетинге появляется понятие референтной цены -
цены, на которую потребитель ориентируется и с которой сравнивает цену
интересующего его товара. При этом базой для формирования референтной цены
может служить не только уровень цен на рынке и цены аналогичных товаров, но и
внутренние субъективные представления потребителя о цене, предшествующий опыт
приобретения продукта [9].
В отличие от цены, проблема влияния изменения размера
продукта на покупательское поведение потребителей не получила широкого
распространения в научной литературе. Но востребованность данного инструмента
является высокой: компании прибегают как к увеличению (product supersizing), так и к сокращению
размера единицы продукта (product downsizing).
Поскольку от размера продукта (при прочих равных условиях) во
многом зависят выгоды, которые получит потребитель от покупки, размер продукта
и уровень спроса на продукт для большинства продуктов связаны прямой
зависимостью.
Существует ряд работ, в которых производится сравнительное
исследование чувствительности покупательского спроса к эквивалентным изменениям
цены и размера продукта. Результаты некоторых исследований представлены в
Таблице 1.
Таблица 1. Сравнение чувствительности потребительского спроса
к изменению цены и размера продукта
Исследование
|
Характер изменения ценности продукта
|
Метод исследования
|
Категория продуктов
|
Модераторы
|
Результаты
|
[Hardesty, Bearden, 2003]
|
Увеличение
|
Лабораторный эксперимент
|
Зубная паста Мыло
|
Размер предоставляемой выгоды 1) Высокий 2)
Умеренный и невысокий
|
E(price) > E(size) E(price) = E(size)
|
[Mishra, Mishra, 2011]
|
Увеличение
|
Лабораторный
эксперимент
|
Черничные маффины с низким содержанием жиров
(как относительно полезный для здоровья продукт) и шоколадное печенье (как
вредный для здоровья продукт), реализуемые в кофейнях Starbucks
|
Полезность продукта для здоровья: 1)
Полезные для здоровья продукты 2) Вредные для здоровья продукты
|
E(price) <
E(size) E(price) > E(size)
|
[Gourville, Koehler, 2004]
|
Уменьшение
|
Лабораторный эксперимент Панельные
сканнер-данные
|
Кофе Готовые обеды
|
-
|
E(price) > E(size)
|
[Cakir, Balagtas, 2013]
|
Уменьшение
|
Панельные сканнер-данные
|
Мороженое
|
-
|
E(price) > E(size)
|
[Imai, Watanabe, 2014]
|
Уменьшение
|
Панельные сканнер-данные
|
Различные категории товаров потребительского
спроса
|
-
|
E(price) = E(size)
|
Хардести и Берден [6] осуществили серию лабораторных
экспериментов с товарами повседневного спроса. В одном из экспериментов авторы
исследуют эффективность различных форматов промо-акций на примере тюбика зубной
пасты размером 5,2 унций, который изначально предлагался по цене $2,59 (или
$0,5 за унцию). Они сравнивают реакцию потребителей на ценовую скидку в размере
10 %, 25 % и 50 % от прежней цены с предложением 10 %, 25 % и 50 % бонусного
количества зубной пасты соответственно по прежней цене. По результатам
эксперимента потребители оказались одинаково чувствительны к ценовой скидке и
бонусному продукту в размерах 10 % и 25 %, однако при предложении 50 % скидки
от прежней цены и 50 % бонусного продукта по прежней цене потребители отдали
предпочтение первому варианту. Авторы заключают, что в условиях, когда размер
предоставляемой выгоды высок, потребитель более чувствителен к уменьшению цены,
чем увеличению количества продукта; когда же размер получаемой выгоды
воспринимается как невысокий или умеренный, потребитель одинаково чувствителен
и к изменению цены, и к изменению количества продукта. Стоит отметить, что с
точки зрения экономики 50 % скидка от прежней цены за упаковку продукта и 50 %
бонусного продукта по прежней цене не являются эквивалентными предложениями,
так как в первом случае цена за 1 унцию продукта составляет $0,25, а во втором
- $0.33. В связи с этим, предпочтение потребителем скидки в размере 50 %
увеличению размера продукта на 50 % при прежней цене является экономически
рациональным выбором. Однако расчет коэффициентов ценовой эластичности спроса
позволяет более точно и глубоко проанализировать реакцию потребителей на
соответствующие предложения и выявить паттерны поведения, отклоняющиеся от
общепринятых в классической экономической теории взглядов. Пример расчета
коэффициентов на основании данных, полученных в исследовании Хардести и
Бердена, приведен в Таблице 2.
Таблица 2. Расчет коэффициентов ценовой эластичности спроса
при изменении номинальной цены за упаковку продукта и размера продукта
Формат промо-акции
|
Наименование показателя
|
Размер скидки/ бонуса
|
|
|
10 %
|
25 %
|
25 %
|
50 %
|
Ценовая скидка
|
Стоимость одной унции продукта
|
0.45
|
0.37
|
0.37
|
0.25
|
|
Уровень спроса
|
15.34
|
18.33
|
18.33
|
23.05
|
|
E(price)
|
-1.10
|
-0.79
|
Бонусный продукт
|
Стоимость одной унции продукта
|
0.45
|
0.40
|
0.40
|
0.33
|
|
Уровень спроса
|
16.05
|
18.00
|
18.00
|
20.37
|
|
E(size)
|
-1.09
|
-0.75
|
Важно подчеркнуть, что при расчете ценовой эластичности
спроса используется цена за универсальную меру продукта (грамм, миллилитр,
унция и др.), а не номинальная цена за упаковку продукта, поскольку именно цена
за универсальную единицу отражает реальную стоимость продукта. Как можно
увидеть в Таблице 2, абсолютное значение эластичности потребительского спроса
при одинаковых изменениях цены за унцию, когда изменение представлено в виде 50
% ценовой скидки, больше, чем когда оно представлено в виде предложения 50 %
дополнительного продукта (|-0.79| > |-0.75|); когда же размер скидки меньше
и равен 25 %, то значения ценовой эластичности при изменении номинальной цены
за упаковку продукта и размера продукта практический равны (|-1.10| ≈
|-1.09|).
Коэффициенты ценовой эластичности спроса при изменении
номинальной цены за упаковку продукта и размера упаковки продукта в последующих
исследованиях осуществляются аналогичным образом.
Мишра и Мишра [11], также проведя серию лабораторных
экспериментов, заключают, что потребители предпочитают бонусный продукт ценовым
скидкам для полезных для здоровья продуктов и обратное для вредных для здоровья
продуктов. Авторы связывают это с тем, что потребление дополнительного
количества вредного для здоровья продукта ассоциируется у потребителя с негативными
последствиями, в связи с чем воспринимаемая ценность подобного предложения
снижается, в то время как аналогичное предложение для полезного для здоровья
продукта воспринимается потребителем положительно.
Гурвилл и Кёлер [5] с помощью лабораторных экспериментов и
исследований на основании панельных сканнер-данных выявили, что потребители
более чувствительны к увеличению цены, чем уменьшению количества продукта.
Сакир и Балактас [4] с помощью модели дискретного выбора
оценили изменения спроса на продукт при изменении цены и размера продукта на
основе панельных данных, полученных с помощью сканера, об оптовых покупках
мороженого домохозяйствами в Чикаго. Главным выводом стало, что потребители
менее чувствительны к размеру пакета, чем к цене; эластичность спроса по
отношению к размеру пакета составляла примерно одну четвертую величины
эластичности спроса по отношению к цене.
Причины подобных различий в чувствительности потребительского
спроса могут заключаться в существовании визуальных искажений психофизического
восприятия и особенностях механизмов «ментального учета». В теории
предполагается, что потребители принимают рациональные и логические решения с
использованием всей имеющейся информации. Со временем количество информация о
продукте, содержащейся на упаковке продукта, значительно возросло. Несмотря на
это повышение доступности информации о продукте, исследования свидетельствует о
том, что лишь незначительная часть потребителей использует данную информацию,
принимая решение о выборе продукта [8]. В результате, потребители не принимают
во внимание уменьшение размера продукта и оказываются не в состоянии
максимизировать свои выгоды. При совершении покупки потребитель часто
полагается не на информацию о реальном количестве продукта, а на воспринимаемое
количество продукта, при этом восприятие количества продукта может быть
искажено под воздействием размера и формы продукта [15]. Учитывая то, что
компании не подвергают информацию об уменьшении количества продукта широкой
огласке, уменьшение количества продукта может остаться незамеченным
потребителем, если воспринимаемый размер продукта остался неизменным.
Имаи и Ватанабе [7], изучив данные о потребительских покупках
товаров повседневного спроса в 200 супермаркетах в Японии в 2000-2012 гг.,
пришли к заключению, что уменьшение размера продукта приводит к уменьшению
объемов потребления данного продукта. При этом, в отличие от указанных ранее
результатов, авторы утверждают, что чувствительность спроса к изменению размера
продукта в Японии в 2000-2012 гг. была практически такой же, как и
чувствительность к изменению цен.
Таким образом, исследования различий между чувствительностью
потребительского спроса к изменениям цены и размера продукта имеют
противоречивые результаты.
Цена и размер продукта как альтернативные маркетинговые
инструменты
В управленческой практике изменение размера продукта
представляет собой инструмент, альтернативный изменению цены продукта. В
частности, выбор одной из указанных альтернатив может иметь место при решении
следующих управленческих проблем:
· Повысить рентабельность продукта, подняв цену
продукта или уменьшив размер единицы продукта?
· Простимулировать спрос на продукт, временно
уменьшив стоимость продукта или увеличив размер единицы продукта?
На все более конкурентном и изменчивом рынке с большим
количеством товаров-заменителей, доступных практически для любого продукта
повседневного спроса, увеличение цены становится рискованной стратегией для
производителей и ритейлеров. Оказавшись в такой ситуации, где рост цен может
быть губительным для деятельности компании, компании часто прибегают к
модификации упаковки продукта и уменьшению содержимого упаковки при сохранении
его цены.
Мощным стимулом для компаний, чтобы сохранить цену на
нынешнем уровне могут послужить концепции референтной цены и ценового порога.
Хотя референтная цена может формироваться под воздействием различных факторов,
чрезвычайно важным фактором, определяющим ее, является цена, которую покупатель
запоминает от предыдущего приобретения конкретного продукта или продукта в категории
[12]. Ценовой порог, с другой стороны, представляет собой диапазон допустимых
цен на данный продукт [13]. Монро и Кокс [12] показывают, что покупатели при
походе по магазинам обычно используют референтную цену в качестве якоря, против
которого они оценивают цены на продукты. Для продуктов, которые могут быть
легко замещены и где потребители имеют относительно высокий уровень
осведомленности о ценах в категории, верхний ценовой порог на эти продукты, как
правило, довольно узкий. Учитывая это, увеличение цены продукта, чтобы улучшить
рентабельность, теряет свою привлекательность. Не имея альтернативы, кроме как
поддерживать статус-кво в области ценообразования, компании вынуждены идти на
сокращение размера единицы продукта, чтобы повысить рентабельность.
Таким образом, в целях повышения рентабельности продукта
многие компании могут повысить цену на свою продукцию или уменьшить размер
единицы производимой продукции, сохраняя цену продукции на прежнем уровне. Обе
эти практики могут восприниматься потребителем как сокращение воспринимаемой
ценности продукта и привести к переключению на другой продукт, в большей
степени отвечающий требованиям потребителя.
Принимая во внимание возможную негативную реакцию
потребителей, производители, как правило, не афишируют факт уменьшения размера
продукта. Однако данная практика довольно активно используется многими
компаниями в разных странах. По информации, размещенной на портале lenta.ru в
июле 2009 [2], «компания Mars уменьшила массу продаваемых в Великобритании шоколадных
батончиков «Марс» и «Сникерс» на 7 %. Представители компании признались, что
эта мера вызвана увеличившимися затратами на производство. Цена на шоколадные
батончики осталась прежней, при этом батончики стали весить 58 граммов вместо
прежних 62,5 граммов».
С точки зрения неоклассической микроэкономики потребители
одинаково реагируют на соизмеримые изменения цены и размера продукта. Однако
взгляд на данную проблему с позиции поведенческой экономики и маркетинга,
активно задействующих знания из психологии, отличается от утверждений, принятых
в неоклассической экономике. Подход, используемый в маркетинге и поведенческой
экономике, в отличие от неоклассической микроэкономики, носит позитивный
характер и позволяет более точно объяснить поведение экономических объектов,
максимально приблизив его к реальному поведению.
Опираясь на результаты эмпирических исследований, в которых
доказывается, что влияние соизмеримых изменений цены и размера единицы продукта
на потребителей различно, а именно потребители более чувствительны к изменению
цены при неизменном объеме продукта, чем к изменению количества продукта при
неизменной цене (см. Таблицу 1), можно предположить, что при необходимости
оптимизировать производственные издержки уменьшение размера продукта представляется
менее рискованной стратегией, поскольку уменьшение количества продукта в
меньшей степени отразиться на потребительском спросе, чем увеличение цены. В
случае же выбора метода стимулирования спроса, временное снижение цены приведет
к большему увеличению спроса, чем увеличение размера единицы продукта.
Несмотря на краткосрочные выгоды ценового стимулирования
спроса (больший прирост спроса за счет сокращения цены, чем увеличения размера
продукта), подобная стратегия имеет ряд негативных последствий для деятельности
компании в долгосрочной перспективе. В частности, частые ценовые скидки
увеличивают чувствительность потребителей к цене [12]. Это означает, что в
долгосрочной перспективе спрос на продукцию во время отсутствия ценовых скидок
может сокращаться до существенно более низкого уровня, чем тот, который
наблюдался при такой же цене до момента использования компанией стратегии
постоянного ценового стимулирования продукта. В подобных условиях производители
становятся «заложниками» созданной собственными силами ситуации: они вынуждены
постоянно предлагать скидки потребителям для того чтобы подержать продажи своей
продукции на планируемом уровне. Учитывая данные обстоятельства, использование
количественных способов стимулирования спроса представляется перспективной
альтернативой. Изучение влияния изменений размера продукта, предоставление
дополнительного количества продукта, при стимулировании спроса на продукт на
чувствительность спроса может открыть новые аспекты покупательского поведения
потребителей, предоставив компаниям дополнительные рычаги воздействия на
потребителей в высококонкурентной рыночной среде.
Также, частое снижение цен может вызывать у потребителя
ассоциации с низким качеством продукта, негативно сказываться на имидже бренда
и привести к падению капитала бренда (brand equity) [15]. Эмпирические
доказательства того, что увеличение размера продукта имеет подобные последствия
отсутствуют.
Перспективные направления исследований влияния
цены и размера продукта на поведение потребителей
Поскольку изменения цены и размера продукта могут
рассматриваться как альтернативные маркетинговые инструменты, представляется
актуальным более глубокое изучение и сравнение влияния данных инструментов на
покупательское поведение потребителей. Центральными в данных условиях
становятся следующие вопросы: Существуют ли различия в поведении потребителей
при соизмеримых изменениях цены и размера продукта на рынке товаров
повседневного спроса? Характерны ли данные различия для разных категорий
продуктов? Некоторые потенциальные направления исследований влияния изменений
цены и размера продукта на покупательское поведение потребителей представлены в
Таблице 3.
Таблица 3. Перспективные направления исследований влияния
цены и размера продукта на поведение потребителей
|
Аспекты поведения потребителей
|
|
Чувствительность потребительского спроса
|
Отношение к продукту
|
Маркетинговые задачи и методы их решения
|
· Сравнение чувствительности потребительского
спроса к снижению цены и соизмеримому увеличению размера продукта · Изучение влияния
периодического увеличения размера продукта на чувствительность спроса в
долгосрочной перспективе и сравнение данной реакции потребителя с реакций на
сопоставимые увеличения цены
|
· Изучение влияния периодического увеличения
размера продукта на отношение к продукту и сравнение данной реакции
потребителя с реакцией на сопоставимые снижения цены
|
|
Повышение рентабельности продукта: повышение
цены VS уменьшение размера продукта
|
· Сравнение чувствительности потребительского
спроса к повышению цены и уменьшению размера продукта
|
· Изучение влияния уменьшения размера продукта на
отношение потребителя к продукту и сравнение данной реакции потребителя с
реакций на сопоставимое увеличение цены
|
Существующие исследования, в которых производится сравнение
влияния соизмеримых изменений цены и размера продукта на поведение потребителей
фокусируются на изучении непосредственных действий потребителей, которые
выражаются в спросе на продукт. Результаты данных исследований имеют
противоречивые результаты и требуют дальнейшей более глубокой проработки. Кроме
того, феномен «поведение потребителей» не ограничивается лишь изучением
потребительского спроса, а включают в себя целый спектр различных элементов.
Изучение психологических аспектов поведения также представляется крайне
актуальным, поскольку во многом именно скрытые от прямого наблюдения
психологические процессы, происходящие в «черном ящике» сознания потребителей,
определяют их дальнейшие поступки.
Поведение потребителей представляет собой динамичный и
постоянно подвергающийся изменениям феномен. Вопрос влияния цены на поведение
потребителя уходит корнями в экономическую теорию, история которой насчитывает
не одно столетие, а также активно освещается в литературе по маркетингу. В то
же время размер продукта, как альтернативный цене маркетинговый инструмент,
практически не освещался ни в зарубежной, ни в российской научной литературе.
При этом, распространенность использования данного инструмента в маркетинговой
практике довольно широка: в целях повышения рентабельности продукта многие
компании сокращают размер продукта, оставляя цену на неизменной уровне, или
стимулируют спрос на продукт с помощью предложения дополнительного количества
продукта по неизменной цене.
Проведение эмпирических исследований, дающих более глубокое
понимание механизмов влияния изменений размера продукта на поведение
потребителей, даст компаниям более полное представление о последствиях
предпринимаемых ими действий и позволит точнее оценивать их результативность и
эффективность. Для теории маркетинга исследование данного вопроса также
представляется актуальным, поскольку оно позволяет более комплексно осветить
механизмы принятия потребителем решения о покупке и выявить аспекты поведения
потребителей, отклоняющиеся от предпосылок о рациональности потребителей,
принятых в неоклассической экономической теории.
2.2 Результаты эмпирического исследования роли
осознания потребителем воздействия со стороны фирмы в формировании реакции на
уменьшение размера продукта
По материалам научного доклада «Consumer
Response to Unit Price Increase: the Role of Pricing Tactics and Consumer
Knowledge». Working Paper # 14 (E) - 2015. Graduate School of Management, St.
Petersburg State University: SPb, 2015.
Introduction
Price increases are a widespread phenomenon in a
variety of markets. Such increases can be driven by market factors or by a
desire of the company to increase profit margins. Regardless of the purpose of
price increases, consumers usually negatively react to them as they has a
detrimental effect on their wellbeing. Under the unfavorable economic
circumstances, when consumer behavior is characterized by the accelerating
rationalization, economizing and the weakening of brand loyalty, the consumer
response to price increases can be extremely harsh. To mitigate the negative
consumer response to a price increase, companies can manage the way a price
increase is presented to the market. Instead of raising the price for a
product, the company can decrease the quantity/size of a product and remain the
price of the product item unchanged. On the one hand, it allows keeping the
product available for consumers; on the other hand, it makes hard to compare
prices directly, which could be potentially perceived by consumers as unfair or
deceptive (Zaltman, 1978; Hardesty, Bearden, Carlson, 2007).motivation of
marketers behind using pricing tactics that can mislead consumer from making an
optimal choice is the possibility to get additional benefits. Marketers may not
necessarily be trying to deceive consumers, but they are often affected
nonetheless (Manning et al. 1998; Sprott et al. 2003). When describing their
lives as consumers, people point out «the confusing, stressful, insensitive,
and manipulative marketplace in which they feel trapped and victimized»
(Fournier, Dobscha, Mick, 1998). Similarly McGraw and Tetlock (2005) reason:
«Consumers who have been gulled into thinking of themselves as part of a
corporate family or partnership may feel especially bitter when they discover
that the other party was treating them along purely as objects of monetary
calculation». Thus, misleading marketing practices once successfully
implemented can become a source of consumer dissatisfaction over time, as
consumers learn and develop their marketing expertise together with marketers.
Getting financial benefits at the expense of consumers’ welfare due to
consumer’s inattention or limited knowledge in something can bring significant
losses to the company, once consumers gain persuasion knowledge in the
field.questions the study intends to answer are the following: What are the
potential and lost benefits, if any, for companies that use covert pricing
tactics as compared to overt pricing tactics? What are the impacts, if any, of
covert pricing tactics, both on the short-term and long-term relationships
between a company and its consumers? How do the impacts of covert pricing
tactics differ among consumers who possess the different kinds of knowledge on
the usage of such pricing tactics in the marketplace?
Theoretical Background
The Framing of Price Increases: Total
Price Increase vs Product Downsizing
The price and its impact on consumers has always
been a focal point in the economic and management disciplines. The schools of
economic thought united under the aegis of neoclassical economics put the price
on one of the central places in their research agenda. They focus on how price
changes affect consumer demand for a good, but avoid scrutinizing the
underlying psychological processes that lead the consumer to a buying or
rejecting decision. Rather, neoclassical economics regards the consumer as a
rational agent who is capable to make a precise and unbiased decision to
maximize his own wellbeing. The blooming of positive economics armed with the
psychological methods expands the narrow neoclassical focus. The consumer is
not viewed as a purely rational agent anymore. Indeed, positive economics
directs its research efforts towards revealing the real consumer behavior and
the circumstances under which the predictions of neoclassical economics
fail.particular, traditional economic models treat price as the monetary
sacrifice a consumer makes to acquire a product or service (Stigler, 1987) and
assume that an individual should make the same choice when faced with
equivalent decision problems. Although these principles have been usefully
applied to a variety of marketing problems, recent research on the
psychological aspects of pricing suggests that the role of price might be more
complex than anticipated by standard economic principles. In particular, a
number of studies demonstrated that the way price information is presented,
termed price framing (Tversky, Kahneman, 1981), often significantly influences
perceptions of deal value.nature of framing appears to differentially affect
consumer perceptions of deals that are equivalent on a unit-cost basis but
worded or presented differently (Sinha, Smith, 2000).the field of pricing
research, different frames of the equivalent price deals were compared:
multiple vs single price changes (Mazumdar, Jun, 1993; Tsiros, Hardesty, 2013),
absolute vs percentage price change formats (DelVecchio, Krishnan, Smith,
2007), product price vs product size changes (Chen, Marmorstein, Tsiros, Rao,
2013; Gourville, Koehler, 2004; Kachersky, 2011), all-inclusive vs partitioned
price presentations (Bambauer, Gierl, 2008), etc.frames of product price vs
product size changes to present an equivalent unit-cost change has received
their attention in the studies of both price decreases (often for promotional
purposes) and price increases. Nevertheless, while the examination of promotion
types started relatively earlier and generated more research because of their
popularity in the marketplace, the opposite problem has relatively recently
entered the scholarly domain. The framing of price increases in an overt (total
price increase) or covert way (product downsizing i.e. reducing the volume of
product per package without a proportional decrease in package price) leads to
different consumer responses to changes that are equivalent on the unit-price
basis.a range of articles that compare the consumer demand sensitivity to an
equivalent price increase and product downsizing, it is demonstrated that
consumers are more sensitive to price over quantity/size changes because of
either their unawareness of product size, inattention to unit prices, or
relative uncommonness of product downsizing in the marketplace (Gourville,
Koehler, 2004; Cakir, Balagtas, 2014). However, some studies does not prove
that the differential sensitivity to differently framed price increases exists
(Imai, Watanabe, 2014)., the difference in the response to overt vs covert unit
price increase can be found not only at the level of behavioral achievements,
but also at the level of consumer perceptions of alternatives. Numerous studies
have shown that consumers’ acceptance of a price, particularly a price
increase, depends on considering it «fair» (Kahneman, Knetsch, Thaler, 1986).
Packaging, size, or feature differences that make it hard to compare prices
directly could be potentially perceived by consumers as unfair or deceptive
(Zaltman, 1978).fairness judgments involve a comparison of a price or procedure
with a pertinent standard, reference, or norm (Xia, Monroe, Cox, 2004). In case
of pricing, the overt raise of price per product could be regarded as such a
fair standard, because such a way to increase price is clear and does not
demand additional cognitive costs to evaluate the extent of price increase. On
the contrary, product downsizing can be regarded by consumers as a manipulative
intent of the company to mislead consumers from an optimal choice and thereby
gain from consumer limited attention or unawareness.
Consumer Knowledge on Pricing Tactics Usage
Pricing tactics include marketers’ efforts to
generate favorable price perceptions regarding their brands, stores, and
offerings (Hardesty, Bearden, Carlson, 2007). Marketers use a variety of
tactics to attract customers and persuade them to buy the product. Some pricing
practices mislead consumers leading to a suboptimal choice. For instance,
quantity surcharges implies that unit price of a product packaged in a larger
quantity is higher than the unit price of the same product and brand packaged
in a smaller quantity, which is contrary to a widespread consumer belief that
the unit price of goods packaged in larger quantities is less (Palla,
Boutsouki, Zotos, 2010). Obviously, when consumers rely on their beliefs about
pricing practice that contradict the actual pricing practice, they burden
themselves with additional financial load and decrease their wellbeing.faced
with the practice in routine life the consumer can be unaware of practice
usage. The understanding of practice nature can be gained with experience.
Consumers are more likely to accurately learn about the persuasive intent
behind pricing tactics upon greater exposure to them in the marketplace
(Carlson, Bearden, Hardesty, 2007). «Over time consumers develop
personal knowledge about the tactics used in these persuasion attempts»
(Friestad, Wright, 1994). Friestad and Wright (1994) introduced the Persuasion
Knowledge Model (PKM) that describes how people's persuasion knowledge
influences their responses to persuasion attempts, in particular, how people
use their persuasion knowledge to refine their attitudes toward products and
marketers. Persuasion knowledge guides consumers' attention to aspects of an
advertising campaign or price presentation, providing inferences about possible
background conditions that caused the agent to construct the attempt in that
way (Friestad, Wright, 1994). When choosing a pricing tactic, producers are per
se trying to find a persuading pricing message that will appeal to consumers in
a better way. It considers the marketer to be the agent of persuasion, the
consumer to be the target of persuasion, and the pricing tactic to reflect the
persuasion attempt. Pricing tactic persuasion knowledge (PTPK) represents a
form of domain-specific knowledge gained through experience (Hardesty, Bearden,
Carlson, 2007).literate consumers and those who are not armed with enough
marketing knowledge and experience react differently to tactics employed by
marketers. After conducting a series of experiments (Hardesty, Bearden,
Carlson, 2007) identified that less knowledgeable consumers are more
susceptible to such marketing practices as quantity surcharges and tensile claim
offers and to making suboptimal decisions. (Kachersky, 2011) investigates
consumer reactions to the practice of increasing unit prices of products by
either reducing product content or increasing total prices. According to
results, higher levels of PTPK lead consumers to infer different motives behind
the two types of unit price increases, with content reductions being attributed
to firm motives to increase profit margins and total price increases being
attributed to firm motives to maintain profit margins in the face of
situational factors such as cost inflation. Second, higher levels of PTPK lead
consumers to look less favorably on product brands when the product content is
reduced compared to when the total price is increased, and that this outcome is
driven by inferred motives. Third, in contrast to high PTPK consumers, lower
levels of PTPK lead consumers to alter their evaluations not of the product
brand but of the retailer.
Hypotheses Development
When studying the behavior of consumers in the
marketplace, the actual behavioral achievements are actually considered to be a
consequence of psychological stances of the consumer. The theory of planned
behavior proposes that a behavioral intention is formed based on the attitude
towards the behavior (Ajzen, 1991), and if projecting the theory into the
domain of consumer behavior, a buying intention can depend on such variables as
consumer attitude to the product and trust to the producer of the product. The
former construct has long been given a crucial role in bringing customer
satisfaction, and gaining his loyalty (Olshavsky, Miller, 1972). Similarly,
there are studies that describes consumer trust as a pivotal cornerstone and a
key factor in the establishment of the relational commitment between firm and consumers
(Reichheld, Schefter, 2000).into account the possible misleading effect of the
pricing tactic under review, it is possible to include the variables related to
consumer fairness perceptions and judgments into the consumer response set.
Price fairness being a buyer's judgment of a seller’s price can significantly
affect consumer behavior. Price fairness is a consumer’s assessment and
associated emotions of whether the difference (or lack of difference) between a
seller’s price and the price of a comparative other party is reasonable,
acceptable, or justifiable (Xia et al, 2004). Price fairness judgments may be
based on previous prices, competitor prices, and profits (Bolton et al., 2003).
In this case, the social norms are the rules that the community agrees sellers
should follow when setting prices (Garbarino and Maxwell, 2010). Although
consumers are able to quickly identify unfair situations, it is conversely more
difficult for consumers to assess whether a policy is fair - that is why some
studies use the concept of price unfairness instead (Bolton et al., 2003).
Whether or not a pricing scheme improves the firm’s profit, the attribution of
a negative motive to it will cause the perception of price unfairness
(Campbell, 1999)., three theoretically and managerially relevant antecedents of
purchase intentions are identified for the analysis: product attitude, producer
trust, and price unfairness. When proceeding with the hypothesis development, a
more favorable effect of price increase on the specified variables is
considered to have higher product attitude and producer trust evaluations,
lower price unfairness evaluations, and higher purchase intention
scores.previous studies which compare the demand sensitivity to total price
increase vs product downsizing, product downsizing is often proclaimed to be
more effective (Gourville, Koehler, 2004; Cakir, Balagtas, 2013; Snir, Levy,
2011); however, there is also an evidence that the effect of these alternative
practices could be the same (Imai, Watanabe, 2014). After closer examination of
articles that produced the different conclusions, the contradiction can be
attributed to (1) firstly, heterogeneity of consumers: consumers in different
markets can have different apriori knowledge on pricing tactics used in the
market and, thus, are different in terms of their ability to notice the product
downsizing and validly evaluate the unit price change; (2) secondly, the time
span covered by the analysis: superior effect of product downsizing is observed
in the articles that investigate short-term effect of this pricing tactics,
while the article that equates the effectiveness of total price increase and
product downsizing covers a relatively longer time span.other stream of studies
of consumer reaction to misleading pricing tactics were focused on the question
of what happens once consumers notice the unit price increase (Kachersky,
2011). However, it is reasonable to repeatedly suggest that at the point of
purchase some consumers are able to activate their internal knowledge to detect
the pricing tactics usage, while the others are not. When the pricing tactics
usage leaves undetected, consumers will tend to underestimate the price change;
thus, consumer reaction to a deal will likely differ as compared to those who
are able to detect the pricing tactics usage. Nevertheless, consumers are
permanently engaged in information exchanges with other market agents such as
companies, consumers or media entities that can provide them with information
on pricing tactics usage. Thus, the knowledge on pricing tactics usage can be
gained through external sources after the interaction with a product whose
price changed has already been accomplished. Such externally invoked knowledge
can lead to the modification of consumer response to unit price increase during
consequent interactions with the product. It can be supposed that if consumers
do not notice the tactic at the point of purchase, they do not modify their
response towards the product, but they may have especially harsh reactions if
they discover the tactic via a fellow consumer or the media (Kachersky,
2011).address the existing research gaps and contradictions, there is
introduced a conceptual framework that incorporates the consumer heterogeneity
and variability over time (Figure 1). Later on, we will refer to the short term
as a period when consumers have no external information on the pricing tactics
used in the marketplace and can rely only their personal internally invoked
knowledge, while in the long term the consumer knowledge on pricing tactics
usage can be externally invoked.to the framework, the presence or absence of
consumer knowledge on pricing tactics usage will moderate the consumer response
in the short term, while the source of consumer knowledge (externally or internally
invoked) will affect the consumer response in the long term when consumers can
get additional external information on the pricing tactics usage. Taking into
account the specified moderating effects, the marginal effectiveness of product
downsizing vs total price increase is expected to be higher in the short term
than in the long term.
1. Conceptual Framework
Based on the conceptual framework, the following
hypotheses are formulated:
H1. The marginal benefit of product
downsizing vs total price increase on consumer response is higher in the short
term than in the long term.
H2. The presence or absence
of consumer knowledge on pricing tactics usage moderates the consumer response
in the short term.
H3. The source of consumer
knowledge moderates the consumer response in the long term.
Research Design
To test the specified hypotheses, the study uses
an experimental method. Web-experiment including both within-subject and
between-subject designs is employed to compare the behavioral and psychological
responses of different consumers to overt vs covert price increases over time.
The survey structure is represented in Table 1.
1. Survey structure
Time
|
Description of
Interaction
|
Time 1
|
- All
respondents are provided with a concise description of the market situation
and the picture of the product with a price (see Appendix 1 (a)): «The
Russian company Ostankino sells milk under the brand name «36 cents» on the
Russian market. Picture and description of the product are given. Please
indicate whether you agree with the following statements»
|
Time 2
|
- Respondents
are randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (product downsizing vs
equivalent overt price increase) in the proportion 60/40. Respondents are
still provided with a concise description of the market situation (the same
for all respondents) and the picture of the product with a price (different
pictures depending on the assigned condition (see Appendix 1 (b) and (c) for
product downsizing and overt price increase conditions): «The company
decided to implement some changes to the product and adjust its price. Prices
of other milk brands have not changed. Picture and description of the
product, taking into account the changes are given. Please indicate whether
you agree with the following statements» - All
respondents are asked to evaluate the extent of price change by choosing one
of the given options with different percentage changes. - The respondents exposed to product downsizing are asked
whether they have noticed the size change. Depending on the answer they are
divided in the two groups: Treatment 1 - those who detected the size change,
and Treatment 2 - those who did not detected the sized change.
|
Time 3
|
- All
respondents regardless of their previous answers are provided with the
information on the extent of price increase. The respondents exposed to
product downsizing are also informed that the price increase was partly
accomplished through the reduction of the product quantity from 990 to 900
ml: «Price per 1 liter increased by 13.6 %. This was achieved by reducing
product packaging from 990 to 900 ml (only for product downsizing
condition). Have you changed your attitude to the product and the
manufacturer after receiving this information? To answer this question,
please indicate whether you agree with the following statements».
|
the second interaction (Time 2) the design of the
product was slightly changed. It was done to distract consumer attention from
the price change. The same redesign was accomplished for both product
downsizing and overt price increase conditions. This practice is often used by
marketers in the real market settings. Moreover, the general dynamics of the
survey resemble the real-world flow of actions: as the prices on the market
goes up, consumers modify their market behavior as a response to a price change
depending on their personal judgments and perceptions (Time2), and afterwards
consumers are provided with the exact information on the market price change
that can go from either the official statistical sources, the media or the
fellows (Time 3).each interaction consumers are offered to evaluate whether
they agree with particular statements which are intended to measure several
conceptual constructs: purchase intention product attitude, producer trust, and
price unfairness. The constructs are the same throughout the interaction
timeline. Both unidimensional and multidimensional constructs are used. The
reliability of multidimensional constructs are quite high at each time (see
Table 2).
2. Reliability of measurement scales
Measures
|
Items
|
Time 1 (α)
|
Time 2 (α)
|
Time 3 (α)
|
Purchase intention
|
I am ready to pay the
stated price for the product. I would purchase this product in the store. I
could buy this product on the next visit to the store.
|
86
|
89
|
88
|
Product attitude
|
I find this product
interesting. I like this product.
|
78
|
84
|
92
|
Producer trust
|
I trust the producer of
this product.
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Price unfairness
|
I consider the stated
price of the product acceptable. The price of the product is unreasonably
high. I think this price is unfair to consumers.
|
88
|
88
|
88
|
Considering all the above consumer response
variables, it is hypothesized the variables will behave differently in consumer
groups exposed to different treatments (overt price increase vs product
downsizing) over the consumer-product interaction trajectory. In addition, the
different responses are expected among those consumers who detected the product
downsizing vs those who did not detect that. Thus, three consumer groups are
identified in the study: a) Control group (respondents who are randomly
assigned to the total price increase condition); b) Treatment 1 (respondents
who are randomly assigned to the product downsizing condition and detected the
product downsizing); c) Treatment 2 (respondents who are randomly assigned to
the product downsizing condition and did not detect the product downsizing).
Sample and Context
The experiment embraced 71 respondents of whom 48
respondents submitted a questionnaire via a social network in March 2015 and 23
respondents submitted the questionnaire in a printed format in April 2015. The
purpose of the study is to investigate how the consumer response changes as a reaction
to a unit price change. Consumers who initially gave maximum or minimum scores
are deprived of a possibility to further change their opinion in a more
positive or negative directions respectively, which can confound the results.
To eliminate a possible confounding effect, only overlapping observations were
taken for the analysis, while the observations with extremely low and high
values at the pretest intervention were excluded. Following this logic, 8
observations were excluded from the analysis (4 observations from the Control
group; 2 - from the Treatment 1 group, and 2 - from the Treatment 2 group). The
analyses proceeds with 63 observations: 19 observations in the Control group,
22 observations in the Treatment 1 group, and 22 observations in the Treatment
2 group.questionnaire was provided in Russian and all responded were the
residents of Russia. The context of Russia as an emerging market contributes to
the research in several ways. Firstly, emerging markets are characterized with
high consumer heterogeneity. The diversity with respect to access to products
and services tends to be enormous between urban and rural households (Sheth,
2011). Many consumers have no brand or product knowledge. Often, they do not
even know how markets operate. Thus, the topicality of the consumer knowledge
proves to be very high and managerially relevant. Secondly, the economic
turbulence and market changes that take place in Russia in the current time
leads to the high price volatility, which put pressure on manufactures, on the
one side, and endanger consumers, on the other side. Manufactures have to
optimize their market strategies and often raise prices to compensate a high
uncertainty. While consumers, in the face of lowering incomes, rationalize
their behavior and put a special attention to price-related issues.
Results
To test hypotheses the repeated-measures ANOVA is
used as a method appropriate to longitudinal experiments in the marketing
literature, in general, and exact research questions under investigation, in
particular.to running repeated-measures ANOVA, the data was checked for the
existence of significant between-group differences at the baseline level (Time
1) using between-group ANOVA. The analysis revealed that there are no baseline
differences among groups for all dependent variables: purchase intention (F
(2,60) = 0.51, p = 0.60), product attitude (F (2,60) = 0.90, p = 0.41),
producer trust (F (2,60) = 0.06, p = 0.94), and price unfairness (F (2,60) =
2.23, p = 0.12). As the analysis does not reveal any differences among groups
at the pretest interaction (Time 1), any differences among groups at the
following interactions can be attributed to the treatment and moderation
effects.measures ANOVA was run on each of the consumer response indicators.
Means and standard deviations across groups over time are provided in Table 3.
Table 4 presents the test statistics of main effects.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics on Consumer
Response Measures (Means and Standard Deviations)
Dependent variables
|
Overt price increase (n
= 19)
|
Product Downsizing,
Presence of Awareness (n = 22)
|
Product Downsizing,
Presence of Awareness (n = 22)
|
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Purchase intention:
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
|
3.51 2.96 2.93
|
(0.98) (1.30) (1.23)
|
3.86 3.61 3.42
|
(1.02) (0.99) (1.02)
|
3.73 3.64 2.98
|
(1.27) (1.13) (1.13)
|
Product attitude: Time
1 Time 2 Time 3
|
4.37 3.82 3.71
|
(0.86) (1.45) (1.36)
|
4.11 3.64 3.50
|
(1.02) (1.01) (0.88)
|
3.93 3.84 3.48
|
(1.13) (0.99) (1.10)
|
Producer trust: Time 1
Time 2 Time 3
|
4.21 4.05 4.11
|
(1.40) (1.28) (1.17)
|
4.09 4.00 3.77
|
(0.90) (0.95) (1.20)
|
4.14 4.14 3.36
|
(1.01) (1.01) (1.33)
|
Price unfairness: Time
1 Time 2 Time 3
|
4.30 5.19 5.26
|
(1.37) (1.25) (0.96)
|
3.71 4.53 4.56
|
(1.19) (1.05) (1.20)
|
4.45 4.52 5.05
|
(1.00) (1.15) (1.03)
|
4. Results of Repeated Measures ANOVA
Dependent variables
|
Between-group effect
|
Within-group effect
|
Interaction effect
|
Purchase intention
|
F (2,60) = 1.14, p =
0.33
|
F (2,120) = 17.44, p =
0.00
|
F (4,120) = 2.02, p =
0.09
|
Product attitude
|
F (2,60) = 0.30, p =
0.74
|
F (2,120) = 14.58, p =
0.00
|
F (4,120) = 0.89, p =
0.47
|
Producer trust
|
F (2,60) = 0.30, p =
0.74
|
F (2,120) = 5.57, p =
0.00
|
F (4,120) = 2.08, p =
0.09
|
Price unfairness
|
F (2,60) = 2.02, p =
0.44
|
F (2,120) = 28.65, p =
0.00
|
F (4,120) = 3.00, p =
0.02
|
results of repeated measures ANOVA indicate that
there is a statistically significant within-group effect for all dependent
variables i.e. there is a tendency of all consumer response variables to change
in the same direction over time within all experimental groups. In particular,
there is observed a deterioration of product attitude and producer trust, and
acceleration of price unfairness perceptions over time, which results in the
reduction of purchase intention.group effect proved to be significant only as a
part of interaction effect, which signifies that despite there is a common
tendency within all experimental groups to react similarly in response to
experimental interventions, the severity of consumer responses to interventions
is different among groups.
Analysis of Mean Differences
Since the treatment-by-time interaction is
significant, there is a need to explain the interaction. For further insight
into the hypotheses, the analysis of mean differences is undertaken. Mean
differences of consumer response variables in the short term (Time 2 vs Time 1)
and long term (Time 3 vs Time 1) in there experimental groups are depicted in
the Figure 2. The statistical significance of mean differences among groups is
presented in the Table 5.
Intention
Attitude
Trust
Unfairness
2. Mean Differences of Consumer Response
Variables across Time
Short-Term Effect (Time
2 vs Time 1)
|
Long-Term Effect (Time
3 vs Time 1)
|
Table 5. Results of Post-Hoc Analysis of Mean
Differences
Dependent variables
|
Overt price increase
|
Product Downsizing,
Presence of Awareness
|
Product Downsizing,
Absence of Awareness
|
Purchase intention Time
2 vs Time 1 Time 3 vs Time 1
|
-0.54 *** -0.58 ***
|
-0.26 -0.44 ***
|
-0.09 -0.74 ***
|
Product attitude Time 2
vs Time 1 Time 3 vs Time 1
|
-0.55 *** -0.66 ***
|
-0.48 *** -0.61 ***
|
-0.09 -0.45 **
|
Producer trust Time 2
vs Time 1 Time 3 vs Time 1
|
-0.16 -0.11
|
-0.09 -0.32
|
0.00 -0.77 ***
|
Price unfairness Time 2
vs Time 1 Time 3 vs Time 1
|
0.89 *** 0.96 ***
|
0.82 *** 0.85 ***
|
0.07 0.60 ***
|
The analysis of mean differences indicates that
in the short run a statistically significant reduction in purchase intention in
response to price increase is observed only when consumers are exposed to total
price increase, while product downsizing does not lead to a significant
reduction in purchase intention for both treatment groups. The short-term
stability of purchase intention for the Treatment 2 group is explained by the
unchanged antecedents of purchase intention (product attitude, producer trust,
and price unfairness). On the contrary, the rapid shrinkage of purchase
intention for the Control group is driven by the movement of antecedents
(product attitude and price unfairness) to a less favorable direction. Despite
the same trajectory of intention antecedents is observed in the Treatment 1
group, the intention does not change in the short run analogously to the
Control group. The possible explanation of such a contradiction is that even
when consumers are able to detect the product downsizing, they tend to err in
their judgments regarding the price change and underestimate the scope of price
increase (see Figure 3).
3. Distributions of
Consumer Evaluations of Perceived Unit Price Increase (by Groups)
The differences in consumer response to product
downsizing depending on the presence or absence of consumer knowledge in the
short run support the hypothesis 2 (H2): consumers who detect product
downsizing change their product attitude and price unfairness judgements in the
short run, while those who does not detect product downsizing keep all consumer
response variables unchanged.the long run all experimental groups demonstrated
a significant shrinkage of purchase intention. However, the Treatment 2 group
underwent the most rapid reduction of purchase intention mostly driven by the
deterioration of producer trust judgements, which supports the hypothesis 3
(H3) according to that the source of consumer knowledge moderates the consumer
response in the long term.variability of consumer response to product
downsizing over time supports the hypothesis 1 (H1) according to that the
marginal benefit of product downsizing vs total price increase on consumer
response is higher in the short term than in the long term.
Conclusion
The study can contribute to the existing research
in several ways. Firstly, it interprets the existing research contradictions
through the introduction of several moderating variables related to consumer
knowledge. Secondly, it tries to go beyond the investigation of short-term
effect of covert vs overt pricing tactics by simulating the long-term
development trajectory of consumer-product relationships.analysis revealed that
even when consumers are able to detect the product downsizing, they tend to err
in their judgments regarding the price change and underestimate the scope of
price increase. That could be driven by the limited abilities to conduct valid
mathematical calculations when both the nominator and denominator (that is,
product size and total package price) change. Even in the absence of product
downsizing, consumers did not provide a valid evaluation of price change scope,
and product downsizing being a more mentally challenging way to frame a price
change accelerates the tendency to make mistakes among consumers. Based on such
metal limitations, covert (vs overt) unit price increase is proved to lead to a
more positive consumer response in the short term when consumers have no access
to external information and can rely only on their internal knowledge on covert
pricing tactics usage.the long term, when consumers have access to external
information on covert pricing tactics usage, the effect of covert (vs overt)
pricing tactics tends to become less favorable for companies. The long-term
effect is moderated by the source of consumer knowledge on pricing covert
tactics usage: consumers who managed to internally invoke the knowledge on
pricing tactics usage react differently to covert unit price increase in the
long term than those whose knowledge on pricing tactics usage was externally
invoked.narrow scope of the study in terms of analyzed sample and product
categories being a limitation for the generalization of results becomes an
alarm for future research with more broad and representative empirical data.
Литература
. Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S.A. (2004). When
good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer research, 31 (1), 1-16.
. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.
Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50 (2), 179-211.
. Bearden, W.O., Hardesty, D.M., & Rose, R.L. (2001).
Consumer self‐confidence: refinements
in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1),
121-134.
. Bolton, L.E., Warlop, L. and Alba, J. (2003). Consumer
perceptions of price (un) fairness. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4),
474-492.
. Cakir, M., Balagtas, J.V., & Okrent, A.M. (2013). The
Effects of Package Downsizing on Food Consumption. In 2013 Annual Meeting,
August 4-6, 2013, Washington, DC (No. 150680). Agricultural and Applied
Economics Association.
. Carlson, J.P., Bearden, W.O., & Hardesty, D.M.
(2007). Influences on what consumers know and what they think they know
regarding marketer pricing tactics. Psychology & Marketing, 24 (2),
117-142.
. Doney, P.M. and J.P. Cannon (1997). An examination of the
nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, April,
35-51.
. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion
knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of consumer
research, 1-31.
. Garbarino, E. and Maxwell, S. (2010). Consumer response
to norm-breaking pricing events in e-commerce. Journal of Business Research, 63
(9), 1066-1072.
. Gourville, J.T., & Koehler, J.J. (2004). Downsizing
price increases: A greater sensitivity to price than quantity in consumer
markets. Division of Research, Harvard Business School.
. Hardesty, D.M., Bearden, W.O., & Carlson, J.P.
(2007). Persuasion knowledge and consumer reactions to pricing tactics. Journal
of Retailing, 83 (2), 199-210.
. Haws, K.L. and Bearden, W.O. (2006). Dynamic pricing and
consumer fairness perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (3), 304-311.
. Imai, S., & Watanabe, T. (2014). Product downsizing
and hidden price increases: Evidence from Japan's deflationary period. Asian
Economic Policy Review, 9 (1), 69-89.
. Kachersky, L. (2011). Reduce Content or Raise Price? The
Impact of Persuasion Knowledge and Unit Price Increase Tactics on Retailer and
Product Brand Attitudes. Journal of Retailing, 87 (4), 479-488.
. Manning, K.C., Sprott, D.E. and Miyazaki, A.D. (1998),
«Consumer response to quantity surcharges: implications for retail price
setters», Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 373-99.
. McGraw, A.P., & Tetlock, P. (2005). Taboo trade-offs,
relational framing, and the acceptability of exchanges. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 15 (1), 2-15.
. Morgan, R.M. and S.D. Hunt (1994). The commitment-trust
theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, 58, July, 20-38.
. Olshavsky, R.W., & Miller, J.A. (1972). Consumer
expectations, product performance, and perceived product quality. Journal of
marketing research, 19-21.
. Reichheld, F.F. and P. Schefter (2000). E-Loyalty: Your
secret weapon on the web, Harvard Business Review, 78, 105-113.
. Sprott, D.E., Manning, K.C. and Miyazaki, A.D. (2003),
«Grocery price setting and quantity surcharges», Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67
No. 3, pp. 34-6.
. Xia, L., Monroe, K.B. and Cox, J.L. (2004). The price is
unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. Journal of
Marketing, 68 (October), 1-15.
. Zaltman, G., Srivastava, R.K., & Deshpande, R.
(1978). Perceptions of unfair marketing practices: consumerism implications. Advances in consumer
research, 5 (1).