CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR AND MARKETING STRATEGY: May 2014

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR AND MARKETING STRATEGY

J. Paul Peter & Jerry C. Olson

Fifth Edition

Irwin McGrawhill Companies

United States

The Gap

The Gap began in 1969 with a single store in San Fransisco selling jeans and records. In the 1970 s. The Gap Grew rapidly to 200 stores, fueled by heavy advertising.

The Gap became the epitome of “cool” by offering basic items such as T-shirts and jeans that looked like designer clothing, with out the arrogance. Although the company encountered a few bumps along the way, growth continued through the 19S0s with nearly 900 stores by 1994, including new stores such as GapKids and acquisitions such as GapKids and acquisitions such as Banana Republic. Ads were designed to communicate that Gap clothes fit with an individual sense of style. A campaign in the early 1990s featured celebrities such as jazz great Miles Davis and neo country singer k.d. lang mixing Gap clothes with their personal clothing. The message was clear Gap clothes could be combined with everything from Armani sport coats to Grateful Dead hand bands. Ads for The Gap and GapKids were “cool” and those meanings transferred to the clothes. In 1992 a business article identified The Gap as a company that “connects with its consumers in the way only a few other giant brands, such as Coca-Cola or McDonalds manage to do. “Helped by clever advertising and the quality and style of the clothes. The Gap look managed to be accepted by tots teenagers, young adults, and graying baby boomers.But success can bring a lot of criticism, which can change consumers attitudes and behaviors for products, brands and companies sometimes rapidly. The early 1990s witnessed a backlash of radicule and resentment toward The Gap, especially among teens ang Generation Xers. On the popular TV show “Ellen,” a character put down the khaki-clad neighbors next door as, “Gaps.” Skit on “Saturday Night Live” mocked The Gap’s Valley girl like salesclerks. A satire in counter culture magazine said, “Their clothes promote a straight, white, lame lifestyle, which is just how THEY want us to be.”Thus, The Gap, once the epitome of “cool” among young people in the 1970s and 1980s, seemed to be losing a bit of its cool among the youth generation of the 1990s. A series attitude surveys found that 90 percent of teens in 1992 said The Gap was cool, but this figure fell to 83 percent and to 66 percent in 1994. A 1994 survey found that Nike, Guess and Levi’s all beat The Gap in the coolest brands category.Gap, Inc., of course, can withstand comic put downs and snide essays in Generation X magazines. Well Street analysts continue to predict strong growth into the twenty first century. However, Gap managers are concerned that Gap may be losing its appeal with shoppers under age 30. They are adjusting their merchandise section to include more trendy styles and they are developing new advertsing campaigns. You can check out the current Gap advertising on its Web site: http://ww.gap.com/advertising/.

Source: Christina Duff, “Bobby Short Wore Khakis-Who’s He and Cares?” The Wall Street Journal, February 16, 1995, pp.A1, A6; Russell Mitchell, “The Gap,” Business Week, March 9, 1992, pp. 58-64; The Gap corporate Web site: http://www.gap.com.

This example illustrate the concept of consumers’ attitudes, one of the most important concepts in the study of consumer behavior. Each year marketing managers like those at The Gap spend million of dollars researching consumers attitudes, marketers hope to influence their purchase behaviors. In this chapter we examine two types of attitudes, attitudes toward objects and attitudes toward behaviors. We begin by defining the concept of attitude and discussing how people’s salient beliefs causae attitudes. Then we consider the information integration process that forms attitudes toward actions and influences people’s intentions to perform behaviors. Finally, we discuss the imperfect relationship between behavioral intentions and actual behaviors. Throughout, we identify implications of these concepts and processes for developing marketing strategies.

What Is an Attitude?Attitude has been a key concept in psychology for more than a century and at least 100 definitions and 500 measures of attitude have been proposed. Although the dominant approach to attitudes has changed over the years (see Highlight 6.1), nearly all definitions of attitude have one thing in common: They refer to people’s evaluations. We define attitude as a persons overall evaluation of a concept.As you learned in Chapter 3 evaluations are affective responses at relatively low levels of intensity and arousal (refer to Exhibit 3.2). These evaluations can be created by both the affective and the cognitive systems. The affective system automatically produces affective responses including emotions, feelings, moods and evaluations or attitudes as immediate, direct responses to certain stimuli. These favorable or unfavorable affective responses are generated without conscious, cognitive processing of information about the product. Then through classical conditioning processes, these evaluations may become associated with a product, or brand, thus creating an attitude.

Highlight 6.1

A Brief History of the Study of Attitude

Attitude has been called “the most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary American social psychology. “And it is one the most important concepts marketers use to understand consumers. Over the years, researches have tried a variety of approaches to studying attitudes in an attempt to provide a more complete understanding of behavior.

One of the earliest definitions of attitude was introduced by Thurstone in 1931. He viewed attitude as a fairly simple concept the amount of affect a person has for or against an object. A few years later, Allport proposed a much broader definition: Attitude is a mental and neural state of readiness to respond, organized through experience and exerting a directive and/or dynamic influence and behavior.”

Triands and others combined three response types (thoughts, feelings and actions) into the tripartite model of attitude. In this scheme, attitude was seen as comprising three related components cognition (knowledge about the object), affect (positive or negative evaluations of the object) and conation (intended or actual behavior toward the object). Later, Fishbein like Thurstone and Fishbein is the most useful. That is attitude represents a person’s favorable or unfavorable feelings toward the object in in question. Beliefs (cognition) and intentions to behave (conation) are seen as related to attitude but are separate cognitive concepts, not part of attitude itself. This is the perspective we take in this book.

Source: Adapted from Martin Fishbein, “An Overview of the Attitude Construct,”in Look Back, A Look Ahead, ed. G. B. Hafer (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1980), pp.1-19; and Richard J. Lutz, “The Role of Attitude Theory in Marketing,” in Perspective in Consumer Behavior, 3 rd ed., ed. H. H Kassarjian and T.S. Robertson (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1981), pp.234-5.

In this chapter however we treat attitudes as affective evaluations created by the cognitive system. The cognitive processing model of consumer decision making (refer to Exhibit 3.5) shows that an overall evaluation is formed when consumers integrate (combine) knowledge, maenings, or beliefs about the attitude concept. The goal of this integration process is to analyze the personal relevance of the concept and determine whether it is favorable or unfavorable: “What does this concept have to do with me? Is this good or bad thing for me? Do I like or dislike this object?”We assume consumers from attitudes toward every concept they interpret in terms of its personal relevance.

As shown in Exhibition 3.5 the evaluations produced by the attitude formation process may be stored in memory. Once an attitude has been formed and stored in memory, consumers do not have to engage in another integration process to construct another attitude when they need to evaluate the concept again. Instead, the existing attitude can be activated from memory and used as a basis for interpreting new information. Because activated attitudes can influence consumers judgements, taste tests usually are conducted blind (tasters are not told what brands, they are testing). This avoids activating brand attitudes that could bias the taste judgments. Finally, the activated attitude can be integrated with other knowledge in decision making (we discuss how attitudes are used in decision processes in the next chapter).

Whether a given attitude will affect interpretation or integration processes depends on its accessibility in memory or its probability activation. Among the many factors that can influence the accessibility of attitudes are salience or importance (more self-relevant attitudes are more easily activated), frequency or prior activation (attitudes that are activated more often are more accessible), and the strength of the association between a concept and its attitude (puppies tend to activate positive attitudes; zebras usually do not activate an attitude). Marketers sometimes use cues to “prime” (activate) an attitude that is relevant to their strategies consider the cute babies in ads for Michelin tires.

Attitudes can be measured simply and directly by asking consumers to evaluate the concept of interest. For instance, marketing researches might ask consumers to indicate their attitudes toward McDonalds french fries on three evaluative scales.

McDonald’s French Fries

Extremely Unfavorable -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Extremely Favorable

Dislike Very Much -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Like Very Much

Very Bad -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Very Good

Consumers overall attitudes toward McDonald’s french fries (Ao) are indicated by the average of their ratings across the three evaluative scales. Attitudes can vary from negative (ratings of -3 -2 -1) through neutral (a rating of 0) to positive (ratings of +1 +2 +3). Attitudes are not necessarily intense or extreme. On the country, many consumers have essentially neutral evaluations (neither favorable nor unfavorable) toward relatively unimportant, non involving concepts. A neutral evaluation is still an attitude, however, although probably a weakly held one.

Attitudes toward What?

Consumers attitudes are always toward some concept. We are interested in two broad types of concepts objects and behaviors. Consumers can have attitudes toward various physical and social objects (Ao indicates attitudes toward the object) including products, brands, models, stores and people (salesperson at the camera store) as well as aspects of marketing strategy (a rebate from General Motors; an ad for Wrighley’s chewing gum). Consumers also can have attitudes toward imaginary objects such as concepts and ideas (capitalism, a fair price for gasoline). A 1997 survey of Americans attitudes toward pollution and the environment found that, compared to five years ago, 76 percent were more concerned, 19 percent were less concerned and 6 percent were unchanged. Also, consumers can have attitudes toward their own behaviors or actions (why did I buy that sweater?) and future behaviors (going to the mall tomorrow afternoon).

Levels of Attitude Concepts

Consumers can have distinct attitudes to many variations of the same general concept. Exhibit 6.1 shows several attitude concepts that vary in their levels of specificity, even though all concepts are in the same product dominant. For instance, Rich has a moderately positive attitude toward fast food restaurants in general, but he has a highly favorable attitude one product form (hamburger restaurants). However, his attitude toward McDonalds, a specific brand of hamburger restaurant, is only slightly favorable (he likes Burger King better). Finally, his attitude toward a particular “model” the McDonalds on the corner of Grant and Main is somewhat negative (he had an unpleasant meal there).

Note that some attitude concepts are defined in terms of a particular behavioral and situational context (eating dinner with his children at the Grant Street McDonalds after a soccer game), whereas other concepts are more general (McDonalds restaurants). Consumers could have different attitudes toward these concepts and the attitudes might not be consistent with each other. Rich has an unfavorable attitude toward eating lunch with his friends at the Grant Street McDonalds (he’d rather go to a fill service restaurant); however, he has a somewhat favorable attitude toward eating dinner there with his kids (it’s easy and fast).

Note that although the same McDonalds “object” is present in each of these concepts, Rich’s attitude toward that McDonalds is different in the two situations. Because consumers are likely to have different attitudes toward different attitude concepts, ,marketers must pricisely identify tha attitude concept at the level of specificity most relevant to the marketing problem of interest.

Marketing Implications

Marketers are highly interested in market share, a measure of purchasing behavior indicating the proportion of total sales in a product category (or product form) received by a brand. But marketers also need to attend to consumers brand attitudes.

Brand Equity

Brand attitude is a critically important aspect of brand equity. Brand equity concerns the value of the brand to the marketer and to the consumer. From the marketers perspective, brandequity implies greater profits, morecash flow and greater market share. For instance, Marriott estimated that adding its name to Fairfield Inn increased occupancy rates by 15 percent (a tangible indicator of the value of the Marriot brand). In England, Hitachi and G.E. once co owned a factory that made identical televisions for both compasnies. The only differences were the brand name on the seat and a $75 greater price for the Hitachi, reflecting the equity or value of the Hitachi brand.

Exhibit 6.1

Variations in Level of Specify of Attitude Concept

Levels of attitude concept	Examples	Examples
Product class	Fast food restaurants	Fast food restaurants
Product form	Pizza restaurants	Hamburger restaurants
Brand	McDonald’s	Burger King
Model	Grant Street McDonald’s	McDonald’s at Chester Mall
Brand/model general situation	Eating lunch with friends at Grant Street McDonald’s	Eating dinner with kids at Grant Street McDonald’s
Brand/model specific situation	Eating dinner with kids at Grant Street McDonald’s after a soccer gamr	Eating dinner with kids at Grant Street McDonald’s for a birthday party

From a consumer perspective, brand equity involves a strong, positive brand attitude (favorable evaluation of the brand based on favorable meanings and beliefs that are accessible in memory (easily activated). These three factors create a strong, favorable consumer brand relationship, a vary important asset for a company and the basis for brand equity. Highlight 6.2 presents more about the concept of brand equity.

Highlight 6.2

Measuring Brand Equity

Which brands have the highest brand equity? The Total Reseaarch Corporation, a marketing research company based in Princeton, New Jersey, measures brand equity by focusing on perceptions of product and brand quality. Their equitTrend survey conducted in 1992 asked 2,000 men and women over the age of 15 to rate a number of products in terms of their quality perceptions. Disney (Disneyland/Disney World) emerged as the top quality brand name in America in 1992. Kodak (film) came in second and Hallmark (greeting cards) was ranked third. The other top 10 companies included UPS (delivery service), Fisher Price (toys), Levis (jeans), Arm & Hammer (baking soda), Mercedez Benz (cars), AT&T (long distance), and IBM (computers). Moderately priced American brands seemed to score best in 1992, perhaps because America was coming out of recession.

Measuring the equity or value of a brand is a tricky business. No fully accepted way of doing so has been developed as yet. Here are four approaches that can give a marketer insight into the value of a brand. These measures are not independent; rather, they are highly interrelated.

· Substitutability, if a consumerism highly reluctant to switch to another brand, even if an inducement to do so is offered, then that person perceives equity with the brand, compared to another consumer who finds it easy to substitute a different brand a regularly purchased brand.

· Repeat Purchase Rate. Simply, the percentage of people who bought your brand last time and will do so again. The greater the repeat rate, the higher the brand equity and the greater the profitability of the brand.

· Concentration. If a market is becoming concentrated, then the marketers have built equity in their brands. Therefore, people are not inclined to switch to other suppliers. People perceive value (equity) in the brands and do not switch easily.

· Demand Elasticity. If consumers have a high value for a brand, they will respond enthusiastically to a price reduction, and resist responding to price reductions for competitive brands.

Total Research Corporation considers quality to be the major component of brand equity. Although a difficult concept to define and measure, quality is nonetheless an important meaning. According to John Morton, senior VP at Total Research Corporation, quality is the most powerful factor in determining brand success or failure. He claims that the extra equity associated with a high quality brand generates three times the sales of a brand that is merely “quite acceptable” in quality.

Source: Carrie Goeme, “Disney Rated Top U.S. Brand, “Marketing News, April 27, 1992, p.1. Reprinted by permission of the American Marketing Association; William Moran and Kenneth Longman,”Boosting Profit Potential,”Marketing Insight, Summer 1991, pp.24-32

Basically marketers can get brand equity in three ways: They can build it, borrow it or buy it. Companies can build brand equity by ensuring that the brand actually delivers positive consequences and consistently advertising these important consequences. Consider the considerable brand equity built up over time by Campbell’s soup, Greent Giant vegetables. Mercedes-Benz automobiles, and NutraSweet artificial sweetener. Anheuser-Busch created the Eagle brand of snack foods (including honey roasted peanuts) and invested heavily in creating positive consumer attitudes (and brand equity) through advertising and sales promotions.

Companies can borrow brand equity by extending a positive brand name to other products. For example, the Coca-Cola line now includes Coca-Cola Classic, Coke, Diet Coke, Caffeine Free Coke, Cherry Coke, and others. Tide no longer refers to only one type of detergent; the brand name has been extended to other products, and presumably some of Tide’s original equity has been passed along too. Consumer researches are busy trying to determine if and how brand equity is transferred by brand name extensions. Some research shows that the success of a brand extension depends on the key meanings consumers associate with a brand name and whether those meanings are consistent or appropriate for the other product. Finally, a company can buy brand equity by purchasing brands that already have equity. For instance, the mergers and leveraged buyouts of the 1980s were partially motivated by the desire to buy brands with strong equity. Thus, when Grand Metropolitan bought Pillsbury and Philip Morris bought Kraft, they acquired the equity of all the acquired brands.

Attitude Tracking Studies

Because many marketing strategies are intended to influence consumers attitudes toward a brand, marketers can use measures of consumers attitudes to indicate the success of those strategies. For instance, many companies regularly conduct large scale attitude surveys, called tracking studies, to monitor consumers brand attitudes over time. When these studies identify changes in consumer attitudes, marketers can adjust their marketing strategies, as The Gap did in the opening example.

One company that failed to track consumers increasingly unfavorable attitudes was Howard Johnson’s, one of the original restaurant chains in the United States. During the highway building boom in the 1950s and 1960s, HoJo,s was known as a clean place with nice washrooms, predictable and wholesome food, and ice cream the kids would like. Consumers attitudes were positive, and Howard Johnson’s prospered. But over the next 20 years, HoJo’s did not monitor customers attitude’s well; nor did it respond effectively to the strategies of competitors that were passing by them by. For instance, Howard Johnson’s used informal gauges of consumer attitudes, such as comment cards left on restaurant tables. Competitors such as Marriot, Denny’s , and McDonald’s ran sophisticated market tests that told them what customers liked and didn’t like. Finally, after a long decline, Marriot bought out the once powerful chain of Howard Johnson’s restaurants.

Attitude toward Objects

In this section, we examine the information integration process by which consumers form attitudes toward objects (Ao), including products or brands. As shown in Exhibit 3.5 during the integration process, consumers combine some of their knowledge, meanings and beliefs about a product or brand to form an overall evaluation. These considered beliefs may be formed by interpretation processes or activated from memory.

Exhibit 6.2

Relationship between Salient Beliefs about an Object and Attitude toward the Object

All beliefs about Crest	Salient beliefs about Crest
Crest has fluoride Crest is approved by the American Dental Crest has mint flavor Crest comes in a gel Crest is made by Procter & Gamble Crest has a red, white, and blue package.\ Crest prevents cavities Crest freshens breath Crest gets teeth clean Crest comes in tubes Crest comes in a pump container Crest is more expensive than store brands Crest is used by my parents Crest has a tartar control formula	Crest has fluoride Crest has mint flavor Crest comes in a gel Crest comes in a pump container Crest has a tartar control formula	Attitude toward Crest

Freshens breath	Comes in a pump	Has a tartar contol formula
Tastes good	Prevent Cavaties	Gets teeth clean
Has fluoride	Crest	Is more expensive than store brands
Has mint flavor	Crest	Is used by my parents
Comes in a gel	No mess	Is approved by American Dental Association
Has a red, white, and blue package	Comes in tubes	Is made by Protect & Gamble

Salient Beliefs

Through their varied experiences, consumers acquire many beliefs about products, brands, and other objects in their environment. As an Example, Exhibit 6.2 presents some of the beliefs one consumer has about Crest toothpaste. These beliefs constitute an associative network of linked meanings stored in memory. Because people’s cognitive capacity is limited, only a few these beliefs can be activated and consciously considered at once. The activated beliefs (highlighted in Exhibit 6.2) are called salient beliefs. Only the salient beliefs about an object (those that are activated at a particular time and in a specific context) cause or create a persons attitude toward that object. Thus one key to understanding consumers attitude is to identify and understand the underlying set of salient beliefs.

In principle consumers can have salient beliefs about any type and level of meaning associated with a product. For instance, consumers with complete means end chains of product knowledge could activate beliefs about the products attributes, its functional consequences or the values achieved through using it. In addition, beliefs about other types of product related meanings such as country of origin could be activated. Salient beliefs could include tactile, olfactory and visual images as well as cognitive representations of the emotions and moods associated with using the product. If activated any of these beliefs could influence a consumers attitude toward a product.

Many factors influence which beliefs about an object will be activated in a situation and thus become salient determination of Ao. They include prominent stimuli in the immediate environment (point of purchase displays, advertisements, package information), recent events, consumers moods and emotional states and consumers values an I goals activated in the situation. For instance, noticing a price reduction sign for bath soap may make price beliefs salient and therefore influential on Ao.

Marketers may find that consumers salient beliefs vary over time or situations for some products. That is, different sets of salient beliefs about a product may be activated in different situations or at different times. For instance, consumers who have just returned from the dentist are more likely to activate beliefs about tooth decay and cavities when thinking about which brand of toothpaste to buy. Variations in the set of salient beliefs over time and situations can produce changes in consumer attitudes depending on the situation, context, time, consumers mood, and so forth. Consumers have more stable attitudes toward objects that have a stable set of salient beliefs. Normally though the amount of variation in salient beliefs and attitudes is not great for most objects.

Salient Beliefs

The Multiattribute Attitude Model

A great deal of marketing research has focused on developing models for predicting the attitudes produced by this integration process. There are called multiattribute attitude models because they focus on consumers beliefs about multiple product or brand attributes. Of these, Marten Fishbein’s model has been most influential in marketing.

The key proposition in Fishbein’s theory is that the evaluation of salient beliefs cause overall attitude. Simply stated, people tend to like object that are associated with “good” characteristics and dislike objects they believe have “bad” attributes. In Fishbein’s multiattribute model, overall attitude toward an object is a function of two faqctors: the strengths of the salient beliefs associated with the object and evaluations of those beliefs. Formally, the mode proposes that:

Ao= n bi ei

Where

Ao= attitude toward the object

bi= the strength of the belief that the object has attribute i

ei= the evaluation of attribute i

n= the number of salient beliefs about the object

This multiattribute model accounts for the integration process by which product knowledge (the evaluations and strength of salient beliefs) is combined to from an overall evaluation or attitude. The model however does not claim that consumers actually add up the products of belief strength and evaluation when forming attitudes toward objects. Rather, this and similar models attitude produced by the integration process; they are not meant to describe the actual cognitive operations by which knowledge is integrated. In this book, we consider the multiatribute model to be a useful tool for investigating attitude formation and predicting attitudes.

Model Components

The two major elements of Fishbein’s multiattribute model are the strengths and evaluations of the salient beliefs. Exhibit 6.3 illustrate how these components are combined to form attitudes toward two brands of soft drinks. This consumer has salient beliefs about three attributes for each brand. These beliefs vary in content, strength and evaluation. The Fishbein model predicts that this consumer has a more favorable attitude toward 7UP than toward Diet Pepsi.

Belief strength (bi) is the perceived probability of association between an object and its relevant attributes. Belief strength is measured by having consumers rate this probability of association for each of their salient beliefs, as shown here:

“How likely is that 7UP has no caffeine?”

Extremely Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Extremely Likely

"How likely is that 7UP is made from all natural ingredients?"

Extremely Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Extremely Likely

Consumers who are quite certain that 7 UP has no caffeine would indicate a very strong belief strength, perhaps 9 or 10. Consumers who have only a moderately strength belief that 7UP is made from only natural ingredients might rate their belief strength as 6 or 7.

Exhibit 6.3

An Example of the Multiattribute Attitude Model

	b1=10	No Caffeine (e1= +3)
7 UP (A0=27)	b2=5	All natural ingredients (e2= +1)
	b3=8	Lemon –lime flavor

Attitude 7up= eibi

A0= (10)(3)+(5)(1)+(8)(-1)

A0= 30+5-8

A0=27

	b1=7	No calories (e1=+2)
Diet Pepsi (A0=6)	b2=6	Caffeine (e2=-3)
	b3=10	Cola flavor (e3=-1)

Attitude DP= eibi

A0= (7)(2)+(6)(-3)+(10)(1)

A0= 14-18+10

A0=6

Consumers who are quite certain that 7UP has no caffeine would indicate a very strong belief strength, perhaps 9 or 10. Consumers who have only a moderately strong belief that 7UP is made from only natural ingredients might rate their belief strength as 6 or 7.

The strength of consumers product or brand beliefs is affected by their past experiences with the object. Beliefs about product attributes or consequences tend to be stronger when based on actual use of the product. Beliefs that were formed indirectly from mass advertising or conversations with a salesperson tend to be weaker. For instance, consumers are more likely to form a strong belief that “7UP tastes good” if they actually drink a 7UP and experience its taste directly than if they read a product claim in an advertisement. Because they are stronger (and more likely to be activated), beliefs based on direct experience tend to have a greater impact on Ao. Marketers therefore try to induce potential customers to actually use their products. They may distribute free samples; sell small, less expensive trial sizes; offer cents-off coupons; or have a no obligation trial policy.

Fishbein argued that the typical number of salient beliefs about an attitude object is not likely to exceed seven to nine. Given consumers limited capacities for interpreting and integrating information, we might expect even fewer salient beliefs for many objects. In fact, when consumers have limited knowledge about low involvement products, their brand attitudes toward products or brands that are more self-relevant might be based on more salient beliefs.

Exhibit 6.4

The Means End Chain Basis for Attribute Evaluations

	Attributes	Consequences	Values
	No caffeine (ei)	I'm not lottery (ei)	Relaxation (ei)
7UP (Ao)	All natural ingredients (ei)	Better for me (ei)	Good health (ei)
	Lemon-lime flavor (ei)	Tastes good (ei)	Pleasure (ei)

Associated with each salient belief is a belief evaluation (ei) that reflects how favorably the consumer perceive rs that attribute. Marketers measure the ei component by having consumers indicate their evaluation of (favor-ability toward) each salient belief, as shown below.

“7 UP has no caffeine.”

Very Bad -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Very Good

“7UP has all natural ingredients,”

Very Bad -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Very Good

As shown in Exhibit 6.3 the evaluations of salient beliefs influence the overall Ao in proportion to the strength of each belief (b1). Thus, strong beliefs about equally positive attributes have greater effects on Ao than do weak beliefs about equally positive attributes, Likewise, a negative ei reduces the favorability of Ao in proportion to its bi “weight.”

As you learned in Chapter 4, beliefs may be linked to form means end chains of product knowledge. Exhibit 6.4 presents means end chains for three attributes of 7UP. Note that the evaluation of each product attribute is ultimately derived from the evaluation of the end consequence in its means end chain. As shown in Exhibit 6.4 the evaluation of the end “flows down” the means end chain to determine the evaluations of the less abstract consequences and attributes. For instance, a person who positively evaluates the end “relaxation,” an instrumental value, would tend to positively evaluate the functional consequence “I’m not jittery”. In turn, the product attributes “no caffeine”, which is perceived to lead to not being jittery and relaxation would have a positive evaluation. These evaluations would then influence the overall attitude, Ao, toward 7UP.

Consumers evaluations of salient attributes are not necessarily fixed over time or constant across different situations. For instance, consumers may change their minds about how good or bad an attribute is as they learn more about its higher-order consequences. Situational factors can also change the ei components. In a different situation, some consumers may want to be stimulated (when getting up in the morning or working late at night to finish a project). If so, the now negative evaluation of the end value “relaxation” would flow down the means end chain and create a negative evaluation of the “no caffeine” attribute which, in turn, would contribute to a less positive overall attitude toward 7 UP (for that situation). In this situation, the consumer might have a more positive attitude toward Diet Pepsi, which does contain caffeine. This is yet another example of how the physical and social environment can influence consumers affect and cognition.

Marketing Implications

Marketers have been using multiattribute models to explore consumer behavior since the late 1960s. These models became popular because they have an intuitive appeal to researchers and managers and are relatively easy to use in research. Not all of these models accurately reflect the basic Fishbein model, but most are adaptations of it. We will discuss a few of the many applications of these models below.

Understanding Your Customers

The multiatribute model is useful for identifying which attributes are the most important (or most salient) to consumers. For instance, airline passengers love to complain about the lousy food served on planes. Yet in a 1988 survey, only 40 percent of passengers rated good food and beverage service as important, whereas other attributes were mentioned as important much more frequently. These included convenient schedules (over 90 percent), fast check-in (about 80 percent), comfortable seats (about 80 percents), and good on time performance (about 85 percent). Perhaps airlines use such data to justify not improving the quality of the food they serve (airlines spend only about $4.25 per passenger on food). The relative importance of different attributes is likely to vary across market segments. For instance, three segments of the airline market light travelers (1 or 2 trips), moderate travelers (3 to 9 trips per year) and frequent travelers (10 or more trips per year) evaluated some attributes differently. Light travelers had greater concerns about safety and efficient baggage handling, whereas frequent travelers were more concerned with convenient schedules and frequent flier programs.

Diagnosis of Marketing Strategies

Although multiattribute models were developed to predict overall attitudes, marketers often use them to diagnose marketing strategies. By examining the salient beliefs that underlie attitudes toward various brands, marketers can learn how their strategies are performing and make adjustments to improve their effectiveness. For instance, in the value conscious 1990s, marketers found that many consumers were more concerned with the quality and value of products relative to their prices. It became fashionable once again to get a bargain, spend one’s money wisely, and not overpay for quality. Many companies adjusted their strategies in light of these beliefs. Consider the motto of Wal Mart, the world’s larges retailer: “The low price on the brands you trust,” Southwest Airlines combined low fares with friendly but bar bones service to enhance consumers value beliefs and overall attitudes. Taco Bell reduced its operating costs enough to price several items on the mean under $1 and create stronger beliefs about the value provided by the fast food restaurant.

Understanding Situational Influences

Marketers can also use the multiattribute attitude model to examine the influence of situations. The relative salience of beliefs about certain product attributes may be greatly influenced by the situations in which the product is used. Situations vary in many ways, including time of day, consumer mood, environmental setting, weather and hundreds of other variables. These situational characteristics affect which beliefs are activated from memory and influence attitudes toward the brands that might be purchased for use in those situations. For instance, one study of snack products found that beliefs about economy and taste were most important for three common snacking occasions for everyday desserts, for watching TV in the evening and for kids lunches. However, when buying snacks for a children’s party beliefs about nutrition and convenience were most important. Such differences in salient beliefs can lead to different brand attitudes in these various situations.

Attitude Change Strategies

The multiattribute model is a useful guide for devising strategies to change consumers attitudes. Basically a marketer has four possible attitude change strategies: (1) add a new salient belief about the attitude object ideally, one with a positive ei; (2) increase the strength of an existing positive belief; (3) improve the evaluation of a strongly held belief; or (4) make an existing favorable belief more salient.

Adding a new salient belief to the existing beliefs that consumers have about a product or brand is probably the most common attitude change strategy. Highlight 6.3 describes such a strategy in an anti smoking campaign. Sometimes this strategy requires a physical change in the product. For instance, crunchy is a new attribute added to many food products. Consider Honey Crunch Corn Flakes from Kellogg. French Toast Crunch from General Mills and Cranberry Almond Crunch from Post. Candy is getting crunchier too Reese’s Crunchy Cookie Cups from Hershey and Nestle’s White Crunch. Even smooth Yoplait Yogurt (by General Mills) introduced a Crunchy Lite line containing nuts. People in general have positive attitudes toward “crunchy” and “crispy”, which seem to be linked to feelings of freshness, fun and stress relief. As one customer put it, I don’t know if it is the sound or what, but crunchy foods are satisfying.”

Highlight 6.3

Changing Teenagers Attitudes toward Smoking

A teenager sitting in a movie theater with his date spits a wad of gooey, chewed tobacco into a cup. Seconds later the young woman absentmindedly reaches over and takes a drink from the3 cup. Gross This scene is part of a TV ad, called Theater Snacks with the tag line: “Tobacco: Tumor causing, teeth staining, smelly puking habit, “for all the ads. The ad is one several in an anti smoking campaign sponsored by the state of Arizona, and its gross humor, aimed at teens, has made quite a splash around the country. The campaign was funded with moneys derived from a 40 cent-per-pack tobacco tax approved by state voters in 1994. Other states have similar laws, but so far only Arizona is speaking to teens in their “language”.

Consider another of the ads in the Arizona campaign. A group of cannibals is dancing around a big kettle simmering over a fire. A painted tribesman gives a bowl of stew to the chief cannibal. The chief takes a mouthful and spits it out, roaring with rage. The subtitle beneath reads,”I said I wanted smoked tourist, not a tourist who smoked. “In another ad, Dr. Frankenstein chastises his servant for bringing him “the lungs of a smoker!”

The Arizona campaign uses other methods to change the attitudes and intentions of young smokers. They offer cool merchandise, including T shirts and hats bearing the campaign slogan. Also, there is the “Ash Kicker,” a $150,000, 43 foot trailer pulled by a HummVee that visits up to 35 schools and fairs per month. Inside is a simulated cancerous lung, a mannequin spewing chewing tobacco, a coffin with a take cadaver inside and a young female smoker whose head spins to reveal a sickly winkled woman, along with anti smoking literature.

Is the campaign working reduce teenage smoking? Well, kids all over Arizona can repeat the punch lines of the ads and describe the ads. At this writing, it is to early to tell if the campaign will work to change attitudes and behaviors. We do know that just talking about the ads isn’t enough.

Source: Barbara Martinez, “Anti smoking Ads Aim to Gross Out Teens, “The Wall Street Journal, March 31, 1997, pp. B1, B12. Reprinted by permission of The Wall Street Journal, copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Company, Inc All Right Reserved Worldwide.

Marketers can also try to change attitudes by changing the strength of already salient beliefs. They can attempt to increase the strength of beliefs about positive attributes and consequences; or they can decrease the strength of beliefs about negative attributes and consequences. Papa John’s pizza (http://www.papajohns.com) is outperforming the entire fast food indudtry. Yet, Papa John’s costs a bit more than Little Caesar’s arrives no faster than Dominos, does not sell salads or sandwiches and does not offer sit down service. Instead Papa John’s focuses on taste, as indicated by their corporate slogan, “Better ingredients, better pizza. “They make their own dough with purified water and their own sauce from fresh tomates, and use only premium mozzarella cheese. Papa John’s works hard to create strong consumer beliefs that its pizza tastes better, and apparently consumers do believe. Many publications in markets around the country have rated Papa John’s as the best tasting pizza and in 1997,

Exhibit 6.5

Relationships among Beliefs, Attitudes and Behaviors

Regarding a Specific Object

Beliefs about Pizza Hut		Behaviors toward Pizza Hut
· Has pan pizzas · Has super supreme pizzas · Has a salad bar · Serves beer · Is more expensive than Domino’s · Has convinient location · Has free parking · Stores have red roots · Has pleasant employees · Has nice atmosphere	Attitude toward Pizza Hut A0	· Go to Pizza Hut on Friday night · Order a large pan pizza · Complain to manager · Ignore Pizza Hut ad on TV · Use a Pizza Hut coupon for a free soft drink · Recommend Pizza Hut to boss · Read Pizza Hut menu
	Feedback

Hut within the next month. If this approach seems reasonable, you may be surprised to learn that consumers attitudes toward an object often are not good predictors of their specific behaviors regarding that object. In fact, with a few notable exceptions, most research has found rather weak relationships between Ao and specific single behaviors.

One of the problems with relating Ao to individual behaviors is illustrated in Exhibit 6.5, which presents the relationships among a consumer’s beliefs, attitude, and behaviors concerning a particular object Pizza Hut (in her case, a favorable Ao), which is based on her salient beliefs about Pizza Hut. For instance, she might go to Pizza Hut on Friday night and order a pizza, ignore a Pizza Hut ad on television, use a Pizza Hut coupon for a free soft drink, or recommend Pizza Hut to her boss. However, none of these specific behaviors is necessarily consistent with or strongly related to her overall Ao, although some of them might be.

This does not mean consumers attitudes are irrelevant to their behaviors. As shown in Exhibit 6.5 Judy’s overall attitude (Ao) is related to the overall evaluative pattern of her behaviors (all of her behaviors regarding Pizza Hut taken together). However, it is not possible to predict with accuracy any specific behavior based on a person’s overall attitude toward the object of the behavior.

Although this proposition may seem strange, there are many examples of its validity. Consider that many consumers probably have positive attitudes toward Porsche cars, Rolex watches and vacation homes, but most do not buy chese products. Because favorable attitudes toward these products can be expressed in many different behaviors, it is difficult to predict which specific behavior will be performed. Consider three consumers who have generally favorable attitudes toward Porsches but do not own one. One consumer may read ads and test reports about Porsches. Another consumer may go to showrooms to look at Porsches. A third consumer may just daydream about owning a Porsche. In sum, having a generally favorable (or unfavorable) attitude toward a product does not mean the consumer will perform every possible favorable (or unfavorable) behavior regarding that product. Marketers need a model that identifies the attitudinal factors that influences specific behaviors; such a model is provided by Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action.

The Theory of Reasoned Action

Fishbein recognized that people’s attitudes toward an object may not be strongly or systematically related to their specific behaviors. Rather, the immediate determinant of whether consumers will engage in a particular behavior is their intention to engage in that behavior. Fishbein modified and extended his multiattribute attitude model to relate consumers beliefs and attitudes to their behavioral intentions. The entire model is presented in Exhibit 6.6.

The model is called a theory of reasoned action because it assumes that consumers consciously consider the consequences of the alternative behaviors under consideration and choose the one that leads to the most desirable consequences. The outcome of this reasoned choice process is an intention to engage in the selected behavior. This behavioral intention is the single best predictor of actual behavior. In sum, the theory of reasoned action proposes that any reasonably complex, voluntary behavior (such as buying a pair of shoes) is determined by the persons intentions to perform that behavior. The theory of reasoned action is not relevant for extremely simple or involuntary behaviors such as automatic eye blinking, turning your head at the sound of the telephone, or sneezing.

Formally, the theory of reasoned action can be presented as follows:

B~BI= A act (w1)+ SN (w2)

Where

B = a specific behavior

BI = consumer’s intention to engage in that behavior

A act = consumer’s attitude toward engaging in that behavior

W1 and w2 = weights that reflect the relative influence of the A act and SN components on BI

According to this theory, people tend to perform behaviors that are evaluated favorably and that are popular with other people. They tend to refrain from behaviors that are regarded unfavorably and that are unpopular with others.

Model Components

In this section, we describe and discuss each component of the theory of reasoned action, beginning with behavior. Note that all the components of the model are defined in terms of a specific behavior, B.

Behaviors are specific actions directed at some target object (driving to the store, buying a swimsuit, looking for a lost Bic pen). Behaviors always occur in a situational context or environment and at a particular time (at home right now, in the grocery store this afternoon, or at unspecified location in your town next week). Marketers need to be clear about these aspects of the behavior of interest because the components of the theory of reasoned action must be defined and measured in terms of these specific features.

Exhibit 6.6

The Theory of Reasoned Action

External factors

External influences:

· Physical environment

· Social environment

· Marketing environment

Personal variables

· Values, goals, desired ends

· Other knowledge beliefs and attitudes

· Personality traits

· Lifestyle patterns

· Demographic characteristics

· Miscellaneous psychological characteristics

Beliefs that behavior B leads to salient consequences (bi)

Evaluation of salient consequences (ei)

Beliefs that relevant others referents think I should perform the behavior B (NBi)

Motivation to comply with relevant referants (Mci)

n= bi ei

m= NBj Mci

Attitude toward behavior B AB

Relative weighting for importance

Subjective norm about behavior B SNb

Intention to perform behavior B

Behavior B

Source: Adapted from Martin Fishbein, “ An Overview of the Attitude Construct, “in A Look Back, A Look Ahead, ed. G. B. Hafer (Chicago American Marketing Association, 1980), p.8. Reprinted by permission of the American Marketing Association.

Basically, a behavioral intention (BI) is a proportion connecting self and a future action: “I intend to go shopping this Saturday. “One can think of an intention as a plan to engage in a specified behavior in order to reach a goal. Behavioral intentions are created through a choice/decision process in which beliefs about two types of consequences A act and SN are considered and integrated to evaluate alternative behaviors and select among them. Behavioral intentions vary in strength, which can be measured by having consumers rate the probability that they will perform the behavior of interest, as shown below:

“All things considered, how likely are you to use newspaper coupons when buying groceries this week or next?”

Extremely Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Extremely Likely

As shown in Exhibit 6.6. the strengths and evaluations of a consumers salient beliefs about the functional consequences of an action are combined n= bi ei to form an attitude toward the behavior or action (A act) . A act reflects the consumer’s overall evaluation of performing the behavior. Marketers measure the strengths and evaluations of the salient beliefs about the consequences of a behavior in the same way that they measure beliefs about product attributes. Highlight 6.4 discusses these concepts.

A act is quite different from Ao, Although both attitudes are based on an underlying set of salient beliefs, the beliefs are about rather different concepts. For instance, consider the following salient beliefs about “Chevrolet” (an object) and buying a new Chevrolet this year “(a specific action involving the object).

Chevrolet (Ao) Buying a New Chevrolet This Year (A act)

Moderately priced (+) Gives me a mode of transportation (+)

Ordinary (-) Will put me in financial difficulty (-)

Well built (+) Will lead to high upkeep costs (-)

Dependable (+) Will cost more now than later (-)

Easily serviced (+) Will lead to high insurance rates (-)

Note that these salient beliefs have quite different evaluations. Thus we should not be surprised to find that some consumers like Chevrolet in general (Ao) but have negative attitudes toward buying a Chevrolet this year (A act).

It is possible for marketing strategies to have a different impact on A o and A act. For instance, one study found that information about the store where a new product was sold affected consumers attitudes toward purchasing the product (A act) but did not influence their attitudes toward purchasing the product (A act) but did not influence their attitudes toward the product itself (Ao). Marketers therefore must be careful to determine whether they are concerned with consumers attitudes toward the object in general or some action regarding the object (such as buying it). Only attitudes toward behaviors are likely to be strongly related to specific behavioral intentions.

In addition, marketers must carefully identify the level of specificity most appropriate for the marketing problem. Attitudes at one level of specificity are not always consistently related to attitudes at other levels. For instance, Rick and Linda very much like to go shopping (a general behavior), yet they dislike shopping on Saturdays when the malls are crowded (a more specific behavior).

Highlight 6.4

Attitudes and Intentions toward Web Sites on the Internet

Marketers and Web designers need to know which features of a Web site create positive attitudes toward returning to the site and which features create negative attitudes. In 1997 a research firm called Survey Site placed a feedback icon in each site for two weeks. Visitors who clicked on the icon could take an online survey in which they rated various dimensions of the site and evaluated their experiences. Participants also were asked if they intended to make a repeat visit to the site.

SurveySite identified about 40 factors that could potentially influence peoples intentions to make a repeat visit. They condensed these to 12 factors in two broad categories design features of the Web site and emotional experiences during the visit. The most influential factor in determining a repeat visit was “good content” content that is relevant or interesting to the participant. Other factors related to good content included the quality of the layout, the ease of getting information and the uniqueness of the site. Frivolous content had the strongest association with peoples intentions not to return to the site.

The second most important factor in peoples intentions to return to the site was whether they enjoyed their first visit (positive affective reactions). Enjoyment could be due to various factors, such as the novelty of the experience, interesting design features, or the sheer fun of the visit. According to the respondents, the overall quality of the graphics was not an important consideration in influencing their intention to return. And sites that were “like all the rest” did not receive high attitude and intention scores.

Source: Marshall Rice, “What Makes Users Revisit a Web Site?”Marketing News, March 17, 1997, p.12. Reprinted by permission of the American Marketing Association.

The subjective or social norm (SN) component reflects consumer perceptions of what they think other people want them to do. Consumer salient normative beliefs (NBi) regarding “doing what other people want me to do” and their motivation to comply with the expectations of these other people (MCi) are combined (m = NBi MCi) to form SN. Along with A act SN affects consumers behavioral intention (BI).

Measuring the strength of normative beliefs is similar to the belief strength measures discussed earlier.

“Members of my family are in favor of my using coupons.”

Extremely Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Extremely Likely

Motivation to comply is measured by asking consumers to rate how much they want to conform to other people’s desires.

“Generally, how much do you want to do what your family wants you to?”

Not at All -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Very Much

The theory of reasoned action proposes that A act and SN combine to affect behavioral intentions (BI) and that their relative influence varies from situation to situation. During the information integration process that creates BI, A act and SN may be weighed differently (see Exhibit 6.6). Some behaviors are primarily affected by the SN factor. For instance, intentions to wear a certain style of clothing to a party or to work are likely to be influenced more strongly by SN and the normative beliefs regarding conformity than beliefs about the general consequences of wearing those clothes (A act). For other behaviors, normative influences are minimal and consumers intentions are largely determined by A act. For instance, consumers intensions to purchase Contac cold remedy are more likely to be affected by their salient beliefs about the functional consequences of using Contac and the resulting attitude toward buying it than by what other people expect them to do.

Marketing Implications

The situational context in which behavior occurs can have powerful influences on consumers behavioral intentions. Consider a consumer named Brian, a 26 year old assistant brand manager for General Foods. Last week, Brian had to decide whether to buy imported or domestic beer in two different situations. In the first situation, Brian was planning to drink a few beers at home over the weekend while watching sports on TV. In the other context, he was having a beer after work in a plush bar with a group of his co workers. The different sets of product related and social beliefs activated in the two situations created different A act and SN components. In the private at home situation, Brian’s products beliefs and A act had the dominant effect on his intentions (he bought an inexpensive domestic beer). In the highly social bar situation, his normative beliefs and SN had the greater impact on his intentions (he bought an expensive imported beer).

To develop effective strategies, it is important to determine whether the A act or SN component has the major influence on behavioral intentions (and thus on behavior). If the primary reason for a behavior (shopping, searching for information, buying a particular brand) is normative (you think others want you to), marketers need to emphasize that the relevant normative influences (friends, family, co-workers) are in favor of the behavior. Often this is done by portraying social influence situation in advertising. On the other hand, if intentions are largely influenced by A act factors, the marketing strategy should attempt to create a set of salient beliefs about the positive consequences of the behavior, perhaps by demonstrating those outcomes in an advertisement. In sum, theory of reasoned action identifies the types of cognitive and affective factors that underlie a consumers intention to perform a specific behavior.

Although intentions determine most voluntary behaviors, measures of consumers intentions may not be perfect indicators of the actual intentions that determine the behavior. In the following section, we discuss the problems of using intention measures to predict actual behaviors.

Intentions and Behaviors

Predicting consumers future behaviors, especially their purchase behavior (sales, to marketers), is a critically important aspect of forecasting and marketing planning. According to the theory of reasoned action, predicting consumers purchase behaviors is a matter of measuring their intentions to buy just before they make a purchase. In almost all cases, however, this would be impractical. When planning strategies, marketers need predictions of consumers purchase and use behaviors weeks, months or sometimes years in advance.

Unfortunately, predictions of specific behaviors based on intentions measured well before the behavior occurs may not be very accurate. For instance, one survey found that only about 60 percent of people who intended to buy a car actually did so within a year. And of those who claimed they did not intend to buy a car, 17 percent ended up buying one. Similar examples could be cited for other product categories (many with even worse accuracy). This does not mean the theory of reasoned action is wrong in identifying intentions as an immediate influence on behavior. Rather, failures to predict the behavior of interest often lie with how and when intentions are measured.

To accurately predict behaviors, marketers should measure consumer’s intentions at the same level of abstraction and specificity as the action, target and time components of the behavior. Situation context also should be specified when it is important.

Exhibit 6.7 lists several factors that can weaken the relationship between measured behavioral intentions and the observed behavior of interest. In situations where few of these factors operate, measured intentions should predict behavior quite well.

In a broad sense, time is the major factor that reduces the predictive accuracy of measured intentions. Intentions like other cognitive factors can and do change over time. The longer the intervening time period, the more unanticipated circumstances (such as exposure to the marketing strategies of competitive (companies) can occur and change consumers original purchase intentions. Thus marketers must expect lower levels of predictive accuracy where intentions are measured long before the behavior occurs. However, unanticipated events can also occur during very short periods. An appliance manufacturer once asked consumers entering an appliance store what brand they intended to buy. Of those who specified a brand, only 20 percent came out with it. Apparently, events occurred in the store to change these consumers beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behavior.

Despite their less than perfect accuracy, measures of purchase intentions are often the best way to predict future purchase behavior. For instance, every three months United Air Lines conducts a passenger survey measuring intentions to travel by air during the next three months. Obviously many events in the ensuing time period can change consumers beliefs A act and SN about taking a personal or business trip by airline. To the extent that these unanticipated factors occur, the measured intentions will give less accurate predictions of future airline travel.

Certain behaviors cannot be accurately predicted from beliefs, attitudes and intentions. Obvious examples include no voluntary behaviors such as sneezing or getting sick. It is also difficult to predict purchase behaviors when the alternatives (brands) are very similar and the person has positive attitudes toward several of them. Finally, behaviors about which consumers have little knowledge and low levels of involvement are virtually impossible to predict because consumers have very few beliefs in memory on which to base attitudes and intentions. In such cases, consumers measured intentions were probably created to answer the marketing researcher’s question; such intentions are likely to be unstable and poor predictors of eventual, actual behavior. In sum, before relying on measures of attitude and intentions to predict future behavior, marketers need to determine whether consumers can be expected to have well formed beliefs, attitudes and intentions toward those behaviors.

Exhibit 6.7

Factors That Reduce or Weaken the Relationship between Measured Behavioral Intentions and Observed Behavior

Factor	Examples
Intervening Time	As the time between measurement of intentions and observation of behavior increases, more factors can occur that act to modify or change the original intention so that it no longer corresponds to observed behavior
Different levels of specify	The measured intention should be specified at the same level as the observed behavior, otherwise the relationship between them will be weakened. Suppose we measured Judy’s intentions to wear jeans to class (in general). But we observed her behavior on a day when she made a class presentation and didn’t think jeans were appropriate in that specific situation.
Unforeseen environmental event	Sam fully intended to buy Frito’s chips this afternoon, but the store was sold out. Sam could not carry out the original intention and had to form a new intention on the spot to buy Ripple chips.
Unforeseen situational context	Sometimes the situational context the consumer had in mind when the intentions were measured was different from the situation at the time of behavior. In general, Peter has a negative intention to buy Andre champagne. However when he had to prepare a holiday punch calling for eight bottles of champagne, Peter formed a positive intention to buy the inexpensive Andre Brand.
Degree of voluntary control	Some behaviors are not under complete volitional control. Thus, intentions may not predict the observed behavior very accurately. For instance, Becky intended to go shopping on Saturday when she hoped to be recovered from about with the flu, but she was still sick and couldn’t go.
Stability of intentions	Some intentions are quite stable. They are based on a well developed structure of salient beliefs for A act and SN. Other intentions are not stable, as they are founded on only a few weakly held beliefs that may be easily changed.
New information	Consumers may receive new information about the salient consequences of their behavior, which leads to changes in their beliefs and attitudes toward the act and or in the subjective norm. These changes, in turn, change the intention. The original intention is no longer relevant to the behavior and does not predict the eventual behavior accurately.

The Gap

The Gap example illustrate how consumer attitudes develop and change over time. Understanding these trends can help marketers develop and evaluate marketing strategies. Measures of beliefs and attitudes can also be used to gauge the success of marketing strategies in solving a problem.

Measures of Ao (attitudes toward The Gap) and the related salient beliefs can identify problem areas needing attention. For instance, the negative consumer attitudes and the underlying beliefs, especially about product quality, retailer service and clothing styling, could suggest actions the company could take to enhance the favorability of consumers attitudes toward Gap clothes.

For Gap, it would be important to understand the SN (subjective norm) component in the theory of reasoned action. The SN factor includes people’s feelings about Gap fashions. If the SN component becomes increasingly negative, The Gap should take remedial action. It is important to maintain strong behavioral intentions to shop at The Gap. Thus, the company should measure consumers A act and SN concerning shopping at The Gap, as well as their behavioral intentions to do so.

Summary

We began this chapter by defining attitude as a consumer overall evaluation of an object. We discussed how attitude objects varied in levels of abstraction and specificity. We than discussed consumers attitudes toward objects, Ao and described Fishnein’s multiatribute model of how salient beliefs create Ao. We also discussed the theory of reasoned action, which identifies consumers attitudes toward performing behaviors (A act) and social influences (SN) as the basis for behavioral intentions (BI). Finally, we considered the problems of using measures of behavioral intentions to predict actual behaviors. Throughout, we discussed implications for marketers. In this chapter, we identified consumers activated knowledge, in the form of beliefs as the basic factor underlying their attitudes, subjective norms and intentions and ultimately their behaviors. Moreover, we showed that these activated salient beliefs and the resulting attitudes and intentions are sensitive to situational factors in the environment, including marketing strategies. This provides another example of how cognition, environment and behavior interact in a continuous, reciprocal process to create new behaviors, new cognitions (beliefs, attitudes, and intentions) and new environments.

Key Terms and Concepts

Accessibility 122 belief strength 129

Attitude 120 brand equity 124

Attitude change strategies 133 evaluations 120

Attitude toward object (Ao) 126 integration process 121

Attitude toward behavior or action (A act) 139 multiattribute models 129

Behavioral intention 139 salient beliefs 128

Behaviors 137 subjective or social norm (SN) 140

Belief evaluation 131 theory of measured action 137

Review and Discussion Questions

1. Define attitude and describe the two main ways that consumers can acquire attitudes.

2. How are salient beliefs different from other beliefs? How can marketers attempt to influence belief salience?

3. The Gap has been doing business for nearly 30 years. Over this time, with its stores, clothing products and advertising. The Gap has built up considerable brand equity. Discuss the type of brand equity The Gap has built up over this time among various consumer segments. Is The Gap vulnerable to losing this equity? What can The Gap do to protect its equity?

4. Consider a product category in which you make regular purchases (such as toothpaste or shampoo). How have your belief strengths and evaluations and brand attitudes changed over time? What factors or events contributed to these changes?

5.      Using a product as an example, describe the key differences between Ao and A Act Under what circumtances would marketers be more interested in each type of attitude?

6.      Visit The Gap Web site at http://www.gap.com examine either the virtual style section or the current advertising section or the current advertising section. Discuss the types of beliefs and attitudes you think this information would create. What effects might these beliefs and attitudes have on consumers behavioral intentions? (Use the theory of reasoned action to guide your thinking and your answer.)
7.      Use the example of The Gap to distinguish between the multiatribute attitude model and the theory of reasoned action. How could each model contribute to the development of a more effective marketing strategy for The Gap?
8.      Discuss the problems in measuring behavioral intentions to (a) buy a new car; (b) buy a soda from a vending machine; and (c) save $250 per month toward the eventual purchase of a house. What factors could occur in each situation to make the measured intentions poor predictors of actual behavior?
9.      How could marketers improve their predictions of behaviors in the situations described in Question S? Consider improvements in measurements as well as alternative research or forecasting techniques.
10. Negative attitudes present a special challenge for marketing strategy. Consider how what you know about attitudes and intentions could help you address consumers who have a brand relationship described as “Don’t like our brand; buy a competitor’s brand.

Marketing Strategy in Action

Coca-Cola

Consumer attitudes are very important to Coca-Cola, the world’s largest marketer of soft drinks (1992 sales of $13 billion worldwide). “Coca-Cola” is perhaps the best known brand name in the world. According to the Warren Buffet, the largest holder of Coca-Cola stock, “This is fundamentally the best large business in the world. [The product] sells for a moderate price. It’s universary liked. The per capita consumption goes up almost every year in every country. There is not another product like it.”

Coca-Cola receives about 80 percent of its operating income ($8.6 billion in 1992) from overseas markets. Once a big American company with a substantial foreign market, Coca-Cola now is a huge international company with a substantial market in the United States. What are consumers attitudes toward Coke in foreign markets? Consumers’ attitudes toward the Coke brand and the Coca-Cola company tend to be most favorable in countries where the culture differs considerably from America’s. In many of these countries especially those in the former communist world—especially those in the former communist world – Coke is an icon of American culture and a symbol of a market economy. For instance, Polish consumers attitudes toward Coca-Cola were so positive that a crowd gathered and spontaneously broke into applause when the first Coke delivery truck came down the street. Brand attitudes like these are why Coca-Cola held a 45 percent share of the world market for soft drinks in 1992. (Although Coke and Pepsi are closely matched in the United States, Coke outsells Pepsi by 4 to 1 margin else where in the world. Coca-Cola held a 45 percent share of the world market for soft drinks in 1992. (Although Coke and Pepsi are closely matched in the United States, Coke outsells Pepsi by a 4 to 1 margin else where in the world. Coca-Cola’s goal was to achieve a 50 percent market share by the mid 1990s.)

It seems consumers everywhere like the product (cola soft drinks) and the Coca-Cola brand. And those positive brand attitudes seem to influence consumers behavior. In the United States, where attitudes toward the Coke brand are positive, the per capita consumption of Coke products in the early 1990s was 296. This means on average every person in the United States drank 296 8-ounce servings of Coca-Cola products per year! Could this level of consumption go even higher? Elsewhere around the world, there was substantial room for growth. In 1992, Austria had a per capita consumption of 150 Coke servings per year, compared to 83 in Hungary and only 8 in Romania. Consumption in Iceland was inexplicably high at 397 servings and consumption was even higher in American Samoa at 500 servings per year.

Over the past 20 or so years, Coca-Cola has had many occasions to pay special attention to the attitudes of U.S. consumers. In July 1982 Coca-Cola did the unthinkable (at that time) and introduced a new brand called Diet Coke. Several executive feared “diluting” the Coca-Cola brand name and perhaps reducing favorable consumer attitudes toward the flagship brand. This did not occur, however. Diet Coke became one of the most successful new products of the 1980s. By 1984 it displaced 7UP to become the third most popoular soft drink (after Coca-Cola and Pepsi). Thereafter the company rapidly introduced decaffeinated versions of Coca-Cola, Diet Coke and Tab. But these successes were overshadowed by a highly controversial marketing decision.

In the spring of 1985, Chairman Roberto Goizueta announced a new brand with an improved taste, to be called “Coke”. He also reported that the original Coca-Cola brand would be retired permanently. The original formula with its secret ingredient (Merchandise 7X) was to be locked in a bank vault in Atlanta, never be used again. New Coke was to permanently replace the 99 year old Coca-Cola brand. Goizueta called the new product the most significant soft drink development in the company’s history. Americans got their first taste of the new Coke in late April 1985. By July, the company reversed its earlier decision and announced that the original brand (and formula) was coming back under the brand name “Coca-Cola Classic.” New Coke was one of the most embarrassing new product launches ever because the company failed to understand consumers strong attitudes toward the original Coca-Cola brand.

The positive attitudes and beliefs that kept Coca-Cola consumers buying the brand over and over again are the basis of brand loyalty. Brand loyalty usually begins to develop when consumers acquire positive attitudes based on beliefs about positive product attributes and functional benefits (Coca-Cols is sweet, carbonated or refreshing). After the brand has been around for a while it can accumulate “extra” meanings through consumers use experiences in consuming the product. Some of these meanings can be highly emotional and self relevant it the brand becomes associated with consumers lifestyles and self-images.

In the case of Coca-Cola, many brand loyal users associated the brand with fond memories of days gone by. When the company announced that it was replacing the original Coca-Cola brand, these consumers reacted as if they had lost an old friend. They inundated company headquarters with protests. One group in Seattle threatened to sue the company. Then, when June sales of new Coke didn’t pick up, the company hastily brought back the original brand, renamed “Coca-Cola Classic.”

The decision to retire the old Coca-Cola formula had been very carefully researched. Managers thought they had covered every angle, especially taste characteristics. Coca-Cola had spent over $4 million on many different taste tests of the new flavor, involving over 200,000 consumers in some 25 cities. These tests revealed that more people liked the new, sweeter falvor than the old (about 55 percent to 45 percent). But this research didn’t measure everything. “All the time and money and skill poured into consumer research on the new Coca-Cola could not measure or reveal the deep and abiding emotional attachment to original Coca-Cola, “Donald Keough, president of Coca-Cola, said later. A company spokesperson put it this way “We had taken away more than the product Coca-Cola. We had taken away more than the product Coca-Cola. We had taken away more than the product Coca-Cola. We had taken away a little part of them and their past. They said, You have no right to do that. Bring it back.” So Coca-Cola did.

In 1994 Coke Classic was the leading brand in the United States with 20,4 percent markets share (by volume); Pepsi had 17.8 percent; and New Coke, now called Coke II, had tiny 0.1 percent. But Coca-Cola learned several valuable lessons from the New Coke fiasco, including the amount of equity associated with Coke name.

The highly positive meanings and feelings many consumers have for Coca-Cola constitute its “brand equity”. Brand equity consumers the meanings that attract consumers to the brand and that underlie positive attitudes toward a brand. The 1985 fiasco with new Coke clearly showed that Coca-Cola has a powerful brand equity with its customers. Managers at Coca-Cola have used this equity to develop new brands, most of which have been successful. Most of these new brands are “line extensions,” minor variations of the original brand. For instance, the Coca-Cola section of a supermarket shelf might include Coca-Cola Classic, Caffeine Free Coca-Cola Classic, Diet Coke, Caffeine Free Diet Coke, Cherry Coke and others.

In 1994 Coca-Cola managers introduced several flavors extensions of the Minute Maid orange soda brand along with a clear version of Tab. Managers intended these line extensions to leverage the brand equity in the Minute Maid and Tab brands and to defend against competitive new beverages such as Clearly Canadian and Snapple.

After this flurry of brand extensions, the broad strategy at Coca-Cola was to differentiate the entire product line, without tainting the Coke icon or diminishing Coke equity. Coca-cola recognized a strong demand for different flavors of soft drinks and related beverages. In the decade from 1984 to 1994, teas and juices gained share, whereas regular and diet colas declined 6 percentage points, from approximately 64 percent in 1984 to about 58 percent in 1994. CEO Roberto Goizueta (now decreased) stated in the 1995 Coke annual report, “If three keys to selling real estate are location, location, location, the three keys to selling consummer producsts are differentiation, differentiation, differentiation. Every marketing victory we have won has been the result of our total commitment to making cur brands clearly distinctive from every other item on the grocery shelf. “So, instead of continuing to slap the Coke label on new products with distinct brand names such as Fruitopia, named a top 10 new product in its first year and Surge a soft drink with a slightly higher caffeine content.

In the 1990s Coca-Cola managed brand equity and consumer attitudes with a variety strategies. In 1995 it acquired brand equity by purchasing the Barq brand of root beer. Coca-Cola attempted to create brand equity through new product development by launching a flotilla a new flavors for its Frutopia and Nestea brands. It tried to enhance brand equity for Sprite by using more dynamic graphics on the package. Coca-Cola attempted to “borrow” brand equity through its sponsorship of the 1996 Summer Olympics, held in Atlanta (location of world headquarters). Finally, and most significantly, Coca-Cola attempted to reactivate brand equity by introducing new packages for Coke Classic that revived the vintage contour bottle. According to Goizueta, introducing the contour bottle throughout the world was the single most effective differentiation effort in the soft drink industry for years.

Discussion Questions

1. Discuss the attitudes toward Coca-Cola and related beliefs of intensely brand loyal consumers (perhaps like those who were upset by the New Coke in 1985). How might their attitudes and beliefs differ from those of less involved, less loyal consumers? What marketing implications would these differences have?

2. Do you think it possible for consumers to be loyal to more than one brand of soft drink? What about more than one brand of cola? Discuss the pros and cons of having several brands in a product category (as do Coca-Cola and Pepsi in the cola category). Compare the strategy of line extension to that of creating completely distinct brands for these products? What factors should marketers consider in making this important decision?

3. Many marketers made a distinction between customers and consumers. For instance, Coca-Cola sells cola syrup directly to its customers, the operators of bottling plants. The bottlers sell bottled Coke products to retailers, vending machine operators, restaurants, airlines, and so forth. Those organizations in turn sell Coca-Cola products to individual consumers who drink it. Discuss how the salient beliefs about Coke products might differ for customers and consumers. How might their attitudes toward Coke differ? Who should Coca-Cola pay more attention to its customers or the consumer? Why?

4. Discuss Coca-Cola’s various strategies for managing brand equity of its many products. For instance, what are the pros and cons of borrowing versus creating brand equity. Analyze Coke’s attempt to “revive” brand equity by reintroducing the contour bottle around the world.

Source: John Huey, “The World’s Best Brand, Fortune, May 31, 1993, pp.44-54; Anne B. Fisher, “Coke’s Brand Loyalty Lesson, “Fortune, August 5, 1985, pp. 44-6; Thomas Moore, “He Put the Kick Back into Coke, “Fortune, October 26, 1987, pp. 46-56; Seth Lublove, “We Have a Big Pond to Play In, “Forbes, September 18, 1993, pp.216-24; Andrew Wallenstein, “Coca-Cola’s Sweet Return to Glory Days, “Advertising Age, April 17, 1995, p.6. Copyright. Crain Communications, inc., 1995.

CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR AND MARKETING STRATEGY

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Chapter 6: Attitudes and Intentions

Total Pageviews

About Me