week 6: (post)purchase Flashcards
me-too products
products appear the same but are different
- should not be exactly the same that consumers recognize it
- but enough that the association of one brand is going trough the other brand as well
meaningless differentiation
product that look different, but area actually the same
compromise effect
people can justify product (is on the line)
mere categorization effect
especially consumers that are unfamiliar within domain helps consumers
- informs
- helpful in choice
- liked better
- only not for small assortments and messy stores that are known for it
taxonomic categorization
based on physical features (chairs)
goal-derived categorization
based on their goal (things you take on a weekend trip)
complementary vs. substitues
complementary categories (breakfast, main course etc.) where liked more than substitute categories
- increase in sales
underlying process of complementary categories
- ease of visualization: people can imagine combining them –> more buying
- moderators: involvement and specific leads to bigger effect
other ways to guide the decision process
- clarify product differences (colour coding of packaging)
imperfect foods
- few days left before expires
- product looks funny
- package is damaged
sustainability vs authentic strategy
sustainability: make consumers aware of sustainable surrounding (waste of) of suboptimal foods
authenticity: referring to genuine, real and/or sincerely the naturalness dimension
anthropormorphism
- humanizing foods
- abnormally shaped products evokes inferior taste perceptions compared with normally shaped products (inferior effect) –> humanizing evokes positive affective reaction
- especially among abnormal products this worked
COM-B model
- capability to do so
- opportunity: social and physical environment
- people have to be motivatedd
different motivations to avoid waste
- environmental (not good for environmental)
- financial (wasting 10 euro’s)
- moral (people in Africa have hunger) –> most important
- social (what would other think of me)
study COM model
motivation: conflicting motives –> food waste reduction as resourceful
motivation: relevant motives –> info booklet
capability: reliance on mental shortcuts –> 3+1
opportunity: implementation intentions can be helpful –> seen up a use-up day
opportunity: addressing lack of time/energy –> 3+1
different types of interventions
- mass media campaigns (beware of norms and careful with negative emotions)
- one-one coaching (effective, but costly)
- education campaigns (train next generation, spill-over to their family)
- tools and nudges (first indications may be remarkably effective)
quality attributes vs. quality cues
quality attributes: benefits or product characteristics that people are looking for
quality cues: are info stimuli that are, according to the consumer, related to the quality of the product, and can be ascertained by the consumer prior to consumption
—> info stimuli –> determine consumption
types of quality cues
- intrinsic quality cues: observable part of the product that signifies quality (product itself)
- extrinsic quality cue: indicator of quality that is made visible by adding it (package, brand)
burnswik’s kens model of perception
distal phenomenon — ecological validity –> functional validity (proximal sensory cues) —- cue utilisation —> perceived phenomenon
eco validity: how well do the cue indicate the reality (some better than others: the better the higher the validity)
cue utilisation: people use different cues to make a perception (certain combination cues are better than others, shapes perception)
fuctional validity: how wel does the perceived phenomenon match the distal phenomenon
-matching index: predicted and perceived
Hierarchical effects model (from info cues to behavior) from Grunert
exposure –> perception (barrier 1) –> understanding –> (liking to decision making (barrier 2)) inference making (barrier 3) –> decision making (barrier 4) –> purchase behavior
barrier 1: not seeing/notice it
barrier 2: only peripheral processing: liking it, not understanding –> isn’t enough to buy it more often than once
barrier 3: wrong inferences: think it’s healthy, while it’s not
barrier 4: trade-off against other products
motivation: not motivated
ability: aware of the cues and its meaning and find it credible (not credible label)
info processing MOA model
ability to process
^
exposure to info (opportunity to process)—————————> understanding info cue (ability to make choice)
^
motivation to process
behavioral MOA
opportunity to behave
^
understanding info cue (ability to make choice) ———————–> behavior
^
motivation to behave
- opportunity and ability are switched
