EXERCISE 16: ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION: THE
PROCESS AND EVALUATIVE CRITERIA
Objectives
<<NL>>
<<<END NL>>
Background
Overview of the Alternative Evaluation
Process
The
third stage in the consumer decision-making process—pre-purchase alternative evaluation—is the process of comparing
various alternatives identified during information search in order to choose
among them by comparing them on evaluative
criteria (attributes). If this information is favorable enough, consumers
then form a buying intention, a plan
to select an alternative. Figure 16.1 provides an overview of the alternative
evaluation process.
<<FIGURE 16.1 HERE>>
Inputs to
Alternative Evaluation
In order for a customer to evaluate alternatives, three inputs are required, as shown by the three boxes on the left-hand side of Figure 16.1. First, buyers decide on evaluative (choice, decision, buying, purchase) criteria (criteria)—those attributes or characteristics of alternatives consumers use to consider, compare, evaluate, and select one or more alternatives. These criteria include: (1) the product’s physical features, such as price, quality, and style, and (2) consumer benefits (satisfactions provided by the features), such as saving money and having comfort. Second, customers determine the importance weights (weights)—the relative importance of determinant attributes for a product. Finally, buyers decide on the members of their evoked set.
Mental Building Blocks Formed During
Alternative Evaluation
The
first mental building block for the alternative evaluation process formed
during alternative evaluation is beliefs—the
consumer’s perception about how each alternative performs on the important
criteria. These beliefs give rise to an attitude—a
favorable or unfavorable evaluation of an alternative based on the customer’s
beliefs. If beliefs about a brand are generally positive, then the attitude
will be positive. Third, a buying
intention (purchase intention,
intention to buy, behavioral intention, purchase plan, propensity to buy)
is a plan to buy the most favorable option—the one for which the consumer feels
brand preference.
The
Nature of Alternative Evaluation Varies
In
most cases, consumers make attribute-based
choices—decisions comparing brands’ performances on the determinant criteria,
as outlined in Figure 16.1. However, there are two other types of alternative
evaluation decision models.
First,
consumers sometimes make attitude-based
(affective, hedonic) choices) —decisions based not on specific
brand-attribute comparisons but rather because of general attitudes toward,
summary impressions of, or feelings and emotions associated with the product.
Example: “I like Campbell’s Soups—they bring back happy childhood memories”.
Second,
consumers might use shortcut decision
heuristics—quick rules of thumb usually confined to one easily-used
criterion. A consumer’s rule might be “Buy the brand mom always bought” or “Buy
whatever is on sale.”
Results of Alternative Evaluation
Barring
any unanticipated circumstances, such
as a retail stockout on the preferred brand or peer
pressure to buy a less-preferred brand, consumers will select their favored
alternative. Alternatively, the decision process might be put on hold, either
temporarily or permanently, due to perceptions of resource constraints and/or
perceived lack of alternatives worth pursuing.
The Nature of Evaluative Criteria
Evaluative
criteria are a subset of product
criteria—attributes in a product, regardless of whether or not they matter
to buyers. That is, product criteria might or might not be evaluative criteria used to select among options. Product criteria for a restaurant include the nature and color
of the furniture, but it is doubtful that these are evaluative criteria used to
select a restaurant.
Evaluative criteria answer the question, “What features
and benefits do buyers look for when they purchase this product?” Salient attributes come readily to
buyer’s minds and are on the tip of their tongues if asked. Hence, although research
respondents will mention them when queried what criteria they use in judging
brands in a product class, salient attributes are not necessarily important. A criterion could be salient,
for example, due to frequent exposure to an advertisement mentions it (“The
toothpaste is ‘minty fresh!’”; “The cola is “refreshing”), a recent article
read (a story on soaring crime rates could prime the “safety” attribute in
selecting a neighborhood in which to dwell), or a recent personal experience
such as a problem incurred. A follow-up probe to determine why a respondent mentioned a characteristic might reveal whether it
is cited merely because it is salient rather than truly important to the
respondent.
Important attributes are criteria that are significant
to the consumer. Bought brands should rate highly on them. Clearly, the
marketer must perform well on these important characteristics.
It
is possible, however, that even though an attribute is important, it is not
used to compare brands if the consumer believes that all brands perform more or
less equally on that criterion. For example, a pitch that “Soapee
soap will get your hands and face really clean” won’t make the cash registers
ring. There has to be something more: Perhaps one brand better fights bacteria,
while another smells nice, and a third comes in a
unique shape.
That
is, consumers evaluate brands on determinant
attributes—criteria that are (1) important
and (2) used to distinguish brands
because not all alternatives are viewed by customers as performing equally. A toaster oven’s ability
to brown bread evenly is important but not determinant. Think about what
makes you buy one brand rather than another in a given category product. That
is a determinant attribute.
The General
Types of Choice Criteria: Features and Benefits
Product features (physical attributes, concrete attributes, dimensions, traits, product
specifications (specs)
constitute the tangible product—objective,
physical properties of a product such as its size, shape, styling, color, and
other aspects of product design. A shampoo’s features include its ingredients,
pH balance, alkaline contents, and degree of concentration. There can also be intangible or abstract features, such as endorsement by a product-testing agency,
years of experience in the field, and reputation for excellence. Product
development activities are concerned with forming features, each delivering one or more product benefits.
Product benefits are subjective satisfactions, consumption goals, or desired consequences
consumers get from the features, such as ease of use and comfort. Functional
benefits relate to utilitarian (functional) needs and concern the product’s end uses or applications—the
activity that will yield the desired experiential
and/or symbolic benefits. Functional
benefits answer the questions, “What is the product used for?” and “What are its practical applications?” Shampoo can be used to clean hair and make it
glisten.
The
other two types of benefits both relate to hedonic
(experiential) needs. Experiential
(hedonic) benefits answer the questions, “How does it feel to use the
product?” and “What kind of experiences does the product provide?” A shampoo
brand’s experiential benefits could include leaving hair feeling soft, having a
clean scent, and looking bright and shiny.
Symbolic benefits relate to brand imagery and symbolic
needs for self-expression to reflect one’s self-concept. Symbolic benefits answer the question, “What types of
people use the brand?” A shampoo brand’s promoted symbolic benefits might
include leaving hair looking young, giving hair a sexy appearance, and being
associated with glamorous, sophisticated, upscale women.
As
Figure 16.2 shows, generally, features
give rise to functional benefits,
which in turn lead to either experiential
benefits and/or symbolic benefits.
For example, Certs mints has a drop of Retsin (feature), which provides fresh breath (function),
making your mouth feel fresh (experiential benefit) and giving you sex appeal
(symbolic benefit).
<<FIGURE 16.2
NEAR HERE>>
Means-end
Chain Analysis Links Features and Benefits to Personal Values
Means-end chain analysis is based on the idea that product
features are the means for obtaining the ends,
which are product benefits and personal values (personal outcomes). Figure 16.3 shows the relationship between the
elements of the means-end chain. The
consumer’s ultimate ends are to fulfill her personal values—beliefs about in which ideal states to be. Personal values answer the question, “Why are
the product’s benefits important to the buyer?”
<<Figure 16.3 around
here>>
There are two types of consumer values. Terminal values are personal desirable end states of being (existence)—how people would like to eventually experience their lives. Examples: achievement at work, financial security, and self-respect. Instrumental values are ideal states of doing or modes of conduct required to achieve the terminal states of being. These include hard work, frugality, helpfulness, honesty, and obedience.
Personal values, then, are personal outcomes
important to someone. Evaluative criteria
are a means to the ends of fulfilling these values. So, having hands that look
and feel clean (benefit) might be
critical since people value beauty.
Possessing young-looking hands (benefit)
is significant because we treasure youth (personal
value).
As
another example of a means-end chain analysis, flavored potato chips might have
the feature of barbecue flavor, yielding
the hedonic benefits of tasting good
and having guests enjoy themselves more, and the symbolic benefit of the party giver feeling as a good host or
hostess. The terminal value would be
social recognition and friendship.
Consumer
Research to Obtain Information on the Alternative Evaluation Process
Before
designing a product and crafting its promotion, the marketer must determine (1)
which evaluative criteria consumers
use in evaluating the product, (2) each criterion’s relative importance in the decision process, (3) those brands in
consumers’ evoked sets, and (4)
consumers’ beliefs about how evoked
set alternatives perform on the criteria. Research inputs are required on each
of these.
Input
#1: Evaluative Criteria Used
To
discover what the important and determinant criteria are, researchers usually
use either a large-scale survey or small-scale focus groups. Respondents are
requested to recall which criteria they used to evaluate a given product. Researchers
ask questions like, “How do you compare different brands of antihistamines,”?
“What do you look for in deciding which cold or allergy medicine you’ll buy,”? or “How do you go about choosing among brands of
antihistamines?”
These
researchers must be alert for response
bias—a survey respondent’s conscious or unconscious misrepresentation of
the truth. Response bias occurs either via (a) deliberate falsification—unwillingness to tell the truth, such as
the person who will not admit drinking to excess, or (b) nondeliberate falsification—unconscious misrepresentation or inability to tell
the truth due to factors such as forgetting, fatigue, and unfamiliarity.
Deliberate
falsification concerning attributes used is most likely to occur due to social desirability bias— a
respondent’s desire to appear proper, seem rational, gain prestige, or avoid
embarrassment. Consumers tend to overstate the importance of rational utilitarian criteria such as price and
quality, while they underplay the significance of emotional hedonic attributes like image. Hence, when asked why she chooses to fly first class
instead of coach, a businesswoman might explain that it provides an environment
in which she can get her work done rather than that she favors the free drinks
and prestige.
Nondeliberate
falsification can occur because
some characteristics are ambiguous; they have multiple meanings or are too
abstract. The attribute “convenient” applied to a store could have a place
dimension (close to home), a time dimension (open 24/7, speedy service), or a
use dimension (friendly salespeople who are easy to deal with). “Locally grown”
has no standardized meaning; although about half of all consumers consider it
to be within 100 miles of where an item is purchased, others consider it to be
within their state or even their region (e.g., New England).
Input
#2: Relative Importance of Criteria
Once
a list of important and determinant attributes has been developed, the marketer
must next discover the importance weights
of those characteristics. Most such research uses surveys employing rating scales—questions that ask
interviewees to estimate the magnitude of “something” on a continuum, as
illustrated in Figure 16.4. In this case, the “something” is an attribute’s
importance, estimated by the respondent indicating how important that attribute
is to him by checking off or circling a point on a 5- or 7-point scale anchored
“very important” to “very unimportant.”
However,
a characteristic might be rated very important because the consumer considers
the presence of that attribute to be undesirable, such as sourness in a
beverage. To overcome this difficulty, the analyst can instead use an evaluative scale, which tells not only
the magnitude but also the direction of the importance rating. The
evaluative scale has one end that says “very favorable” or “very good” and the
other end reading “very unfavorable” or “very poor.” The ratings on the
positive end of the scale range from 1 to 3, while those on the negative side
go from –1 to –3. Thus, having a particular characteristic, such as a smooth
texture in a beverage, might be rated by a respondent as +2, while another
criterion, such as a creamy taste, might be rated as –3. The assumption is that
the further from the midpoint of the scale (0) a consumer rates an attribute,
the more strongly s/he feels about that criterion and so the more important it
is.
<<FIGURE
16.4 NEAR HERE>>
Alternatively,
respondents can be given a rank-order
importance scale, in which they rank a list of product criteria in order of
personal importance. In a snack chip, flavor could be ranked first in
importance, saltiness second in importance, and crunchiness third. Another
possibility is to use a constant sum
scale, in which respondents are asked to divide a constant quantitative sum
or amount among evaluative criteria to indicate their relative importance, such
as dividing 20 points among five characteristics according to their relative
importance.
Input #3: Alternatives in the Evoked Set
Next,
researchers need to know which brands are members of the
consumer’s evoked set. Usually,
straightforward questioning of respondents about brands they consider in
choosing within the product category is used. Consumers can be given a list of
brands from which to select (aided recall),
they can be asked to recall them off the top of their mind (unaided recall), or they can be shown pictures
of brand identity elements such as logotypes, packages, brand names, trade
characters, and advertisements and then asked which of the pictured brands they
typically consider (recognition).
Input
#4: Beliefs about Alternatives’ Performance on the Criteria
Finally,
researchers ask about consumers’ beliefs
about how every brand performs on each attribute, measured by their brand ratings, again using rating scales. Typically, for each
alternative in a buyer’s evoked set, a listing of product criteria and brands is
presented, and the respondent then rates each brand’s performance on each
attribute, from very satisfactory to very unsatisfactory, usually using either
a 5- or 7-point rating scale.
Applications
of Knowledge of the Alternative Evaluation Process
New
Product Development Applications
One
approach for developing new products is analytical
attribute analysis—examining product characteristics to generate new
product ideas and design new as well as improved products. The underlying idea
is that a future product change must come from altering one or more of a
product’s criteria, such as making a battery longer lasting or a pudding
creamier.
One
approach is to improve one or more criteria (“longer lasting”). Another technique
is to add one or more criteria to an existing product, such as Kleenex with
Lotion. The addition of berries as a perceived healthful ingredient has sold
lots of cereal (e.g., Berry Burst Cheerios and Kellogg’s Special K Red Berries)
and as well as booze (Skyy Berry Vodka and Bacardi
Razz rum with natural raspberry).
Analytical
attribute analysis begins with consumer research to understand the benefits
consumers seek but which are not being adequately delivered in the marketplace.
As the problem recognition stage
suggests, there is a gap between
consumers’ ideal and actual states of affairs, and so this research is
sometimes called gap analysis.
After
identifying these benefits, marketers write a product concept statement—a verbal description of the new product
idea that describes its form (physical attributes), product functions (functional benefits), and delivered benefits (both hedonic
and symbolic).
Next,
marketers work with the technical groups—the research and development,
engineering, and product design departments—to create a product with features
that will deliver the desired benefits. The following are some idea generation
techniques to develop better products using analytical attribute analysis.
Dimensional Analysis. Dimensional
analysis (attribute listing) begins
with an exhaustive listing of all of the physical features (dimensions) of a
product that developers think need improvement or modification. For each
characteristic, the analyst asks either consumers or managers; “How can we
change or improve this attribute to better deliver benefits?”
Possibilities include:
<<BL>>
• Changing the nature of dimensions
(e.g., concentrated detergent, mini versions of cookies)
• Improving characteristics (e.g., resealable packaging, more chocolate flavor in a candy bar)
• Adding additional attributes (e.g.,
Chips Ahoy! Cookies with peanut butter chips and candy
pieces, Edy’s ice cream with bits of Girl Scout
cookies).
• Borrowing a dimension from another
product category (e.g., Bounty Quilted napkins borrowed the strength and
durability of their paper towels and applied them to napkins).
<<END
BL>>
Attribute Extension. Attribute extension (parameter analysis) starts with a characteristic that
has recently changed in the marketplace and then extends that change to see
what (if any) benefits will accrue to consumers. For instance, low-fat foods
and low-calorie sodas inevitably led to no-fat and zero-calorie versions.
Spectator sport events have been getting longer, so perhaps we could develop a
24-hour marathon sport to satisfy the insatiable sports fan
Advertising and Promotion Applications
During
or immediately following product development, the promotional people should
develop marketing communications to describe the benefits that the product will
deliver and the personal values that they will fulfill. Knowing about
determinant purchase criteria, their relative importance, and the various
evoked set brands’ performances on these attributes enables marketers to most
effectively promote those products by focusing on the brand’s superior
performance on those criteria. However, keep in mind the maxim, “Emphasize
benefits, not features.” Consumers do not buy products—they purchase bundles of
benefits.
Especially
for new products and inexperienced buyers, marketers can influence consumer
evaluations by framing the
alternatives. Framing is the way in which a decision problem is presented to the
decision maker, such as by suggesting
that certain criteria (those the brand best performs on) are most important.
Accordingly, Volvo might emphasize its superior comfort and safety while
suggesting that these are the key criteria in buying a car.
In-Class Applications
<<NL>>
<<END NL>>
<<FIGURES 16.5 THROUGH 16.8 ABOUT HERE>>
Written Applications
<<NL>>
a. Design a small-scale survey using ten
members of the target market to discover:
(1) Which criteria
consumers use. Point out any sources of response
bias you suspect might have occurred in your survey. If you wish, you may
try building a means-end chain with
one or several of your respondents.
(2) The
relative importance of those criteria. This will require a second round of
questioning (using different respondents if you wish) after you’ve determined
the criteria they use. Which type of rating scale did you use and why?
(3) Alternatives in the evoked set. How did you determine these? How large was the typical
evoked set size?
(4) Beliefs
about performance of alternatives in
the evoked set on the criteria. Do you suspect any types of response bias here?
b. Develop a new product concept using an analytical
attribute analysis technique. The product idea can range from a radically
new-to-the-world product (e.g., non-melt ice cubes) to an incremental
innovation (e.g., sugar-free spicy cola Jell-O). You can try dimensional analysis based on your
attribute list or attribute extension
using one of the characteristics.
c. Design a print ad for your new product
idea that promotes the product on its various evaluative criteria. Discuss the
general and specific types of criteria it is using and why this ad will help
persuade people to buy this product.
<<END NL>>