This is to officially announce that the Course of Consumer Behavior and Rural Marketing has been completed.

You are required to submit the assignment of the same either through mail or in writing as per your convenience to Prof. Vishal Soni. The last date for submission of assignment is 4th July. Following are the assignment questions: 1. Write short note on: a) Nicosia Model b) Consumer research process c) Promotion in rural markets d) Family life-cycle e) Dissonance satisfaction framework 2. Elaborate in detail the consumer decision making process. 3. Do you agree that demographic, psychographic and cultural factors make an impact on consumer behavior? 4. Define consumer behavior. State the application of consumer behavior along with your opinion related to future of consumer behavior. 5. What do you understand by rural marketing? Is rural marketing gaining importance in current context? Elaborate in the light of factors affecting psychology of rural consumer. 6. Give marketing mix for rural market.

Answer no. 2. Consumer decision making process:

Traditionally, consumer researchers have approached decision making process from a rational perspective. This dominant school of thought views consumers as being cognitive (i.e., problem-solving) and, to some but a lesser degree, emotional.i Such a view is reflected in the stage model of a typical buying process (often called the consumer information processing model) depicted in Figure 1.

Problem Recognition

Information Search

Evaluation and Selection of Alternatives

Decision Implementation

Post-purchase Evaluation

Figure 1

The Consumer Information Processing Model

Source: Adopted from Kotler (1997), Schiffman and Kanuk (1997), and Solomon (1996)

In this model, the consumer passes through five stages: problem recognition, information search, evaluation and selection of alternatives, decision implementation, and post-purchase evaluation.

Problem Recognition In this information processing model, the consumer buying process begins when the buyer recognizes a problem or need. For example, Doug may realize that his best suit doesnt look contemporary any more. Or, Kathleen may recognize that her personal computer is not performing as well as she thought it should. These are the kinds of problem that we as consumers encounter all the time. When we found out a difference between the actual state and a desired state, a problem is recognized. When we find a problem, we usually try to solve the problem. We, in other words, recognize the need to solve the problem. But how?

Information Search When a consumer discovers a problem, he/she is likely to search for more information. Kathleen may simply pay more attention to product information of a personal computer. She becomes more attentive to computer ads, computers purchased by her friends, and peer conversations about computers. Or, she may more actively seek information by visiting stores, talking to friends, or reading computer magazines, among others. Through gathering information, the consumer learns more about some brands that compete in the market and their features and characteristics. Theoretically, there is a total set of brands available to Kathleen, but she will become aware of only a subset of the brands (awareness set) in the market. Some of these brands may satisfy her initial buying criteria, such as price and processing speed (consideration set). As Kathleen proceeds to more information search, only a few will remain as strong candidates (choice set).

Evaluation and Selection of Alternatives How does the consumer process competitive brand information and evaluate the value of the brands? Unfortunately there is no single, simple evaluation process applied by all consumers or by one consumer in all buying situations.

One dominant view, however, is to see the evaluation process as being cognitively driven and rational. Under this view, a consumer is trying to solve the problem and ultimately satisfying his/her need. In other words, he/she will look for problemsolving benefits from the product. The consumer, then, looks for products with a certain set of attributes that deliver the benefits. Thus, the consumer sees each product as a bundle of attributes with different levels of ability of delivering the problem solving benefits to satisfy his/her need. The distinctions among the need, benefits, and attributes are very important. One useful way to organize the relationships among the three is a hierarchical one (Figure 2). Although simplified,

Figure 2 is an example of how a bundle of attributes (i.e., a product or, more specifically, personal computer) relates to the benefits and underlying needs of Kathleen.

Underlying Needs

Helps Me Survive Babson MBA Pogram

Benefits

Portability

Doesnt Break down

Economy

Computational Horse Power

Warranty Attributes Size Brand Reputation Software Bundle CPU Speed

Price

Hard Drive Size GlobeNet Ready

Figure 2

Hierarchical View of Needs, Benefits, and Attributes

From this figure and the preceding discussion, you might recognize that the product attributes are relevant and important only to the extent that they lead to a certain set of benefits. Likewise, benefits are meaningful only if they can address the problem and be instrumental to satisfy the underlying need. As the underlying need is often personal, consumers differ as to their beliefs about what product benefits and attributes are more (or less) important and relevant in satisfying their needs. Based on their personal judgment on importance of benefits and attributes, consumers develop a set of attitudes (or preferences) toward the various brands. One may express his/her preferences of the brands in terms of ranking, probability of choice, and so forth.

Decision Implementation

To actually implement the purchase decision, however, a consumer needs to select both specific items (brands) and specific outlets (where to buy) to resolve the problems. There are, in fact, three ways these decisions can be made: 1) simultaneously; 2) item first, outlet second; or 3) outlet first, item second.ii In many situations, consumers engage in a simultaneous selection process of storesiii and brands. For example, in our Kathleens personal computer case, she may select a set of brands based on both the products technical features (attributes) and availability of brands in the computer stores and mail-order catalogs she knows well. It is also possible, that she decides where to buy (e.g., CompUSA in her neighborhood) and then chooses one or two brands the store carries. Once the brand and outlet have been decided, the consumer moves on to the transaction (buying).

Post-purchase Evaluation Post-purchase evaluation processes are directly influenced by the type of preceding decision-making process. Directly relevant here is the level of purchase involvement of the consumer. Purchase involvement is often referred to as the level of concern for or interest in the purchase iv situation, and it determines how extensively the consumer searches information in making a purchase decision.v Although purchase involvement is viewed as a continuum (from low to high), it is useful to consider two extreme cases here. Suppose one buys a certain brand of product (e.g., Diet Pepsi) as a matter of habit (habitual purchase). For him/her, buying a cola drink is a very low purchase involvement situation, and he/she is not likely to search and evaluate product information extensively. In such a case, the consumer would simply purchase, consume and/or dispose of the product with very limited post-purchase evaluation, and generally maintain a high level of repeat purchase motivation (Figure 3).

Purchase

Product Use

Disposition

Simple Evaluation

Repeat Purchase Motivation

Figure 3

Low Involvement Purchase

However, if the purchase involvement is high and the consumer is involved in extensive purchase decision making (e.g., personal computer), he/she is more likely to be involved in more elaborate post-purchase evaluation often by questioning the rightness of the decision: Did I make the right choice? Should I have gone with other brand? This is a common reaction after making a difficult, complex, relatively permanent decision. This type of doubt and anxiety is referred to as postpurchase cognitive dissonance (Figure 4).

Post-purchase Dissonance Elaborate Evaluation

Dissatisfaction Repeat Purchase Motivation

Purchase

Product Use

Disposition

Figure 4

Elaborate Post-purchase Evaluation

According to the research, the likelihood of experiencing this kind of dissonance and the magnitude of it is a function of:vi The The The The degree of commitment or irrevocability of the decision, importance of the decision to the consumer, difficulty of choosing among the alternatives, and individuals tendency to experience anxiety.

Because dissonance is uncomfortable, the consumer may use one or more of the following approaches to reduce it:vii Increase the desirability of the brand purchased. Decrease the desirability of rejected alternatives. Decrease the importance of the purchase decision. Reject the negative data on the brand purchased.

If the dissonance about the purchase is not reduced, the anxiety may transform into a dissatisfaction (general or specific). Certainly, this negative experience leads to a

new problem recognition (Figure 1), and the consumer will engage in another problem solving process. The difference, however, is that in the next round of process, memory of the previous negative experience and dissatisfaction will be used as part of information. Therefore, the probability for the unsatisfactory brand to be re-selected and repurchased will be significantly lower than before.

The Hierarchy of Effects

Pca uh e r s

Cvto o i in nc

Pfrn re c e ee

Li g in k

Kw g n ld oe e

Arn s w e a s e

Uw n s na e a r s e

Figure 5

A General Model of the Hierarchy of Effects

Originally conceived to explain how advertising affects consumers purchase decisions, the hierarchy of effects (HOE) model focuses on consumer learning that takes place as he/she processes information from the external world. The HOE model begins with the state where a consumer has no awareness about the brand

(unaware) then develops awareness triggered by external stimuli, such as advertising message or word of mouth. As he/she obtains and processes more information, the consumer develops more specific knowledge about the brand. The knowledge, then, is used as basis to form a liking (or disliking), leading to a preference of brand(s) relative to the others. However, people need to be pushed beyond the preference stage to actually buy the brand of preference. The preference stage, after all, simply means that the consumer has formed a preference psychologically. Now it takes conviction for him/her before actually buying the brand.

By now, you might have realized at least two points. One, it seems reasonable that not all the consumers are at the same stage. For example, Susan may be in the unawareness stage relative to Samuel Adams beer, but Melissa may be in the preference stage. Two, it also seems reasonable that not all people at one stage move onto the next stage. For example, some consumers who have formed preference to Contadina pasta may not form any conviction to buy the product. Furthermore, some people may need more time before moving onto the next stage than others.

The HOE model is quite similar to the consumer information processing model because it also assumes that people are cognitively driven, thinking information processors. Controversy exists,ix of course, as to whether that is necessarily true. Some may claim that they often form liking and preference (emotional response or feeling) toward brands before developing cognitive judgment (knowledge or thinking) on them. Others argue that people form preference and knowledge simultaneously. Although each argument has its own support, the general model (cognition first, preference second) seems to be valid especially in relatively complex or high-involvement decision making situations (e.g., cars, computers), providing a conceptual framework for thinking about the sequence of events which begins from the initial awareness to the final action (i.e., purchasing).

Now, so what?
We have reviewed two of the most widely accepted models of consumer decision making process. These are based on theories and research of social psychology, consumer behavior, and marketing. As managers rather than academics, however, we have several more tough questions to ask. Here are some of them:

The idea of the information processing model seems reasonable. But, we know that we as individuals are not living in a vacuum. That is, when we are making a purchase decision, we are constantly influenced by other factors than just information, such as family, friends, cultural values, social class, or subculture. Oh, what about physiological needs, such as sex, hunger, safety? Might these also affect which brand we choose and buy? How and where do these factors play roles in the information processing model? What would be some of the practical implications of the information processing model for a marketing manager who is trying to market, say, mountain bikes? If he/she knows about the information processing model, what could he/she do differently in, for example, the new product introduction? What would be the implications of the HOE model for marketing managers? For example, what should an advertising manager measure to know the effectiveness of his/her advertising campaign? Should he/she measure sales? Under what circumstances consumers are more likely to develop liking (feeling) first, knowing (thinking) second? What would be some of the products/services in those situations? Why?

See also Schiffman, Leon G. and Leslie Lazar Kanuk (1997), Consumer Behavior, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. and Solomon, Michael R. (1996), Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. For more detailed discussions and paper citations, refer to Engel, James F., Roger D. Blackwell, and Paul W. Minard (1993), Consumer Behavior, 7th ed., Fort Worth, Texas: Dryden Press. and Wilkie, William L. (1990), Consumer Behavior, 2nd ed., New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
ii

Hawkins, Del I., R. J. Best, and K. A. Coney (1983), Consumer Behavior: Implications for Marketing Strategy, Plano, Texas: Business Publications Inc.
iii

Consumers may also consider non-store shopping (internet web pages, catalogues, CUC International, etc.).

iv

Hawkins, Del I., R. J. Best, and K. A. Coney (1983), Consumer Behavior: Implications for Marketing Strategy, Plano, Texas: Business Publications Inc.
v

Another type of involvement that influences the extent to which the information is processed is called product involvement. The product involvement is referred to as the importance the consumer attaches to a particular product, as opposed to the purchase situation (purchase involvement). For example, one may have a low product involvement (e.g., mustard) but have a high purchase involvement because he/she has invited important friends for a cook-out this weekend and he/she wants to make sure that he/she can impress them with a gourmet Dijon mustard, not with the usual yellow kind. A high level of product involvement also increases the extent to which the consumer is engaged in information search, evaluation, and post-purchase evaluation.
vi

Hawkins, Del I., R. J. Best, and K. A. Coney (1983), Consumer Behavior: Implications for Marketing Strategy, Plano, Texas: Business Publications Inc.
vii

Ibid.

viii

The figure is adopted from DeLozier, M. Wayne(1976), The Marketing Communications Process, New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. For a more academic treatment, see Lavidge, R. J. and Steiner (1961), A Model for Predictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness, Journal of Marketing, vol. 25, October, pp. 59-62. And Palda, Kristian S. (1966), The Hypothesis of a Hierarchy of Effects: A Partial Evaluatio, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 3, February, pp. 13-24.
ix

See also Farris, Paul W. and John A. Quelch (1987), Advertising and Promotion Management: A Managers Guide to Theory & Practice, Malabar, Florida: R. E. Krueger Publishing Co.

Answer no. 1 short notes:A model, which concentrates on the buying decision for a new product, was proposed by Nicosia (1976). This model is shown in Figure 2.2. The model concentrates on the firm's

attempts to communicate with the consumer, and the consumers' predisposition to act in a certain way. These two features are referred to as Field One. The second stage involves the consumer in a search evaluation process, which is influenced by attitudes. This stage is referred to as Field Two. The actual purchase process is referred to as Field Three, and the post-purchase feedback process is referred to as Field Four. This model was criticized by commentators because it was not empirically tested (Zaltman, Pinson and Angelman, 1973), and because of the fact that many of the variables were not defined (Lunn, 1974).

Perhaps, the most frequently quoted of all consumer behavior models is the Howard-Sheth model of buyer behavior, which was developed in 1969. This model is shown in Figure 2.3. The model is important because it highlights the importance of inputs to the consumer buying process and suggests ways in which the consumer orders these inputs before making a final decision. The Howard-Sheth model is not perfect as it does not explain all buyer behavior. It is however, a comprehensive theory of buyer behavior that has been developed as a result of empirical research (Horton, 1984). Schiffman and Kanuk (1997) mentioned that many early theories concerning consumer behavior were based on economic theory, on the notion that individuals act rationally to maximize their benefits (satisfactions) in the purchase of goods and services. A

consumer is generally thought of as a person who identifies a need or desire, makes a purchase, and then disposes of the product during the three stages in the consumption process in Figure2.2 (Solomon, 1996) 2.2.1 NICOSIA MODEL

This model focuses on the relationship between the firm and its potential consumers. The firm communicates with consumers through its marketing messages (advertising), and the consumers react to these messages by purchasing response. Looking to the model we will find that the firm and the consumer are connected with each other, the firm tries to influence the consumer and the consumer is influencing the firm by his decision.

Figure of model..:--

The Nicosia model is divided into four major fields: Field 1: The consumer attitude based on the firms messages. The first field is divided into two subfields. The first subfield deals with the firms marketing environment and communication efforts that affect consumer attitudes, the competitive environment, and characteristics of target market. Subfield two specifies the consumer characteristics e.g., experience, personality, and how he perceives the promotional idea toward the product in this stage the consumer forms his attitude toward the firms product based on his interpretation of

the message. Field 2: search and evaluation The consumer will start to search for other firms brand and evaluate the firms brand in comparison with alternate brands. In this case the firm motivates the consumer to purchase its brands. Field 3: The act of the purchase The result of motivation will arise by convincing the consumer to purchase the firm products from a specific retailer. Field 4: Feed back This model analyses the feedback of both the firm and the consumer after purchasing the product. The firm will benefit from its sales data as a feedback, and the consumer will use his experience with the product affects the individuals attitude and predispositions concerning future messages from the firm.

The Nicosia model offers no detail explanation of the internal factors, which may affect the personality of the consumer, and how the consumer develops his attitude toward the product. For example, the consumer may find the firms message very interesting, but virtually he cannot buy the firms brand because it contains something prohibited according to his beliefs. Apparently it is very essential to include such factors in the model, which give more interpretation about the attributes affecting the decision process.