The Impact of Technology on Marketing’s Value Proposition Editors Donald P. Roy, Middle Tennessee State University Carrie Trimble, Drury University Mandeep Singh, Western Illinois University 2011 Annual Conference Proceedings Published by TABLE OF CONTENTS Trivial Attributes In Service Context: Preliminary Findings M. Deniz Dalman, Junhong Min, Madhav N. Segal .................................................................................. 1 Using Point of Sale (POS) Data to Deliver Customer Value in the Supermarket Industry Through Category Management Practices Michael R. Pepe, Michael S. Pepe .............................................................................................................. 2 Supply Chain Alliances: Exploring the Drivers of Performance Value and Buyer Satisfaction Ursula Y. Sullivan ....................................................................................................................................... 3 A Generalized Model for Evaluating Supply Chain Delivery Performance Maxim Bushuev, Alfred L. Guiffrida, Murali Shanker ............................................................................ 4 The Impact of Strategic Supplier Partnership and Information Quality on Supply Chain Flexibility and Organizational Performance Vivek Nagarajan, Katrina Savitskie, Sampathkumar Ranganathan, Sandipan Sen, Sudharani Ravindran ................................................................................................................................................... 9 The Role of Cosmopolitanism in Consumer Choice Behavior Irena Vida, Oliver Parts, Michelle B. Kunz............................................................................................... 10 Exploring the Impact of Self-Awareness on Consumer Brand Experiences Matthew Stark, Raj Devasagayam............................................................................................................. 16 College Students’ Consumer Decision Making Process for Low-Involvement Products Bela Florenthal, Jason Hoffmann .............................................................................................................. 22 The Role of Sales Management, Engagement of the Sales Process, Vendor Relations and Use of Technology Based Selling Tools on Sales Performance Shawn Green, Jeff Gardner ....................................................................................................................... 28 Computer Self-Efficacy: The Influence Of Technology On Salesperson Performance Scott A. Anderson, William C. Johnson, Richard E. Plank, Steven R. Remington ................................. 32 The Role of Technology in Sales Support Structure Aaron D. Arndt, Jason Harkins ................................................................................................................. 40 College Student Usage of Time Management Tools for the Completion of Class Projects: A Case Study in a Professional Selling Course Doris Shaw, Eileen Weisenbach Keller ...................................................................................................... 41 Marketing Career Speed Networking – A Classroom Event to Foster Career Awareness Cheryl L. Buff, Suzanne O’Connor............................................................................................................ 46 Location, Location, Location: Student Performance and Perceptions of Prime Real Estate in Smaller Classes Brian A. Vander Schee ............................................................................................................................... 47 Modeling Green Transportation Costs in an Integrated Supply Chain Jay R. Brown, Alfred L. Guiffrida ............................................................................................................. 48 Marketing Management Association 2011 Proceedings xv COLLEGE STUDENTS’ CONSUMER DECISION MAKING PROCESS FOR LOW-INVOLVEMENT PRODUCTS Bela Florenthal, William Paterson University Jason Hoffmann, Butler University ______________________________________________________________________________ ABSTRACT Heuristics of low involvement purchases of college students were examined in the context of fast food alternatives and compared to studies of other product categories and segments. The insights gained in this study correspond well to other studies on heuristics of low-involvement purchases. Managerial implications are provided. ______________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION Consumer decision-making process is a subject that has been studied for decades in academia to attempt to uncover the processes that people use when making a choice between various alternatives. It has been studied by both marketers and psychologists and initialally focused on the steps consumers use to evaluate complex decisions or those that require substantial cognitive effort. This research tended to focus on compensatory or noncompensatory traditional models, but others began to question if there were other ways that consumers evaluated alternatives for repeat purchases (Hoyer 1984, p. 822). In addition, there has been research done to explain the decision process as a habit (Ji and Wood 2007, p. 261) and as a tradeoff between effort and value (Mandrik 1996, p. 301). This study examines low-involvement decisionmaking process of college students at a Midwestern University. Students were asked to evaluate their perceptions of pizza and complementary products through qualitative and quantitative research methods. Their low involvement heuristics were compared in terms of frequency of use across product categories and brands. These results were also compared to other studies using different product categories and segments. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Various studies have been done to explain decisions that involve low involvement products. These studies usually look at products that are purchased on a regular basis where consumers carry with them prior knowledge of the product and are influenced by the past behaviors. According to Ji and Wood (2007), “Purchases and consumption behaviors in daily life often are repetitive and performed in customary places, leading consumers to develop habits.” This fits well Marketing Management Association 2011 Proceedings with the consumption pattern of college students that make repeat purchases of fast food products. The purchases of fast food products such as pizza on a college campus are typically made in similar locations and situations each time the decision arises (i.e. dorm rooms, fraternity, and sorority houses). The research by Ji and Wood (2007) supports this idea stating “participants bought fast food more frequently when they had established a habit to do so and when they intended to do so.” These habits formed by repeat purchases of products helps to reduce the amount of time spent evaluating alternatives during the decision making process. Hoyer (1984) explains low-involvement decisions as an attempt “to make a satisfactory choice while minimizing cognitive effort.” This minimization of effort is supported by habits formed and information gained during prior purchase decisions of the same product. In addition, with low-involvement products, such as pizza, the risk of making a bad decision is limited. Hoyer examined the purchase of laundry detergent in a grocery store and recorded the amount of time it took the person to choose a product. He asked the person for the reasons involving making the choice. One hundred and twenty people were observed and the results were grouped into four main heuristics, price, performance, affect, and normative, that people employ in their decision-making process. The choice heuristic forms a rule of thumb consumers use to make very quick and effortless decisions when purchasing low involvement products (Hoyer 1984, p. 822). For example, by utilizing a price tactic such as “the cheapest product”, consumers minimize the effort required to evaluate alternatives on multiple attributes. Hoyer (1984) explains that the formation of these tactics occurs over an extended evaluation period where the purchase is made often and repeatedly. The main goal of Hoyer’s (1984) research is to support the notion that consumers form the tactics over time, use the tactic to minimize the effort involved 22 in making the decision, and then reformulate the tactic with each subsequent purchase occasion. Our study examines similar tactics as they relate to the low involvement fast food product category. The research done by Hoyer (1984) on repeatpurchase products was replicated by Leong (1993) who tested the simple choice tactics consumers used in Singapore during their decision making process. Leong’s (1993) research tested if similar results could be obtained using a different low-involvement product in a different culture. Once again, the data in the study reflected a decision with minimal cognitive effort by the consumer (Leong 1993, p. 193). In addition, the study found that consumers were similar in their “limited amount of pre-purchase deliberation” in the U.S. and Singapore (Leong 1993, p. 193). The result of the study by Leong (1993) validates the work done by Hoyer (1984). Both the Hoyer (1984) and Leong (1993) studies indicate performance as the number one choice tactic, followed by price. Our study focused on three tactics; price/promotion, taste/performance, and normative behavior. Our goal was to examine which of these three tactics college students use more frequently when making their fast food decisions, and then compare the findings to Hoyer’s (1984) and Leong’s (1993) previous research. Although this research supports a simple choice tactic when evaluating low-involvement decisions, Hoyer (1984) and Leong (1993) do not imply that the information gathering process over time is a simple one. Both studies have limitations when addressing the ways people are influenced over time and how to deal with those influences from a marketing perspective. In addition, the research mainly deals with a single attribute as the primary factor when making a decision. Another approach is to view low involvement purchases as process of dual choice tactics. The first choice tactic narrows the number of alternatives, and then the second tactic is used to make the final decision. This two stage process may explain better the low involvement decisions. Dual stage decision-making process was suggested by Ursic and Helgeson (1990). They argued that this process can also be accomplished quickly, and therefore, limit the amount of cognitive effort required by the consumer. Ursic and Helgeson (1990) state that the “use of single-attribute, multiple-brand processing is also fast, since only one attribute is used to reduce the choice set.” Another interesting hypothesis that seems to be supported by their research is that “an increase in brands in the choice set will lead to more singleattribute brand elimination heuristics” (Ursic and Helgeson 1990, p. 69). That means that as the number of brands increases, the consumer will employ more a single-attribute elimination heuristic in order to de- Marketing Management Association 2011 Proceedings crease the alternatives in their consideration set in the second stage. Also stated by Ursic and Helgeson (1990), the greater the task complexity, the more accentuated the two stages of data processing are. Overall, mostly the research on low-involvement products focused on the way consumers decrease their cognitive effort when evaluating alternatives during the decision making process. The use of choice tactics is central to consumers’ decision-making process but is constantly re-evaluating with repeat purchase products. The use of a stimulus such as coupon to divert consumers during low involvement decision can be indirectly explained by the price tactic where consumers consider the “cheapest price” after they took into consideration the discount. Other promotions could tie into performance or normative tactics depending on the advertised content. However, the studies do not explicitly address the relationship between stimuli and choice heuristics for low involvement products. METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS Data were gathered through both qualitative and quantitative research methods from college students and subject matter experts. In the qualitative stage, the purpose was to assess whether the three choice tactics, price/promotion, taste/performance, and normative behavior, were mentioned often by the respondents. The quantitative stage assessed (a) the relationship between choices of fast food product category and choice tactic and (b) the relationship between choice of brand and choice of tactic. These results were compared to Hoyer (1984) and Leong (1993) findings. Qualitative Stage A sample of twenty college students and five subject matter experts participated in depth interviews. Tables 1 and 2 present summaries of the themes emerged from the depth interviews. Student respondents most frequently indicated (95%) that taste is important when making a fast food purchasing decision. Price combined with coupon promotion was the second most frequently mentioned in the interviews (65%). Delivery time (45%) and location (35%) were also mentioned as contributes to students’ fast food purchasing decisions. Expert responses were also consistent with student responses in stating that price (100%) and quality (80%) are contributing factors in student purchases of fast food items. Delivery (80%) was also mentioned as central to students’ decisions. Some expert respondents believed that website (60%) and TV commercials (60%) contribute to students’ decisions while students did not mention these factors in the in-depth interviews. Normative 23 influence on the purchase was not mentioned by stu- dents or experts in the in-depth interviews either. TABLE 1. Themes Emerging in College Student Interviews (N=20) Themes % Example Quality/Taste of the pizza is an important factor in student’s decision making 95 “The taste and quality of the pizza is a major factor in choosing the pizza company, including elements such as sauce, crust, toppings, and other products.” Low price is seen as positive in student’s minds 45 “Price was ultimately the largest deciding factor when it came to deciding where to order.” Coupons/Promotions are a good thing to entice ordering from a particular pizza company 20 “Consumers like to save money and are more likely to order if they have a coupon.” Service/Delivery time is important to students 45 “The group indicated that a reasonable delivery time would be about 25-30 minutes.” Location/Convenience of the pizza place is important 35 “Location would be a factor because there are other pizza companies that are closer to campus.” TABLE 2. Themes Emerging in Subject Matter Expert Interviews (N=5) Themes % Example Price or value for money is an important purchasing decision/strategy/factor 100 “Price is the biggest purchasing decision factor for college students.” Quality/Taste is an important purchasing decision/strategy/factor 80 “Other aspects of feedback deals with…how their pizza tastes compared to other restaurants.” Delivery is an important purchasing decision/strategy/factor 80 “Most customers see Domino’s as a delivery service first.” Corporate Website/Internet is effective for ordering/advertising 60 “The target population, generation Y, uses the internet; therefore, Domino’s uses the corporate website to attract the target population.” Television advertisements are important/good driver of purchases Coupons/Print Advertisements are important/good driver of purchases 60 “Television and delivery advertisements are the most effective outlets for promotion.” “Free sub certificates handed out at the basketball game have brought in a lot of students.” 40 Quantitative Stage A survey was conducted to assess the relationship between choice tactics and product/brand choices. Two hundred and twenty six students were surveyed, about 43% lived off campus and about 50% were females. Seniors represented about 37% of the sample while other participants were almost equally distributed across the three other years. Thus, the sample was well representative of a typical student body with slightly higher representation of seniors. On a scale of 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely), students were significantly (p < .001) more likely to order pizza (M = 4.5, S.D. = .84) than pasta (M = 3.8, S.D = 1.20), sandwiches (M = 2.7, S.D = 1.38), wings Marketing Management Association 2011 Proceedings (M = 2.0, S.D = 1.22), or Chinese food (M = 2.8, S.D = 1.50). Also, pizza was ordered on average about 2.5 times a month (S.D. = 1.79), which indicates that it is a repeat purchase item. Four tactics were examined in the survey: promotions/deals, delivery speed, price, and taste. Price and taste correspond to the two heuristics found in the literature, price and performance, where taste substitutes performance in the context of fast food category. Promotion and delivery are two additional heuristics that were not mentioned in the literature but emerged in the qualitative analysis as important factors in the purchases fast food items. When comparing the four heuristics in the pizza category, price (M = 4.4, S.D. = .84) and taste (M = 24 4.4, S.D. = .78) heuristics were significantly (p < .001) more important than speed of delivery (M = 4.4, S.D. = .78) when making a purchase decision. There was no significant difference (p > .10) between price and taste heuristics. Promotions/deals (M = 4.1, S.D. = .99) heuristic was significantly (p < .01) more important than speed of delivery heuristic but was significantly (p < .001) less important than price and taste heuristics. In addition, we correlated the importance of each choice heuristic with the likelihood to order types of fast food products and brands. This analysis can indicate whether importance of choice heuristics changes at the product and the brand levels. To be able to compare our results with previous studies the delivery/speed heuristic was omitted from this analysis and a normative heuristic was added. Promotion/deals and price heuristics were treated as two facets of price heuristic mentioned in the literature (the correlation between price and promotion/deals heuristics in our study was about .4 and significant at .001). The normative heuristic was derived from a question that asked how frequently students were exposed to word of mouth as a promotional method where 1 indicates very infrequently and 5 indicates very frequently. Table 3 summarizes the results of the product category by heuristic correlation analysis. Promotion was the only heuristic that significantly (p < .05) correlated with pizza category and price heuristic marginally (p < .10) correlation with pizza category. Both correlations were positive which affirms the previous findings for low involvement product categories. Taste heuristic correlated significantly (p < .05) with sandwiches and salads and the relationship was positive. The normative heuristic (word of mouth) correlated significantly (p < .05) with choices of pasta, wings, and Chinese food. The relationship was positive which indicates that frequent word of mouth increases students’ likelihood of purchasing pasta, wings, and Chinese food. TABLE 3. Correlations Between Choice Tactic and Product Category Pizza Breadsticks Pasta Sandwiches Wings Burrito Chinese Salad Dessert r .13 .11 -.06 -.02 .09 -.06 .11 -.06 .06 (p-value) (.05) (.09) (.34) (.76) (.17) (.37) (.11) (.38) (.35) r .11 .02 .01 .08 .10 .01 .01 -.07 .11 (p-value) (.11) (.82) (.92) (.23) (.15) (.96) (.98) (.32) (.10) r -.04 .02 .08 .15 -.03 .11 .08 .14 .05 (p-value) (.53) (.77) (.25) (.02) (.61) (.09) (.25) (.03) (.46) r -.02 .03 .13 .11 .18 .11 .13 .09 .11 (p-value) (.72) (.62) (.05) (.12) (.01) (.10) (.06) (.19) (.10) Promotion Price Taste/ Performance Word of Mouth (Normative) Table 4 summarizes correlations between choice heuristics and brands. The next sets of correlations were performed to gain insight into how the three tactics play into brand choices. Brand choices were assessed with a purchase frequency question where 1 indicated Never and 5 indicated Always). Most brands are not significantly (p > .10) correlated with a particular choice tactic. Three brands have significant or marginally significant correlations with choice heuristics. None of the brands are associated with a price tactic. Normative tactic is associated with Marco’s brand, and taste/performance tactic is associated with Papa John’s and Domino’s. The correlation with Domino’s is negative which indicates that the heuristic of taste/performance reduces the chance of choosing Domino’s brand. This finding can explain Domino’s recent reformulation of its dough and other taste attributes in the United States as the study was com- Marketing Management Association 2011 Proceedings pleted prior to the introduction of Domino’s newly formulated pizza products. Table 5 summarizes the number of times the product-heuristic and brand-heuristic correlations were significant (p < .05) or marginally significant (p < .10) combining price and promotion into one heuristic. The results indicate that the normative tactic was preferred to be used for many fast food products (55.5%) but not very often used to choose brands (16.7%). Price/promotion is more preferred tactic for product type (33.3%) than for brand type (0%). Taste/performance heuristic is used more to choose products (33.3%) and less to choose (not to choose) brands (16.7%). This table may imply the two-step process could occur when for a fast food purchase. A product category may be chosen first using a heuristic and in the next step a brand is chosen using the same or a different heuristic. The survey did not address se- 25 quential choices of heuristics but extension of this study could explore the two-step process especially when the order of the choices could be different, first a heuristic to choose a brand and then another heuristic to choose a product type. TABLE 4. Correlations Between Choice Tactic and Brand Pizza Hut Papa John's Marco's Hot Box Donato's Domino's r .097 .062 .015 .018 -.044 .007 (p-value) (.144) (.354) (.818) (.785) (.512) (.915) r .028 .028 .050 -.057 -.059 .018 (p-value) (.670) (.678) (.452) (.393) (.379) (.792) r .055 .108 -.080 -.009 .063 -.151 (p-value) (.412) (.107) (.234) (.895) (.345) (.023) r .003 .042 .229 .042 .068 .103 Sig. (2-tailed) .965 .533 .001 .528 .310 .126 Promotion Price Taste/ Performance Word of Mouth (Normative) TABLE 5. Number of Significant and Marginally Significant Correlations of Choice Tactics by Products & Brand Tactic % Product type (N=9) Brand type (N=6) Price/Promotion Pizza, Breadsticks, & Dessert 33.3% None 0% Taste/Performance Sandwiches, Burrito, & Salad 33.3% Domino’s 16.7% Pasta, Wings, Burritos, Chinese, & Dessert 55.5% Marco’s 16.7% Normative (Word of Mouth) DISCUSSION Our study of college students extended previous studies of low involvement products by Hoyer (1984) and Leong (1993) to fast food product category and to generation Y segment. This study focuses on three choice tactics of price/promotion, performance/taste, and normative (word of mouth) using a quantitative method to assess usage of these tactics for product and brand types. In previous studies done by Hoyer (1984) and Leong (1993) laundry detergent and shampoo were used as product categories. This study assessed whether college students used same low-involvement tactics when purchasing a fast food product. In Hoyer’ (1984) and Leong’ (1993) studies, performance was reported as the number one choice tactic. However, our study indicates that for fast food products the normative tactic is preferred for a significant number of products. Thus, certain choice tactics could be more salient for Marketing Management Association 2011 Proceedings specific product categories. In addition, normative tactic could be more important to college students than to other segments. Leong’s (1993) study indicates that for shampoo category normative tactics were the second most frequently used by consumers. In comparing the qualitative and the quantitative stages of our study, a discrepancy emerged with respect to choice heuristics. In the in-depth interviews many students reported they used most frequently price and taste to select fast food products. The survey indicated that the price/promotion and taste tactics were used less frequently than the normative tactic when choosing a fast food product. Also, the survey data indicated that tactics vary based on product and brand types. Our study also extended the previous research by examining the use of low-involvement heuristics for choices of brands. They survey results suggest that students do not use price heuristic to choose a brand though students stated they do in the qualitative stage. 26 Taste and normative heuristics were used to choose or not to choose a certain band. As more significant product-heuristic than brand-heuristic correlations were identified, it seems that students use more the lowinvolvement heuristics to choose fast food products than brands. Other low involvement heuristics such as convenience/distance and waiting time were not explored in this study but may be of importance to student population and determine their choices of brands. Quota technique was used to increase representativeness of the sample controlling for gender, year in school, and residency. Though the sample size of the survey is adequate, the sample pool was a single university in the Midwest, which may raise the questions of whether the result can be generalized to other universities and regions. Consistent results from studies on fast food purchases done in other regions could validate our findings. Marketing implications Students use various choice tactics when making fast food purchases mostly using word of mouth (normative) tactic. Thus, the use of Facebook and Twitter as promotional tools to create a buzz about product category might be more effective than the traditional use of the use of coupons. For example, some students indicated that they did not remember commercials of specific brands (e.g., Dommino’s) as they spent limited time watching TV. Other studies on generation Y indicate that being multi-taskers, texting and browsing on the web while watching TV, they pay very little attention to TV commercials even when they are exposed to them (Napoli and Ewing 2001, p. 21). The example of Domino’s changing its pizza taste supports our findings regarding heuristics used to choose brands (Brandau 2010, p. 44). According to our study based on the taste heuristic students avoided ordering Domino’s brand. Thus, with regard to brand either taste or normative heuristics are more effective in targeting student population. As taste and normative heuristics also contribute to product choices, companies should probably position their fast food products and brands on these two dimensions significantly more than on price/promotion dimension. FUTURE RESEARCH important element in low-involvement advertising and thus, should be included in future studies. The delivery heuristic was not mentioned in Hoyer’s (1984) and Leong’s (1993) studies and thus was not included in this study but could be a potential decision tactic for fast food delivery products especially for college student population. Delivery tactic could be considered as a facet of performance or a separate tactic. Future research could offer an additional insight into this significant target population and could provide helpful directions for companies when forming strategies for the fast food industry. REFERENCES Brandau, Mark (2010), "Domino's do-Over," Nation's Restaurant News, 44 (03/08). Hoyer, Wayne D. (1984), "An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product," Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (12), 822-829. Ji, Mindy F. and Wendy Wood (2007), "Purchase and Consumption Habits: Not Necessarily what You Intend," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (10), 261276. Leong, Siew M. (1993), "Consumer Decision Making for Common, Repeat-Purchase Products: A Dual Replication," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (2), 193208. Mandrik, Carter A. (1996), "Consumer Heuristics: The Tradeoff between Processing Effort and Value in Brand Choice," Advances in Consumer Research, 23 (1), 301-307. Napoli, Julie and Michael T. Ewing (2001), "The Net Generation: An Analysis of Lifestyles, Attitudes and Media Habits," Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 13 (1), 21-34. Ursic, Michael L. and James G. Helgeson (1990), "The Impact of Choice Phase and Task Complexity on Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Business Research, 21 (8), 69-90. As the study was limited to college students at a single private Midwestern university, future research should include students from other private and public institutions in order to increase the external validity of these results. Other product types and brand names as well as additional low-involvement heuristics should be included in future studies. The affect heuristic, for example, was not included in this study but has been an Marketing Management Association 2011 Proceedings 27