Post on 01-Nov-2014
description
The process of
making decision
Workshop 5 5th of March 2014
An analysis by:
Claude DorliatDavid José EspitiaAndres MontealegreJose Miguel PeaaCarolina Pereira
Products
Workshop Objective
Register the decision making process of consumers.
“ ”
Coatas garment product
TV setas electric appliance product
Method
In-depth interviews to three different consumer targets.
“ ”
Interviewed panel
Interviewee 1
Age: 24Job: student and teacherGender: maleSocial status: 6
Interviewee 2
Age: 48Job: housewifeGender: femaleSocial status: 6
Interviewee 3
Age: 56Job: lawyerGender: maleSocial status: 6
Deep description of the decision process
Need recognitionDiscrepancy between actual and ideal state
Search of informationExternal Sources
Internal Sources
Choice
Post-purchase Evaluation
Evaluation
Decision making process
The iterative way consumers decide how, when and what products to buy.
Cognitive-based decisions
Affective-based decisions
Feedback and Satisfaction
Heuristics
Algorithms
Analysis and
ResultsComparing the
decision making process
Interviewee 124 year old man
Interviewee 248 year old woman
FashionProtection from weather
Interviewee 356 year old man
Protection from weather Being well dressed
Fill the roomDecoration
EntertainmentInformation
EntertainmentInformation
Need Recognition
Entertainment
Information
Decoration
Hedonic Need
Utalitarian Need
Protection from weather
Being well dressed
Utilitarian Need
Symbolic Need
Long-Term purchase
Short-term Purchase
Need Recognition
Interviewee 124 year old man
Interviewee 248 year old woman
Magazines, Tunways, Boutiques, Friends,
Experience
Interviewee 356 year old man
Store, Trying on clothes, Previous experience
Store, Trying on clothes, Previous experience
Internet First on Internet and then with a Proffesional.Previous experience
Friends and consumersInternet
Precious experience
Source of Information
Source of Information
TVPrevious experience with brand(Tradition, reliability, familiarity)
Internal Source
External Source Objective, High quality information(Store, professionals, internet, family and friends)
CoatInternal Source
External Source
Previous experience with brand(Tradition, reliability, familiarity)
Objective, High quality information(Store, magazines, boutiques)
Source of Information
TVPrevious experience with brand(Tradition, reliability, familiarity)
Internal Source
External Source Objective, High quality information(Store, professionals, internet, family and friends)
CoatInternal Source
External Source
Previous experience with brand(Tradition, reliability, familiarity)
Objective, High quality information(Store, magazines, boutiques)
WHY?
Perceived Risk- Financial Risk- Performance Risk- Risk Aversion
WHY?
Perceived Risk- Financial Risk- Performance Risk- Risk Aversion
Degree of Expertise
Knowledge External Sources
WHY?
Perceived Risk- Financial Risk- Performance Risk- Risk Aversion
Degree of Expertise
Knowledge External Sources
Involvement
Involvement External Sources
WHY?
Perceived Risk- Financial Risk- Performance Risk- Risk Aversion
Degree of Expertise
Knowledge External Sources
Involvement
Involvement External Sources
Consideration Set
Consideration Set External Sources
Bounded Rationality- Incomplete or imperfect information- Cognitive Processing Capacity
Evaluation of Alternatives
Heuristics- Availability: basing judgments on events
that are easier to recall.
- Representativeness: making a judgment by simply comparing a stimulus with the mental prototype or exemplar,
- Anchoring: starting with an initial
evaluation and adjusting it with additional information.
Interviewee 124 year old man
Interviewee 248 year old woman
Best look and best fit
Interviewee 356 year old man
Availability, Representativeness and
Anchoring
Evaluation of Alternatives
Algorithms
Availability , Representativeness and
Anchoring
Availability , Representativeness and
AnchoringHeuristics
Best look and best fit Best look and best fit
Interviewee 124 year old man
Interviewee 248 year old woman
«I compare the styles and buy the one that is more
pretty »
Interviewee 356 year old man
Availability Representativeness and
Anchoring
Evaluation of Alternatives
Algorithms
Availability(Brand Loyalty) and
Anchoring
Availability, Representativeness and
AnchoringHeuristics
“I first search on Internet for the product, compare brands, go to the store,
receive help form specialist, look at the product in real
life and buy it”
“I visits the general store, examine all brands, go to
specialized stores I consider best, search for
word of mouth information and look in the Internet“
Choice
Cognitive Decision Models- By brand or attribute at a given time- Whether compensatory or non-compensatory
Compensatory Non-Compensatory
By Brand MAUT Conjunctive/Disjunctuve
By Attribute Additive DifferenceWeighted Additive Difference
LexicographicElimination by aspectsTake the best
ChoiceCognitive Decision Models
- By brand or attribute at the same time- Whether compensatory or non-compensatory
- Compensatory: a mental cost benefit analysis in which negative features can be compensated by positive ones.
- Noncompensatory: a simple decision model in which negative information leads to rejection of the option.
- Multi-attribute Model: consumer focus on brands but face tradeoffs between conflicting attributes.
- Disjunctive: a non compensatory model that sets acceptable cutoffs to find options that are good
Interviewee 124 year old man
Interviewee 248 year old woman
Interviewee 356 year old man
Choice
Brand and attributesCognitive processing
BrandCognitive processing
BrandCognitive processing
Brand and multi-attributesCognitive processing
Brand and multi-attributesCognitive processing
Brand disjunctiveCognitive processing
SatisfactionImportance of Feedback
- Determining and facilitating future decision processes
Related to Satisfaction- Use of internal sources previous experience
- Use of external sources reduce risk
- Heuristics not necessarily lead to biases
If dissatisfied - Return or change product- Buy a alternative or similar brand
• Decision process varies according to the product and the consumer
• Individual differences (personal interests and goals) may explain discrepancies in the process
• Commonalities: • Needs being satisfied• Use of primarily external sources• Use of heuristics
• Differences:• Cognitive choice rules• Product attributes considered
• All consumers appeared to be processing by brand, they differed regarding the compensatory or non-compensatory processing of attributes.
Conclusions
Marketing strategies and recommendations
Coat
TV
1) Lots of information regarding product characteristics.
2) Present information consistently across different media.
3) Word of mouth potential target for marketing strategies to spread information of product characteristics.
Marketing strategies and recommendations
Coat
TV
4) Emphasize the brand’s tradition, reliability and quality.
5) Emphasize positive consumption experiences through advertising (availability heuristic).
6) Brand that does not dominate the TV market present itself as similar to the category prototype.
7) Product as the perfect tradeoff between price and quality
Any questions ?Thank you
Workshop 5 5th of March 2014
An analysis by:
Claude DorliatDavid José EspitiaAndres MontealegreJose Miguel PeaaCarolina Pereira