Posts tagged consumer buying system

watching the budget shopper

Watching the aspects of consumer behavior – why people do the things they do – is a fascinating business.

Particular if you are in the “behavior management” business (advertising & marketing) like I am.

The point here is that there are differences between consumer attitudes and shopper behavior. What I mean by this is that managing what a person thinks (that’s the consumer side of the equation) and what a person actually does in store (this is the shopping side of the equation) can be significantly different.

And in recognizing this as a marketer you become one step closer to understanding how to ultimately create satisfaction (and loyalty .. the holy grail).

Misalignment between the thinking and the actual doing is ultimately going to create friction.  And friction is not good.

Anyway. I will use budget grocery shoppers as a case in point.

As consumers the budget grocery shopper attitudes are focused on value and maximizing their budget (and maximizing their shop visit/experience).

But.

As shoppers their behavior shows they actually don’t save money in store.

The fact is budget shoppers try really hard to save money. In fact, in today’s economy, they try harder than ever. But the fact is they actually don’t save money and I many cases are doing worse during shopping.

I say this because grocery stores should pay attention and understand the budget shopper.

Because many budget shoppers get frustrated when they don’t save money (and wanted to).

And these frustrated shoppers translate into ‘less money spent’ as well as an underlying dissatisfaction with the store.  All this despite the fact the store may have done everything right – clean store, wide aisles, incredibly low prices, etc.

Who are these budget shoppers?

Well. Not all budget shoppers are truly low income but we should remember that one in seven American households lives in poverty. Another one in six can afford only basic necessities, such as housing, food, and health care. Because I will end up discussing the psychological aspects of this attitude/behavior scenario I will point out that this ‘housing/food/healthcare” is what Maslow calls “basic biological & psychological needs.  And that Maslow psychological profile is possibly even more important a distinction than the true functional “spending within budget” aspect.

Regardless. These economics facts suggest that, at minimum, nearly one in three U.S. households must carefully plan its budgets and spend accordingly.

Budget allocation and spending behavior models often implicitly assume that shoppers with budgets are knowledgeable about the total price of their shopping baskets as they shop. However, because in store shopping behavior actually reflects estimating of the prices of their shopping baskets it mitigates the relationship between budget allocation and actual in-store spending.  So lets try and understand whether and how they estimate this total basket price.

Because inaccurate estimating has implications on:

-       Real consumer welfare: the shopper is maximizing neither time nor budget (suggesting the consumer is not meeting basic Maslow hierarchy need).

-       Consumer perceptions: the consumer perception afterwards is twofold (1) somehow I wasn’t smart enough to maximize my budget <or> I wasn’t smart enough to implement the budget plan I had in place (therefore attacking self esteem/self actualization) and (2) the store made me look & feel stupid (consumer & shopper dissatisfaction)

-       Retail performance: the store didn’t maximize the transaction opportunity

A study was conducted by Georgia Institute of Technology to uncover understanding how shoppers on predetermined budgets might estimate the total price of their shopping baskets and whether, when, and how they keep track of in-store spending. The study had three objectives:

-             to determine whether and when budget shoppers keep track of how much they spend while shopping

-             to understand how they estimate the total price of their shopping baskets

-             to examine the implications of estimation biases for consumer welfare and retail performance.

Methodology: The research was conducted in the context of grocery shopping, for which people shop multiple times per month and often spend 15%–20% of their income on ten or more items per trip.

The research, a field study and two laboratory studies, concluded four key generalizations about budget shoppers in grocery stores:

1. They predominantly use mental computation strategies to track their in-store spending

2. They adapt their mental computation strategy to the dominant range of price endings of items in their shopping baskets

3. Those who try to calculate the exact total price of their basket are less accurate than those who estimate the approximate price

4. Motivated shoppers are less accurate than less motivated shoppers (because they tend to calculate instead of estimate the total basket price).

The key conclusion from the research, to a grocery retailer, is that shoppers who overestimate the total basket price most likely spend less than they budgeted for––that is, they do not maximize their own utility under the budget constraint.

Furthermore, they might reallocate the “saved” money to a different (mental) account, which could entail a financial loss for the retailer.

Beyond that conclusion the study uncovered the shoppers who underestimate estimated calculations.

Shoppers who underestimate the total basket price are more likely to spend more than their grocery budget. This means they unintentionally reallocate more money to the “grocery account.” This reallocation in turn may trigger a chain of budget and spending decisions that could cause shoppers significant financial distress.

Very importantly is that a second field study demonstrated that shoppers who underestimate the total price of their basket are more likely to overspend, leading to negative store satisfaction.

Where to go from here?

The easiest thought for Grocery Retailers is to begin educating shoppers about computational estimation strategies may enable them to become more informed shoppers. In other words turning wild guesses into more educated ones.  More difficult, but the path with the highest ultimate return, is to not just educate but actually facilitate an estimation strategy in store almost to the point of “calculation” rather than “estimation.”

The benefits of exploring a solution:

Consumer Welfare: Real consumer welfare should improve, because shoppers can maximize their utility given their budget while minimizing the likelihood of spending more than they can afford.  This is true functional value to a shopper.

Consumer Perception: This is where functional and psychological meet on several levels (and Maslow hierarchy plays a role in what is important):

  1. A budget consumer attitudinally has had his or her behavior match expectations. Attitude and actual behavior is aligned.
  2. With alignment the shopper feels smarter translating into a higher self esteem (because they have “self actualized” a perception)
  3. Consumer self actualization is typically shared with the shopping environment (I find higher value in the experience because they were able to deliver upon what I desired attitudinally)

In the end. When perceptions match reality there is a heightened sense of satisfaction.

Retail Performance: Enabling budget shoppers to accurately track their in-store spending—for example, using shopping cart scanners—may represent a win–win solution, enhancing consumer welfare and retail performance. There is a secondary “loyalty” aspect in which shoppers whose behavior is indicative of self worth and maximized utility or significantly more likely to replicate the experience (Maslow basic need & self esteem satisfied at same time).

In conclusion.

Shopper behavior analysis is not anything new. We looked at it in the 80’s when I was at JWT.  We just called it ‘the consumer buying system’ and analyzed all aspects of perceptions, attitudes and shopping behavior. I have even seen an agency self-advertisement from the 1930’s that basically outlined managing consumer attitudes and matching them with in store shopping behavior. I say all of that not to suggest studying shopping behavior isn’t important.  In fact I say it to suggest it is.  People have been studying it for years and shouldn’t ignore it if they are in the marketing business.

The retail business is multi faceted.  It is about understanding what people think and what motivates them outside of the store as well as what they think and motivates them once they are inside the store.

Ignore an aspect at your own peril.

—————————–

Source: 3/2010 Koert van Ittersum, Joost M.E. Pennings, & Brian Wansink College of Management at Georgia Institute of Technology

A Strategic Look at Valentine’s Day

(a male view of the Valentine’s situation having also accumulated a zillion research data points over multiple beer events discussing everything but Valentine’s Day)

All this talk about Valentine’s Day being created by Hallmark, the myth behind St. Valentine … a massacre for god’s sake. Confusing. The thought behind it is really very simple.

Let me walk you through Valentine’s Day from a strategic perspective using the infamous consumer buying system (I am fairly sure I cannot incorporate conflict anywhere in here but I will do my best).

Here’s the situation. Basically we men are idiots. Therefore Valentine’s Day plays an important role. It is a valuable stimulus to stop us from thinking solely with our dumb stick and with some random portion of our brain that isn’t being used for sports, work, alcohol, oogling (not ogling … there is a difference), mindless daydreaming or sleeping. Below you will see a diagram that outlines how we think without Valentine’s day and then with Valentine’s day.

(click on the image for a larger, somewhat more legible version)

Valentine's Day Consumer Buying System

As you see. Valentine’s Day is not something created by Hallmark. Nor is it stupid. It is an important event with a use benefiting men (kind of like the Super Bowl and March Madness but not as important).

Windustry Part 2: Implementing alternative energy is going to take some alternative solutions

This is a follow up to my earlier post, Implied benefit vs. overtly stated benefit: The “Windustry Example

Alternative energy sources should take solace that they can actually see the light at the end of the tunnel. For years they were battling in the dark (admittedly sometimes against each other to their detriment) but things are becoming “real” now. Unfortunately, in their solace they cannot relax because they are now moving into a different type of battle.

The people who were fighting to get alternative energy considered are now being faced with an entirely different set of issues. I sometimes believe environmentalists in general face this issue all the time. And I often believe this is where they stumble.

To me this is classic consumer buying system stuff. There is a huge difference between what it takes to get people to consider things versus getting them to make a decision to “do” and then even managing the experience. The Windustry (or wind energy because I believe I may be stepping on a registered mark toes by using that word as a general industry term) is now faced with all the issues surrounding the implementation phase.

1. Environmentalists are going to slow down progress.

Let me say again. Environmentalists are going to slow down progress. Yes. I said that.

Simply. This is a classic environmentalists-meet-environmentalists cage match where they get to use windmills to beat each other.

Unfortunately this particular cage match (just switch out the windmills for something else) seems to happen a lot. “Hey, this is the best thing for the environment. Oops. Well not for that particular acre of environment.”

I have met the enemy and it is “I”.

Noise pollution (yeah. Okay. They are noisy lil suckers. But hey. Can’t be worse than the humming of the electric lines overhead or that little bang you just heard at the nearby nuclear plant).

Disrupting the natural landscape. Huh? I have to agree that some areas just need to be preserved. But, c’mon, there are lots of places where these windmills, oops, wind turbines can be located and farmers are absolutely delighted because they can buy new equipment with the money they get off the leases (and the cows certainly don’t care). And there are many places where communities would love the tax breaks.

Disrupting my view. Ouch. I cannot even comment on this one.

Look. Progress comes at a price. Even at Walden Pond choices had to be made (like staying awake to be able to finish the book).

Yeah. Putting windmills up where there is wind has some issues. Heck. Putting recess in the middle of the 2nd grade day has issues. They both have a purpose (don’t ask me what the recess one is I can’t remember). Indiscriminate windmill placement just isn’t gonna happen. And no matter what we need to realize windmill placement will affect people around it. Yeah. Well. Pick your poison. Some decreased property value or your children having to deal with some global environmental issues. Hmmmmmmm. Tough call, huh?

Bottom line. The Windustry is going to have to face the fact that implementation obstructionism is everywhere and not just in “not in my backyard” groups but also some very familiar faces – other environmentalists. I find some irony in this but that’s just me.

2. The multiple constituents are going to make some things Inefficient.

Oh. And where it gets really tough for the Windustry is efficient, or inefficient rather, implementation.

Why? (you may ask. And even if you didn’t here is the answer)

Beyond other environmentalists it is Multiple constituents in an emerging industry.

After such a long fight to actually get people to agree to implementation, wind energy would seem simple. But. Emerging industries bring a once in a lifetime challenge. Competition.

And even worse?

Learning competition. What I mean by learning is that while they may have some basic understanding of what to do and how to do it, emerging industries are always a little trial and error.

Compounding the learning curve challenge is the fact you have multiple “groups” (companies) fighting for the cash. Sure. There will always be that, but during the emerging phase the stakes are high. Who gets in first and who says the right story gets a lot of money down the road. That means a variety of entities are singin’ their own song to become “the expert” or “the source”. Heck. This is what the good ole USofA is all about -competition. Free market. That kind of stuff. But with the kind of prize that is at stake here it can get a little cutthroat in the competition.

Unfortunately, “free market” means a segment like wind energy (or Windustry), which should come out of the gates rockin’, is rather in one of those old west horse races where there were minimal rules on bumping and jostling and even whipping one of the competitors (ain’t no Kentucky Derby). So it’s not a smooth race to the finish line but rather an uneven rough race.

Oh. And then the government is going to be involved. (uh oh)

I guess we can hope it does the right thing to advance a worthy project and to signal that the nation will not let private interests block the path toward energy independence. Unfortunately the signs reflect the government is in no rush to help out in the implementation phase. The Senate, for example, has been the graveyard for efforts to establish national standards (in part due to objections from Southern senators, who say the region lacks sufficient solar and wind resources).

- Oh, gosh darn it, personal interests gets in the way of national benefit one more time.

Anyway. Aligning multiple constituents is going to be an issue. Companies will be jockeying for position all seeking to be the industry leader.

Let me conclude (at least this part) that I believe Wind Energy is our best alternative energy source. But it isn’t going to be a smooth road to success.

Let the environmentalist cage match begin. And let the money grabbers start their race. And hope they all remember what the prize is.