Factors Affecting Brand Choice

Factors impact Brand ChoiceConsumer acquire finis so fartually is determined by the identification number of factors or intellects this concept of closinge qualification is rooted historically in personal, psychological, demographic, and social concerns of the consumer. There ar numerous reasons to buy a shuffle in a given situation, but our objective is lonesome(prenominal) to paper the look of the consumer regarding his/her purchasing attitude by examining the signifi terminatet / preponderant reasons of purchasing a particular crossing in a given situation.As theory betokens that the consumers argon usually choosing a gull they recognize. If the consumers do non choose the flaw according to traditional theories, then what atomic number 18 the winner factors that confound a greater effect on the buying sort of a consumer? A lot of controversies ar arising while looking into the belles-lettres regarding the consumer excerption ratiocination, whether the purposes ar based on some charges of the yield analogous timbre, expenditure, check offmark credibility, or on the basis of consumer attitude and intention, publicise, group influences, innovations, and print loyalty, or the stopping points ar do on the ground of blur awareness.So many great elements might have strong influence on buying endings which pauperisation to be considered to unhopefulstand the consumers buying decision qualification specially in low amour menage of the produces in an un-awareness situation.Further, it assimilatems passing essential to diametricaliate between vendees behavior toward a choice among miscellaneous carrys within the product fellowship and the dimensions referring to reasons alter choice of a buyer.The near situations facing every business are to identify the factors determining likeences for the smirchs with support reasons which concern consumer choice. (Itamar and Nowlis, 2000), further, Wilson and Scho oler (1991) found that subjects who had analyzed their reasons for liking various brands of jams subsequently explicit preferences that corresponded less well to those of experts than the preferences of subjects who did not analyze the reasons for their attitudes.In many studies the vendors and re look forers has accepted the effectiveness of the factors those restoreing brand choice, moreover Brown (1950) in his national identified that, physical characteristics of the brand, usagers experience with the brand, packaging, set, premiums, guarantees, habit, recommendation by friends, recommendation by experts, convenience of dealers location, personal salesmanship, dealer attend tos, dealer prestige, advertising and display, special characteristics of the manufacturer, e.g., force policy, location, etc., novelty, chance, availability, brand prestige or social word sniff out.Many choice situations guide outside of conscious(p) awareness and with limited knowledge search , (Kivetz and Simonson, 2000). Further, thither are evidences when some times non-conscious influences affect choice often more than are traditional concept.Whenever the unawareness on the part of consumer close to the brands and the consumer is supposed to shop a choice in that condition, then what factors or reasons are there which persuade a consumer to choose any brand among from operational brands?The controversies about the concept of Consumer buying Decision help in knowing and scrutiny the impact of the dominant factors/reasons on the consumer buying decision in a no-awareness situation, where a consumer is lacking any kind of information regarding the product category or/and about the available brands in that category of low betrothal products.The scope of believe was to focus on consumer lore on brand choice based on some factors or reasons. The study specifically was designed to explore the phenomenon in which only frequently bought products are tried in an unawa reness situation, where the consumer does not have any prior information and knows nothing about the available restore of brands within the product category in a given situation.The extent of the research was urged to comparison the consumer responses of large city and a small town of rural field (i.e. Karachi and Khairpur). The objective was to understand the consumer perception in antithetical cultures and market segments that whitethorn help in break-danceing an appropriate strategy to satisfy the postulate of different customers accordingly.1.2 Problem statementThe goal of this experiment was to empirically witness the buying behavior and decision qualification attitude of the consumer in a no-brand awareness condition of low involvement product categories as a general phenomena and find out any differences with observe to rural and urban consumer choices.Research Questions1. How unawareness does differ from awareness of the brands?2. How do consumers perceive on the products of low involvement?3. What factors or reasons are there which persuade a consumer to choose any brand among from available brands?4. How do consumers start out the decision to buy the brand and what are the determinants dominating consumers purchasing decision making?5. How rural and urban consumers differ on determinants dominating purchasing decision making?The study may contribute and assist local marketers and managers to develop effective strategies regarding production, managing, and selling of the products in a given market designate, furtherTo study the consumer response in unawareness situation.To understand the consumer perception toward low involvement products.To understand the differences in choice decision of rural and urban areas.To valuate the factors affecting consumer choice.To help managers in developing appropriate and effective marketing strategies.1.3 HypothesesH1 uniqueness/Innovation is the dominant reason for choice of a brand.H2 look is the dominant reason for choice of a brand.H3 outlay is the dominant reason for choice of a brand.H4 box/Attribute is the dominant reason for choice of a brand.H5 Group Influences is the dominant reason for choice of a brand.H6 corporation Credibility is the dominant reason for choice of a brand.H7 There is no difference in dominant reason for choice of a brand in rural and urban area consumer.1.4 Outline of the studyThe grassroots purpose of the research was to explore and recognize the effects of most-valuable elements affecting the consumers preferences and relative actions to purchase and to identify major reason(s) to purchase in a given situation where the consumer has no prior knowledge about the brands under setting set.Expected Benefits of the studyTo have a better intellect of unawareness on the part of consumer where he/she is going to cave in purchase decision.To veryize how the consumer perceive on the low involvement product category, where pocketable efforts are considered to make a purchase.To understand the factors influencing purchasing decision in a given situation.To assist the managers and marketers to know the dominant determinants of consumer decision and to develop the strategies particularly when introducing a new brand in a given market.DefinitionsThe choice has been delimitate by different researchers in alter aspects, Flemming (1976) viewed the choice with supporting example by saying, that the person walking big bucks a highway who hesitates at a fork in the road before choosing which route to take classically illustrates choice.Consumer acquire Behavior was delimitate by Schiffman, and Kanuk, (1997) as the study of how one-on-ones make decision to spend their available resources on outgo-related compass point, where they buy it how often they buy it and how often they accustom it. baseborn involvement refers to the premise that the consumers while making a purchase decision experiencing with little effort, time , and gold to decide for a particular brand to buy, beca work the consumer has been buying frequently in that product category.Uniqueness refers as to be seen and viewed as different from new(prenominal)s. badlyustrative of consumers efforts to resist or previse the acceptance of popularized goods that symbolically convey conformity, consumers may dispose of goods that become popular and reduplicate the cycle in search of new and special products, innovations, and emerging invent trends (Snyder 1992 and Tepper, 1997).Product shade may be defined as the consumers plan of the excellence of the product or service (Zeithaml, 1988). eccentric ( sensed not conformity) is a blooming factor that plays very dominant type in selection process. determine may defined in its narrowest sense as the amount of money charged for a product or service, and in broad sense it is the sum of all the values that customers give up in rules of do to receive the benefits of having or using a produc t or service (Kotler and Amstrong, 2008). Packaging can be defined as to design and bring on a wrapper or jibeer for a product (Kotler and Armstrong, 2008).A persons groups exist of all the groups that have a direct (Face-to-face) or indirect influence on his/her attitudes or behaviors. (Kotler and Keller, 2005).Corporate reputation has been defined by Fombrun (1996) as a perceptual representation of a partnerships actions in past and prospects of succeeding(a) that are an aggregate of many personal judgments about the company.While Keller (1998) has defined company credibility as the degree to which consumers do believe that a company can deliver products and services that satisfy nigh their necessarily and wants.CHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEW2.1 Choice DecisionTo choose a brand among from available brands of low involvement product category in a situation where consumer does not know about the brands under servant seems very critical, because the roughly theories of consumer behavior support the awareness as a dominant factor in consumer choice. On the former(a) hand it was as well assumed that excess of every thing is dangerous, probable it can be guessed that more information may confuse the consumer about the brand to be selected. Jacoby, Speller, and Berning (1974) are of the opinion that Consumers actually make poorer purchase decisions with more information.The research was intended to test the assumption that what may happen when the consumer is completely occult about he brands under consideration in a low involvement product category. The choice is restricted toward the limited brands in different categories of low involvement products.There is no disagreement on that every one is facing with a choice. If, however, the example is changed slightly, it is more doubtful whether we are still talking about a choice. The person walking on a sidewalk, when confronted with a puddle, changes his direction slightly and continues. In this case few peop le may say that a choice was involved.Attitude of the consumer plays an cardinal role in making decision making in a given situation. A consumers attitude and purchase intention towards a brand is not only a product of their cognitive paygrades of that individual brand but are also determined by their perception of other competing brands within the consideration set. (Ronnie, Anne, and Karinna, 2006).2.1.1 Decision making Process Fig. 2.1Need quotation Problem Awareness grease ones palms DecisionEvaluation of AlternativesInformation chasePost-Purchase EvaluationNeed RecognitionThe buying process starts when the buyer recognizes a problem or convey. Need recognition occurs when actual state differs significantly from sweard state. It is triggered when a customer is exposed to either an internal or an external stimulus. Hunger and thirst are internal stimuli, the color of a product, the package design, name of a brand mentioned by a friend, or an ad. are considered external st imuli (William, 2002).It is widely accepted that the traditional problem work approach involving rational decision making to the study of consumer choice may not be suitable for all situations, or is at least incomplete to understand choice behavior. Limited information search and evaluation of alternates led to a situation in which consumer choice is also determined by hedonic considerations ( Dhar, and Wertenbroch, 2000). In general, a common distinction to be made is that while the utilitarian goods usually are primary subservient and conk outal, hedonic goods provide fun, pleasure and excitement.Consumer Information SearchConsumer information search should yield a group of brands, sometime called the buyers evoked set (or consideration set), which are consumers most preferred alternatives (Clow, and Baack, 2001).Evaluation of AlternativesIn close coincidence to information search, evaluation of alternatives has also gained a momentum in fresh research (Laroche, Kim, and Zh ou, 2003). Their study on consumers use of five heuristic rules (conjunctive, disjunctive, lexicographic, linear additive, and nonrepresentational compensatory) in the consideration set formation found that conjunctive heuristics is the most often used decision model in the consideration set formation for two product classes in the study (here,Sun block brands and pens). conjugation heuristics means that a consumer selects a brand only if it meets acceptable standards, the alleged(prenominal) cutoff point on each key attribute consumer regards as important (Assael, 1998). In the non-compensatory method of evaluation, a consumer would eliminate a brand that does not fulfill the standards on one or two of the most important attributes, even it is positive on all other attributes.Brands, which leave be selected to group purchase options, will also be considered during the alternative evaluation process (Hawkins, Roger, and Kenneth, 1998).Purchase Decision and Post-purchase evaluatio nTo select a specific brand after evaluation the buying and consuming it may consequently result in delighting, satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and disappointment about the selected brand.It is essential to descry between the attributes per se and consumers perceptions of these attributes, because consumers differ in their perceptions. It is the perception that affects behavior, not the attribute itself. Attribute is often used to mean choice criteria, but this leads to confusion.A vast amount of research has been and is being conducted on many of them (factors) individually. examination the product, the advertising, and the package, is an old story. But seldom has an adequate overview been taken. Does the consumer pay more vigilance to the advertising-beyond a certain point, at least-than to the dealers salesmen? Would lower impairments or im prove property be more preferred by the buyer? How important are such factors as the recommendations of experts or of friends and to what extent may the individual marketing firm control them? The most effective direction of marketing activities requires accurate answers to all of these questions.The importance of the factors influencing choice has been recognized for many years by the researchers and marketers, as Brown (1950) identified as, Physical characteristics of the brand, Users experience with the brand, Packaging, Price, Premiums, guarantees, Habit, Recommendation by friends, Recommendation by experts, Convenience of dealers location, Personal salesmanship, Dealer services, Dealer prestige, denote and display, Special characteristics of the manufacturer, e.g., labor policy, location, etc., Novelty, Chance, Availability, Brand prestige or social acceptance.The tip of (no redundant) reasons in choice and, correspondingly, the degree to which the choice of reasons drives the choice of options vary crossways decisions and are likely to depend on the task, the context, the choice problem, and individual diffe rences. In particular, when consumers are explicitly told to explain their decisions, it is commonsense to previse that the reasons that can be used to support considered options play a prominent role in the choice process. A question that naturally arises is what factors determine preferences for reasons and how does a need to provide reasons affect choice? (Itamar, and Nowlis, 2000).Wilson and Schooler (1991) found that subjects who had analyzed their reasons for liking different brands of jams subsequently expressed preferences that corresponded less well to those of experts than the preferences of subjects who did not analyze the reasons for their attitudes.Purchase decisionDecision making is very complex phenomena where the consumer does not make a decision simply, and but to arrive at a final and concrete decision the consumer experiences sub-decisions (i.e. What type of goods should be purchased, chased?, How much of an item should be purchased?, When should the purchase be made?, Where should the purchase be made?, How should the purchase be made, i.e., by telephone or in person, by cash or on credit, by husband or wife, and so on? What brand should be purchased? In many cases, the consumer is not conscious of the fact that he arrives at decisions with respect to all of these sub-decisions to purchase (Brown, 1950).2.2 Consumer Buying BehaviorConsumer Buying Behavior has been defined by Kotler, and Amstrong, (2001), asConsumers make many buying decisions every day. Most large companies research consumer buying decision in great detail to answer questions about what consumers buy, where they buy, how and how much they buy, when they buy, and why they buyA simple model of the consumer buying behavior deemed as the stimulus-response model. According to this model, marketing stimuli and other major force tape the consumers nasty box and produce certain responses. One in the black box these inputs produce observable buyer responses, such as product choi ce, brand choice, purchasing timing, and purchase amount.The consumer decision-making process does not occur in a vacuum. On the contrary, underlying cultural, social, individual, and psychological factors strongly influence (lam, Hair, and McDaniel, 2002). heathenish FactorsCulture represents the behavior, beliefs, and in many cases, the way we act learned by interacting or observing other members of society. In this way much of what we do is shared behavior, passed along from one member of society to other.In order to increase customer satisfaction the managers and marketers are trying to understand the real behavior and attitude of consumers in a given situation. The better the marketer understand the factors underlying consumer behavior, the better able they are to develop emotive marketing strategies to meet consumer needs (Assael, 1998).2.3 Low InvolvementHoyer and Brown (1990), examining the heuristic for low-involvement decision making, and found that consumers who are aware of the name of one of the brands in a product category will repeatedly choose that brand, even when it offers objectively determined lower quality. Consumers who are unfamiliar with the brand names often will experiment with and eventually settle on a brand that offers higher quality.Time pressure commonly influences consumers opportunity to utilize in effortful decision strategies. Payne, Bettman, and Johnson (1988) demonstrate that consumers who are faced with making a choice under time pressure (lack of opportunity) will accelerate information processing, ignore certain pieces of information, or touch to simpler heuristics. Perhaps the simplest low-involvement decision heuristic involves the retrieval of previously formed affect associated with the product (Peter and Nord, 1982).2.4 Uniqueness/ InnovationUniqueness and Innovation play a significant role in making choice of a brand particularly in unawareness condition, as (Tepper, 1997) view it as Conceptual models of social nonconformance recognize that behaviors that render a person different relative to other people may reflect several motivational processes, Although such a choice may at times differentiate the decision shaper from others, this outcome is incidental to acting consistent with personal standards.Consumers need for uniqueness is also distinct from independence, a motivation that may inadvertently perspicuous in social different-ness as a result of adhering to ones personal taste. Decisions shift the focus from the choice of options to the choice of reasons. Buyers who explain their decisions and have high need for uniqueness tend to select unconventional reasons and are more likely to make unconventional choices (Itamar, and Nowlis, 2000). Itamar, and Nowlis (2000) further support their view that the effect of NFU (Need for Uniqueness) on choice emerges when consumers have the opportunity to explain their decisions and do not expect to be individually evaluated. That is, the ability to explain, without concerns about others criticism, may allow greater use of unconventional arguments and unconventional choices that express uniqueness and independence. Further they beg that the need for uniqueness and autonomy is usually dominated by the desire for social approval and other pressures for conformity, when consumers are encouraged to explain their decisions and are not concerned about others criticism, expressions of uniqueness come to the surface and affect choices.Consumers need for uniqueness may fit into a broader theory of consumption as an extension of self (Belk, 1988). This supposition is further supported by the work of Tepper (1997) that Consumers need for uniqueness could be examined as a character influencing processes whereby situations that elicit consumer counter conformity motivation lead to participation and acts of conflict resolution.In phenomenological interviews, Thompson and Haytko (1997) found that attempts to stay ahead in the realm of trend trends by discarding fashions that catch on and seeking emerging innovations are taken as acts of resisting conformity. The concept is exemplified in the comments of one of Thompson and Haytkos (1997) interview participants Usually if something is hot, Ill go out of my way to stay away from it. Even if I like it at first, if everyones habiliment it, I dont want to be wearing it. The concept of consumers need for uniqueness derives from Snyder and Fromkins (1977) theory of uniqueness. According to this theory, the need to see oneself as being different from other persons is aroused and competes with other motives in situations that threaten the self-perception of uniqueness (i.e., situations in which individuals see them- selves as highly exchangeable to others in their social environment).A unique product may be sought out to restore a persons self-view as one who is different from others, such as when an anonymous art collector bids via the internet or telephone for a rare painting she wants to display in her bedroom. (Tian, Bearden, and Hunte, 2001)McA disputationer and Pessemier (1982) suggest that a desire for social distinction via unusual products influences new product adoption and variety-seeking behavior. Where (Fisher Price, 1992). Commenting thatBecause consumer choices, particularly creative choices, may establish ones uniqueness, such choices are likely to attract followers who also seek to develop their special-ness or share a common link with early adopter groups. And initially unpopular consumer choices may later gain social acceptance and thereby positively distinguish the consumer as an innovator or fashion attracter (Heckert, 1989).It should be noted that changing from an initially preferred choice to a new one in order to avoid similarity is a criterion for distinguishing counter conformity from other motivations that incidentally result in being different (Nail, 1986). And even initially unpopular choices can gain widespread acc eptance over time (Heckert, 1989). On the contrary Thompson and Haytko (1997) in his research reason out and suggested that this could be the time when innovation is less important than heritage, as brands with history can speak to consumers through nostalgia packaging, graphics and advertising messages.As a result of pursuing different-ness through no confrontational venues such as the purchase of unique products, individuals driven by counter conformity motivation should not perceive themselves to be similar to others with respect to their consumer choices (Kilduff, 1992 Snyder and Fromkin, 1977). This concept is further supported by Snyder and Fromkin, (1977) that specifically, uniqueness theory suggests that individual differences in motivation to seek different-ness arise from early childhood socialization that either emphasizes obedience and following norms or emphasizes creativity and individuality.Further, Thompson and Haytko (1997) have suggested that, for those who occ asion their personal identity through a contrast between their perceived fashion orientation and that of others in their social setting, personal identity does not reflect a stable set of essential sports but is negotiated in a dynamic field of social relations.Bloch (1995) in his research concluded and proposes that individual differences in the need for uniqueness influence consumers product selections through its effect on affective and cognitive responses to the exterior design. This indicates that strategically marketers should place the greater emphasis on unique consumes may be a reasonable heuristic when subjects must choose between two alternatives (Meyer and Eagle, 1982).2.5 QualityWhile making a purchase decision it was observed that the quality of the product was affecting intensively on the consumers ability to make a decision, because the consumer always expecting a good quality product at reasonable charge. Since the consumer had no previous experience with the bra nd under consideration, the quality of the brand was being judged through the brand exposure and outlook.Garvin (1987) proposed that product quality can be captured in eight dimensions performance, lets, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics, and perceived quality (i.e., image). Quality mind is very critical and personal that may be viewed from different dimensions, particularly the product attributes/features and its out look, its color and shape/design etc.Income of the buyer may determine the degree of quality of a product a particular brand may be viewed as of good quality by the person having low income and low buying power, while a higher income person may see it as inferior.The worth of a brand and company and store prestige may be considered as significant cues for quality. It is encouraging to be able to confirm that such stimuli as price information and the reputation of a store or company are used as cues to the quality of a product (Wheatle y and Chiu, 1977).2.6 PricePrice and quality remained very interrelated factors those affect collectively on perception of a consumer and response toward the brand. A better understanding of how customers use price information in choosing among alternative brands within frequently bought product categories helps to evaluate it and knowing the intensity as compare to other factors or reasons. Andrews, I. R., and Valenzi (1971) found that when other cues are present, some researchers have found that price remains the dominant cue. It is also consistent with Shapiros (1973), and (Marketing Science Institute, 1972) suggestion that the use of price as an indicator of quality is a reflection of both(prenominal) its concrete, unambiguous nature and the faith that consumers tend to place in at least some price setters such as prestigious retail stores.Notions of the price customers use as a reference in making purchase decisions, such as fair price (Thaler, 1985), aspiration price, and lis t price (Klein Oglethorpe, 1987). Mostly the price we consider as the expected price should coincide with the fair price Where the perceived fair price may be lower than the expected price.Customer response depends not only on the retail price, but also on how it compares with the reservation price (Scherer, 1980), perceived price (Della Bitta and Monroe, 1974 Emery, 1970 and Monroe, 1973), or evoked price (Rao and Gautschi, 1982 Thaler, 1985 Winer, 1985) view that customers use the price they expect to pay for a brand on a given purchase occasion as a reference in forming price judgments.Nwokoye (1975) found evidence that some customers use end prices-the last(a) and highest prices-as anchors in their price evaluations.A significant role of the expected price in customer brand choice was found by Kalwani, Sugita, and Yim (1986) which have modeled a brands expected price as a agency of the last price paid, the deal proneness of the customer, and the frequency of sales promotions of the brand, and Gurumurthy and undersized (1986) assume a reference price is formed as adaptive expectations of past prices and allow a latitude of acceptance of the reference price within which customers are insensitive to price gains or losses.Price declines in importance and may become insignificant in its impact on quality perception (Jacob, Olson, and Haddock, 1971 Vithala ,1971). This indicates that it is probable, however, that price effects on quality perceptions are product specific (Gardner, 1970). Price expectations of consumers are not a function of past prices only, but these expectations are influenced also by contextual variables.2.7 Attributes /PackagingPackaging was considered as the leading indicator of quality and a dominant clue in selecting a brand when the consumer is completely unaware about the brands real quality and performance.According to Slovic (1975) decision makers faced with a need to choose between two equally valued alternatives tend to prefer th e one that is superior on the more important attribute. In judging alternatives, consumers may combine evaluations on various attributes. The rules for combining evaluations are therefore important aspects of the choice process (Bettman, 1979).Consumers make purchases by image and perception of value, packaging, color and other attributes of a product, and packaging is widely considered as the silent salesman, which helps in developing strategies for better marketing results. Packaging is very important instrument in the marketing mix. Packaging has two functions (i) to protect and contain the product and (ii) as an interface to sell the product to the consumer. High-quality packaging involves take market research, environment changes in market, society, and the technology.Product features/attributes have also proved as a significant importance in deciding for a brand to purchase. Research suggests that an important determinant of the extent to which a feature is contrasted or as similated is the degree of feature overlap between the new feature and the brand to which it is added (Herr, 1989). In the present case, it was expected that when a brand with superior features or brand name adds yet another (positive) feature, the new feature is assimilated into the existing perception of superior performance and, thus, is unlikely to significantly affect the over- all evaluation of the product.Reference Gro