Evaluate Different Consumer Behavior

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

This part is to be completed by the students:

Unit name and code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Assignment name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Given Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Student Identi?cation Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I certify that:

• this assignment is all my own work, and no part of this assignment has been copied

from another person;

• I have not allowed my work to be copied by another person.

Signature:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction

This objective of this essay is to evaluate different consumer behavior towards mundane product costing less than $20 (represented by toothpaste) and utilitarian product costing over $500 (represented by cell-phone) and examine the implication for marketers. Two interviews were conducted, both are university students.

Similarities

1. Problem recognition

There is a need and problem recognition to trigger the buying behavior of both toothpaste and cell-phone. Specifically, both products are solutions for social and non-social need. For toothpaste, the social need is to keep your breath fresh and the non-social need is to prevent tooth decay. On the other hand, the social need for cell-phone is connecting with people and symbol for a social group. Playing game and listening to music is non-social need for a cell-phone.

2. Brand awareness and situational involvement

Brand awareness is crucial in both cases because both interviewees are not willing to buy the brand they cannot recall. Moreover, both purchasing are situational involvement, the involvement only occur before the purchasing behavior.

3. Decision making unit

In these two interviews, the decision makers are the users and their decisions are affected by influencers. The purchase of toothpaste is influenced by family members and the purchase of cell-phone is influenced by peers and families.

Differences

1. Information searching

Customers tend to spend more time and other resources on information searching for cell-phone than toothpaste. One interviewee claim that refer to a number of sources such as forums, friends or magazines, which is not likely to happen for toothpaste buyers.

Brand image play important role in information searching process for cell-phone because customers will associate the brand image to his personal psychological core.

2. Elaboration Likelihood Model

The finding in the interview is consistent with the Elaboration Likelihood Model (). The interview for cell-phone states that he have a propensity to prefer certain brand before purchasing. In other word, the customers create an evoke set during the information searching. However, that is not the case for toothpaste purchasing, for which buyer tend to take action before forming an attitude.

3. Impulse purchase V.S. planned purchase

Another fact that we detect in the interview is that impulse purchasing happened to toothpaste more frequently. They seldom make decision before the point of purchase. In comparison, customers will plan for product and place to buy for cell-phone.

Another phenomenon we find is that customers are liable to switch to another toothpaste brand when there is a discount. However, another interviewee claim he will not simply switch to another brand just due to price.