2.4 The product
- Syllabus
- 9990–2028–2029
- Topic
- 2.4
- Level
- A2
Learning objectives
2.4.1Packaging and positioning of a product• 2.4.1 Packaging and positioning of a product- gift-wrapping including beliefs of giver and recipient: why gifts are wrapped, types of wrapping.- food package design (exemplified by the following key study).- Key study on food package design and taste perceptions: Becker et al. (2011).- attention and shelf position including planograms; central gaze cascade effect, use of eye-tracking, including a study, e.g. Atalay et al. (2012).- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: reductionism versus holism, determinism versus free-will, generalisations, objective and subjective data, validity.2.4.2Selling the product• 2.4.2 Selling the product- sales techniques focusing on customer-focused, competitor-focused, product-focused techniques including effect of each on buyer-seller relationship.- interpersonal influence techniques; focusing on disrupt-then-reframe including the need for cognitive closure and factors affecting the need for cognitive closure, including a study, e.g. Kardes et al. (2007).- Cialdini's six ways to close a sale.- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, cultural differences, determinism versus free-will, idiographic versus nomothetic, field experiments.2.4.3Buying the product• 2.4.3 Buying the product- the Engel Kollat Blackwell model of buyer decision-making.- deciding where to buy including reasons for store choice by demographics such as age and gender, including a study, e.g. Sinha et al. (2002).- post-purchase cognitive dissonance including factors that can increase dissonance and ways to reduce dissonance, including a study, e.g. Nordvall (2014).- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: cultural differences, reductionism versus holism, idiographic versus nomothetic, objective and subjective data, validity.
Presentation shapes a product through social meaning, sensory expectation and gaze
| Presentation route | Cue | Psychological effect | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gift meaning | Traditional, non-traditional or no wrapping | Signals effort, occasion and that the object is a special gift | Relationship, expectation, occasion and neatness change interpretation |
| Package expectation | Shape curvature and colour saturation | Symbolic potency can transfer across senses into expected/evaluated taste and price | Package changes perception, not the yoghurt recipe |
| Shelf attention | Planogram and horizontal position | Central placement attracts fixation and can bias choice | Looking, choosing and liking are related but not identical |
| Gift-wrapping evidence | Finding and inference |
|---|---|
| Howard (1992), experiment 1 | 45 students evaluated a promised bicycle-seat cover; traditionally wrapped gift was rated more favourably (7.14) than unwrapped (6.06) |
| Howard, experiment 2 | 82 students: wrapping improved evaluation when they believed the gift was for them, not when judging it for someone else |
| Porublev et al. (2009) | Australian observations, 20 interviews and 6 paired wrapping workshops found clear expectations and preference for wrapped gifts, adding qualitative reasons |
| Rixom et al. (2019) | 261 adults imagined neat/sloppy wrapping from friend/acquaintance; relationship and expectation can make imperfect wrapping from a close giver signal effort rather than low value |
| Becker et al. (2011) | Exact evidence |
|---|---|
| Pre-test | 20 participants rated three shape pairs and colour variants on a 12-item potency construct; random order and 7-point scales selected effective angular/rounded and saturation manipulations |
| Main design/sample | Field experiment, 151 German supermarket customers (74 men, 77 women; 15–81); 2 shape × 2 saturation × high/low design sensitivity |
| Procedure | At the entrance, each saw a 20-second rotating image of one fictional lemon-yoghurt package, tasted identical yoghurt and completed computer scales |
| Measures | Taste intensity (sharp, bitter, reverse mild), product evaluation, expected euro price and design sensitivity |
| Results | Angular packaging looked more potent and raised price expectation; no overall shape/colour taste effect, but design-sensitive participants rated identical yoghurt more intense with angular than rounded packaging; appearance effects therefore depended on the person |
| Atalay et al. (2012) | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Programme | Three studies across vitamins, meal-replacement bars and energy drinks; Paris undergraduate samples included about 63/64 and 84 participants |
| Centrality result | A brand in the horizontal centre was chosen more often even when centre of category differed from physical screen/shelf centre |
| Eye-tracking process | Central options received more attention; an initial fixation bias was followed by a growing central gaze cascade immediately before choice |
| Interpretation | Planograms can exploit attention, but eye tracking objectively records where/when gaze lands, not why or whether centrality alone caused preference |
| Lens | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Validity | Becker uses identical yoghurt and a supermarket context but rotating screen packages are not actual handling/purchase; Atalay tracks gaze precisely but laboratory shelves lack normal shopping goals |
| Objective/subjective | Fixations are objective; potency, taste, gift and brand ratings are subjective but access experience |
| Generalisation | German shoppers, French students and Australian/US gift samples are culturally and demographically bounded |
| Reductionism/free will | Isolated shape/position yields testable causality; real choice also uses price, brand, need and deliberate search |
A central product can receive more gaze without being objectively better, and angular packaging can alter reported intensity for design-sensitive consumers without changing the identical yoghurt. Gift-wrapping effects likewise depend on recipient, relationship and occasion.
Sales techniques differ in whose information drives the relationship
| Sales orientation | Salesperson does | Buyer–seller effect | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Customer-focused | Elicits unique needs, diagnoses the problem and acts as consultant | Trust, fit, loyalty and recommendation can grow | Slow/training intensive; questioning can feel intrusive |
| Competitor-focused | Compares price, reviews, service, ethics or features against rivals | Makes relative value easy and can secure a deal quickly | Reduces diverse buyers to comparison and neglects unique need/product depth |
| Product-focused | Demonstrates features, quality and technical benefits | Expertise can build confidence for complex products | Information overload and feature-pushing can weaken relationship if need is ignored |
Disrupt-then-reframe (DTR) is a two-step influence technique: (1) present an unexpected or confusing formulation that interrupts routine processing, then (2) immediately re-express it as a simple favourable meaning. Disruption creates ambiguity; the reframe offers closure. Disruption alone is not the persuasion mechanism.
| Kardes et al. (2007) | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Experiment 1 | DTR increased real retail sales in a supermarket field setting |
| Experiment 2 | DTR increased willingness to pay to join a student interest group |
| Experiment 3 | DTR increased student support for a tuition increase |
| Mechanism | Effects grew as need for cognitive closure increased; disruption motivates acceptance of a reframe that reduces ambiguity |
| Closure moderators | Time pressure, fatigue, noise, uncertainty and a dispositional preference for order/decisiveness can raise closure need; accountability or desire for accuracy can reduce premature closure |
| Boundary | Behaviour across three contexts supports application, but field control, student generalisation and ethical manipulation remain concerns |
| Cialdini principle | Why it can close a sale | Ethical example |
|---|---|---|
| Reciprocity | People tend to return a benefit | Useful free trial/sample before a no-pressure offer |
| Commitment/consistency | People align action with prior stated choice | Confirm genuinely selected needs before offering matching plan |
| Social proof | Similar others' choices reduce uncertainty | Verified reviews from comparable customers |
| Liking | Similarity/rapport increases receptiveness | Honest common ground and respectful interaction |
| Authority | Credible expertise reduces uncertainty | Relevant qualification and transparent evidence |
| Scarcity | Dwindling availability raises perceived value/urgency | Truthful stock/deadline information, not fabricated pressure |
| Application | Valid inference | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Bicycle comparison page | Competitor-focus can make gears, tyres, warranty and price explicit | Cherry-picked comparison erodes trust |
| Car consultation | Customer-focus can fit budget/use and support loyalty | Seller may only imitate listening |
| Limited offer | Scarcity can speed action because opportunity seems at risk | Scarcity wording is not proof of actual scarcity |
| DTR price | Odd unit expression followed by simple value frame may gain attention/closure | Confusion can exploit rather than inform, harming autonomy and relationship |
No closing principle guarantees compliance. Culture, relationship, product involvement and closure need change response. Ethical influence requires the comparison, authority, review and scarcity claim to be genuine; otherwise a short-term sale can damage the buyer–seller relationship.
Buying moves from need to search, choice and post-choice justification
| Engel–Kollat–Blackwell stage | Learning job | Car example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Problem recognition | Detect gap between current and desired state | Existing car breaks down |
| 2 Search for alternatives | Retrieve internal knowledge and seek external options | Visit garages, reviews and listings |
| 3 Alternative evaluation | Compare options using valued criteria | Price, mileage, size, reliability and service |
| 4 Purchase decision | Select product/seller and complete transaction | Choose the best-fitting affordable car |
| 5 Post-purchase behaviour | Evaluate outcome, seek reassurance, complain/return or become loyal | Experience confirms choice or produces dissonance |
The model is comprehensive and face-valid for high-involvement purchases, but routine/impulse choices may skip, compress or revisit stages.
| Sinha et al. (2002) store-choice evidence | Pattern | Application boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Method/context | Exploratory field survey of shoppers leaving different stores in Ahmedabad, India; factor analysis and multinomial logit grouped primary/image reasons | Associations from one city/culture and self-report do not prove demographic causation |
| Age | Ages 25–40 emphasised merchandise/ambience; 30–40 also service and patronised stores; convenience mattered for middle groups | Age categories hide income, task, mobility and cohort differences |
| Gender | About 40% of men prioritised convenience/proximity and 30% merchandise; women showed the reverse ordering | Useful group tendency, not a prescription for every man/woman |
| Store type | Grocery leaned on proximity/association; durable goods on merchandise/referrals; apparel/books/music on ambience | Product/store context changes the weight of each reason |
| Post-purchase cognitive dissonance | Explanation |
|---|---|
| State | Discomfort when purchase behaviour conflicts with a belief, attractive rejected alternative or later information—‘I bought this’ versus ‘the other was cheaper/better’ |
| Increases with | High cost/involvement, difficult and irreversible choice, similar attractive alternatives, personal responsibility and negative information |
| Consumer reduction | Revalue chosen option upward/rejected option downward, seek supportive reviews, change belief, return/cancel, research/budget before purchase |
| Seller reduction | Accurate need-fit advice, price guarantee, returns, warranty, service and strong truthful post-purchase information |
| Boundary | Reducing discomfort can improve fit or merely rationalise; dissonance does not prove the product failed |
| Nordvall (2014) | Evidence and inference |
|---|---|
| Choice task | Consumers rated organic and non-organic grocery alternatives before and after selecting one |
| Finding | After choosing non-organic, its preference rating increased while the rejected organic alternative decreased |
| Interpretation | Spreading the alternatives is consistent with dissonance reduction: strengthen chosen cognition and weaken rejected one |
| Application | Timely, credible information before purchase might support switching to organic; after choice, reassurance may instead consolidate the selected option |
| Limitation | Preference change is an indirect indicator; no formal direct dissonance measure means alternative accounts such as choice-supported memory remain possible |
| Lens | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Reductionism–holism | EKB organises a complex process but real buying loops through emotion, social influence, availability and context |
| Idiographic–nomothetic | Stage/demographic models support predictions; individual goals and life history remain necessary |
| Objective–subjective | Purchase/choice can be observed; reasons, preference and dissonance are subjective and vulnerable to reconstruction |
| Validity/culture | Natural-store samples improve relevance, but Indian store formats and organic-food meaning may not transfer unchanged |
Treat EKB as a map, not a compulsory straight line. Demographic findings are probabilistic associations, and a post-choice preference shift is compatible with dissonance reduction but is not a direct measurement of discomfort.