An eye tracking study of minimally branded products: hedonism and branding as predictors of purchase intentions
| Date | 12 March 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2016-1282 |
| Pages | 146-157 |
| Published date | 12 March 2018 |
| Author | Juan Mundel,Patricia Huddleston,Bridget Behe,Lynnell Sage,Caroline Latona |
| Subject Matter | Marketing,Product management,Brand management/equity |
An eye tracking study of minimally
branded products: hedonism and branding
as predictors of purchase intentions
Juan Mundel
DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, USA, and
Patricia Huddleston, Bridget Behe, Lynnell Sage and Caroline Latona
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Abstract
Purpose –This study aims to test the relationship between consumers’perceptions of product type (utilitarian vs hedonic) and the attentional
processes that underlie decision-making among minimally branded products.
Design/methodology/approach –This study uses eye-tracking measures (i.e. total fixation duration) and data collected through an online survey.
Findings –The study shows that consumers spend more time looking at hedonic (vs utilitarian) and branded (vs unbranded) products, which
influences perceptions of quality.
Practical implications –The findings of this research provide guidelines for marketing minimally branded products.
Originality/value –The authors showed that the product type influences the time consumers spend looking at an item. Previ ous findings about
effects of branding are extended to an understudied product category (i.e. live potted plants).
Keywords Branding, Retailing, Experimental Design, Eye-tracking, Hedonic and utilitarian consumption
Paper type Research paper
Brands are a ubiquitous occurrence in consumers’daily lives.
Consumers are exposed to roughly 3,000 advertisements daily,
and in the western hemisphere, individuals are surrounded by
branded goods. From labels in a grocery store, the clothes they
wear, to the food in their pantries, the average Americancan be
exposed to up to 20,000 brands on a daily basis. In particular,
packaging as a brand cue can offer the consumer qualitysignals
that become essentialin the buying process (Rettie and Brewer,
2000). According to Silayoi and Speece (2004), the critical
value of packaging is offering the consumer a choice in
competitive market conditions, as its features can underline
those of the product. In addition, quality judgments are also
influenced by the packaging.
Thus, in a market where most products are packaged, how
do consumers choose among products that normally do not
offer additional cues through their packaging? Studies suggest
that other features such as the shape of theitem (Sundar et al.,
2013), color (Bellizzi and Hite, 1992) and signage (Puccinelli
et al., 2009) can play a significant role in influencing the
purchase decision. Another line of research suggests that the
type of need the purchase is intended to satisfy can influence
consumers’purchase decisions. Levy (1959) noted that
consumers purchase products not only for fulfillment of
physiological needs (i.e. utilitarian products) but also as a
means to satisfy other needs that are more socially oriented,
such as status (i.e. hedonic products). We ascribe to this view,
and we propose that in cases in which branding is not an easily
accessible source of information for consumers, their
evaluations of a product as hedonic or utilitarian is of
paramount importancewhen making a purchase decision.
In a market where allocating disposable income to products
considered to be a pleasurable and enjoyable phenomenon,
shopping for hedonic products has become a familiar practice
among middle-class individuals (Ahn and Mundel, 2015).
Consumers’willingness to shop for cheaper goods in one
category, freeing resources for higher spending behavior in
other categories, such as hedonic products (Kapferer and
Bastien, 2009), is referred to as trading up. This preference for
hedonic versions of goodsand services has been extended from
fashion products to an array of categories,which include coffee
products, hair salons and spas. Further, a recent study
investigating consumers’perceptions of hedonic products
found that the majority of respondents shopped for hedonic
products on a monthly basis (Mundel et al., 2017). Therefore,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
27/2 (2018) 146–157
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-07-2016-1282]
The authors thank the USDA Federal State Marketing Improvement
Program for their generous funding of this study. Researcher salary for this
project was supported by the USDA National Food and Agriculture,
Hatch Project Number MICL 02085 and by Michigan State University
AgBioResearch. The authors report no conflict of interests.
Received 29 July 2016
Revised 12 December 2016
30 March 2017
25 June 2017
30 June 2017
21 July 2017
Accepted 26 July 2017
146
To continue reading
Request your trial