The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.

htm

BFJ 109,2

Functional and symbolic attributes of product selection

Lisa Wood
University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Abstract
Purpose This paper seeks to identify the functional and symbolic attributes of product and brand selection that are of importance to 18-24 consumers across food and toiletries products. Design/methodology/approach The investigation used both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The initial quantitative study (268 respondents) aimed to identify in order of importance (using ANOVA) the variables that drive purchase behaviour across the four product categories of soap, coffee, breakfast cereal and toothpaste. Findings The study identied the key importance of sensory (e.g. taste, scent) attributes in the selection of the specic products studied. These sensory attributes may dene the brand positioning of the products. Practical implications This paper has implications for new product development. Originality/value Identies the functional and symbolic attributes of product and brand selection that are of importance to 18-24 consumers across food and toiletries products. Keywords Quality, Brands, Consumer behaviour Paper type Research paper

108

British Food Journal Vol. 109 No. 2, 2007 pp. 108-118 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0007-070X DOI 10.1108/00070700710725482

Introduction Given the intense competition in most markets today, companies that fail to innovate, are exposing themselves to great risk. In grocery markets, distributor power and competition from both home and international rms, has raised the importance of new product development (Buijis, 1979). Yet product innovation itself can be a risky activity with failure rates being found to be as high as 80 percent in some grocery markets (Bolding et al., 1997). Freeman (1982) suggests that dominant uncertainties in product development are those relating to the market. The centrality of the customer in new product development efforts is identied in many studies (Von Hippel, 1989; Johne, 1994; Simonson, 1993; Voss, 1985; Wind and Mahajan, 1997; Workman, 1993). Studies of new product development success and failure support the view that an understanding of user needs is fundamental to success (Cooper, 1979; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1994) Hart et al. (1999) focus on the importance of marketing information in product development success rates. This article focuses on product positioning attributes both functional and symbolic, and their importance to a specic age group of consumers. Brand as a positioning attribute is also considered. Wood (2000) suggested that in mature consumer markets where little real innovation exists, brands often provide the primary points of differentiation between competitive offerings, and as such they can be critical to the success of companies. Additionally, where companies wish to both reduce their costs and increase their success rates for product innovation, brands can provide a platform from which to launch new products. Farquhar (1989, p. 24) suggests that in addition to successful extensions rms with high brand equity can have other benets such as:

. . . resilience against competitors promotional pressures, and creation of barriers to competitive entry.

Product selection

Therefore an understanding of how brand equity is created is important to success. Brand positioning can be based on a number of attributes along the symbolic functional continuum. Although some brands may be differentiated primarily by symbolic attributes to create for example a prestige position, others may emphasise functional differences that focus on practical needs. Customer selection of products, and loyalty to brands, depends on how they value their positioning attributes. This article presents further ndings to those outlined in Wood (2004), where brand loyalty amongst the 18-24 age group across six product categories was identied, and the dimensions that underpin brand selection investigated. The aim of this work was to identify the degree of brand loyalty exhibited by 18-24 year olds, and whether or not there was a difference in loyalty by product type. The age group was chosen as it had been identied as low loyal (Day, 1969; East et al., 1995; Wright and Sparks, 1999; Mcgoldrick and Andre, 1997) when compared with other age groups. Wood (2004) considered that to assume low loyalty among this age group, would be to miss the complexities in their purchasing behaviour, and that loyalty would in part be determined by product type. The importance of product type has been explored by a number of studies (Rundle-Thiele and Bennett, 2001; Cunningham, 1956; Palumbo and Herbig, 2000; Carmen, 1970). Products selected for this study were toilet soap, toothpaste, coffee, breakfast cereal, trainers and jeans. The products were selected to broadly reect those chosen by other studies looking at product-specic loyalty, and on their usage by the age group under study. The results showed that the degree of loyalty depends on product type and therefore any ndings of loyalty studies for this age group should not extrapolate ndings beyond the products under study. This article focuses on the attributes that inuence product and brand selection within the food and toiletry products, with particular focus on the importance of quality attributes as selection criteria. The importance of quality as a product selection variable was highlighted by Wood (2004). Additionally an investigation into the aspects of quality that underpin product selection is based on the synonymy between quality and brand positioning since both can be identied along the functional/symbolic continuum. Quality positioning cannot be overlooked in investigating the variables that determine product and brand selection. It is, however a complex construct that has many underlying attributes. Greenlees (1984) denes quality as . . . conformance to standards . . . Conformance quality, otherwise termed tness for use is also consider by Blancheld (1981) who denes quality as:
. . . a peculiar and essential character of the product. It has distinctive properties or characteristics, it is a degree of excellence, it is tness for use.

109

Fitness for use may be one extreme of the quality continuum, i.e. the most basic level a customer can expect. Excellence may be the other extreme of the continuum, i.e. a higher level of expectation. Although a product may have tness for use without excellence, it is unlikely to have excellence without tness for use. It might be expected that the higher the level of excellence the higher the level of added value. The location of products on the quality continuum is important, as this in part denes the brand identity, and also the level of added value available to the customer. The more distinct

BFJ 109,2

a product is in terms of its quality, the more differentiated it will be in brand positioning. This is highlighted by Bauman and Taubert (1984) when they dene quality as:
Quality is that extra component that distinguishes a product in its eld.

110

Increasingly, in mature markets the focus is shifting from the core product to less tangible factors such image, and surround services to differentiate products so these are important to consider. Ultimately though, quality may be an overarching term for product acceptability, a point acknowledged by Kragt (1981) who denes quality as:
. . . a multicomponent measure of the extent to which the units of a product, which a seller is willing and able to offer at a price, consistently meet the requirements and expectations of the group of buyers willing and able to buy that product at that price.

Here quality is dened by, and contingent upon the needs and wants of customers. That is, quality is established as a relative measure of acceptability. The following outlines the methodology and ndings of the study, showing which product and brand characteristics along the functional/symbolic continuum determine acceptability in coffee, breakfast cereals, toothpaste and soap purchase. The inclusion of non-foods provides a useful comparison to food selection, but also highlights some interesting and perhaps unexpected similarities between the product categories. In terms of the food and toiletries industries there is much synergy between the two, with many rms being involved in both sectors. There is also some relationship in ingredient usage for food and toiletries products, with colours and avours (in the case of toothpaste for example) often common to both. Additionally, whilst food choice may be highly emotive due to the ingested nature of the product, some toiletry purchases, e.g. perfumes, may be equally so as they may be chosen as reection of self. Methodology and ndings The investigation used both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The initial quantitative study (268 respondents) aimed to identify in order of importance (using ANOVA) the variables that drive purchase behaviour across the four product categories of soap, coffee, breakfast cereal and toothpaste. It had already been determined (Wood, 2004) that brand loyalty was specic to product type. A total of 11 statements regarding brand selection were rated by respondents according to an interval scale anchored at each end with very strongly agree (valued at 9), and very strongly disagree (valued at 1), Summarized, (with abbreviations for further discussion) the statements were: . I make my purchase according to my favourite brand, regardless of price (loyalty). . I have more than one preferred brand (multi). . I like to change brands for the sake of novelty and variety (novelty). . My choice of brand is largely based on price (price). . I buy the brand my parents buy (parents). . My choice of brand says something about me as a person (image). . My choice of brand is inuenced by promotions (promotion).

. . . .

I stick with my usual brand as this saves me time (time). Quality is my primary concern when buying a brand (quality). My choice of brand is based on what my friends buy (friends). I choose my brand because it has a good reputation (reputation).

Product selection

The statements used for the quantitative study were identied from exploratory work conducted using a series of focus groups made up of 12 participants aged 18-24 years. Additionally, these statements reect the brand loyalty and risk literature (specically, Howard and Sheth, 1969; Miller, 1975; Moschis, 1985; Moore-Shay and Lutz, 1989; Roselius, 1971). Aspects of the quality construct (including both functional, e.g. avour in the case of coffee, and symbolic attributes, e.g. brand image) that inuence purchase were investigated, and are detailed later. ANOVA was conducted in order to assess whether or not there was any statistically signicant difference ( p , 0.05) between the levels of agreement with these statements, which represent variables that inuence purchase. The F ratios indicated that there was a signicant statistical difference in the responses to the statements. The means generated by ANOVA indicated the order of strongest agreement by statement for each product category. Table I and appendix 1 summarise the rank order of agreement with these statements across all four products, indicating where there is a signicant difference in agreement between statements. Where there are crosses ( ) in a column that link means, there is no signicant statistical difference between them, ( p , 0.05) as identied in pairwise comparisons. There is a distinct break between the agrees (above 5.00) and the disagrees (below 5.00). This indicates a statistically signicant difference between the statements with which respondents agreed and those with which they disagreed. It can be seen that respondents most strongly disagreed with brand choice being a reection self image, and friends as an inuence on purchase. The strength of this disagreement may be regarded as a lack of importance of these criteria as basis for soap brand selection. The highest levels of agreement with a statement was promotion as an inuence on soap brand selection and this was signicantly stronger than any other statement except quality. Importantly, it should be noted that all statements with means on the agree half of the scale could be regarded as having some inuence on
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Variable Promotion Quality Multi Reputation Price Loyalty Time Novelty Parents Image Friends Mean 6.77 6.20 6.05 5.63 5.43 5.23 4.66 4.44 4.28 3.26 2.25

111

Table I. SOAP

Note: n 257

BFJ 109,2

112

soap purchase. It is clear from the ANOVA that no single variable drives soap brand selection. This is the case for all product categories. Appendix 1 shows the ANOVA results for coffee, breakfast cereal, and toothpaste. With the exception of soap, all products had quality as the statement with which respondents most strongly agreed in the ANOVA. In the case of coffee, there was a signicant statistical difference in agreement with quality when compared to other inuences. This does not suggest that this is the single most important driver of brand purchase as it is possible that other variables collectively, or quality together with other variables, provide the best explanation of purchase behaviour. However, it does establish that quality is a highly important variable in the brand selection of these products. This is why the attributes of the quality construct were also investigated in this study. A product acceptability approach to dening quality was used in this study. For each product the functional attributes as well as symbolic attributes were explored. Respondents were asked to rate variables in terms of their importance to purchase of the product category. For example, soap included the importance of scent, colour, performance qualities (moisturising, hypoallergenic etc), packaging performance (such as no mess dispensers against bars and size), symbolic factors (such as the inuence of brand), ethical issues such as not tested on animals, and environmental factors such as biodegradable packaging. The interval scale outlined earlier was used. The scale was anchored at each end with of the utmost importance (valued at 9) and of no importance at all (valued at 1). ANOVA was conducted on the mean scores to identify the most important attribute(s) of the product. Tables II to V shows the results for each product.
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Variable Scent Performance No mess Packaging Ethical Environment Brand image Colour Mean 7.30 5.98 5.79 5.43 5.27 5.25 5.13 4.50

Table II. SOAP

Note: n 261

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6

Variable Flavour Aroma Brand Environment Ethical Health

Mean 7.50 7.07 5.22 4.32 4.29 3.93

Table III. Coffee

Note: n 224

It can be seen that scent is the attribute that was statistically more important than any other. All attributes around the 5.00 break point can be said to have some importance in selection but scent is at the upper end of the scale. Table III shows the ANOVA for coffee with avour being statistically the most important attribute in selection, with aroma being a close second. Health, which referred to issues such as decaffeination and organic production, can be considered as unimportant to the majority. Environment and ethical, which referred to environmentally friendly packaging and issues such as fair trade and organic production, are just below the 5.00 break point. This indicates that they do not have a strong inuence on coffee purchase. Table IV shows avour to be the most important inuence on breakfast cereal, followed by texture. Health which referred to attributes such as nutritional value, is also important in this product category. The least important attributes were environment and ethical which considered such attributes as biodegradable packaging. Like coffee, toothpaste (Table V) has avour as the most important inuence on product selection with, health (e.g. uoride content) and scent (i.e. freshness) being second in importance. These, together with brand image, dispenser packaging, appearance and ethical considerations (animal testing) were all important to purchase. Discussion and conclusions The following discussion is based the statistical analyses and follow-up interviews with respondents to help interpret ndings.
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 Variable Flavour Texture Health Brand Environment Ethical Mean 8.17 7.46 6.17 4.98 4.65 4.21

Product selection

113

Note: n 251

Table IV. Breakfast cereal

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Variable Flavour Health Scent Brand image No mess Appearance Ethical Packaging Environment

Mean 7.80 7.25 6.87 5.72 5.72 5.60 5.39 4.97 4.89

Note: n 261

Table V. Toothpaste

BFJ 109,2

114

Interestingly, there were very clear statistical breaks for the attribute that was most important to each product, i.e. that the top attribute was statistically more important than any other. This is shown in Table VI. It should also be noted that the mean scores for the top quality attribute were near the upper end of the scale (i.e. well above the mid point) and should therefore be considered as very important to purchase. Signicantly, the most important attributes for each product are sensory aspects and in terms of brand positioning these can be considered as functional characteristics. Whilst brand image is important it is by no means the most important inuence on purchase. If we consider Tables I and II together it can be seen that soap purchase is based on several inuences, but that respondents do not buy the brand their parents buy. Choosing a scent in soap is not dissimilar to perfume selection and can produce strong personal preference. It is not surprising, therefore that respondents do not wish to smell like their parents. Additionally, needs in terms of moisturising (or protection from allergic reaction), for example, can be highly individual. Another characteristic of this product category was the notion of multi-brand purchase behaviour. This means that within the product category there are a number of acceptable brands and respondents select the brand that provides the best deal to them. This market is highly susceptible to promotional activity that is evident from Table I. Unlike soap, parental inuence is evident in coffee purchase, with avour being the most importance quality attribute. Flavour preference may well be developed in the home. In sensory evaluation terms avour and aroma are closely linked. It is perhaps not unexpected, therefore, that these are the two most important inuences on purchase. Brand reputation and image are more important to this market than to soap and respondents show a higher degree of loyalty to their coffee brand. The follow-up interviews indicated that respondents remain loyal to the brand that they trust, and that satises their functional needs in terms of avour. There is some multi-brand purchasing evident in this market but it is not as marked as in soap. With breakfast cereal, avour, texture and core product considerations such as nutritional value were the most important. Again, this was within the context of multi-brand purchase behaviour amongst a number of acceptable brands. This product had a prole that was not dissimilar to soap in that although sensory aspects of quality determine purchase, it is a promotion-sensitive market and much brand-switching and variety-seeking behaviour is evident. Toothpaste showed avour as the most important selection criterion followed by health and scent (freshness) considerations. In the follow-up interviews, it was evident that although health considerations were important, they were considered as a basic

Product Table VI. Most important attribute for each product Soap Coffee Breakfast cereal Toothpaste

Attribute Scent Flavour Flavour Flavour

Mean score 7.30 7.50 8.17 7.80

requirement. That is, respondents expect their toothpaste to contain uoride and protect their teeth as a basic requirement beyond which sensory aspects are more important. This product had some similarities to coffee in that avour was fundamental to purchase. Additionally, like coffee, there was a high degree of loyalty in this market and a degree of parental inuence (i.e. buying the product with which the respondent was familiar in the parental home). From a product management perspective (for the products investigated here), the importance of functional characteristics should not be overlooked in favour of symbolic considerations, even in mature markets where branding has become a means of differentiation. The highly competitive nature of these markets allows the consumer to pick and choose from a portfolio of acceptable brands. Innovation and differentiation based on sensory attributes is also important to success. Additionally, the multi-brand purchase behaviour exhibited by this age group means that sales promotion will be highly effective even when brand reputation and brand image are important within product categories.
References Bauman, H. and Taubert, C. (1984), Why quality assurance is necessary and important to plant management, Food Technology, Vol. 38 No. 4, p. 101. Blancheld, R. (1981), The philosophy of food control, Food Technology, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 49-51. Bolding, W., Morgan, R. and Staelin, R. (1997), Pulling the plug to stop the new product drain, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, February, pp. 164-76. Buijis, J. (1979), Strategic planning and product innovation: some systematic approaches, Long Range Planning, Vol. 12, pp. 23-34. Carmen, J. (1970), Correlates of brand loyalty, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 7, pp. 67-76. Carmichael, M. (2000), Degrees of spending, The Grocer, August 19, pp. 42-4. Cooper, R. (1979), The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43, pp. 93-103. Cooper, R. and Kleinschmidt, E. (1994), Determinants of timeliness in product development, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 11, pp. 381-96. Cunningham, R. (1956), Brand loyalty: what, where, how much?, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 34, January/February, pp. 116-28. Day, G. (1969), A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 9, pp. 29-35. DfES (2004), available at: www.dfes.gov.uk/trends/index (accessed June 2006). East, R., Harris, P., Willson, G. and Hammond, K. (1995), Correlates of rst-brand loyalty, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 11, pp. 487-97. Farquhar, P. (1989), Managing brand equity, Marketing Research, Vol. 1, pp. 24-33. Freeman, C. (1982), The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 2nd ed., Francis Pinter, London. Greenlees, J. (1984), Quality is the biggest prot maker we have, Hospitality, July-August, pp. 16-17. Hart, S., Tzokas, N. and Saren, M. (1999), The effectiveness of market information in enhancing new product success rates, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 20-35.

Product selection

115

BFJ 109,2

116

HESA (2004), Table 0a all students by institution, mode of study, level of study, gender and domicile, available at: www.hesa.ac.uk (accessed June 2006). Howard, J. and Sheth, J. (1969), The Theory of Buying Behavior, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Johne, A. (1994), Listening to the voice of the market, International Marketing Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 47-59. Kragt, M. (1981), Quality control of raw materials and vendor relations, Food Technology, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 54-5. Mcgoldrick, P. and Andre, E. (1997), Consumer misbehaviour, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 73-81. Miller, B. (1975), Intergenerational patterns of consumer behavior, Proceedings, Associations for Consumer Research, pp. 93-101. Moore-Shay, E. and Lutz, R. (1989), Intergenerational inuences in the formation of consumer attitudes and beliefs about the marketplace: mothers and daughters, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 461-7. Moschis, G. (1985), The role of family communication in consumer socialization of children and adolescents, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 898-913. Palumbo, F. and Herbig, P. (2000), The multicultural context of brand loyalty, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 116-24. Roselius, T. (1971), Consumer rankings of risk deduction methods, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, January, pp. 56-61. Rundle-Thiele, S. and Bennett, R. (2001), A brand for all seasons? A discussion of brand loyalty approaches and their applicability for different markets, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 25. Simonson, I. (1993), Get closer to your customers by understanding how they make choices, California Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 68-84. Von Hippel, E. (1989), New product ideas from lead users, Research and Technology Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 24-7. Voss, C. (1985), Determinants of success in the development of application software, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 2, pp. 122-9. Wind, J. and Mahajan, V. (1997), Issues and opportunities in new product development, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, pp. 1-12. Wood, L. (2000), Brands and brand equity: denition and management, Management Decision, Vol. 38 Nos 9/10, pp. 662-9. Wood, L. (2004), Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour: consumers in the 18-24 age group, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-16. Workman, J. (1993), Marketings limited role in NPD in one computer systems rm, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, pp. 405-21. Wright, C. and Sparks, L. (1999), Loyalty saturation in retailing: exploring the end of retail loyalty cards?, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 429-39.

Appendix 1

Product selection
Mean 6.45 6.06 5.90 5.40 5.10 5.07 4.72 4.46 3.66 3.66 2.70

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Variable Quality Reputation Loyalty Multi Promotion Parents Time Price Novelty Image Friends

117

Table AI. Coffee

Note: n 210

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Variable Quality Multi Loyalty Promotion Novelty Reputation Price Time Parents Image Friends

Mean 6.51 6.31 6.12 5.94 5.82 5.34 4.99 4.63 4.36 3.42 2.36

Table AII. Breakfast cereal

Note: n 244

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Variable Quality Reputation Loyalty Promotion Multi Parents Time Price Novelty Image Friends

Mean 6.81 6.52 6.12 6.05 5.72 5.44 5.30 5.26 4.08 3.13 2.37

Table AIII. Toothpaste

Note: n 268

BFJ 109,2

118

Appendix 2. Sample selection The sample was selected from students in higher education. Figures from the UK Higher Education Authority (HESA, 2004) state that there are around 2.3 million students in the UK. The total spend of this group is signicant enough (Carmichael, 2000) to make it a consumer group worth investigating. Whilst this group may not be entirely representative of all 18-24 year old consumers, they share many common characteristics. The participation rate in HE is indicated by DfES (2004) at around 48 per cent for the higher social groups (non-manual), with all groups showing an increase in participation. So, increasingly students in higher education are becoming a reasonable surrogate for the population of 18-24 year olds. The sample was selected from ten courses, including science, social science and applied business and management students. Chi-square was conducted to see if there were statistical differences by course, gender, year of study, etc. As no signicant statistical differences were found, subsequent statistical tests were conducted using all respondents, except where there were missing cases. A total of 268 undergraduate degree students within the 18-24 age band completed the study (where removing missing cases in the analyses reduces the n gure this is noted in tables). Corresponding author Lisa Wood can be contacted at: lmcw@kent.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints