Product Management Project Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence

2011

SUBMITTED BY: ANKIT SINGH UTTAMA MALAVIYA

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011

Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: .................................................................................................................... 3 2. INTRODUCTION: ............................................................................................................................... 4 3. LITERATURE REVIEW: ....................................................................................................................... 6 4. OBJECTIVE: ....................................................................................................................................... 7 5. DATA & METHODOLOGY:................................................................................................................. 7 6. RESULTS & ANALYSIS: ...................................................................................................................... 8 7. IMPLICATIONS for the PRODUCT MANAGER: ................................................................................ 17 8. CONCLUSION:................................................................................................................................. 17 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY: .............................................................................................................................. 18 10. ANNEXURE: .................................................................................................................................... 19

Page-2

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The convergence of electronic products is leading to ground-breaking technological solutions and new opportunities for business growth as well as product differentiation in the electronics sector. Encouraged by such technological advancements, increasing consumer demands, and market pressures, firms in all the sectors of electronics industry have already created a full spectrum of the converged products. For example, a washing-machine which helps in washing clothes, rinse and dries them as well as has a timer that can be set according to ones' own convenience. The new innovative products are resulting in making life and work simpler, providing an all together different experience to the user along with a better standard of living. Developing a converged product requires not only the integration of similar technologies but also the amalgamation of disparate technologies. Hence, synchronization of goals is critical to the success of such radical innovations. Nowadays, it is not unusual to click pictures using a cell phone, to check e-mails on a personal digital assistant (PDA) or to listen to music on an IPod. Keeping in mind the given facts, this PROJECT i.e. “Consumer attitude towards Product Convergence” has been undertaken by our group. A “Convergent Product” (CPs) can be defined as a product which has been formed due to the addition of a new functionality1 (acquired from another category) to an existing base product. For instance, as mentioned above, camera phones have added the ability of clicking pictures with a cell phone, which could earlier be possible only through digital cameras. The technical possibilities to assimilate new functionalities are almost infinite; however, do consumers truly value all innovative features equally? Or are there strategies which may possibly serve product managers in understanding the consumers’ perception towards such products thereby enabling them to assess what to integrate into a given base product? The project aims to answer the given questions as well as propose strategies for product managers. “Once a new technology rolls over you, if you're not part of the steamroller, you're part of the road.” --“STEWART BRAND”

1

New functionality can be defined as those functionalities that are new to the product to which they are added, although they may not be new to the world otherwise.

Page-3

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011

INTRODUCTION
Product Convergence is a new phenomenon which highlights an exemplar in the concomitant high technology electronics sector (example, intersection of consumer electronics, communications and computers). This has enabled the introduction of ostensibly distinct functionalities into existing products (example, ability to access internet and click pictures from cell phones). In such a scenario, the key concern is to determine the type of new functionalities which can be added to a given base product. For instance, a cell phone manufacturer might wonder whether it will be a good proposal to append a camera to a cell phone, which would imply adding a fresh functionality that is contradictory to the existing functions of a cell phone i.e. communication. Conversely, it will probably be a better idea to add a new functionality which is similar to the functionalities of a cell phone (example, enabling faster and improved communication through internet). There are mainly two factors which affect the convergence of products: 1. Goal Congruency: This means that there should be a harmony between the base product and the new functionality which has been added to it. The new added functionality can either be congruent or incongruent to the base product. This can be explained on the basis of the incremental value addition which the user can derive from the functionality. 2. The Nature of the Base product: a. Utilitarian- This describes the functional features of the base product. For example, the ease of using a mobile phone for communication purpose. b. Hedonic- This is associated with experiential consumption, pleasure, and excitement. For example, the pleasure derived from listening to music from an Apple I-pod. On the basis of the above two factors, product congruence can further be divided into four categories, which are as follows: PRODUCTS 1. 2. 3. 4 FUNCTIONALITY UTILITARIAN(U) HEDONIC(H) HEDONIC(H) UTILITARIAN(U) BASE UTILITARIAN(U) UTILITARIAN(U) HEDONIC(H) HEDONIC(H) CONGRUENCY CONGRUENT(U+U) IN-CONGRUENT(H+U) CONGRUENT(H+H) IN-CONGRUENT(U+H)

Page-4

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 The above table clearly shows the various combinations of functionality and bases which combine to form converged products. The combination of two similar nature of bases and new functionality is considered to be congruent as it is a combination of symmetric nature resulting into addition of more features (when both are Utilitarian) or hedonic values (when both are Hedonic).The two congruent combinations will be subject to diminishing marginal utility. The combination of two dissimilar natured bases and functionality leads to an in-congruent or asymmetric combination which can have different results. Adding a hedonic functionality to a utilitarian base has more benefits than when a utilitarian functionality is added to a hedonic base. The former combination will enhance the utilitarian base while in the latter; the utilitarian functionality will dilute or eat away the value of the hedonic base. The validity of the combinations can have different outcomes if considered on the basis of high/low brands. By combining the earlier basic technological products with new and innovative technologies firms are building distinct products which offer increased efficiencies, effectiveness, convenience and value to the consumer. Moreover, the expanding consumer demands is also compelling firms to come up with drastically diverse range of products that cater to their dayto-day needs. Technological leaders in view of convergence must craft strategic decisions in adopting and managing the convergence conduit. In this project, we emphasize on an assortment of examples of converged products in the technological industry, recognize the dynamic forces in the wake of the convergence trend, and confer the pathways that are seen in the marketplace today. We also understand the underlying factors behind consumers’ willingness to purchase a converged product besides providing suggestions for a product manger as to how he can augment various functionalities to a particular product.

Page-5

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011

LITERATURE REVIEW
The advent of “product convergence” in the electronics sector has enabled the electronics sector to add more functionality to the existing base products (Yoffie 1997). This has allowed the managers to come up with new products from time to time, leading to base products which have more than one add-on (Tripat Gill, Jing lie 2008). There are many base products in the market which can be converged with new functionalities to arise with a fresh product. However, for such products the matter of concern is in determining the kind of novel functionalities which can be added to a given base product. The nature of additions in Converged Products is based on the UTILITARIAN and HEDONIC Consumption Goals allied with the base product and the added functionalities. Consumers are well-known to have both utilitarian and hedonic considerations when evaluating products and functionalities Batra and Ahtola 1990; Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000). The important question to be answered here is that whether nature of additions (goal congruent versus incongruent) affects the assessment of converged products. The goal congruency factor plays a major role for people who own converged products of hedonic value more than that for utilitarian value (Tripat Gill 2008). In a research study conducted it was also seen that the goal congruence of the added functionality affected the value addition to high versus lower quality brands (Tripat Gill, Jing lie 2008). Consumers are well aware about the features of a particular product, the complexity associated with it and the difficulty in its usage, yet, capability over powers usability (Roland T. Rust, Debora Viana Thompson and Rebecca W. Hamilton 2004). In another research conducted it was found out that the comparison of a new functionality with the existing functionality is effective only then when the new functionality is offered in a product that is a typical of the existing product (Paschalina (Lilia) Ziamou & S. Ratneshwar 2003). With today’s market place being flooded with variety of converged product offerings consumers are facing dilemma with regards to which products to purchase, the converged ones, or the dedicated products or both. In a study conducted to know these patterns it was concluded that at low levels of technological performance consumers willingly purchased converged products but the pattern is reversed in the case of high technological performance (Jin K. Han, Seh Woong Chung, & Yong Seok Sohn 2009).

Page-6

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011

OBJECTIVE
As explained earlier, it is very common to add diverse new functionalities to existing base products (e.g., adding camera to a mobile phone or internet access to a personal digital assistant). These convergent products offer users a broad choice of potential applications. However, it is not clear what additions are actually valued by consumers, and therefore also make sense from a product managers’ perspective. The objective of the project is to address this very issue. We explore the role of consumption goal (utility versus fun-oriented) associated with the base product and the added functionality. On the basis of the results we recommend several suggestions for the product manager on how to extend existing products to create more value for the consumers.

DATA & METHODOLOGY
The methodology adopted was exploratory research i.e. Focus group discussion and face to face survey. The reason for adopting this methodology was to know the factors which affect the buying behavior of consumers for functional and experiential products. Focus Group Discussion: We had conducted four focus group discussions comprising of 7 members each, the participants were students of IBS, Hyderabad who are highly involved in electronic products and are tech-savvy consumers. The participants were briefed about the definitions of the functional and experiential products. These respondents were guided and probed into a focused discussion about factors which influenced their purchasing decision of functional and experiential products. At the end of the Focus Group Discussion, the respondents filled a questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised of combinations of base products and added functionalities. The base and the added functionality had various combinations of utilitarian and hedonistic orientations. For example, addition of a Utilitarian functionality to a Utilitarian Base. We took 4 such combinations with 3 set of converged products for every combination. The respondents were asked questions regarding their perception of converged products in functional and experiential orientations. Face to Face Survey: We had conducted twenty four face to face surveys; the participants were students of IBS, Hyderabad who are highly tech-savvy consumers. The participants were briefed about the definition and the characteristics of functional and experiential products. The objective of briefing the respondents was to acquaint them with the types of products in order to get better results. The respondents were subjected to the same questionnaire as discussed above in focus Page-7

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 group discussion. The only problem we faced was that the respondents were unclear about the definitions and we had to make them understand the differences and clear their doubts.

RESULTS & ANALYSIS
QUESTION RESPONSES
Luxury Relaxation, Leisure Needs/Demands Technological up gradation Budget is low Brand name Brand Association-Pride All in one usage Uniqueness/Differentiation Way of showing off Brand Personality Customer Feedback After sales service Price Profession Utility, Multiple uses Entertainment Quality(Guarantee/Warranty) Affiliation Style Share-of-wallet(High) Complexity Income Status quo,Lifestyle Less Involvement product

FREQUENCY
3 2 3

2

2

What attributes do you associate with EXPERIENTIAL products?

6 2 1 6 2 2 2 2 2

QUESTION

RESPONSES
Requirement/Need Utility , Assist in day-to-day life Reliability Duration/Longevity Fulfillment of needs Quality(Duration/Longevity, Guarantee/Warranty) No budget constraints

FREQUENCY
10 8

What attributes do you associate with FUNCTIONAL products?

10

Page-8

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011
Productivity(less of time consumed, more work done,Efficiency) Profession Innovation Convenience(ease of use) Price Status symbol, Status quo Brand After sales service High Involvement product) Share of wallet Complexity Income Place ( Climate)

4 2

3 4 2 3 2 3 2 2 2

The above given analysis was a prerequisite for the questionnaire which has been added in the annexure. FastTrack Philips Samsung Watch with a Mixer with PDA with a Gro IDEALLY Magnetic Food NO. Name GPS up U+U=Congruent Compass Processor

U+U
I I I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Abheek CHANDNI SINGLA APURVA NUPUR KEDIA ROHAN AWTANI KAMAL RAMANI ANIMESH F E E E E E F F F F F F E E

U+U
E E F F E E E

U+U
E= 1 , F=2 E= 2 , F=1 E= 1 , F=2 E= 1 , F=2 E= 2 , F=1 E= 3 , F=0 E=2 , F=1

E= 5 , F=2 II II II 1 2 3
MRINAL ROHIT KHAITAN MUDIT E F E

E= 2 , F=5
E E F

E= 5 , F=2
F F E

E=12, F=9
E= 2 , F=1 E= 1 , F=2 E= 2 , F=1 Page-9

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 II II II II 4 5 6 7
GAURI INDUKAR PRANAY PRINITA BHASKAR PRIYAM P KAUR F E E E F E F F E E E F

E= 1 , F=2 E= 3 , F=0 E= 2 , F=1 E= 1 , F=2

E= 5 , F=2 III III III III III III 1 2 3 4 5 6
ANKITA BHATIA RAGHAV MARKANDA SIMAR REEMA SONAL DHRUV F E F E F F

E= 3 , F=4
F F F E F E

E= 4 , F=3
F E F E F F

E= 12 , F=9
E= 0 , F=3 E= 2 , F=1 E= 0 , F=3 E= 3 , F=0 E= 0 , F=3 E= 1 , F=2

E= 2 , F=4 IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ASHISH ROY RHEA ANAND ADITYA CHAWLA PRIYANKA SASREEN SAURABH SAINI GYANESHWARI SINGH SHUBHASHRI SAURABH AHUJA F F F F F E F F

E= 2 , F=4
F F F F F F F F

E= 2 , F=4
E F E F E E F E

E= 6 , F=12
E= 1 , F=2 E= 23 , F=0 E= 1 , F=2 E= 0 , F=3 E= 2 , F=1 E= 2 , F=1 E= 0 , F=3 E= 1 , F=2

E= 1 , F=7

E= 0 , F=8

E= 5 , F=3

E= 6 , F=18 E= 36 , F=48

TOTAL
Nokia Mobile Phone with a Camera Samsung PDA with a Satellite Radio

Group NO.

Name

Nike Shoes with Ipod

IDEALLY U+H= Incongruent

U+H

U+H
Page-10

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 I I I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Abheek CHANDNI SINGLA APURVA NUPUR KEDIA ROHAN AWTANI KAMAL RAMANI ANIMESH F F E F E F E E E F E E F E E E F E E E E

E= 2 , F=1 E= 2 , F=1 E= 1 , F=2 E= 2 , F=1 E= 3 , F=0 E=1 , F=2 E= 3 , F=0

E= 3 , F=4 E= 5 , F=2 E= 6 , F=1 II II II II II II II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MRINAL ROHIT KHAITAN MUDIT GAURI INDUKAR PRANAY PRINITA BHASKAR PRIYAM P KAUR E F F F F E F F E E F E E E E E E F E E E

E= 14 , F=7
E= 2 , F=1 E= 2 , F=1 E= 2 , F=1 E= 0 , F=3 E= 2 , F=1 E= 3 , F=0 E= 2 , F=1

E= 2 , F=5 E= 5 , F=2 E= 6 , F=1 III III III III III III 1 2 3 4 5 6
ANKITA BHATIA RAGHAV MARKANDA SIMAR REEMA SONAL DHRUV F E F E E F E E F E E E E E E E F E

E= 13 , F=8
E= 2 , F=1 E= 3 , F=0 E= 1 , F=2 E= 3 , F=0 E= 2 , F=1 E= 2 , F=1

E= 3 , F=3 E= 5 , F=1 E= 5 , F=1 IV IV IV IV IV IV 1 2 3 4 5 6
ASHISH ROY RHEA ANAND ADITYA CHAWLA PRIYANKA SASREEN SAURABH SAINI F F F F F E E E E E E F E E F E E

E= 13 , F=5
E= 1 , F=2 E= 2 , F=1 E= 2 , F=1 E= 1 , F=2 E= 2 , F=1 E= 3 , F=0 Page-11

GYANESHWARI SINGH E

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 IV IV 7 8
SHUBHASHRI SAURABH AHUJA F F F F E F

E= 1 , F=2 E= 0 , F=3

E= 1 , F=7 E= 6 , F=2 E= 5 , F=3

E=12 , F=12

TOTAL E= 52 , F=32
Cannon Camera with a Projector Sony Television with a Gaming Console Sony MP3 Player with a Satellite Radio

Group NO.

Name

IDEALLY H+H = Congruent

H+H
I I I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Abheek CHANDNI SINGLA APURVA NUPUR KEDIA ROHAN AWTANI KAMAL RAMANI ANIMESH E E E F E E E E E F E E E E

H+H
F E F E E E E

H+H
E= 2 , F=1 E= 3 , F=0 E= 1 , F=2 E= 2 , F=1 E= 3 , F=0 E= 3 , F=0 E= 3 , F=0

E= 6 , F=1 E= 6 , F=1 E= 5 , F=2 II II II II II II II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MRINAL ROHIT KHAITAN MUDIT GAURI INDUKAR PRANAY PRINITA BHASKAR PRIYAM P KAUR E E E F F F E E E E F E E E E E E E E E E

E= 17 , F=4
E= 3 , F=0 E= 3 , F=0 E= 3 , F=0 E= 1 , F=2 E= 2 , F=1 E= 2 , F=1 E= 3 , F=0

E= 4 , F=3 E= 6 , F=1 E= 7 , F=0 III III III 1 2 3
ANKITA BHATIA RAGHAV MARKANDA SIMAR E E E E E E E E E

E= 17 , F=4
E= 3 , F=0 E= 3 , F=0 E= 3 , F=0 Page-12

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 III III III 4 5 6
REEMA SONAL DHRUV E E E E E E E E E

E= 3 , F=0 E= 3 , F=0 E= 3 , F=0

E= 6 , F=0 E= 6 , F=0 E= 6 , F=0 IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ASHISH ROY RHEA ANAND ADITYA CHAWLA PRIYANKA SASREEN SAURABH SAINI E F E F E E E E E E E E E E E E E F E E E

E= 18 , F=0
E= 3 , F=0 E= 2 , F=1 E= 3 , F=0 E= 2 , F=1 E= 2 , F=1 E= 3 , F=0 E= 2 , F=1 E= 2 , F=1

GYANESHWARI SINGH E SHUBHASHRI SAURABH AHUJA F F

E= 4 , F=4 E= 8 , F=0 E= 7 , F=1

E= 19 , F=5

TOTAL E= 71 , F=13
Samsung Apple IPod with MP3 Player Telephone with USB Directory/Calen functionalit dar y LG Television with inBuilt Set top Box

Grou p

NO .

Name

IDEALLY H+H = InCongruent

H+U
I I I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Abheek CHANDNI SINGLA APURVA NUPUR KEDIA ROHAN AWTANI KAMAL RAMANI ANIMESH F F F F E F F F F F F F E F

H+U
F E F F E E F

H+U
E= 0 , F=3 E= 1 , F=2 E= 0 , F=3 E= 0 , F=3 E= 2 , F=1 E= 2 , F=1 E= 0 , F=3

E= 1 , F=6 II 1
MRINAL E

E= 1 , F=6
F

E= 3 , F=4
E

E= 5,F=16
E= 2 , F=1 Page-13

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 II II II II II II 2 3 4 5 6 7
ROHIT KHAITAN MUDIT GAURI INDUKAR PRANAY PRINITA BHASKAR PRIYAM P KAUR E E E E E F E E F E E E F F E E E F

E= 2 , F=1 E= 2 , F=1 E= 2 , F=1 E= 3 , F=0 E= 3 , F=0 E= 1 , F=2

E= 6 , F=1

E= 5 , F=2

E= 4 , F=3

E= 15 , F=6
E= 2 , F=1 E= 1 , F=2 E=2 , F=1 E= 1 , F=2 E= 1 , F=2 E= 2 , F=1

III III III III III III

1 2 3 4 5 6

ANKITA BHATIA RAGHAV MARKANDA SIMAR REEMA SONAL DHRUV

E F E F E E

E E F E F E

F F E F F F

E= 4 , F=2 IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ASHISH ROY RHEA ANAND ADITYA CHAWLA PRIYANKA SASREEN SAURABH SAINI GYANESHWARI SINGH SHUBHASHRI SAURABH AHUJA E E F F F E E E

E= 4 , F=2
E E E F F E F F

E= 1 , F=5
E E F F E E E F

E= 9 , F=9
E= 3 , F=0 E= 3 , F=0 E= 1 , F=2 E= 0 , F=3 E= 1 , F=2 E= 3 , F=0 E= 2 , F=1 E= 1 , F=2

E= 5 , F=3

E= 4 , F=4

E= 5 , F=3

E=14,F=10 E= 43,F=41

TOTAL

According to the research paper by Tripat Gill, “Convergent Products what Functionalities added more value to the base”, combining a utilitarian base product with a utilitarian

Page-14

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 functionality, the resultant product is congruent i.e. it is having a utilitarian image or perception. I. Utilitarian + Utilitarian = Congruent Comparing the results of FGD-1, 2, 3 & 4, wherein the base and the added functionality is utilitarian, the response of the group on the whole is 36 experiential and 48 functional outcomes. From this, we can infer that there are certainly some factors which have affected the view point of respondents to 36 experiential outcomes, thereby contradicting the given theory. The reasons for the same can be: BRAND: Considering the case of FASTRACK we have observed that the consumers perceive it as a stylish and trendy brand and hence some of them perceive it to be an incongruent convergence. The product manager can very well comprehend from this that his brand is highly placed in the consumers’ preference set and despite the addition of a new functionality (which is congruent) it is not much appreciated by the consumer. Therefore, he should consider adding an incongruent functionality which might be perceived by the consumer as something new and innovative. Goal congruency has been appropriately expressed by the respondents in case of Phillips mixer with food processor as it contains 21 out of 28 respondents giving functional as their answer. Hence, we can infer that the respondents understand the utility of the converged product (goal congruent). SAMSUNG PDA, as perceived by the respondents, is an exceedingly innovative product which has shaped a different image in the respondents mind as 16 out of 28 responses are experiential. The job of the product manager is to educate customers in a defined approach regarding the product so that he perceives the real utility or goal congruency of the particular product. II. Utilitarian + Hedonic = Incongruent The result of all the FGDs gives a statistic of 52 experiential and 32 functional outcomes, clearly stating that the converged product is incongruent. The fourth FGD validates the above goal incongruence, showing 12 experiential and 12 functional outcomes. The reasons for the same can be: The base functionality (Nike shoes, Samsung PDA) when added with an experiential functionality (IPod, Satellite Radio), creates an obscure picture on the respondents mind and they perceive it to be incongruent. On the other hand, Nokia phone with a camera is understood as more of functional than experiential as respondents believe that mobile is a necessity with high dependence by consumers and they simply can’t do without it. III. Hedonic + Hedonic = Congruent

Page-15

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 The third combination of products produces 71 experiential and 13 functional responses, indicating that the converged product is congruent. The third FGD validates the above goal congruency rule with 18 experiential and 0 functional outcomes. The reasons for the same can be: Most females consider Cannon Camera with Projector as functional. The rationale behind it could be that they are more inclined towards capturing moments and treasuring it as memories which can be revived in the future. With the other two products there is not much differentiation and it implies the goal congruency in these cases. IV. Hedonic + Utilitarian= Incongruent The last combination generates 43 experiential and 41 functional outcomes. It shows that the converged product is incongruent. The third FGD validates the same having 9 experiential and 9 functional outcomes. The combination, hedonic base with a utilitarian added functionality has casted a mix outcome on the minds of respondents. The respondents are unable to capture the overall effect of convergence in terms of hedonic or utilitarian. This convergence creates an “asymmetric additive effect” 2 in the minds of respondents due to which the respondents have different view points. So there is a risk for the company that the consumer might not like that particular product while choosing products under the same category with diverse combinations. A simple example can be the failure of Web TV wherein the TV (Base) was combined with the Web Interface functionality. We can deduce from the above research that the converged products formed by the addition of hedonic base and hedonic added functionality have the highest goal congruency as such a combination is most preferred by the consumers. It also helps them in making better purchasing decision. The converged product formed with hedonic base and utilitarian added functionality is perceived as highly ambiguous by the respondents, which can result in product failure.

Page-16

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011

IMPLICATIONS for the PRODUCT MANAGER
The product manager should delve into the outcomes of the converged product in order to make branding more effective tool. It is imperative for product managers to understand that too much complexity in terms of product features convergence should be avoided as the consumer might not understand the actual usage of the product and does get disappointed after using it. The product mangers should be meticulous about new converged products as radical changes can shift the base product’s line to other categories. The branding can also have an incongruent impact on the product convergence which can have adverse effects on consumer’s mind. The product manager should take into consideration of brand while designing the new product convergence in order to bridge the gap between what the product imparts and what consumers perceive. Goal congruency should be taken care of during product convergence as this affects branding a lot, as it has often been seen that lower brands gain when congruent products are added to them whereas bigger brands loose out when congruent products are added. A research should be conducted before and after the product launch to know whether the consumer is satisfied with the product or not. This can assist the product manager to formulate strategies for future.

CONCLUSION
The current project explores the perception of consumers towards converged products which have been formed by adding new functionalities to existing base products. It can be concluded that the accrued significance of converged products is subjected to an “asymmetric additivity effect”. Further, the product manager should be aware of his brand as the consumers differentiate products on the basis of the same (product of high quality brand is better than that of a low quality brand). He should know the real worth of the brand and conceptualize the products accordingly. Moreover, the product manger should understand the impact of any radical innovation on the consumers mind and consequently introduce new features. Innovators will be willing to purchase such products followed by imitators, however, it might be that after the usage of the product, due to its complexity, the imitators do not achieve the desired satisfaction levels and decide not to use it further. If neglected, this can also dilute the brand in a long run. Hence, it is imperative to conduct a market research pre and post product launch to gauge the consumer perception towards the particular product. Page-17

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 In addition to the given conclusions, we can dig deeper into the research and find out reasons for each individual perceiving various products in an all together different fashion and the extent to which he/she justifies his/her view point. We have formulated another questionnaire to determine the degree of importance given to various factors which a consumer considers before purchasing a product.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gill, T. (2008). Convergent Products: What Functionalities Add More Value to the Base? Journal of Marketing . Jin K. Han, S. W. (2009). Technology Convergence: When Do Consumers Prefer Converged Products to Dedicates Products? Journal of Marketing . Ratneshwar, P. (. (2003). Innovations in Product Functionality: When and Why are Explicit Comparisons Effective? Journal of Marketing . Roland T.Rust, D. V. (n.d.). Defeating Feature Fatigue. Harvard Business Review . Tripar Gill, J. L. (2008). Convergence in the high-technology consumer markets: Not all brands gain equally from adding new functionalities to products.

Page-18

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011

ANNEXURE
QUESTION RESPONSES
Communication Storage Entertainment Social Networking Relaxation Medical purpose Work Information Serach Needs Improved living standards

FREQUENC Y
6 8 2

3

What purpose do you use technological Convenience(ease of use, portability, products for? makes life easy, user-friendly)
Productivity(Efficiency & Effectiveness) Status symbol & Status quo Professional constraints(working people),Tech-savvy, Gadget freaks Technology Comfort Luxury Addiction Necessity Innovation Need Brand Price Utility Technical Aspects Trends Status quo Convenience(ease of use) Compulsion due to peer pressure Technological upgradation Needs Utility(Day-to-day usage) Productivity

15 5 3 3 5 2 3 2 2 2 7 3 6 3 5 6 6 4 3

What factors compell you to buy such product?

Page-19

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011
Quality Profession(Business class ) After sales service Comfort , Leisure Price Value for money Style Snob effect Demonstration effect & Sales Person Convergence Peer Pressure Word-of-mouth 5 2 3 5

FGD -1 (12:39 mins)
QUESTIO N RESPONSES FREQUEN CY
3 4 2

FGD -2 (19:25 mins)
RESPONSES
Communication Needs Entertainment Improved living standards Convenience Productivity Status symbol Professional constraints(working people)

FREQUEN CY
3 3 4 4 2

Communication Storage What purpose Entertainment do you Social Networking use Relaxation technologi Medical purpose cal Work

products for?

Information Serach

What factors compell you to buy such product?

Need Brand Price Utility Technical Aspects Trends Status quo Convenience Compulsion due to peer pressure Technological

Business class Status quo Needs Modernization era Utility Technology Quality Brand Productivity Convenience

2 2

3 2

Page-20

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011
upgradation

Requirement/Need Assist in day-to-day life Efficiency reliability Duration/Longevity Fulfillment of needs Quality Gurantee/Warranty No budget constraints

3

Needs Productivity(less of time consumed, more work done) Profession Innovation Utility(Day-to-day usage) Convenience(ease of use) Price Status symbol Improved standard of living Productivity(saves time and efforts) Brand Quality

4

What attributes do you associate with functional products?

2 5 3 3

3

What attributes do you associate with experienti al products?

Luxury relaxation Needs/Demands Technological upgradation Budget is low Brand name Brand Association-Pride All in one usage Uniqueness/Differentiatio n Way of showing off Brand Personality Customer Feedback After sales service

3

Entertainment,Leisure Price Need Profession Utility

2

2

2

Page-21

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011

FGD -3 (15:23 mins)
QUESTION RESPONSES
Technology Entertainment Convenience(ease of use) Productivity(efficienc y)

FGD -4 (25:19 mins)
RESPONSES
Convenience(ease of use, portability, makes life easy, userfriendly) Comfort Productivity(efficiency & effectiveness) Luxury Status quo Tech-savvy, Gadget freaks Addiction Necessity Technological Need Innovation 4 4 Features of the product Style Price Brand Need Value for money Snob effect Demonstration effect Technological need Feedback from customers Convergence After sales service Sales person Peer Pressure Word-of-mouth Utility(High Involvement product) Needs Quality

FREQUEN CY

FREQUEN CY
8 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 4 2

What purpose do you use technologi cal products for?

3

What factors compell you to buy such product?

Quality Brand Needs Utility(Day-to-day usage) After sales service Comfort Proffesion Convenience(ease of use) Leisure Status symbol Price Value for money

2 2

4 4

2

3

What attributes do you associate

Quality Brand Utility(Day-to-day

3 2 2

3 2 3

Page-22

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 with functional products?
usage) After sales service 2 Share of wallet Complexity Income Necessity Adaptability Duration/Longevity Guarantee/Warranty Status quo Price Utility(Less Involvement product) Share-of-wallet(High) Quality Complexity Guarantee/Warranty Income Luxurious, Lifestyle Status quo Price 2 2 2

What attributes do you associate with experientia l products?

Price Quality Affiliation Style Multiple uses

2 2 2

2 4

2

Page-23

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011

QUESTIONNAIRE
Objective: -The factors which affect the affect the buying behavior of a Functional/ Utilitarian Product. Objective: -The factors which affect the affect the buying behavior of an Experiential/ Hedonistic Product. Name: Age: Place: Gender: M/F Functional / Utilitarian Products A Functional / Utilitarian product is a product which gives utility or functionality to a consumer. These products have an instrumental or practical orientation. A Landline Phone (it caters to the communication need) and server computer (it caters to collecting and storing data from distant computer to a single repository) can be examples of functional products. Q.1 Name some examples of functional products. 1. 4. 2. 5. 3. Q.2 Could you mention some reasons for using these products? 1. 4. 2. 5. 3. Q.3 How often do you purchase functional products? 1. At least once in a month. 2. At least once in a quarter (3 months). 3. At least once in six months. 4. At least once in a year. 5. At least once in More than a year. Q.4 How often do you search for functional products at various channels of Communication (Newspapers, Magazines, TV Ads, Internet …etc)? 1. Never 2. Seldom 3. Sometimes 4. Regularly Page-24

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011

Q.5 Do you think functional products are required in your life? Yes No Q.6 If yes, can you mention five reasons why you require / need these products? Considering first being the most important. 1. 4. 2. 5. 3. Q.7 Following are some attributes which you consider before buying or choosing a particular functional product. Rate the attributes given below from 1 -7 (1 being least important and 7 being most important). Least Important Most important 1. Personal Need/Requirement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Utility / Functionality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Reliability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Dependability on the product 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Convenience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Productivity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Innovation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Technological Change 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q.8 How much importance do you give to QUALITY of a Functional product? Rate the following attributes while judging the quality of the product on a scale of 1 -7 (1 being least important and 7 being most important). Least Important Most important 1. Life of product 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Guarantee 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Warranty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. After Sales Service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Page-25

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 Q. 9 How much CONVENIENCE does a Functional product provide you? Rate the following attributes while judging the level of convenience on a scale of 1 -7 (1 being least important and 7 being most important). Least Important Most important Ease of Use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Portability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 User-Friendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q.10 How much PRODUCTIVE is a Functional product? Rate the following attributes while judging the level of productivity on a scale of 1 -7 (1 being least important and 7 being most important). Least Important Most important Efficiency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Effectiveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Accuracy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q.11 While buying or choosing a particular functional product, which factor influences your purchase decision? 1. Value (utility, functionality, productivity & quality) 2. Price Q.12 How do you choose a particular PRICE LEVEL for a Functional product? Rate the following attributes while judging the level of price on a scale of 1 -7 (1 being least important and 7 being most important). Least Important Most important Income 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Share of wallet (Budget) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Snob Effect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Demonstration Effect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q.13 Does my LIFESTYLE affect my purchasing decision of a functional product? 1. Yes 2. No

Page-26

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 Q.14 If yes, rate the following lifestyle attributes affect your purchasing decision for a functional product? Rate the following attributes while judging the level of price on a scale of 1 -7 (1 being least important and 7 being most important). Least Important Most important Brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My Profession 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Society/Peer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aspirations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Experiential/Hedonistic Products Those products which consumers choose, buy and use solely for experience, enjoyment, relaxation and entertainment. The key for understanding experiential products consumption are the hedonic and aesthetic aspects of the product. These products have pleasure and excitement orientation. A MP3 Player and a video game console are few examples of experiential products. Q.15 Do you think experiential products are required in your life? 1. Yes 2. No Q.16 If yes, can you mention five reasons why you require / need these products? Considering first being the most important. 1. 3. 5. 2. 4. Q.17 Following are some attributes which you consider before buying or choosing a particular experiential product. Rate the attributes given below from 1 -7 (1 being least important and 7 being most important). Least Important Most important 1. Personal Need/Requirement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Experience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Product Features 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Uniqueness / Innovation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Style Quotient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Lifestyle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Technological Change 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Page-27

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 Q.18 How much importance do you give to QUALITY of an Experiential product? Rate the following attributes while judging the quality of the product on a scale of 1 -7 (1 being least important and 7 being most important). Least Important Most important 1. Brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Guarantee 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Warranty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. After sales service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q.19 While buying or choosing a particular experiential product, which factor influences your purchase decision? 1. Experience Value (Entertainment, Enjoyment, Relaxation, Pleasure…) 2. Price Q.20 How do you choose a particular PRICE LEVEL for a Experiential product? Rate the following attributes while judging the level of price on a scale of 1 -7 (1 being least important and 7 being most important). Least Important Most important 1. Income 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Share of wallet (Budget) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Snob Effect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q.21 Does my LIFESTYLE affect my purchasing decision of an experiential product? 1. Yes 2. No Q.22 If yes, rate the following LIFESTYLE attributes that affect your purchasing decision for a experiential product? Rate the following attributes while judging the level of price on a scale of 1 -7 (1 being least important and 7 being most important). Least Important Most important Brand Image 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My Profession 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Society/Peer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aspirations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q23. Do you think that BRAND is an important determinant for my purchasing decision of an experiential product? 1. Yes 2. No Page-28

Consumer Attitude Towards Product Convergence 2011 Q24. If Yes, rate the following BRAND attributes that affect your purchasing decision for a experiential product on a scale of 1 -7 (1 being least important and 7 being most important). Least Important Association with Brand 1 2 Image of Brand perceived by consumer 1 2 Brand Personality 1 2 Awareness of Brand 1 2 Most important 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

Q25. How rate do the products given below in terms of their INVOVLEMENT OF A CUSTOMER before purchasing them on a scale of 1 -7 (1 being lowest and 7 being highest)? LOWEST HIGHEST 1. FUNCTIONAL PRODUCT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. EXPERIENTIAL PRODUCT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Annual Income: Profession:

Thank You

Page-29

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful