It was briefly mentioned in Chapter Two that the original focus of this dissertation was to examine the role of the servicescape in professional services, in particular dental services.
Unfortunately access could not be gained to any dental service and because of this the emphasis of the dissertation needed to be reappraised. This led to a reassessment of the current research design and also a re-examination of the chosen industry. Upon reflection and further analysis of the servicescape literature, it became evident that there is a dearth of servicescape research on utilitarian services.
The notion of goods and services being classified into being either utilitarian or hedonic in nature was first introduced by Woods (1960) and was later developed by Hirschman and Holbrook (1982). In this treatise of the literature on hedonic consumption, Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) highlighted the differences between hedonic and traditional consumption situations. Firstly, they define hedonic consumption as ‘the facets of consumer behaviour that relate to the multisensory, fantasy and emotive aspects of one’s experience with products’, (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982, p. 92). Associated with hedonic consumption are heightened levels of emotional arousal and it also effects non-cognitive modalities such as the olfactory, tactile and aural senses. Hedonic products are primarily consumed for sensory gratification, fun and enjoyment (Lim and Ang, 2008) and generate high levels of emotional arousal (Mano and Oliver, 1993). Hirschman
and Holbrook (1982) also compare hedonic consumption with its antithesis, traditional or utilitarian consumption situations which are associated with functionality and rationality where consumer decision making is a logical process.
Classifying phenomena according to whether they are utilitarian or hedonic has become quite topical in recent years, with studies examining hedonic or utilitarian differences in a variety of contexts including; motivation research (Childers et al, 2001; To et al, 2007), advertising appeals (Albers-Miller and Stafford, 1999), attitudinal research (Voss et al, 2003), cross-cultural differences (Lim and Ang, 2008) and value research (Jones et al, 2006; Overby and Lee, 2006). Different types of products and services have also been classified according to whether they are utilitarian or hedonic (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1999; Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000; Hightower et al, 2002; Okada, 2005; Chitturi et al, 2008). The difference between the two product or service types stem from the benefits that a consumer receives in return for consuming them (Okada, 2005). Basic necessities such as food and certain types of clothing are utilitarian products that satisfy what Maslow (1943) classed as physiological or safety needs. However, clothing or food products are not limited to being utilitarian products in definition as they can migrate to being classified as hedonic products if they are consumed in a discretionary nature. For instance, some clothing items may be purchased for purely functional purposes such as a rain jacket if the weather is particularly bad. On the other hand, buying haute couture would be deemed hedonic consumption as it is both indulgent and inessential. For this reason, spending on hedonic goods has been described
120
as being more difficult for consumers to justify than spending money on utilitarian goods (Okada, 2005).
With regards to services, much of the same theory applies, with hedonic services characterised as being more sensual in nature and are consumed for affective pleasure and fun (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Conversely, utilitarian services are those services that are more task oriented and are used to achieve some sort of functional goal (Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000). Utilitarian services are generally characterised as being low involvement services that are primarily consumed for a particular reason. Stafford and Day (1995) specifically designed a services classification schema that reflects the extent to which a service can be described as being hedonic or utilitarian in nature. This was adapted from Bowen’s (1990) three-group classification of services wherein they classify utilitarian services in line with Group 2 in Bowen’s (1990) schema. This group is characterised as being low in terms of customer contact with little heterogeneity across different firms’ offerings and with an emphasis on the usage of equipment. On the other hand, Bowen’s (1990) Group 1 tend to have high degrees of customisation, an extended amount of interaction between customers and employees with high levels of customisation of services across different individuals and also across services (Stafford and Day, 1995).
Wakefield and Blodgett (1999) have also developed a service typology bearing in mind the purpose of the consumption situation in terms of whether it is utilitarian or hedonic and also the length of time the consumer spends in the facility. The authors describe the
reasons that consumers seek out hedonic services as being for pleasure or emotional fulfilment. Given the hedonic and emotive contexts surrounding these services, the authors hypothesise that consumers will be more aware of their surroundings thus making the servicescape a much more potent influencer of consumer behaviour. Given that hedonic services tend to be more extended service transactions in which the emphasis of the service tends to be more sensory, it is likely that the role of the environment will play a greater role than in more utilitarian services. This supposition has led to a wealth of servicescape studies in which hedonic services were chosen as the context. The hedonic services chosen in these studies range from sports stadiums (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1994; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996), recreation centres (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1999), casinos (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996; Lucas, 2003; Mayer and Johnson, 2003; Johnson et al, 2004) and restaurants (Ryu and Jang, 2007). Utilitarian services, on the other hand, have received little attention in the literature. Due to this, there is a need to examine whether the servicescape plays an important role in utilitarian services. This is of particular importance since the majority of services that individuals frequent on a regular basis fall into the utilitarian category. Services such as convenience retail outlets and banks are visited by customers on a regular basis whereas the hedonic services chosen by Wakefield and Blodgett (1996; 1999) and others tend to be services that people use only occasionally. Indeed, it must be noted that the atmospherics literature has had a tendency to focus on retail contexts however, this trend has not followed through to more comprehensive evaluations of servicescape environments.
122
In order to choose a service that can aptly be described as a utilitarian service, both Stafford and Day’s (1995) and Wakefield and Blodgett’s (1999) typologies were examined. These two typologies can be viewed in Table 4.1 and 4.2 below.
Table 4.1: Stafford and Day’s (1995) Classification of Services Hedonic Services Utilitarian Services Mixture Characteristics Customised,
Employee contact High Low Moderate
Employee Involvement
People oriented Equipment oriented People/equipment oriented Perceived difference
between firms
High Moderate Moderate
Continuous benefits Moderate Moderate Discrete
Service directed at people/things
People Things People
Ideally a utilitarian service needed to be chosen that was relatively short in duration and is used by customers to meet some practical purpose. The service would need to have a relatively high level of self-service, with little difference between competitors. It was felt that service stations, (also referred to as petrol stations, filling stations or gas stations) would be a suitable utilitarian service for the current project. Service stations are facilities that sell fuel in the form of petrol or diesel with service stations in Ireland allowing customers to pump their petrol first and to pay afterwards. In addition to selling petrol, many service stations in Ireland also have a convenience store attached in which
food, drinks, magazines and other items are sold. Given the emphasis on convenience and self service this context is befitting for the current research.
Table 4.2: Wakefield and Blodgett’s (1999) Service Typology Time Spent
The service stations under scrutiny are part of a large multi-national chain with numerous outlets throughout the country. In general, the interior of these service stations are relatively standardised with similar colour schemes, layouts, and design throughout.
As a service, petrol stations are akin to Stafford and Day’s (1995) representation of utilitarian services. Employee contact is generally low for this service as much of the process is delivered by the customer themselves. Equipment also plays a big role in this service as without the petrol pumping equipment the service would be defunct. With regards to Wakefield and Blodgett’s (1999) taxonomy, given that customers are likely to
Dry-Cleaner
124
only spend minutes in the service facility, this service also falls into their understanding of utilitarian services.