Información Práctica

It is beyond the scope of this research to trace the full discussion in the literature on the conceptualization on quality (Steenkamp 1990; Grewal 1995). But the literature has developed

17

the following profile of perceived quality: perceived quality represents a continuum of consumer evaluative judgments (Steenkamp 1989). Furthermore, perceived quality includes preference and an interaction between the consumer and an object (Steenkamp 1990).

a. Quality as Preference – Key Theories of Quality

The preferential aspect of quality implies that the consumer makes an evaluative

judgment (Steenkamp 1990). Such subjective assessment is necessary because consumers do not have absolute knowledge about product quality. Thus, consumer decision-making is most often based on perceived product attributes and consequently involves a level of uncertainty about product quality. Because product characteristics are not known with certainty, consumers rely on quality cues.

These quality cues are used by the consumer to infer the existence of certain quality attributes. For instance, the consumer cannot test dog food product prior to purchase to determine the desired quality attributes (e.g. nutritional, healthy) but takes the cues to infer the product has these attributes. Some of the most important cues are physical features of the product, the brand and price (Steenkamp 1990).This important function of quality cuesalso serves Keller to explicate the components of his CBBE framework (1993). Cues have been analyzed within the scope of the cue utilization theory.

i. Cue Utilization Theory

This psychological theory is a consumer choice theory that is considered fundamental and often is employed in the retail research domain (Brown and Dant 2009). Cue utilization theory accounts for the complexity of the consumer choice process and the challenge to discern and

18

assess the relevant product attributes in view of the inherent limited information processing capability (Rao and Monroe 1989; Bettman 1970, 1979). The information-processing model is based upon the concept of bounded rationality expressing the limited capability of consumers to process information (Bettman, Luce and Payne 1998; Simon 1955).

The intricateness of the choice process is enhanced by the myriad of available brands in retail, the impossibility to oversee the quality of the manufacturing process and the similarity of goods offered in many outlets (Maynes 1985). In order to simplify the decision-making process and to reduce the inherent risks of the purchase decision, consumers resort to cues.

Cue utilization theory seeks to answer the question of what product feature(s) among a multitude of potential indicators turns out to be the most influential one within the consumer decision process (Cox 1967). All products represent a conglomerate of cues (Steenkamp 1989). In a two-stageprocess, the consumer selects the stimuli s/he deems relevant and evaluates the quality of the product afterwards (Olson and Jacoby 1972). According to the theory, products are composed of intrinsic and extrinsic stimuli that provide quality cues. Intrinsic cues are

inextricably intertwined with the core product characteristics such as taste, scent and texture (Collins-Dodd and Lindley 2003). In contrast, extrinsiccues can be altered without changingthe core product itself because they are external. Consumers usually rely upon both kinds of cues when judging quality.

The literature has determined the following as extrinsic quality cues: store name (Dodds 1995, 1991), brand name (Dodds 1991), price (Brooker, Wheatley and Chiu 1986), packaging and labeling (McDaniel and Baker 1977). In which product categories intrinsic or extrinsic cues are more relevant is discussed controversially in the literature (Steenkamp 1990). Very similar to cue utilization theory and also often applied within the quality literature is signaling theory.

19 ii. Signaling Theory

Signaling theory is a microeconomic theory that much like the cue-utilization theory emphasizes cues as risk-reducers (Brown and Dant 2009; Erdem and Swait 1998). Such theories are especially relevant as research reveals that consumers are inclined to be risk-averse in most situations (Erdem, Swait and Valenzuela 2006).

While these theories are in fact complimentary, compared to cue utilization theory, signaling theory lays greater emphasis upon the notion that consumers have only limited

information available with which to assess a product (Erdem, Swait and Valenzuela 2006). This information economics perspective postulates that there exists an information asymmetry between consumers and providers of brands (retailers and manufacturers) regarding the quality of the product. The consumer cannot always detect the quality of the product before consumption (Boulding and Kirmani 1993).

Products like pet food are “experience goods” (Steenkamp 1990; Wright and Lynch 1995). Because of this unobservable quality, consumers are dependent upon the brand and the associated quality claim by the provider. A product that does not meet the consumerexpectation evoked by the signal leads to an economic punishment, e.g. no repurchase, negative word of mouth, etc. (Montgomery and Wernerfelt 1992; Wernerfelt 1988).

This theory primarily points to the firm’s reputation as a vital factor to motivate consumers to purchase a product. Studies dealing with this theory mainly focus upon the relevance of warranties, price and advertising as part of the marketing mix (Helm and Mark 2007). Price and advertising are relevant factors for consumers in their decision to buy dog food. For example, consumers are exposed to advertising messages. Based upon these messages they

20

associate, for instance, “Science Diet” with certain features (e.g. healthy, nutritional for dogs). Hence, the producer’s name – Science Diet – communicates a signal of quality.

Based upon the logic of signaling theory the advertised message is linked to quality in the sense that a company, which invests a great deal in promotion, would suffer a significant loss in the eyes of the consumer when a low-quality product is delivered. In the same vein, authors speak about the concept of brand credibility, defined as the believability of information associated with the brand (Dawar 1998; Erdem and Joffre 1998).

As such, the brand is an extraordinary signal within the portfolio of marketing mix elements for two reasons. First, consumers make inferences about tangible and intangible quality attributes of the product to reduce risk (Klein and Leffler 1981; Özsomer and Altaras 2008). Secondly, the brand represents the distillate of past firm activities. This historical aspect

constitutes firm reputation in the signaling theory literature (Herbig and Milewicz 1995). Not to deliver what is promised undermines brand credibility (Erdem and Swait 2004; Özsomer and Altaras 2008).

As has been implied, signaling theory has not only been linked to the producer’s reputation but also the retailer’s image. When a positive or negative brand image influences consumers in a favorable manner, it may be expected that also the store image (retailer as brand) influences the consumer quality perception (Bloemer and de Ruyter 1998; Osman 1993).

The image of the selling retailer is at particular stake in case of store brands. A buyer of “Science Diet” dog food can clearly discern the producer of the product and can hold the respective manufacturer accountable for the level of quality. Regarding store brands, this information is not always easily detectable. Consequently, consumers rely on the ‘retailer as

21

brand’ as a key quality signal. They can hold the quality of the store brand against the retailer issuing this private brand (Brown and Dacin 1997; De Wulf et al. 2005).

iii. Means-End Chain Theory

The interplay between quality cues and attributes is best described as a means- end relationship. The quality cues are a vehicle, a means, for consumers to obtain the desired benefits associated with the product (Steenkamp 1990). This also supports the use of means-end

laddering as one way to test aspects of Keller’s CBBE model (Keller 2008).

The foundational reasoning of this theory is the assumption that consumers obtain products for specific benefits associated with these objects (Grunert et al. 1995). Consumers associate products with attributes that are connected to personal goals (e.g. “healthy dog”) and are then motivated to purchase products perceived to match these goals. According to this theory, consumers are goal-driven and conduct conscious, and make voluntary choices between

alternative products. Their selection is guided by the desire to seek positive outcomes and to avoid negative ones (Olson and Reynolds 2001). Terminologically, the difference between attribute and cue is that an attribute is a cue, which the consumer has processed (Steenkamp 1989; Steenkamp and Trijp 1997). The term “means-end” implies thatconsumers associate the means,or the attributes of objects (products and services) with the ends, benefits or results these attributes represent for the desired personal goals (Meiselman and MacFie 1996).

b. Quality as Interaction between Consumer and Product

There are various factors described in the literature as facets of subject (consumer) – object (product) interaction. For this research, the subsequent factors appear especially relevant:

22

due to the limited processing capability, consumers will resort to varying choice processes depending if they are in a high or low involvement situations (Bettman 1979). In high

involvement settings, consumers refer to more extended mental processing (Steenkamp 1990; Olson and Jacoby 1972). This process is catalyzed in purchase situations that go along with certain risk perceptions regarding product quality attributes (Meyer 1981; Rajagopal 2007). In other words, if consumers particularly desire that a product to be associated with certain quality attributes, a few cues like brand name and labeling gain elevated relevance.

B. Brand, Brand Equity Models and Quality Perceptions