NASB (ACTUALIZADO) TEXT: 6:26-34

Consumer decision making process models continue to see the process as a linear approach, and this may not be an accurate representation of how decisions are made (Ley et al., 2005). However, these previous types of models provide the foundation for thinking holistically about the process that consumers go through (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). The customer journey perspective is becoming increasingly popular, is closely linked to customer experience, and is a possible result from a need to manage and design touch points and service offerings to maximise the customer experience (Folstad and Kvale, 2018; Rosenbaum et al., 2017; Zomerdijk and Voss, 2010). It therefore has a

44 | P a g e focus on interactions between service provider and customer, and presents an “engaging story” of this interaction (Folstad and Kvale, 2018). However, there is not always agreement on what constitutes a customer (Guilbault, 2016). Furthermore, although the customer journey is a widely used term (Folstad and Kvale, 2018), there does not appear to be a common understanding of what customer journeys are, nor what they are useful for. For example Folstad and Kvale (2018) identify that some see touchpoints as a central role (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011; Stickdorn and Schneider, 2010), others focus on events (Crosier and Handford, 2012), or service encounters (Tax et al., 2013), or link to customer loyalty (Nichita and Vulpoi, 2012). Within the area of marketing, the focus is on the consumer decision process from awareness to purchase, including becoming a loyal customer, using structured steps (Lee, 2010; Court et al., 2009; Buttle, 2003).

Lipshitz (1993) and Lye et al., (2005) were amongst the first to start developing alternatives to information processing models within the cognitive perspective. Lye et al., (2005: 219) discuss naturalistic decision theory and that both process and outcome are considered. Moreover, they state, “it encompasses decision-making in changing conditions, using ambiguous information, with shifting goals and objectives”. Furthermore, they suggest that consumer decision making should be seen as decision waves, where multiple decisions are taken within a single decision process. This may involve more than one screening of decisions, where unsuitable alternatives are eliminated, and prior to comparing options or gathering information. This supports the view of Lipshitz (1993) who depicts decision making as a sequence of activities. This suggests a less-linear process, replacing stages with sequence of activities for multiple decisions within each single decision process. Forrester states (Nobel, 2010: online)

“The funnel portrays marketing as a conveyer belt with the job of delivering a continuous supply of customers to the business…. The customer moves linearly from awareness to loyalty, but in the customer life cycle, the journey never ends, as customers continually engage with brands and their peers and process new information and experiences”.

45 | P a g e Figure 3.6: Customer Life Cycle by Forrester (Nobel 2010)

Court et al. (2009: 97) also question the linear process, although recognise that the traditional funnel metaphor is useful in that it allows marketers to focus on different aspects. However, they suggest this is a circular consumer decision journey and consists of four key stages: Initial consideration, active evaluation, closure/buy, postpurchase. Their research involved the purchase decisions of around 20,000 consumers, covering five industry types and three continents. The findings incorporate a more contemporary two-way level of communications, and suggest that the process is “less linear and more complicated than the funnel suggests” (Court et al., 2009: 96). The traditional purchase funnel not only suggests the process is linear but also that consumers narrow down brands from an initial consideration set. However, due to the plethora of media and brand choices to which consumers are exposed, there is a more narrow initial consideration set (as previous researchers such as Hauser and Wernerfelt (1989; 1990), Roberts (1989) and Roberts and Lattin (1991) have all previously suggested). Brands present at this initial stage are three times more likely to be purchased, however, more brands may be considered at the active evaluate stage as consumers search for information to help make their decision. Consumers actively “pull” information and this suggests that marketers should now focus efforts onto relevant consumer touch points (for example word of mouth or online information sites), rather than a purely push-style communication. They suggest “…marketers need a more systematic way to satisfy

46 | P a g e

customer demands and manage word-of-mouth” (Court et al., 2009:96). Brand owners therefore should focus on consumer-driven marketing, interacting with consumers as they seek information, reviews or recommendations. For example, using tools that spot relevant online conversations and allow brands to post comments may influence online word-of-mouth. The customer decision journey is therefore “the process a customer goes through, across all stages and touch points that makes up the customer experience” (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016: 71).

Hudson and Hudson (2013) build upon the work by Court et al.(2009) and suggest social media is particularly important at the “evaluate” and “advocate” stages of the decision journey.

Figure 3.7: The four stages of the consumer decision journey (Based upon Court 2009 (Hudson and Hudson, 2013))

Hudson and Hudson (2013: 210) with their research at a number of music festivals, also suggest that the process is less systematic in approach and suggest a more contemporary approach where “consumers add and subtract brands from a group under consideration during an extended evaluation stage”. They also suggest that marketers have to compete for shoppers’ attention in the online environment, and have therefore added Zero Moment of Truth (ZMOT) to illustrate this. ZMOT illustrates first exposure an individual has to a product or service online and through social media (Wolny and Charoensuksai, 2014; Lecinski, 2011). After purchase, “they often enter into an open-

47 | P a g e

ended relationship with the brand, sharing their experience with it online through social media” (Hudson and Hudson 2013: 210). Therefore, any future development of models should question whether linear models are still relevant in today’s highly interactive communications culture.

Consumer decision making has also been discussed and related specifically to shopping behaviour, where researchers refer to both customer journeys (Wolny and Charoensuksai, 2014) and path to purchase (PtP) frameworks (Jones and Runyan, 2016). Some argue that there are behavioural differences between shoppers and consumers (for example see Bell et al., 2010; Levy and Weitz, 2007). Wolny and Charoensuksai (2014) identified three separate types of shopper journeys: impulsive journeys, balanced journeys and considered journeys for cosmetic shopping. Whilst the research involved a very small sample size, consisted of research diaries and interviews, the three shopper journeys illustrated in Figure 3.8 are useful as they demonstrate the importance of social media and influential groups within the process. Moreover, each journey represents differences regarding search activities and influencers within the process. Impulsive journeys involve less time searching for information, shoppers can feel overwhelmed by large amounts of data, and make impulsive or emotionally driven decisions. With balanced journeys reference groups are a key part (for example, friends, bloggers and celebrities), and involve an extended search for information for what is initially an emotion driven purchase intention. Considered journeys involve a pre- shopping stage, where information is gathered and then stored until a need or want is acted upon. It is within this type of journey that the ZMOT is said to be an important influencer. Furthermore, in addition to these models recognising the importance of online at the pre-search and information search stages, they also consider the post purchase stage and generation of product reviews. Therefore, these particular models consider emotional elements to the purchase decision process, and demonstrate more of a back and forth approach, rather than the traditional linear type models.

48 | P a g e Figure 3.8 Shopper Journeys for cosmetics (Wolny and Charoensuksai 2014)

Lemon and Verhoeaf (2016) present their own conceptual model, known as the Process Model for Customer Journey and Experience (See Figure 3.9). This particular model consists of three key stages of prepurchase, purchase and postpurchase. Each of these three stages considers the importance of understanding various customer touch points:

Impulsive

Balanced

49 | P a g e Figure 3.9 Process model for customer journey and experience (Lemon & Verhoef 2016)

 At the Pre-purchase stage, need recognition, consideration and search are discussed, which seem compatible with earlier models which discuss problem recognition, information search and evaluation stages. This stage covers all aspects relating to a customer’s interaction with a brand before a purchase transaction is made.

 The second stage of Purchase, considers choice, ordering and payment, which fits with decision stage on earlier models. This stage is said to cover all customer interactions with a brand and also the environment during the purchase event, and is stated as being the most temporally compressed of the stages. Furthermore, aspects such as marketing activities; the environment and atmospherics and service environment “clues” influence.

 The third stage is Postpurchase, which covers all customer interactions with a brand and its environment after the purchase is made, and therefore fits with the post purchase evaluation stage in previous models.

What is highlighted in the Lemon and Verhoef (2016) model is the importance of touchpoints at each of the stages. Touchpoints have been defined as “an episode of direct or indirect contact with the brand” (Baxendale et al., 2015: 236). This is a crucial

50 | P a g e area to consider, as touchpoints may be online or offline, and encompass a wide range, such as the brand owner, the retailer, peers and independent third parties. Therefore, this model recognises the importance of contemporary consumer decision making and the influence that a variety of touchpoints can have. However, this model has yet to be empirically tested.

An alternative customer journey model was developed by Scott et al., (2017), which is said to be more relevant in the digital age, to incorporate online and offline. This particular model appears to incorporate elements of the old AIDA model, which considers decision making from the sellers/marketers perspective, with further elements relating to traditional consumer decision process stages. The model is suggesting that a prospective consumer, interested in a fashion purchase, will start the process with initial awareness; develop to interest, then consideration, before an information search is undertaken. They base this assumption mainly on the research conducted by Wolny and Charoensuksai (2014) by stating that these consumers are in a pre-shopping stage, and therefore not actively searching for information. However, Scott et al. (2017) have yet to test their model, and fail to adequately justify the stages based on existing research. Furthermore, the model is stated to be a customer journey model, but fails to clearly identify customer touch points, which Rosenbaum et al., (2017) state is essential in order to improve the customer experience.

51 | P a g e