Purchase Decision

Purchase Decision:-

In the evaluation stage, the consumer forms preferences among the brands in the choice set and may also form an intention to buy the most preferred brand. In executing a purchase intention, the consumer may make up to five subdecisions: quantity (one computer), timing (weekend), and payment method (credit card). NONCOMPENSATORY MODELS OF CONSUMER CHOICE The expectancy-value model is a compensatory model, in that perceived good things about a product can help to overcome perceived bad things. But consumers often take “mental shortcuts” called heuristics or rules of thumb in the decision process. With noncompensatory models of consumer choice, positive and negative attribute considerations don’t necessarily net out. Evaluating attributes in isolation makes decision making easier for a consumer, but it also increases the likelihood that she would have made a different choice if she had deliberated in greater detail. We highlight three choice heuristics here.

1. Using the conjunctive heuristic, the consumer sets a minimum acceptable cutoff level for each attribute and chooses the first alternative that meets the minimum standard for all attributes. For example, if Linda decided all attributes had to rate at least, she would choose laptop computer.

2. With the lexicographic heuristic, the consumer chooses the best brand on the basis of its perceived most important attribute. With this decision rule, Linda would choose laptop computer C.

3. Using the elimination-by-aspects heuristic, the consumer compares brands on an attribute selected probabilistically—where the probability of choosing an attribute is positively related to its importance—and eliminates brands that do not meet minimum acceptable cutoffs. Our brand or product knowledge, the number and similarity of brand choices and time pressures present, and the social context (such as the need for justification to a peer or boss) all may affect whether and how we use choice heuristics. Consumers don’t necessarily use only one type of choice rule. For example, they might use a noncompensatory decision rule such as the conjunctive heuristic to reduce the number of brand choices to a more manageable number, and then evaluate the remaining brands. One reason for the runaway success of the Intel Inside campaign in the 1990s was that it made the brand the first cutoff for many consumers—they would buy only a personal computer that had an Intel microprocessor. Leading personal computer makers at the time such as IBM, Dell, and Gateway had no choice but to support Intel’s marketing efforts. INTERVENING FACTORS Even if consumers form brand evaluations, two general factors can intervene between the purchase intention and the purchase decision. The first factor is the attitudes of others. The influence of another person’s attitude depends on two Laptop D = 0.4(5) + 0.3(3) + 0.2(8) + 0.1(5) = 5.0 Laptop C = 0.4(10) + 0.3(4) + 0.2(3) + 0.1(2) = 6.0 Evaluation of alternatives Purchase intention Purchase decision Attitudes of others Unanticipated situational factors. Steps between Evaluation of Alternatives and a Purchase Decision ANALYZING CONSUMER MARKETS | things:

(1) the intensity of the other person’s negative attitude toward our preferred alternative and

(2) our motivation to comply with the other person’s wishes. The more intense the other person’s negativism and the closer he or she is to us, the more we will adjust our purchase intention. The converse is also true. Related to the attitudes of others is the role played by infomediaries’ evaluations: Consumer Reports, which provides unbiased expert reviews of all types of products and services; J.D. Power, which provides consumer-based ratings of cars, financial services, and travel products and services; professional movie, book, and music reviewers; customer reviews of books and music on such sites as Amazon.com; and the increasing number of chat rooms, bulletin boards, blogs, and so on where people discuss products, services, and companies. Consumers are undoubtedly influenced by these external evaluations, as evidenced by the success of a small-budget movie such as Paranormal Activity, which cost only $15,000 to make but grossed over $100 million at the box office in 2009 thanks to a slew of favorable reviews by moviegoers and online buzz at many Web sites. The second factor is unanticipated situational factors that may erupt to change the purchase intention. Linda might lose her job, some other purchase might become more urgent, or a store salesperson may turn her off. Preferences and even purchase intentions are not completely reliable predictors of purchase behavior. A consumer’s decision to modify, postpone, or avoid a purchase decision is heavily influenced by one or more types of perceived risk:

1. Functional risk—The product does not perform to expectations.

2. Physical risk—The product poses a threat to the physical well-being or health of the user or others.

3. Financial risk—The product is not worth the price paid.

4. Social risk—The product results in embarrassment in front of others.

5. Psychological risk—The product affects the mental well-being of the user.

6. Time risk—The failure of the product results in an opportunity cost of finding another satisfactory product. The degree of perceived risk varies with the amount of money at stake, the amount of attribute uncertainty, and the level of consumer self-confidence. Consumers develop routines for reducing the uncertainty and negative consequences of risk, such as avoiding decisions, gathering information from friends, and developing preferences for national brand names and warranties. Marketers must understand the factors that provoke a feeling of risk in consumers and provide information and support to reduce it