Situational Influences on Consumer Buying

I believe that when a consumer is buying a product, that one of the most important ones at play are the situational influences. These factors can influence a buyer's purchasing decision and may cause the buyer to shorten, lengthen, or terminate the process.

The first influence is physical surroundings. These come into play a lot at stores when people see signs displaying "SALE" or "50% OFF." I believe that even if the prices of these products are already jacked up, the consumer will believe that they are getting a good deal and are more likely to buy that product. Another influence is the customer's social surroundings. The people that are around a consumer when they are looking to buy a product can play a big role. For example, if you were at a restaurant and almost always ordered a huge cheeseburger, fries, and a dessert, you may want to reconsider ordering all that food if you were on a first date. Ordering all that food and wolfing it down may not be attractive to the date, and as a result may lengthen the amount of time the consumer spends on making their purchase.

Time perspective plays a significant role in a consumer's decision making process. If a person is in a rush at the supermarket, they may not pay much attention to price or brand, but rather will just grab whatever product is closest to them and that they can grab the quickest, which shortens the amount of time spent on the purchase. Another influence is the reason for the purchase, which is also a significant factor at a supermarket. Many times a customer will pick up something at the register as an impulse buy and will not think about what they are purchasing, they only pick it up because it looks appealing at the moment. This severely shortens the amount of time a customer spends on buying a product, while a larger more expensive product is more likely to be researched and not bought as an impulse.

These factors can play a large role in a consumer's decision about a purchase. Do you believe that any one factor plays a larger role than another? Do these factors have influence in your life?

In response to Laura's post...

In Laura's post about online privacy, she posed the questions: "Should we be more careful when it comes to sharing information online? Or do you think that this information will inevitably be found when scouring the web? And do you share/post a lot of your own personal information online? Why or why not? "

I believe that in today's world of phishing, scamming, hacking, and all other forms of identity theft, everybody should be more careful about sharing their information online. Since hackers and other scammers are becoming more and more prevalent, this means that when posting information online, one should be more selective about what information is made available. Many social networking websites, such as FaceBook and Myspace allow users to create a profile and post information, pictures, etc. about themselves which can be shown or chosen to be hidden. The problem with this is, many times a user does not know their privacy and account settings.

Until recently, I was unaware how much of the information on my profile was able to be seen by outsiders, and others I didn't know. This shocked me, when I read about Facebook's new security settings, and as a result I have changed my account settings. I think that this information may be able to be found regardless, as often times some websites require certain information. I have an eBay account, which requires my birthday and other information, which may be able to be stolen by a hacker or scammer. I believe that as soon as you enter information online, it can always be found. Regardless of how careful you are, how many security settings are in place, etc., once you put your information online, it stays there forever. This is why I try not to put a lot of my personal information online, to try and protect my privacy. Do you agree that once you put your information online it stays there forever? Do you take similar steps (if any) to protect your privacy?

What should John Smith do?

I don't think that John smith should sell the names of the participants in the survey to the car dealership. If John wants to maintain a high standard of ethics for his company, he should steer clear of going behind his customers backs, despite the fact that his company really needs the money. In the code of ethics on the AMA website, many issues are addressed and need to be followed by marketers. In the ethical norms section of the code of ethics, it states that "This means building relationships and enhancing consumer confidence in the integrity of marketing by affirming these core values: honesty, responsibility, fairness, respect, transparency and citizenship." Although this does not directly apply to the dilemma faced by John Smith, it says that all marketers should respect their customers and hold a certain amount of responsibility. I believe that going behind these customers' backs and selling their information is not responsible for John to do. Also, I believe that this would be crossing the line in terms of respecting the customer, since one would assume that the customer believes that the information that they provided is being held confidential.

I don't believe that this is illegal on the part of John Smith, but I do believe that if he wants to maintain a high level of customer satisfaction and customer loyalty and abide by the code of ethics set forth by the AMA, he should not sell these names. Do you agree that although the code of ethics can be a bit blurry in certain areas, John should not sell these names?

In response to Laura's post...

In Laura's recent post, she asked the question: "Do you think marketing to certain segments or marketing to society as a whole is more beneficial (in all senses of the word)? Why?"

I think that both approaches can have positive benefits. When marketing to a specific segment, marketers can get more information on the particular target market. Since they know exactly who they are marketing to, they will be able to do more research and be able to learn more about this specific target market. A downside to this, however, is that when only marketing to a specific target market, a company may miss out on appealing to many more people. Since most of the marketing efforts will be going into a specific target market, those outside this target market may not be marketed to and the company may miss out on sales.

When mass marketing, however, a company can attempt to appeal to everybody all at once. This can be very beneficial since everyone will be exposed to the marketing and such a large audience is being reached. The downside to this approach will be the lack of information, preferences, and overall research about the customers in the market. Since it is very difficult to do research on an entire market, many marketers may have a tough time deciding what kinds of advertising, products, etc. to supply to a market, which can be easier when marketing to a target market. Since preferences in mass marketing can differ greatly, it may be difficult for some companies to market their product as successfully as if they were trying to appeal to a target market.

Overall, I think that each approach can have many positive and negative aspects, and a company should tailor its needs to what it thinks will be better. Do you agree that there may be no clear cut winner?

In response to Michelle's atricle...

Michelle asked the question, "do you find anything interesting in this article?"

My response would be...I find it interesting that she thinks that many people ignore direct forms of mail. In my recent trip to the mailbox, I received a Domino's pizza flyer. I did not ignore this and even if it wasn't something that I am interested in (pizza), I would still give a quick glance to what the piece of mail was. Even if I only gave the flyer a quick glance, I would still have seen the comapny's name, what they are selling, and perhaps something else. So, overall I disagree that people completely ignore direct mail, and although e-marketing may almost completely replace traditional forms of marketing, direct mail can still be a potent form of catching consumers' attention.

E-Marketing- Friend or Foe?

In one article, "From Print, to Phone, to Web And a Sale?" the author describes how many magazine publishers are including bar codes in advertisements so that consumers can simply take a picture of the bar code with their smartphone and they will be directly brought to the website in which this product is being sold. This will be a completely revolutionizing idea that I am sure we will see many people using in the next few years. Although the concept did not work several years ago, the ubiquity of smartphones and internet bases cell phones is making it easier and easier for customers to access these websites.

I think that this is a very good idea and makes it easier for a company to focus on the product variable of the marketing mix (since a customer can view the specs of the product online) and the promotion variable (as the customer is being exposed to the product both online and in print). One potential problem with this system, however, is that not everyone owns a smartphone, and even if they do, they may not have the proper software to take advantage of the bar codes. Another possible concern is the increasing use of the internet for marketing, and the slowly disappearing distribution of print media. Many people no longer buy magazines, newspapers, catalogs, etc. because everything that is published in these print media can be viewed online. Even with the bar code scanning system, the push is to move everyone into an electronic medium.

I am sure that very soon e-marketing will almost completely replace traditional forms of marketing (snail mail, phone calls, etc.). As many marketers focus almost solely on e-marketing, the print ads and traditional forms of marketing will begin to disappear as companies will focus most of their time, energy, and capital in the electronic market. But regardless of how many time and energy is put into e-marketing, snail mail will always be present-and for a good reason. When a consumer receives a letter in the mail or an advertisement, they have no choice but to look at it (even if just for a brief second) and therefore have seen an advertisement. When looking at a webpage, it can become quite easy to completely ignore or not even see some advertisements because you may have to scroll down to see them, or you only focus on the main content of the webpage. Also, in a book I read recently called "Appreciation Marketing," the book describes that many consumers want to have a relationship with a company and that they enjoy a human touch. The more personalized form of phone calls, snail mail, etc. creates more of this personal touch, rather than just a generic banner on a webpage.

So, although we will see a large push towards e-marketing through bar codes, banners on web pages, and the ubiquity of the online marketplace, I doubt that traditional forms of marketing will ever cease to exist. Do you agree that these traditional forms of marketing should be kept in place? What other problems to you think of in the advent of e-marketing? Do you think appreciation marketing really works?

In response to Michelle's post...

Michelle, in her recent blog, posed the question: "do you believe that a good reputation or word of mouth is better?" and "are these good marketing strategies?"

I believe that word of mouth can be a very potent way of getting a company's name out there. Panera (as Michelle brought up) is a perfect example of marketing through word of mouth. But in order for consumers to speak highly of a company, they must have a good reputation first. Through a high quality product, excellent customer service, etc., a business can build a good reputation and as a result, customers will be pleased and spread the good word. I believe that this can be a very effective way of marketing, with no direct marketing costs involved. This strategy is not matched by any fancy jingles or clever slogans, which seem to be stuck in our heads for days, but has proved successful for many companies like Panera Bread. Do you agree that a company should build a good reputation first and then rely on the word of mouth?