Роль осознания воздействия маркетинговых стимулов в формировании реакции потребителя Выпускная квалификационная работа обучающегося на программе подготовки научно-педагогических кадров в аспирантуре «Экономика и управление» по направлению подготовки 38.06.01 «Экономика» (стр. 14 )

In particular, traditional economic models treat price as the monetary sacrifice a consumer makes to acquire a product or service (Stigler, 1987) and assume that an individual should make the same choice when faced with equivalent decision problems. Although these principles have been usefully applied to a variety of marketing problems, recent research on the psychological aspects of pricing suggests that the role of price might be more complex than anticipated by standard economic principles. In particular, a number of studies demonstrated that the way price information is presented, termed price framing (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981), often significantly influences perceptions of value.

The nature of framing appears to differentially affect consumer perceptions of deals that are equivalent on a unit-cost basis but worded or presented differently (Sinha, Smith, 2000).

In the field of pricing research, different frames of the equivalent price deals were compared: multiple vs single price changes (Mazumdar, Jun, 1993; Tsiros, Hardesty, 2013), absolute vs percentage price change formats (DelVecchio, Krishnan, Smith, 2007), product price vs product size changes (Chen, Marmorstein, Tsiros, Rao, 2013; Gourville, Koehler, 2004; Kachersky, 2011), all-inclusive vs partitioned price presentations (Bambauer, Gierl, 2008), etc.

The frames of product price vs product size changes to present an equivalent unit-cost change has received their attention in the studies of both price decreases (often for promotional purposes) and price increases. Nevertheless, while the examination of promotion types started relatively earlier and generated more research because of their popularity in the marketplace, the opposite problem has relatively recently entered the scholarly domain. The framing of price increases as an overt price change or less visible for the consumer products downsizing (i. e. reducing the volume of product per package without a proportional decrease in package price) leads to different consumer responses to changes that are equivalent on the unit-price basis.

In a range of articles that compare the consumer demand sensitivity to an equivalent price increase and product downsizing, it is demonstrated that consumers are more sensitive to price over quantity/size changes because of either their unawareness of product size, inattention to unit prices, or relative uncommonness of product downsizing in the marketplace (Gourville, Koehler, 2004; Cakir, Balagtas, 2014). However, some studies does not prove that the differential sensitivity to differently framed price increases exists (Imai, Watanabe, 2014).

Presumably, the difference in the response to overt and covert price increase framings can be found not only at the level of behavioral achievements, but also at the level of consumer perceptions of alternatives. Numerous studies have shown that consumers’ acceptance of a price, particularly a price increase, depends on considering it “fair” (Kahneman, Knetsch, Thaler, 1986). Packaging, size, or feature differences that make it hard to compare prices directly could be potentially perceived by consumers as unfair or deceptive (Zaltman, 1978).

Price fairness judgments involve a comparison of a price or procedure with a pertinent standard, reference, or norm (Xia, Monroe, Cox, 2004). In case of pricing, the overt raise of price per product could be regarded as such a fair standard, because such a way to increase price is clear and does not demand additional cognitive costs to evaluate the extent of price increase. On the contrary, product downsizing can be regarded by consumers as a manipulative intent of the company to mislead consumers from an optimal choice and thereby gain from consumer limited attention or unawareness.

8.2.  Misleading Pricing Tactics as Persuasion Attempts

Pricing tactics include marketers’ efforts to generate favorable price perceptions regarding their brands, stores, and offerings (Hardesty, Bearden, Carlson, 2007). Marketers use a variety of tactics to attract customers and persuade them to buy the product. Some pricing practices mislead consumers leading to a suboptimal choice. For instance, quantity surcharges implies that unit price of a product packaged in a larger quantity is higher than the unit price of the same product and brand packaged in a smaller quantity, which is contrary to a widespread consumer belief that the unit price of goods packaged in larger quantities is less (Palla, Boutsouki, Zotos, 2010). Obviously, when consumers rely on their beliefs about pricing practice that contradict the actual pricing practice, they burden themselves with additional financial load and decrease their wellbeing.

When faced with the practice in routine life the consumer can be unaware of practice usage. The understanding of practice nature can be gained with experience. Consumers are more likely to accurately learn about the persuasive intent behind pricing tactics upon greater exposure to them in the marketplace (Carlson, Bearden, Hardesty, 2007). “Over time consumers develop personal knowledge about the tactics used in these persuasion attempts” (Friestad, Wright, 1994). Friestad and Wright (1994) introduced the Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM) that describes how people's persuasion knowledge influences their responses to persuasion attempts, in particular, how people use their persuasion knowledge to refine their attitudes toward products and marketers. Persuasion knowledge guides consumers' attention to aspects of an advertising campaign or price presentation, providing inferences about possible background conditions that caused the agent to construct the attempt in that way (Friestad, Wright, 1994). When choosing a pricing tactic, producers are per se trying to find a persuading pricing message that will appeal to consumers in a better way. It considers the marketer to be the agent of persuasion, the consumer to be the target of persuasion, and the pricing tactic to reflect the persuasion attempt. Pricing tactic persuasion knowledge (PTPK) represents a form of domain-specific knowledge gained through experience (Hardesty, Bearden, Carlson, 2007).

Marketing-literate consumers and those who are not armed with enough marketing knowledge and experience react differently to tactics employed by marketers. After conducting a series of experiments (Hardesty, Bearden, Carlson, 2007) identified that less knowledgeable consumers are more susceptible to such marketing practices as quantity surcharges and tensile claim offers and to making suboptimal decisions. (Kachersky, 2011) investigates consumer reactions to the practice of increasing unit prices of products by either reducing product content or increasing total prices. According to results, higher levels of PTPK lead consumers to infer different motives behind the two types of unit price increases, with content reductions being attributed to firm motives to increase profit margins and total price increases being attributed to firm motives to maintain profit margins in the face of situational factors such as cost inflation. Second, higher levels of PTPK lead consumers to look less favorably on product brands when the product content is reduced compared to when the total price is increased, and that this outcome is driven by inferred motives. Third, in contrast to high PTPK consumers, lower levels of PTPK lead consumers to alter their evaluations not of the product brand but of the retailer.

9.  Hypotheses Development

The problem of product downsizing was raised in a limited number of articles that address the issue of product downsizing impact on consumer demand and compare the demand sensitivity to equivalent price increase and product downsizing (Gourville, Koehler, 2004; Cakir, Balagtas, 2013; Snir, Levy, 2011; Imai, Watanabe, 2014). The results of the studies are contradictory and demand further clarification, in particular, by introducing moderating variables that allow interpreting the differences in the above studies. The study proposes that the consumer ability to detect the product downsizing will moderate the consumer response to that practice. In particular, it is supposed that if consumers do not notice the tactic at the point of purchase, they do not modify their response towards the product, but they may have especially harsh reactions if they discover the tactic via a fellow consumer or the media (Kachersky, 2011).

H1. If compared with the overt package price increase, equivalent product downsizing leads to a less reduction in buying intentions for consumers who do not detect the product downsizing, but results in a more rapid reduction of buying intentions when they get external information which confirms the usage of a tactic.

H2. Consumers who detect the product downsizing by themselves react to the product downsizing in the same way as to an equivalent overt price increase.

In addition, there is a need for further investigation of psychological response of different consumers to misleading pricing. The theory of planned behavior proposes that a behavioral intention is formed based on the attitude towards the behavior (Ajzen, 1991), and if projecting the theory into the domain of consumer behavior, a buying intention can depend on such variables as consumer attitude to the product and trust to the producer of the product. The former construct has long been given a crucial role in bringing customer satisfaction, and gaining his loyalty (Olshavsky, Miller, 1972). Similarly, there are studies that describes consumer trust as a pivotal cornerstone and a key factor in the establishment of the relational commitment between firm and consumers (Reichheld, Schefter, 2000).

H3. Consumers who detect the product downsizing by themselves modify their product attitude and producer trust perception in a more negative direction, and do not change their response when they get external information which confirms the usage of a tactic.

H4. Consumers who do not detect the product downsizing by themselves do not immediately modify their product attitude and producer trust perception, but deteriorate their response in a more rapid manner when they get external information which confirms the usage of a tactic.