Download The effect of market mavens on trial probability: does marketing

The effect of market mavens on trial
probability: does marketing
communication affect market mavens?
Martens, Maurice
Bachelor Thesis Marketing
Maurice Martens
487043
Supervisor: Ms. N. Raassens
Hand-in date: 11-06-‘10
The effect of market mavens on trial
probability: does marketing
communication affect market mavens?
Abstract
This thesis is about the effect of marketing communication (mass
marketing and direct / personal marketing) on the relationship
between market mavens, one of the types of influential consumers,
on trial probability. Market mavens, who are defined as
deliberately influencing other consumers on a general marketplace
level, have a positive effect on trial probability. This means that
they can generate higher trial probability amongst other
consumers, because they tend to transmit and discuss their
experiences and thus influence other consumers. These other
consumers, who are willing to accept the experiences of market
mavens, will try the (new) products advised by the mavens. This
effect can be amplified by the two types of marketing
communication, as they both have a positive effect on the
relationship. Marketing communication methods thus can be
assigned to market mavens, eventually leading to higher trial
probability. For companies this is very useful, meaning they can
cut their marketing expenses and intensity, by just aiming their
marketing communication (both mass marketing and direct /
personal) at market mavens.
1
Index
Title
Page
Chapter 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Chapter 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Chapter 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Chapter 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
Introduction
3
Problem background
Problem statement
Relevance
Thesis structure
3
4
5
6
Influential consumers
7
Innovators
Opinion leaders
Market mavens
Differences between the types of influential consumers
7
8
9
11
The relationship between market mavenism and trial probability
14
Trial probability
The effect of market mavenism on trial probability
Marketing communication
The moderating role of marketing communication
14
15
16
18
Conclusion, limitations / further research and managerial
implications
20
Conclusion
Limitations / further research
Managerial implications
20
21
22
2
Chapter 1 Introduction
This first chapter is all about introducing the subject of this thesis. First of all, the problem
background will deal with the reason why this subject has been chosen. This is to make sure
that the topic does not come out of the blue. Next to the background, the thesis’ problem
statement with supportive research questions will be stated. Subsequently, the conceptual
model will be drawn. The final part of the introduction will discuss the academic and
managerial relevance.
1.1 Problem background
New products are involved in consumers’ daily life. When walking on the shopping streets in
any big city, nearly every day people get exposed to suppliers of different kinds of products,
such as new mobile phones, new magazines and new food and beverage beaneries. Obviously,
it is impossible that all these product introductions and innovations are a major success
amongst the heap of consumers. In fact, of all new product developments 30 to 40% fail.
Earlier, a percentage of between 80 and 90 was assumed (Hanna, Ayers, Ridnour & Gordon,
1995). Of course, 30 to 40% is a lot less than the earlier assumption, but still this is a high
number.
Yet, companies will keep on trying as new product development is a highly important
instrument in their competition for market share (Clark & Fujimoto, 1991). Whether
consumers will try a new product depends on several consumer characteristics (Steenkamp &
Gielens, 2003). One of these consumer characteristics is the influence of a selected number of
consumers, i.e. market mavens, on other consumers. It can be imagined that it would be
beneficial to the company if a part of all marketing efforts would be executed by these
influential consumers, but that seems like an illusion for many companies (Ratchford, 1982).
Actually, it is not. Influential consumers can make a new product development a success,
because they are related to trial probability (Arndt, 1967; Feick & Price, 1987). Influential
consumers can be divided into three different levels (Clark & Goldsmith, 2005): (1) product
level (opinion leadership, innovativeness), (2) category level (opinion leadership, innovatism)
and (3) the marketplace in general (market mavenism). An interesting, and unresolved issue,
is whether market mavens can be used by companies to make new products successful. This
3
thesis will examine the whole marketplace in general and not just a specific product or
category level. Therefore market mavens will be applied as influential consumers in this
thesis. In particularly, this thesis will provide insight into the relationship between market
mavens and the trial probability of new products, and the influence of marketing
communication, i.e. mass marketing and personal marketing on this relation.
1.2 Problem statement
The problem statement of this thesis is:
What influence do market mavens have on trial probability and how is this relationship
moderated by marketing communication?
Supporting research questions for answering the problem statement are:
-
What are market mavens?
-
How do market mavens influence the trial probability of new products?
-
Does marketing communication affect market mavens’ influence towards trial
probability?
When visualizing these questions into a conceptual model, the following figure emerges (see
Figure 1).
Figure 1:
Conceptual model
Market mavenism
Trial probability
Marketing communication
As earlier indicated, the entire model will only comprise the marketplace in general. Productor category-specific influences are set aside in this thesis, as market mavens cannot be
classified on product or category level. The exact and more detailed explanation of this
difference will be treated in chapter 2.3.
4
1.3 Relevance
Academic relevance Traditional literature examined the relationship of influential consumers
on the trial probability of new products. A majority of this literature referred to influential
consumers as opinion leaders and -/- or innovators (Arndt, 1967; Price & Feick, 1984). A
relatively new and small group within influential consumers, market mavens (Feick & Price,
1987), has received much less attention. That fact alone makes it interesting to take a closer
look at market mavens. Nevertheless, an entire new aspect in the existing literature is the
addition of marketing communication in the form of direct / personal marketing and mass
marketing in this model. There has not been conducted any research concerning a moderating
effect of this types of marketing communication on the relationship between market mavens
and trial probability yet. There are studies who tried to test moderators on the relationship of
market mavenism and trial probability, but these moderators are brand strength (positive
effect), impulsiveness of buying (negative effect), amount of advertising expenditure (positive
effect) and intensity of feature and display promotion (positive effect) (Narasimham, Neslin &
Sen, 1996). Steenkamp & Gielens (2003) also conducted a study concerning the relationship
between market mavens and trial probability, and the moderating effect of advertising and
featuring / displaying, but the difference in direct / personal marketing and mass marketing is
new in this field. This study makes the existing literature more profound, and enriches the
understanding of market mavens, and how they can be used as a marketing communication
tool.
Practical relevance This subject is not just of academic interest, it has practical value as well.
It is important for companies to know how market mavens can influence other consumers’
trial probability, and thus increasing the success of new product developments. Moreover,
companies will benefit if they know how to reach market mavens more effectively with
available marketing communication tools. If there is a relationship between market mavens
and the trial probability of other consumers, this would mean that, if executed correctly, a
huge number of consumers could be reached by just reaching the market mavens. When a
company is launching a new product development, they need to use marketing
communication tools. If market mavens are practiced efficiently, less marketing
communication is needed, which without a doubt will lead to lower costs. This means that the
same effect will be reached while much less expenses on marketing communication need to
be done. Or in other words, from a cost-benefit perspective, the likelihood of trial purchase is
greater if the information acquired through purchase is more valuable to others in the peer
5
group (Ratchford, 1982). Because market mavens are highly involved with the marketplace
and have a information transmitting role, it makes them more attractive for marketing
communications than non-market mavens as well (Feick & Price, 1987). Although this is a
fact, the value of this information acquired depends on brand name (increase of value) and the
impulsiveness of the product category (decrease of value).
1.4 Thesis structure
This thesis will explain the influence of market mavens on trial probability and the
moderating effect of marketing communication on this relationship. After this introductory
chapter, the second chapter will deal with the term influential consumers, and which
influential role market mavens have. Chapter three will describe the relationship between
market mavens and trial probability, and the moderating effect of marketing communication.
Finally, chapter four contains the conclusion with the answers to the problem statement and
research questions. Furthermore, in chapter four limitations of this research and
recommendations for further research will be handed.
6
Chapter 2 Influential consumers
In order to commercialize a new product, marketers can use several types of marketing
communication. Often these communication tools are very expensive and sometimes these
tools do not reach the goal which companies have hoped for (Fill, 2005). Another much more
effective and much more inexpensive way of reaching many consumers is making use of
influential consumers. Influential consumers are consumers who spread information
concerning several products and services in the marketplace (Keller & Berry, 2003). For
companies, reaching these influential consumers can also mean reaching a huge part of the
entire market. These influential consumers have such an enormous range that they can take
over an important part of the marketing task for companies. In order to reach these influential
consumers, it is important to get a grip on who these consumers actually are and what their
characteristics are.
Traditional literature on interpersonal influence distinguished two types of influential
consumers, i.e. the opinion leader and the early purchaser or adopter (Arndt, 1967; Price &
Feick, 1984). A revolutionary study in this field of Feick & Price (1987) introduced the term
‘market mavens.’ In this study, interpersonal influence was broadened into four types of
influential consumers: opinion leaders, early purchasers, general marketplace influencers and
market mavens. Clark & Goldsmith (2005) narrowed influential consumers further down into
innovators, opinion leaders and market mavens. Nowadays, this classification is still common,
which is the reason why this thesis will classify influential consumers into these three types.
In this study, the emphasis is on market mavens. To understand this type of influential
consumers, this study will first differentiate market mavens from innovators and opinion
leaders. Subsequently, market mavenism will be defined.
2.1 Innovators
The first type of influential consumers, innovators, is a distinctive group. In the diffusion
process, all consumers have a varying degree of innovativeness (Midgley & Dowling, 1978).
For innovators this degree is high. In other words, they tend to adopt new products relatively
early in the diffusion process (Rogers, 1995). Simplified, this means that innovators adopt
innovations quickly compared to other members in his or her social system (Rogers &
Shoemaker, 1971). Thus, it can be concluded that innovators want to walk in front with new
products and innovations and thus influencing other consumers. However, this is not their
primary goal. It just happens though. This group will not be taken further into account, as it is
7
more considerate for this study to look at influential consumers on a general marketplace
level. Besides that, innovators are not that appropriate for this study as a closer look at
deliberately influential consumers is desired.
2.2 Opinion leaders
Opinion leaders form the second group of influential consumers. One of the first definitions of
opinion leadership is “the tendency to influence purchase decisions of others” (King &
Summers, 1970, p. 43), Flynn, Goldsmith & Eastman (1996) state that it is not just about the
purchase decision itself, but about the entire consumer buying process. This means that
opinion leaders are capable of influencing other consumers not just at the moment of the
purchase decision, but earlier in the consumer buying process. Thus, opinion leaders’ primary
goal is to deliberately influence other consumers (and their purchase behavior), which sets
them apart from innovators. These other consumers (the ones that are being influenced by
opinion leaders) are known as opinion seekers. When purchasing a product, opinion seekers
actively collect information about certain products or services from persons with more
knowledge or expertise about these products or services (Arndt, 1967; Feldman, 1966; Flynn,
Goldsmith & Eastman, 1996; Sheth, 1968; Sohn, 2005; Wright & Cantor, 1967). Opinion
seekers illustratively do not want to be unique (Bertrandias & Goldsmith, 2006), pay high
value to their social consent (Bertrandias & Goldsmith, 2006), and are inversely related to
innovativeness, which means that opinion seekers are highly innovative but that
innovativeness influences opinion seekers as well (Girardi, Soutar & Ward, 2005). The
existence of these differences between opinion leaders and opinion seekers was significantly
grounded by Shoham & Ruvio (2008). Thus, it can be suggested that opinion leaders want to
influence opinion seekers, and opinion seekers want to be influenced by opinion leaders,
while in the mean time opinion seekers are also being influenced by innovators and
innovators (undesirably) influence opinion seekers.
There are several characteristics which are typical for opinion leaders. First of all, opinion
leaders are socially active (Baumgarten, 1975; Venkatraman, 1989). This is a necessity,
because otherwise they would not be able to influence other consumers. After all, in order to
get in touch with other consumers, social skills are fundamental. Opinion leaders also have a
high degree of self-centrism (they think of themselves as a sort of centurion) and selfconfidence (Baumgarten, 1975; Venkatraman, 1989). This is reasonable as well, as consumers
are not likely to be influenced by unconfident people. A third characteristic of opinion leaders
8
is that they are heavy consumers of mass media (Rogers, 1983; Summers, 1970). This means
that they frequently read newspapers, watch television and surf the internet. This is
understandable, because opinion leaders need to gather information in order to gain
knowledge or expertise about certain products or services before they are able to be influential
for opinion seekers. Rogers (1983) and Summers (1970) state that opinion leaders are
technically capable regarding the use of new high-tech products as well. Another trait of
opinion leaders is their need to feel and act differently than other consumers. They exhibit a
kind of public individualism (Chan & Misra, 1990). Finally, opinion leaders are not affected
by cultural dimensions, which indicates that opinion leaders are not bound to a certain culture
(Dawar, Parker & Price, 1996).
2.3 Market mavens
The third group of consumers which influence other consumers is market mavens. The term
market mavens is introduced in the marketing literature by Feick & Price (1987) 1, and is
defined as individuals who have information about many kinds of products, places to shop,
and other facets of markets, and initiate discussions with consumers and respond to requests
from consumers for market information. Also, market mavens feel a sort of obligation to
share information to other consumers. This sharing of information results out of a desire to
help other consumers and gives market mavens a pleasurable feeling (Walsh, Gwinner &
Swanson, 2004). Market mavens are also perfectionists (Walsh & Mitchell, 2000). Clark &
Goldsmith (2005) state that market mavens have a high degree of self-esteem, a tendency to
conform, susceptibility to normative influence and a need to be unique. Market mavens think
of their selves as smart buyers (Slama, Nataarjan & Williams, 1992), and they budget their
shopping expenses more than other consumers (Price, Feick & Guskey-Federouch, 1988).
Regarding the ‘big-five personality factors’ (Mooradian, 1996), market mavens score higher
on extraversion and openness, which also supports their already mentioned urgency to
communicate their message to and discuss with other consumers. On the other three factors –
conscientiousness, neuroticism and agreeableness – market mavens do not score significantly
higher (Ruvio & Shoham, 2007).
Of course, not all consumers who have these characteristics automatically are or can become
market mavens, but for consumers whose need for uniqueness and motivation can be satisfied
1
King & Summers (1970) argued earlier that there are individuals with a generalized opinion
leadership trait, but this group was thus later being referred to as market mavens.
9
by, firstly, paying attention to new and different products in the market place and, secondly,
telling other consumers about these new products, the term market mavenism is an
appropriate allotment (Goldsmith, Clark & Goldsmith, 2006).
The characteristics of market mavens are quite familiar compared to those of opinion leaders,
though the difference is that market mavens are a source of information about the marketplace
in general (Feick & Price, 1987). Opinion leaders, on the other hand, vary on product level
(Arndt, 1967) or product category level (Myers & Robertson, 1972). Because of this
difference, market mavens are sometimes called generalized opinion leaders (Steenkamp &
Gielens, 2003). This theory is confirmed by the assertion that opinion leaders sometimes can
take on an opinion seeker role, namely when the purchasing decision is about a product in a
domain which is unknown to the opinion leader (Engledow, Thorelli & Becker, 1975). If this
is the case, the former opinion leader asks an opinion leader within the concerning domain for
advice and thus is seeking information. For example, if an opinion leading grocery market
expert is intended to purchase a new computer, this expert will consult an expert within the
computer branch to gather information about this new computer. Market mavens are also
positively related to opinion leadership (Clark & Goldsmith, 2005), which means that market
mavens do influence opinion leaders. This is mainly visible for services (Engelland, Hopkins
& Larson, 2001)
All of the mentioned characteristics of market mavens lead to the fact that market mavens are
an important group of consumers who substantially influence other consumers, via exampling
and word-of-mouth communication (Williams & Slama, 1995). However, it must be kept in
mind that the transmitting function of market mavens deteriorates if the concerning product(s)
are impulsive buying products (Narasimhan, Neslin & Sen, 1996).
10
2.4 Differences between the types of influential consumers
All descriptions of the prefaced types of influential consumers can be summarized in a table,
in order to clarify the differences between the types. This table, which consists of an overview
of all the types of influential consumers and their characteristics, is shown below as Table 1.
Table 1:
Differences between influential consumers
Characteristic
Innovators
Opinion leaders
Market mavens
Type
Level
Product specific
Category specific
Marketplace in
general
Deliberately influencing?
Can
be influenced
No
Yes
Yes
by No
Yes
No
- Socially active
- Own much market
- Self-confident
and product related
- Consumers of mass
information
media
- Want to discuss with
- Technically
and inform other
capable
consumers
- Need to act
- Extravert / open
differently
- Perfectionism
other consumers as well?
Characteristics
- Early adopters
Table 1 shows all distinct differences between the types of influential consumers. The first
characteristic differs for each type. Innovators are based on a product specific level, opinion
leaders on a category specific level and market mavens on a marketplace level. Another
difference occurs in the way consumers are being influenced: deliberately or non-deliberately.
Innovators influence other consumers without their intention, while both opinion leaders as
11
market mavens influence other consumers deliberately. Opinion leaders can be influenced by
other consumers as well. This does not count for the other two types. The last differences
shown in table 1 deal with specific characteristics of each type of influential consumer. When
speaking of influential consumers, innovators can be compared to the ‘early adopters’ of
Rogers’ model (1962). This group can be characterized as sophisticated and progressive
concerning new products, which means they are one of the first people to purchase certain
new products. Opinion leaders tend to be socially active, self confident, consumers of mass
media, technically capable and they feel a need to act differently. All of these characteristics
are typical for consumers who deliberately want to influence other consumers. Market
mavens, the group which will be used in this thesis, are ‘information freaks.’ They want to
collect and own information, which they want to use in order to discuss with and inform other
consumers. Nevertheless, with an influencing intention.
Summarizing, it can be stated that the principle of market mavenism is quite simple and
effective. Companies communicate their marketing message directly to market mavens, while
these market mavens disseminate this information via frequent interactions with other
consumers and their enthusiasm to talk about brands, stores and buying (Goldsmith, Clark &
Goldsmith, 2006). This results in a two-step flow model, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2:
Two-step flow model
Other Consumers
Information communication
Market Mavens
Marketing communication
Companies
12
This two-step flow model shows that companies convey their expensive marketing
communication towards a relatively small group of market mavens, while these market
mavens communicate their information (at a very low cost for the firm) towards the other
consumers (Goldsmith, Clark & Goldsmith, 2006). The reason why the second flow of
communication – the information flow of market mavens to other consumers – costs a firm
nearly nothing, is that consumers rely more on word-of-mouth communication (which this
flow of communication through market mavens actually is), than on marketing
communication methods. This makes word-of-mouth communication more successful in
order to generate product trial. The reason for this symptom is a greater perceived credibility
of interpersonal information sources by the other consumers (Keller & Berry, 2003). The first
research question has been answered now.
13
Chapter 3 The relationship between market mavenism and trial
probability
Now the concept of market mavenism has been clarified, a next step can be taken in order to
get an answer to the problem statement. This third chapter will answer the research questions
whether market mavenism is related to trial probability, and whether there is a possible effect
of marketing communication on that relationship. Since market mavenism is clear now, it is
expected that market mavenism is positively related to trial probability. Thus can be
hypothesized:
H1:
Market mavenism is positively related to trial probability.
This hypothesis will be tested in this chapter, and subsequently the possible moderating effect
of marketing communication will be tested. This results in the hypothesis:
H2:
Marketing communication positively affects the relationship of market
mavenism on trial probability.
Testing this hypothesis will be done by checking whether marketing communication tools
moderate the relationship of market mavenism on trial probability. Then, marketing
communication will be divided into direct / personal marketing and mass marketing, resulting
in two forms of marketing communication who might moderate the relationship in a different
way.
3.1 Trial probability
Preceding the relationship between market mavens and trial probability, first the term ‘trial
probability’ has to be explained to form a picture of the conceptual model. One of the most
common definitions of trial probability is Rogers’ (1995) definition. Rogers’ describes trial
probability as the first, or ‘trial’, purchase. This first purchase is typified by high risk and low
product knowledge. This results in a relatively short consumer buying process, with high
impulsive buying. The social system does not respond very well to their trial probability,
meaning that consumers do not give distinctive feedback about the trial. This is not an issue
14
for market mavens (Rogers, 1995). Factors which are decisive for trial probability are for
instance the novelty of the product (U-effect: incremental or high novelty leads to high trial
probability, while intermediate novelty leads to low trial probability), the brand strength
(positive effect), advertising and
feature / display promotion intensity (positive effect),
pricing (negative effect), distribution coverage (positive effect), number of existing brands
(negative effect), competitive reactions (negative effect), the degree of impulsive buying
(positive effect) and the difficulty to stockpile (positive effect) (Steenkamp & Gielens, 2003).
Trial probability differs between (groups of) consumers because of variation within and
variation between products (Steenkamp & Gielens, 2003). Trial probability variation within
products is caused by consumer characteristics (of which market mavenism is a form) and
marketing communication. Trial probability between products is caused by marketing strategy
and category characteristics.
3.2 The effect of market mavenism on trial probability
Before a closer look at the moderating effect of marketing communication will be taken, the
relationship between market mavenism and trial probability will be explained. Feick & Price
(1987), the instigators of the term ‘market mavens’, first mentioned the existence of a
relationship between market mavenism and trial probability. They suggest that market
mavenism influences trial probability in two complementary ways. First, because of the
general market expertise which market mavens have, they are earlier aware of new products
than other consumers. Second, market mavens actively acquire new information about the
marketplace, so they can transfer this information to other consumers. Feick & Price (1987)
concluded that for other consumers (non-mavens) trial probability is higher after receiving
information of market mavens. This conclusion is supported by Keller & Berry (2003). They
state that word-of-mouth communication has a higher effect on trial probability than mass
marketing communication. The reason for that is the function of information transmitter,
which market mavens have. They influence other consumers with transmitting information
about their experiences concerning new products. Obviously, these other consumers have not
experienced that product yet, but their trial probability will increase (Keller & Berry, 2003).
Despite this influence in the product diffusion process, new product trial probability itself
amongst market mavens is not significantly higher than other consumers, meaning that it is
not legitimate to assume that market mavens probably try more new products than noninfluential consumers. However, for the products which they do try, they share information
15
with other consumers. These other consumers’ trial probability then will increase. (Steenkamp
& Gielens, 2003). Subsequently, it can be concluded that market mavens can influence trial
probability of non-influential consumers. Although market mavens’ trial probability is not
significantly higher than trial probability of non-mavens, they can still lead to higher trial
probability amongst other consumers (non mavens). Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported, but also
the second research question has been answered.
3.3 Marketing communication
The possible moderating effect of marketing communication will be researched for two,
contrary, types of marketing communication, namely direct (or personal) marketing
communication and mass marketing communication. In the marketing process of a product,
communication as a marketing channel plays an important role (Mohr & Nevin, 1990). This
role is not just a managerial kind of importance, but it is important in theoretical perspective
as well. The managerial importance may be quite obvious, as in order to sell products
companies need to create brand value in the perception of consumers (Duncan & Moriarty,
1998). If brand value is created, higher sales numbers can be obtained. Duncan & Moriarty
(1998) state that marketing communication (both mass and direct / personal) contribute to
creating a higher brand value. The theoretical importance contains of the relatively low
number of available empirical research, which makes Mohr & Nevin’s research (1990) gapfilling in the area of marketing communication in that time. Marketing communication, thus,
is an important tool for companies to improve product sales.
In order to get a grip on marketing communication and, for this thesis, the partition of
marketing management into direct / personal marketing and mass marketing, it has to be
clarified what exactly is being meant with marketing communication. One of the quite similar
definitions available of marketing communication is: all the ways businesses interact and
communicate with a market (Varey, 2001). There are several ways of interact and
communicated with a market. These ways are referred to as marketing communication tools,
or promotional mix (Fill, 1999). Several studies grouped different types of marketing
communication tools and named them. A limited chronological overview helps by
subdividing the marketing communication tools into the two types which are used in this
thesis: direct / personal marketing and mass marketing.
One of the studies conducted in this field (Erickson, 1991) classified communication tools
into (1) one-on-one-communication, (2) major media and (3) other media. The first group
16
consists of personal approaches, such as telephone calls, correspondence and face-to-face
encounters. Newspapers, radio, television, direct mail, magazines and billboards belong to the
second group. Advertising, promotion, publicity, public relations and direct marketing is
being referred to as ‘other media.’ Another widely accepted classification of marketing
communication tools divides all tools into (1) advertising, (2) public relations, (3) sales
promotions and (4) personal selling (Blythe, 2000). A classification into a larger number of
groups is possible as well. Keller (2001) for instance, divides marketing communication into
nine groups: (1) media advertising (such as television, radio, newspapers and magazines), (2)
direct response and interactive advertising (mail, telephone, print media), (3) place advertising
(billboards, posters, cinema advertising), (4) point-of-purchase advertising (shopping cart ads,
in-store radio or television), (5) trade promotions (contests, trade deals, buying allowances,
trade shows), (6) consumer promotions (premiums, samples, price-offs, sweepstakes), (7)
event marketing and sponsorship (sports, entertainment, fairs, festivals), (8) publicity and
public relations and (9) personal selling. Keller (2001) also implies that media advertising,
direct response and interactive advertising, place advertising, trade promotions, consumer
promotions and event marketing and sponsorships are forms of mass marketing.
All studies which classify marketing communication tools differ from each other, but they
have their similarities as well. Several of the tools mentioned are direct marketing
communication tools, and others are mass marketing tools. Summarizing marketing
communication tools for this thesis, direct marketing means personal selling and mass
marketing means all other marketing communication tools excluding publicity and public
relations (Keller, 2001). Or: mass marketing is a more traditional way of marketing, mainly
focused on broad geographic, demographic and psychographic information. Mass marketing
is sometimes seen being on its way back because of a new type of marketing (Thomas, 2007).
This new type of marketing becomes more and more personalized. Personal positioning,
personal messaging and personal strategies. All these methods are individual-level methods to
reach consumers one on one. This last, more modern type of marketing is known as direct
marketing (Nowak & Phelps, 1995).
17
3.4 The moderating role of marketing communication
Regarding the relationship between market mavens and trial probability, a positive effect has
been verified. This part of the research will deal with the third research question, whether
marketing communication moderates the relationship of market mavenism on trial probability.
Marketing communication in this thesis is divided into direct / personal marketing and mass
marketing. Mass marketing always has been a successful marketing communication tool, but
with the rise of direct marketing the success of mass marketing is being doubted (Thomas,
2007). Direct marketing is a key for success for many companies, because it has a high profit
potential (Januz, 1982). Direct marketing is all about generating customer interaction, which
will lead to higher sales (Thomas, 2007). In order to get this customer interaction, the
company needs to focus their direct marketing on customer needs, wants and hopes (Siedlecki,
2000). Because higher product trial will lead to higher sales (e.g. Hardie, Fader & Wisniewski,
1998) and direct marketing, as already mentioned, leads to higher sales, it is plausible to state
that for products direct marketing will increase product trial (Mouland, 2002) and thus trial
probability.
The moderating role of marketing communication has already been researched in a limited
way. Advertising and feature / display (both mass marketing tools) have been added as
moderator in a model with market mavenism as independent variable and trial probability as
dependent variable. The results showed that market mavens’ influence on trial probability is
increased when advertising and feature / display promotion are added as a moderator
(Steenkamp & Gielens, 2003). There is also a direct positive effect of advertising and feature /
display on trial probability (Ataman, Mela & Van Heerde, 2008). Thus, trial probability
because of market mavens is higher when the concerning product is promoted with
advertising and feature / display.
Since products which are mass marketed (e.g. with advertising, feature and display)
strengthen the effect of market mavenism on trial probability (Steenkamp & Gielens, 2003)
and a shift to direct marketing is noticeable because of the success which direct marketing has
nowadays compared to mass marketing (Thomas, 2007), it is reasonable to state that direct
marketing will increase the effect of market mavenism on trial probability. In other words,
both mass and direct / personal marketing communication tools have a positive moderating
effect on the relationship between market mavenism and trial probability. Market mavens are
being reached by mass marketing, which leads to the fact that market mavens gain more
18
knowledge about several products in the market. This gained information will be spread to
other consumers, because of the instigation of market mavens to share information and
discuss. But market mavens can also be reached by direct marketing, which eventually will
have the same effect. Thus, hypothesis 2 is supported and the third research question has been
answered.
19
Chapter 4 Conclusion, limitations / further research and managerial
implications
This final chapter will give the conclusion and answer the problem statement as mentioned in
the beginning of this thesis. Limitations of this research will be given, together with
recommendations for further research. Finally, managerial implications are handed, so the
concrete value of this paper for companies will be clear.
4.1 Conclusion
This study tried to test whether two different types of marketing communication tools (direct /
personal marketing and mass marketing) affect the relationship between market mavenism
and trial probability. First of all, the term “market mavens” has been clarified, showing that
market mavens are consumers who deliberately influence other consumers about products at a
general marketplace level. They differ from opinion leaders and innovators, because of the
general level in which market mavens are active. The value of market mavens is evident.
Market mavens influence other consumers by using word-of-mouth communication. This
form of communication significantly improves trial probability. The effect of market mavens
on trial probability is, not surprisingly on account of the previous statement, significantly as
well. But for a company to reduce their marketing communication costs, the possible effect of
marketing communication on this relationship is very interesting. This information could also
be used for companies to put on market mavens in their marketing communication campaign
to reach more consumers. Therefore, the effect of marketing communication has been divided
into mass marketing and direct / personal marketing. A possible moderating effect of these
both types of marketing communication has been tested, resulting in a positive effect for both
mass marketing and direct / personal marketing. The influence of market mavens on trial
probability of other consumers can be strengthened by marketing communication. If mass
marketing is applied, mavens will be reached, which will lead to transmitting and sharing of
information and experiences (the effective method of word-of-mouth communication),
leading to higher trial probability of other consumers. If direct (or personal) marketing is
applied, the same effect will be generated. The difference is that personal marketing
nowadays is popular because of the high effectiveness.
20
4.2 Limitations / further research
This research examined the effect of marketing communication (in particular: direct / personal
marketing and mass marketing) on the relationship of market mavenism on trial probability of
new products or new product developments. Since market mavenism is just one of the three
types of influential consumers, it is possible that future studies will deal with the other types
of influential consumers. Thus, a study which tests whether innovators and -/- or opinion
leaders have any factors influencing their relationship on trial probability is a serious option
for further research.
Steenkamp & Gielens (2003) ranged market mavenism amongst dispositional innovativeness
and susceptibility to normative influences as consumer characteristics in their study.
Obviously, further research can check whether these two other characteristics are influenced
in their relationship with trial probability by marketing communication as well.
Market mavenism (and other types of influencing consumers), dispositional innovativeness
and susceptibility to normative influences are dispositional types of consumer characteristics.
Socio-behavioral characteristics, such as age, education, income and usage intensity
(Steenkamp & Gielens, 2003), have not been tested as independent variables on the dependent
variable trial probability, with any possible moderating variables. Therefore, future research
might discuss this model as well.
A distinctive limitation of the conceptual model as tested in this study, is that marketing
communication in this model is restricted to two types: direct / personal marketing and mass
marketing. It is imaginable that some types of marketing communication tools are omitted in
this model. Therefore, further studies can conduct research to the moderating role of
marketing communication tools which are not admitted in this model. Besides that, the
mentioned marketing communication tools can possibly be divided into more, separate tools,
which might significantly differ from each other, but are combined in this study.
Another recommendation for further research is the option of using market mavens as a
moderator for the relationship between marketing communication and trial probability. It
might turn out that market mavens positively influence this relationship, meaning that (e.g.
famous) market mavens can be used in companies’ marketing communication campaign.
21
4.3 Managerial implications
The influence of market mavens on trial probability of other consumers can be strengthened
by marketing communication, meaning that more consumers can be reached by applying
marketing communication tools on market mavens. Companies can benefit from this
knowledge, because it is clear that with less marketing communication expenditure a high
amount of consumers can be reached. This is because not all the consumers have to be
reached, but just the influential consumers (market mavens in this case). In order to reach
these market mavens companies can use both mass marketing and direct (or personal
marketing), aiming directly at their primary target group: market mavens. Because of the
recent success of direct marketing, it is a serious option for companies to apply this method in
order to gain higher trial probability. Mass marketing still is successful, but because of the
criticism of market mavens towards advertising media (Goldsmith, Clark & Goldsmith, 2006)
direct marketing might be a first consideration.
Since it is clear that marketing communication has a positive effect on trial probability and
market mavens have a positive effect on trial probability, it might be interesting for
companies to look at the option for using well-known or famous market mavens (e.g. at
national or regional level) in their marketing communication campaigns. But, as already
mentioned in the limitations / further research part, this is just a premise which needs to be
tested yet.
22
References
Arndt, J. (1967), “Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 4 (August), 291 – 295.
Ataman, M. B., Mela, C. F. and Van Heerde, H. J. (2008), “Building Brands,” Marketing
Science, 27 (6), 1036 – 1054.
Baumgarten, S. A. (1975), The Innovative Communicator in the Diffusion Process,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 12 (February), 12 – 18.
Bertrandias, L. and Goldsmith, R. E. (2006), “Some psychological motivations for fashion
opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking,” Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 10 (1), 25 – 40.
Blythe, J. (2000), “Marketing Communications,” Edinburgh: Pearson Educations, Financial
Times / Prentice-Hall.
Chan, K. K. and Misra, S. (1990), “Characteristics of the Opinion Leader: A New
Dimension,” Journal of Advertising, 19 (3), 53 – 60.
Clark, K. B. and Fujimoto, T. (1991), “Product Development Performance,” Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Clark, R. A. and Goldsmith, R. E. (2005), “Market mavens: psychological influences,”
Psychological Marketing, 22 (4), 289 – 312.
Dawar, N., Parker, P. and Price, L. J. (1996), “A Cross-Cultural Study of Interpersonal
Information Exchange,” Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (3), 497 – 517.
Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. E. (1998), “A Communication-Based Marketing Model for
Managing Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (April), 1 – 13.
Engelland, B. T., Hopkins, C. D. and Larson, D. A. (2001), “Market mavenship as influencer
of service quality evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9, 15 – 26.
Erickson, W. (1991), “Frequency marketing is the repeat business,” Marketing News, 25 (4),
9.
23
Feick, L. F. and Price, L. L. (1987), “The Market Maven: A Diffuser of Marketplace
Information,” Journal of Marketing, 51 (January), 83 – 97.
Feldman, S. P. (1966), “Some dyadic relationships associated with consumer choice,” in
Science, technology and marketing, Hass, R. M. (Ed.), Chicago, IL: AMA, 758 – 776.
Fill, C. (1999), “Marketing Communications: Context, Contents and Strategies, 2nd Edition,”
Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall.
---- (2005), “Marketing Communications: Engagement, Strategies and Practice, 4th
Edition,” Financial Times: Prentice-Hall.
Flynn, L. R., Goldsmith, R. E. and Eastman, J. K. (1996), “Opinion leaders and opinion
seekers: Two new measurement scales,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24
(2), 137 – 147.
Girardi, A., Soutar, G. N. and Ward, S. (2005), “The validation of a use innovativeness scale,”
European Journal of Innovation Management, 8 (4), 471 – 481.
Goldsmith, R. E., Clark, R. A. and Goldsmith, E. B. (2006), “Extending the psychological
profile of market mavenism,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5 (Sep. – Oct.), 411 – 419.
Hanna, N., Ayers, D. J., Ridnour, R. E. and Gordon, G. L. (1995), “New product development
practices in consumer versus business products organizations,” Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 4 (1), 33 – 55.
Hardie, B. G. S., Fader, P. S. and Wisniewski, M. (1998), “An Empirical Comparison of New
Product Trial Forecasting Models,” Journal of Forecasting, 17, 209 – 229.
Januz, L. R. (1982), “Retailers Should Use Direct Marketing to Improve Sales,” Marketing
News, 16 (8), 11.
Keller, E. and Berry, J. (2003), “The Influentials,” New York: The Free Press.
Keller, K. L. (2001), “Mastering the marketing communications mix: micro and macro
perspectives on integrated marketing communications programs,” Journal of Marketing
Management, 17, 819 – 847.
King, C. W. and Summers, J. O. (1970), “Overlap of Opinion Leadership Across Consumer
Product Categories,” Journal of Marketing Research, 7 (February), 43 – 50.
24
Midgley, D. F. and Dowling, G. R. (1978), “Innovativeness: The Concept and Its
Measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (4), 229 – 242.
Myers, J. H. and Robertson, T. S. (1972), “Dimensions of Opinion Leadership,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 9 (February), 41 – 46.
Mohr, J. J. and Nevin, J. R. (1990), “Communication strategies in marketing channels: a
theoretical perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (October), 36 – 51.
Mooradian, T. A. (1996), “The five factor model and market mavenship,” in Advances in
Consumer Research, Corfman, K. P and Lynch, Jr., J. G. (Eds.), 23, 26 – 33.
Mouland, W. (2002), “ Hitting your target with direct mail coupons: how to generate product
trial, while increasing market share and brand sales,” Marketing Magazine, 107 (22), 19.
Narasimhan, C., Neslin, S. A. and Sen, S. K. (1996), “Promotional Elasticities and Category
Characteristics,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (April), 17 – 30.
Nowak, G. J. and Phelps, J. E. (1995), “Direct marketing and the Use of Individual-Level
Consumer Information: Determining how and When “Privacy” Matters,” Journal of Direct
Marketing, 9 (3), 46 – 60.
Price, L. L. and Feick, L. F. (1984), “The Role of Interpersonal Sources in External Search:
An Informational Perspective,” Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 250 – 255.
----, ---- and Guskey-Federouch, A. (1988), “Coupon behaviors of the market maven:
Profile of a super couponer,” In Houston, M. J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer
Research, 15, 354 – 359.
Ratchford, B. T. (1982), “Cost-benefit models for explaining consumer choice and
information seeking behavior,” Management Science, 28 (2), 197 – 211.
Rogers, E. M. (1962), “Diffusion of Innovations,” New York: The Free Press.
---- (1983), “Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edition,” New York: The Free Press.
---- (1995), “Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edition,” New York: The Free Press.
---- and Shoemaker, F. F. (1971), “Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural
Approach,” New York: The Free Press.
25
Ruvio, A. and Shoham, A. (2007), “Innovativeness, Exploratory Behavior, Market
Mavenship, and Opinion Leadership: An Empirical Examination in the Asian Context,”
Psychology & Marketing, 24 (8), 703 – 722.
Sheth, J. N. (1968), “Perceived risk and diffusion of innovation.” In Insights into Consumer
Behavior, Arndt, J. (Ed.), Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 173 – 188.
Shoham, A. and Ruvio, A. (2008), “Opinion leaders and followers: A replication and
extension,” Psychology and Marketing, 25 (3), 280 – 297.
Siedlecki, R. (2000), “Applying Successful Direct Marketing Methods to your Web Site…
and Enjoy More Profitable Sales,” Direct Marketing, 62 (11), 24 – 26 + 56.
Slama, M. E., Nataraajan, R. and Williams, T. G. (1992), “Market mavens and the
relationship between smart buying and information provision: An exploratory study,” in
Developments in marketing science, V. L. Crittenden (Ed.), Chestnut Hill, MA: Academy of
Marketing Science, 15, 90 – 93.
Sohn, Y. (2005), “Opinion leaders and seekers in online brand communities: Centered on
Korean digital camera brand communities. An unpublished Master of Science thesis,
Department of Communication, Florida State University.
Steenkamp, J-B. E. M. and Gielens, K. (2003), “Consumer and Market Drivers of the Trial
Probability of New Consumer Packaged Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (3), 368
– 384.
Summers, J. O. (1970), “The Identity of Women’s Clothing Fashion Opinion Leaders,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 7 (May), 178 – 185.
Thomas, A. R. (2007), “The end of mass marketing: or, why all successful marketing is now
direct marketing,” Direct Marketing, 1 (1), 6 – 16.
Thorelli, H. B., Becker, H. and Engledow, J. (1975), “The Information Seekers: An
International Study of Consumer Information and Advertising Image,” Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.
Varey, R. J. (2001), “Marketing Communication: A Critical Introduction,” Routledge.
26
Venkatraman, N. (1989), “The Concept of Fit in Strategy Research: Towards Verbal and
Statistical Correspondence,” Academy of Management Review, 14, 423 – 444.
Walsh, G., Gwinner, K. P. and Swanson, S. R. (2004), “What makes market mavens tick?
Exploring the motives of market mavens’ Initiation of information diffusion,” Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 21 (2/3), 109 – 122.
---- and Mitchell, Y.-W. (2000), “German market mavens’ decision making styles,” in
Marketing in a Global Economy, Proceedings of the AMA International Marketing
Educators’ Conference, Van Gorp Cooley, F. (ed.), American Marketing Association:
Buenos Aires, Argentina, 312 – 313.
Williams, T. G. and Slama, M. E. (1995), “Market mavens’ purchase decision evaluative
criteria: Implications for brand and store promotion efforts,” Journal of Consumer Marketing,
12 (3), 4 – 21.
Wright, C. R. and Cantor, M. (1967), “The Opinion Seeker and Avoider: Steps Beyond the
Opinion Leader Concept,” The Pacific Sociological Review, 10 (Spring), 33 - 43.
27