* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download The effect of market mavens on trial probability: does marketing
Pricing strategies wikipedia , lookup
Dumping (pricing policy) wikipedia , lookup
Social media marketing wikipedia , lookup
Affiliate marketing wikipedia , lookup
Grey market wikipedia , lookup
First-mover advantage wikipedia , lookup
Market segmentation wikipedia , lookup
Darknet market wikipedia , lookup
Market analysis wikipedia , lookup
Consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup
Food marketing wikipedia , lookup
Market penetration wikipedia , lookup
Ambush marketing wikipedia , lookup
Multi-level marketing wikipedia , lookup
Guerrilla marketing wikipedia , lookup
Digital marketing wikipedia , lookup
Bayesian inference in marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing research wikipedia , lookup
Viral marketing wikipedia , lookup
Target audience wikipedia , lookup
Marketing plan wikipedia , lookup
Product planning wikipedia , lookup
Marketing mix modeling wikipedia , lookup
Marketing communications wikipedia , lookup
Youth marketing wikipedia , lookup
Segmenting-targeting-positioning wikipedia , lookup
Street marketing wikipedia , lookup
Direct marketing wikipedia , lookup
Multicultural marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing channel wikipedia , lookup
Target market wikipedia , lookup
Integrated marketing communications wikipedia , lookup
Neuromarketing wikipedia , lookup
Advertising campaign wikipedia , lookup
Global marketing wikipedia , lookup
Green marketing wikipedia , lookup
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