The influence of price and label on the consumption of persuasive packaging: considerations for the development of products
Solon Bevilacqua, Pedro Capingote
Abstract
Labels acts as a silent seller, showing product characteristics and benefits. In the area of product development, this practice could suggest persuasion and seduction through abusing practices as Greenwashing, Trade Dress, and questionable quality certifications. In this context, this paper has the objective of researching price and label information influence in persuasive packaging consumption. Two paired experiments analyze price and information influences, manipulating these variables (price and label information) to verify behavior on 60 frequent consumers. Promotional price tags and new labels were created in order to verify consumer choices. Contrary to expectations, despite of warnings about suspicious strategies used in packaging, consumers kept buying small amounts and products of lower quality or unethical, because of their lower prices. We conclude that increasing each product’s information on the label, will not inhibit persuasive product consumption, otherwise will improve the final decision, just like it will improve the choosing process of products’ baskets. Theoretical contribution: the consumer should be seen as an individual of groupings of products and not of isolated items. Excession is made for the case of Greenwhasing which has presented itself as an effective practice of market seduction. Consumer units or Diderot units have been investigated as a consumer effect for a specific consumer choice over subsequent goods. Practical contribution: from applied studies aimed at the search for consumer well-being and quality of life, we seek in this study to highlight healthy marketing practices that have less adverse effects on consumption and after sales of goods. Studies on Transformative Consumer Research.
Keywords
References
BALDASSARRE, F.; CAMPO, R. Sustainability as a marketing tool: to be or to appear to be? Business Horizons, v. 59, n. 4, p. 421-429, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.005.
BARBOSA, L.; CAMPBELL, C. Cultura, consumo e identidade. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2006.
BELK, R. Possessions and the extended self. The Journal of Consumer Research, v. 15, p. 139-168, 1995.
BELL, M.; EMORY, W. The faltering marketing concept. Journal of Marketing, v. 35, n. 4, p. 37-42, 1971. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1250455.
BERGER, J. Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: a review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, v. 24, n. 4, p. 586-607, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.002.
BHATTACHERJEE, A.; SANFORD, C. Influence processes for information tech-nology acceptance: an elaboration likelihood model. Management Information Systems Quarterly, v. 30, n. 4, p. 805-825, 2006.
BOUSH, D. M.; FRIESTAD, M.; WRIGHT, P. (2009). Deception in the marketplace: the psychology of deceptive persuasion and consumer self-protection. New York: Routledge.
BUBLITZ, F. et al. Pervasive advertising: an approach for consumers and advertisers. In: IEEE INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON CONSUMER ELECTRONICS, 3., 2013, Berlin. Proceedings... USA: IEEE, 2013. p. 290-294.
CAMPBELL, C. The romantic ethic and the spirit of modern consumerism. Oxford: WritersPrintShop, 2005.
CIALDINI, R. B. Influence: science and practice. New York: Haper Colins, 2001.
CLEMENT, J.; KRISTENSEN, T.; GRØNHAUG, K. Understanding consumers’ in-store visual perception: the influence of package design features on visual attention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, v. 20, n. 2, p. 234-239, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.01.003.
CONSELHO BRASILEIRO DE AUTORREGULAMENTAÇÃO PUBLICITÁRIA. Boletim do CONAR, v. 212, 2017. Disponível em:
DAS, G. Influence of salespersons’ nonverbal communication cues on consumer shopping behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, v. 31, p. 199-206, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.02.009.
DAVIS, B.; PECHMANN, C. Introduction to the Special Issue on transformative consumer research: developing theory to mobilize efforts that improve consumer and societal well-being. Journal of Business Research, v. 66, n. 8, p. 1168-1170, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.008.
DICHTER, E. The package and the label. London: Packaging Carton Research Council, 1957.
DOUGLAS, M.; ISHERWOOD, B.; DENTZIEN, P. O mundo dos bens: para uma antropologia do consumo. Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ, 2013.
FOURNIER, S. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. The Journal of Consumer Research, v. 24, n. 4, p. 343-373, 1998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209515.
GOMEZ, P.; TORELLI, C. J. It’s not just numbers: cultural identities influence how nutrition information influences the valuation of foods. Journal of Consumer Psychology, v. 25, n. 3, p. 404-415, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.01.005.
HANSEN, U. Verpackung und konsumentenverhalten (packaging and consumer attitudes). Journal of Marketing Management, v. 8, n. 1, p. 5-12, 1986.
KAPTEIN, M.; ECKLES, D. Heterogeneity in the effects of online persuasion. Journal of Interactive Marketing, v. 26, n. 3, p. 176-188, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.02.002.
KETELAAR, P. E. et al. The success of viral ads: social and attitudinal predictors of consumer pass-on behavior on social network sites. Journal of Business Research, v. 69, n. 7, p. 2603-2613, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.151.
KLUCHAREV, V.; SMIDTS, A.; FERNÁNDEZ, G. Brain mechanisms of persuasion: how ‘expert power’modulates memory and attitudes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, v. 3, n. 4, p. 353-366, 2008. PMid:19015077. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsn022.
KUKAR-KINNEY, M.; SCHEINBAUM, A. C.; SCHAEFERS, T. Compulsive buying in online daily deal settings: an investigation of motivations and contextual elements. Journal of Business Research, v. 69, n. 2, p. 691-699, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.08.021.
KUPOR, D. M.; TORMALA, Z. L.; NORTON, M. I. The allure of unknown outcomes: exploring the role of uncertainty in the preference for potential. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, v. 55, p. 210-216, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.004.
LE ROUX, A.; BOBRIE, F.; THÉBAULT, M. A typology of brand counterfeiting and imitation based on a semiotic approach. Journal of Business Research, v. 69, n. 1, p. 349-356, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.08.007.
LEWIS, M. Understanding brands. London: Kogan Page, 1991.
LUEDICKE, C. J.; THOMPSON, M.; GIESLER, M. Consumer identity work as moral protagonism: How myth and ideology animate a brand-mediated moral conflict. The Journal of Consumer Research, v. 36, n. 6, p. 1016-1032, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/644761.
MAHONEY, L. S. et al. A research note on standalone corporate social responsibility reports: signaling or greenwashing? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, v. 24, n. 4, p. 350-359, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.09.008.
MARTINHO, G. et al. Factors affecting consumers’ choices concerning sustainable packaging during product purchase and recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, v. 103, p. 58-68, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.07.012.
MCCRAKEN, G. D. Culture and consumption: new approaches to the symbolic character of consumer goods and activities. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1990.
MICK, D. G. et al. Transformative consumer research for personal and collective well-being. New York: Routledge, 2012.
MILLER, D. A theory of shopping. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
MODIC, D. Willing to be scammed: how self-control impacts Internet scam. Exeter: University of Exeter, 2013.
MODIC, D.; ANDERSON, R. Reading this may harm your computer: the psychology of malware warnings. Computers in Human Behavior, v. 41, p. 71-79, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.014.
MODIC, D.; LEA, S. E. G. (2013). Scam Compliance and the Psychology of Persuasion. Social Sciences Research Network. In press.
MOWEN, J. C.; MINOR, M. S. Consumer behavior: a framework. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, 2003.
PARSONS, T. On the concept of influence. Public Opinion Quarterly, v. 27, n. 1, p. 37-62, 1963. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/267148.
PASCAL, B. De l’esprit géométrique. In: CLAIR, A. (Ed.). Ecrits sur la Grace et autres textes. Paris: Flammarion, 1985.
PERLOFF, R. M. The dynamics of persuasion: communication and attitudes in the twenty-first century. Routledge, 2010.
PERUZZOLO, A. C. Persuasão, erotismo e sedução. Comunicação Mídia e Consumo, v. 7, n. 20, p. 317-334, 2011.
PILDITCH, J. Packaging for profits: a perfectly sound product idea can be sidelined by attractive but impractical packaging. American Demographics, v. 33, 1961.
PRATKANIS, A. R. (Ed.). The science of social influence: advances and future progress. Psychology Press, 2011.
REICH, T.; TORMALA, Z. L. When contradictions foster persuasion: an attributional perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, v. 49, n. 3, p. 426-439, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.004.
SHETH, J. N.; PARVATLYAR, A. Relationship marketing in consumer markets: antecedents and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, v. 23, n. 4, p. 255-271, 1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009207039502300405.
SIDMAN, M. Coercion and its fallout. Boston, 1989.
SILVA, A. R. et al. Impact of sustainability labeling in the perception of sensory quality and purchase intention of chocolate consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 141, p. 11-21, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.024.
SIMMONDS, G.; SPENCE, C. Thinking inside the box: How seeing products on, or through, the packaging influences consumer perceptions and purchase behaviour. Food Quality and Preference, 2016.
SUSSMAN, S. W.; SIEGAL, W. S. Informational influence in organizations: an integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research, v. 14, n. 1, p. 47-65, 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.1.47.14767.
WILLIAMS, P.; FITZSIMONS, G. J.; BLOCK, L. G. When consumers don’t recognize “benign” intentions questions as persuasion attempts. The Journal of Consumer Research, v. 21, n. 3, p. 540-550, 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/425088.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email