Consumer Marketing - Articles
Table of contents
Consumer Marketing - Articles ...................................................................................................... 1
Week 1............................................................................................................................................ 2
How Companies Learn Your Secrets (Duhigg, 2012) à Skimm ................................................... 2
Dueling with desire (Bitterly et al., 2014)..................................................................................... 3
Week 2............................................................................................................................................ 5
To understand consumer behavior, think like a marketplace scientist (Anik. Hauser & Gibson,
2020) à Skimm ........................................................................................................................... 5
Thin slice impressions: How advertising evaluation depends on exposure duration (Elsen et al.,
2016) ........................................................................................................................................... 7
The short- and long-term impact of brand placement in an advertiser-funded TV program on
viewers' attitudes toward the sponsor brand and its main competitor (Verhellen et al., 2015) . 10
Week 3...........................................................................................................................................14
The choice overload: a conceptual review and meta-analysis (Chernev et al., 2015) à Skimm
................................................................................................................................................. 14
The Paradoxical Consequences of Choice: Often Good for the Individual, Perhaps Less So for
Society? (Madan et al., 2020) .................................................................................................... 17
Week 4...........................................................................................................................................19
Zero as a special price: the true value of free products (Shampanier, Mazar & Ariely, 2007) .... 19
Free offer ≠ cheap product: a selective accessibility account on the valuation of free offcers
(Palmeira & Srivastava, 2013) ................................................................................................... 23
Physical contact and financial risk taking (Levav & Argo, 2010) ................................................ 25
I'll have what she's having: effects on social influence and body type on the food choices of
others (McFerran et al., 2010) ................................................................................................... 27
Week 5...........................................................................................................................................30
EpiPen price rise sparks concern for allergy sufferers (Parker-Pope & Peachman, 2016) ......... 30
The differential impact of brand loyalty on traditional and online word of mouth: the
moderating roles of self-brand connection and the desire to help the brand (Eelen et al., 2017)
................................................................................................................................................. 31
Building, measuring, and profiting from customer loyalty (Watson et al., 2015) à Skimm ...... 34
Week 6...........................................................................................................................................36
How the Intention to Share Can Undermine Enjoyment: Photo-Taking Goals and Evaluation of
Experiences (Barasch et al., 2018) ............................................................................................ 36
Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life. (Baumeister et al., 2013) ... 38
,Week 1
How Companies Learn Your Secrets (Duhigg, 2012) à Skimm
In this article, Charles Duhigg explores the methods that businesses, especially retailers like
Target, use to analyze and influence consumer behavior through advanced data analytics and
marketing strategies. The article reveals how companies gain insight into customer preferences
and how they use this knowledge to increase their sales.
1. Data analytics and predictive analytics: Companies collect massive amounts of data
about their customers, including purchase history and demographics. By using
predictive analytics, they can identify patterns in consumer behavior and make
predictions about future purchases, which allows them to adjust marketing strategies
eDectively.
2. Customer segmentation: Customers are categorized based on various criteria, such as
age, gender, and buying behavior. This allows businesses to provide targeted,
personalized oDers that are tailored to the specific needs of diDerent customer groups
3. Information asymmetry: There is a significant gap between what businesses know
about their customers and what consumers know about the data being collected. This
information asymmetry can lead to mistrust and questions about privacy and
transparency.
4. Psychological impact of marketing: Companies apply psychological principles to
influence consumer behavior. This can involve creating a sense of urgency or responding
to emotional needs, making customers more likely to make purchases.
5. Target example: Duhigg describes how Target was able to predict that a customer was
pregnant based purely on her purchases, such as vitamins and baby products. This
example illustrates the eDectiveness of data analytics and how businesses can tailor
their marketing strategies to meet consumer needs, often before consumers themselves
are aware of it.
6. Privacy Concerns: The collection and use of personal data raises significant ethical
questions. Consumers are often unaware of the scope of data collection, which can lead
to uncomfortable situations when sensitive information is revealed without consent.
7. Consumer behavior: Duhigg emphasizes that consumers don't always make rational
decisions; their purchases are often influenced by external factors such as marketing
strategies and oDers.
8. Risk of excessive segmentation: While segmentation helps businesses to better
understand their customers, it can also lead to over-classification, which prevents
individuals' unique preferences and behaviors from being fully recognized.
As businesses continue to innovate in their approaches to marketing and data analytics, it's
crucial for consumers to be aware of their rights and the impact of their data on their buying
experience. The article raises questions about the ethical responsibilities of companies and the
need for transparency in the handling of consumer data.
Conclusion: Through advanced data analytics, businesses are able to accurately predict
consumer behavior and preferences, which helps them to develop personalized marketing
strategies. However, this raises important questions about privacy and the ethical
responsibilities of companies, as consumers are often not fully aware of the data being
collected about them. Duhigg emphasizes the need for consumers to be aware of these
practices and advocates for transparency and respect for privacy in the business-consumer
relationship in the digital age.
Interesting Aspect of the Article: A particularly interesting aspect of Duhigg's article is the way
it highlights the complexity of the relationship between businesses and consumers. Not only
,does it reveal the powerful techniques companies use to understand and influence consumer
behavior, but it also raises important ethical questions about privacy and companies'
responsibility to protect consumers. This tension between marketing eDectiveness and
consumer privacy makes the article highly relevant in the context of today's digital world, where
data collection and analysis are becoming increasingly prominent.
Dueling with desire (Bitterly et al., 2014)
In our daily lives, we often face the tension between what we want to do and what we believe we
should do. Bazerman et al. (1998) refer to this common struggle as the "want/should" conflict.
This conflict arises from the interaction between our "want self", which desires instant
gratification, and our "should self", which advocates for our long-term interests. This leads to
frequent conflicts between our diDerent 'evens'.
Research question: The central research question of the article focuses on the factors
influencing the choice between "want" and "should" options. The authors investigate which
psychological, cognitive, and emotional elements influence individuals' preferences in making
choices that conflict with their desires and obligations.
Hypotheses: Although the article does not explicitly formulate hypotheses, it does present a
theoretical framework that addresses various influencing factors on decision-making. The
research states that the choice between "want" and "should" is influenced by:
• The timing of the decision: People tend to prefer "should" options for the long term, while
they choose "want" options for immediate decisions.
• The cognitive load: The degree to which people feel mentally burdened influences their
preference for "want" or "should".
• The psychological distance from the future: When people feel less connected to their
future selves, they are less likely to make "should" choices.
Purpose: The purpose of the article is to provide insight into the mechanisms that influence the
"want/should" conflict. The authors aim to identify eDective strategies — referred to as "nudges"
— that can help individuals make choices that better align with their long-term goals. The article
also aims to lay a foundation for further research on behavioural change and decision-making.
Interesting aspect: A particularly interesting aspect of the article is the extensive discussion of
the cognitive and emotional factors that influence decision-making. The authors explain how
cognitive load (the mental eDort required to make choices) and mood play an important role in
the preference for "want" or "should" choices. Also discussed is the concept of self-licensing, in
which individuals feel justified in making "want" choices after performing "should" behavior.
Theories: Milkman and co-authors (2008) define choices as relative 'wants' and 'shoulds' using
two criteria:
1. The immediate utility obtained from the 'want' option is greater than the immediate
utility from the 'should' option.
2. The sum of the utility that will be derived from the 'want' option in all future periods is
less than that of the 'should' options.
This model does not take into account the emotions involved in the choices and does not
provide insight into which option is optimal and rational. Over-gratification of 'wants' can
typically come at a higher cost than over-gratification of 'shoulds'.
Moreover, research shows that our limited capacity for self-regulation aDects the outcomes of
the internal battle between 'wants' and 'shoulds'.
The article discusses several relevant theories, including:
, • Dual system theory: Psychologists have proposed a model in which individuals'
decision-making processes are guided by two systems of thought: system 1 and system
2. System 1 is intuitive and automatic, based on emotions, and makes quick judgments
(wants). System 2 is slower and more logical, focused on deliberate reasoning (should).
• Construal level theory (CLT): This theory explains how the distance to an event (in time
or space) aDects the way we represent it mentally; abstractly or concretely, with the
proximity of an event aDecting its mental representation. Abstract ways of thinking
promote the preference for "should" options.
• Selfregulation: This is discussed as a tiresome capacity that is similar to a muscle.
When used excessively, this capacity can weaken, leading to a decrease in the
eDectiveness of self-control. After resisting cravings or performing demanding tasks,
people have less self-control available for future choices, making them more likely to
give in to short-term desires.
Factors influencing the choice between 'want' and 'should':
• Choosing for now or later: People prefer "should" options when making longer-term
decisions, but tend to favor "want" options as choices get closer.
• Cognitive load: The relative strength of responses from system 1 (emotions) and system
2 (deliberate thinking) influences the outcomes of the 'want/should' conflict.
• Construal level: We are more likely to prefer 'shoulds' when we think abstractly and
focus on global, goal-oriented features, as opposed to concrete thinking with a focus on
contextual, superficial features.
• Depletion: Exercising self-control for choosing 'shoulds' takes strength and can reduce
the self-control available for future choices.
• Joint vs separate evaluations: Although 'wants' are often preferred in isolation over
'shoulds', we are more inclined to consider the costs and benefits of options when
evaluating multiple options simultaneously.
• Mood eUects: Emotions can influence the outcomes of the 'want/should' conflict.
• Licensing eUects: People often feel "licensed" to make "want" choices if they think they
have engaged in "should" behavior before.
• Closeness to your future self: A lack of psychological connection to the future self
reduces interest in actions that benefit the self.
• Fresh starts: There are times in time when people are particularly motivated to pursue
their long-term interests.
Key findings:
• People tend to prefer "should" options when making long-term decisions, while they are
more likely to choose "want" options when making immediate decisions.
• Cognitive load has a significant impact on the outcomes of the choices, with a higher
load leading to a greater preference for "want" options.
• The method of evaluation (collectively versus separately) also influences the choices
people make. When options are evaluated collectively, people are better able to
consider the costs and benefits of "should" choices.
• Factors such as mood, self-licensing, and psychological distance from the future self
play an important role in influencing decision-making.
Examples of Nudges: The research emphasizes that our choices between 'wants' and 'shoulds'
are flexible and dependent on the context in which we make decisions. Several "nudges" can
help to increase the preference for 'shoulds':
