Author

  • Manash Pratim Kashyap

    • Department of Business Administration, Assam University, Silchar, Assam, India
    • India

  • Dibyojyoti Bhattacharjee

    • Department of Business Administration, Assam University, Silchar, Assam, India
    • India

Abstract

The main purpose of the paper is to measure and compare the awareness set, consideration set and choice set of rural and urban population. The brand categorization process in an important aspect of consumer behavior and is useful in understanding how a consumer chooses a particular brand. The focus of this work is to compare the brand categorization process of rural and urban consumers. The consumer’s choice process, on some selected staple goods viz. rice, salt, edible oil and tea for rural and urban customers are considered. The study reaches the conclusion that the awareness set size and the consideration set size does not differ significantly for urban and rural consumers but the choice set size differs for rice. For salt and edible oil the rural customers seems to be more aware though there consideration set size and choice set size do not show any significant difference. However, for tea the urban folk have a bigger consideration set and choice set compared to the rural population.

Keywords

References

  • Belonax, J., A., Jr. (1979). Decision rule uncertainty, evoked set size, and task difficulty as a function of number of choice criteria and information variability. Advance Consumer Research . Ed. H. Keith Hunt. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research: 48-51.
  • Brisoux, J., E. & Laroche, M. (1980). A Proposed Consumer Strategy of Simplification for Categorizing Brands Evolving Marketing thought for 1980 . Eds. John H. Summey and Ronald D. Taylor. Carbondale, IL: Southern Marketing Association, 112-114.
  • Brown, J. J. & Wildt, A. R. (1992). Consideration set measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 20(3): 235-243.
  • Campbell, B., M. (1969). The Existence and Determinants of Evoked Set in Brand Choice Behavior. Ph. D Dissertation, Columbia University.
  • Chintagunta, P., K. (1992). Estimating a multinomial probit model of brand choice using the method of simulated moments. Marketing science, 11(4): 386-407.
  • Church, N., J., Laroche, M. & Rosenblatt, J., A. (1985). Consumer brand categorization for durables with limited problem solving: An empirical test and proposed extension of the Brisoux-Laroche model. Journal of Economic Psychology , 6: 231-253.
  • Cullen, F. & Kingston, H. (2009). Analysis of rural and urban consumer behavior toward new food products using a food-related lifestyle instrument. Journal of Foods Service Business Research, 12(1): 18-41.
  • Desai, K., K. & Hoyer, W., D. (2000). Descriptive characteristics of memory-based consideration sets: influence of usage occasion frequency and usage location familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research , 27 (Dec): 309-323.
  • Desarbo, W. S. & Jedidi, K. (1995). The spatial representation of heterogeneous consideration sets. Marketing Science , 14(3): 326-342.
  • Elrod, T. & Keane. M., P. (1994). A factor-analytic model for representing the market structure in panel data. Journal of Marketing Research , 32(February): 1-16.
  • Guadangi, P., M. & Little, J. D. C. (1983). A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data. Marketing Science, 2 (3): 203-238.
  • Hauber, J. & Kline, N., M. (1991). Adapting cut offs to the choice environment: The effects of attribute correlation and reliability. Journal of Consumer Research , 18(December): 346-357.
  • Hauser, J., R. & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). An evaluation cost model of evoked sets. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (March): 393-408.
  • Howard, J., A. (1963). Marketing Management, Analysis and Planning, Irwin.
  • Howard, J., A. (1977). Consumer Behaviour: Application of Theory, McGraw-Hill.
  • Howard, J., A. & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Willey.
  • Jarvis, L. P. & Wilcox, J. (1973). Evoked set size: some theoretical foundations and empirical evidence. In Combined Proceedings, ed. T.V. Greer Chicago: American marketing Association, 236-240.
  • Kardes, F., R., Gurumurthy, K., Murali, C. & Ronald, J., D. (1993). Brand retrieval, consideration set composition, consumer choice, and the pioneering advantage. Journal of Consumer Researc h, 20 (June): 62-73.
  • Kotler, P. (2002). Marketing Management. 10th Ed. 397.
  • Klenosky, D., B. & Rethans, A., J. (1988). The formation of consumer choice sets: A longitudinal investigation at the product class level. Advances in Consumer Research. Ed . Michael J. Houston. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 13-17.
  • Laroche, M. & Rosenblatt, J. (1983). Brand categorization strategies in RRB situations: Some empirical results. Advance in Consumer Research , 10: 549-554.
  • Maddox, R., N., Gronhaug, K., Homans, R., E. & Fredrick, E. (1978). Correlates of information gathering and evoked set size for new automobile purchasers in Norway and the U.S. Advances in consumer Research Edition H. Keith Hunt. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 167-170.
  • Mehta, N., Rajiv, S. & Srinivasan, K. (2003). Price uncertainty and consumer search: A structural model of consideration set formation. Marketing Science , 22(1): 58-84.
  • Myers, J., H. (1976). Benefit structure analysis: A new tool for product planning. Journal of Marketing, 40(October): 23-32.
  • Narayana, C., L. & Markin, R., J. (1975). Consumer behaviour and product performance: An alternative conceptualization, Journal of Marketing, 39: 1-6.
  • Nedungadi, P. (1987). Formation and Use of a Consideration Set: Implications of Marketing and Research on Consumer Choice. PhD Dissertation, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
  • Nedungadi, P. (1990). Recall and consumer consideration sets: Influencing choice without altering brand evaluations. The Journal of Consumer Research , 17(3): 263-276.
  • Ratneshwar, S. & Shocker, A., D. (1991). Substitution in use and the role of usage context in product category structures. Journal of Marketing Research , 28 (August): 281-295.
  • Roberts, J. (1989). A grounded model of consideration set size and composition. Advances in Consumer Research, 16: 749-757.
  • Roberts, J., H. & Lattin, J., M., (1991). Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition. Journal of Marketing Research , 28(November): 429-440.
  • Roger, H. & Hacfen, V. (2008). Latent consideration sets, and continuous demand systems. Marketing Letters , 41: 363-379.
  • Schiffman, L., G. & Kanuk, L., L. (2007), Consumer Behaviour, Edition Ninth Edition.
  • Shari Waters, accessed on 12th May, 2010 from http://retail.about.com/od/glossary/g/staple_goods.html.
  • Sharma, N., K., & Srivastava, K. (2008). Brand extension: strategy for new product of introduction. Indian Journal of Marketing, 38(8): 33-39.
  • Siddarth, S., Buckling, R., E. & Morrison. G., D. (1995). Making the cut: modeling and analyzing choice set restriction in scanner panel data. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(August): 255-266.
  • Shocker, A., D., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B. & Nedungadi, P. (1991). Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, Models, and Suggestions. Marketing Letters , 2(3): 181-197.
  • Troye, S., V. (1984). Evoked set formation as a categorization process. Advances in Consumer research. Ed. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research: 180-186.
  • Vroomen, B., Franses, P., H., & Nierop, E., V. (2004). Modelling consideration sets and brand choice using artificial neural network. European Journal of Operation research. 154(1): 1-19.
  • Wright, P. (1975).Consumer choice strategies: Simplifying vs. Optimizing. Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (February): 60-67.
  • Wright, P. & Barbour, F. (1977). Phased Decision Strategies: Sequels to Initial Screening. Multiple Criteria decision Making: North Holland TIMS Studies in Management Science, M. Starr and M. Zeleny, eds. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company: 91-109.

Downloads

No downloads have been recorded for this article yet. Figures appear here once readers begin downloading the full text.

How to Cite

Kashyap, M. P., & Bhattacharjee, D. (2011). Brand Categorization Process for Staple Goods: Comparison between Rural and Urban Customers. Information Management and Business Review, 2(4), 162-172. https://doi.org/10.22610/imbr.v2i4.895

Share this article

License

Copyright (c) 2011 Manash Pratim Kashyap, Dibyojyoti Bhattacharjee (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team  edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.

This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.

Keywords

Section

Research Paper

Published in

Vol. 2 No. 4 (2011) Responsible Marketing, Enterprise & Human Performance View issue contents

Published

2011-04-15

Submissions

Have research to publish? Information Management and Business Review welcomes submissions.

Make a Submission