In “Mood States of Shoppers and Store Image: Promising Interactions and Possible Behavioral Effects,” Sherman and Smith (1987) evaluate the concept of consumer mood and how it pertains to their behavior in shopping. They used Mehrabian’s mood scale in order to measure the moods of the sample consumers in their study, as well as how they perceived the image of the store in order to see how it affected shopping behavior. The aim of this study was to provide market researchers with information on how to improve store image and consumer mood in a way that would increase sales and encourage better shopping behavior.
The shoppers that were sampled were interviewed using the Mehrabian-Russell scale for consumer behavior, which examines three basic emotional states that determine purchases and shopping behavior: pleasure, arousal, and dominance. (p. 252) They based these criteria on store images that were presented to them, which usually had varying degrees of uncrowdedness, excitement and pleasantness. It was determined that these factors interacted with the emotional states seen in the Mehrabian-Russell scale in a way that affected which stores they shopped at, or which they had a better emotional experience with. The results of the study indicate that the mood of the consumer and how high quality they perceive the store to be can, in fact, affect buying behavior. (p. 253)
In “The Discounting of Discounts and Promotion Thresholds,” Gupta and Cooper (1992) discuss price promotions and how they affect consumer behavior. For the most part, it is determined that discounting can often act as a deterrent to consumer’s purchasing of it, unless it is used in the right way. This can affect store image, which will also diminish or enhance the consumer’s trust in the business. The research indicates that consumers are far more likely to invest in a name brand if there is only a small discount applied to it, as a larger discount will make a consumer think something is wrong with it. However, a large discount applied to a store brand product will be more sought after. This denotes a difference between the consumers who look for name brands and those who look for store brands – store-brand seekers are looking for the big bargain, so a huge discount will curry a lot more favor with them. On the other hand, people who want name brands are looking for high quality items, and therefore the price will be less of an object. These people will not be swayed as much by a discount. (p. 401)
In “The Effect of Store Name, Brand Name and Price Discounts on Consumers’ Evaluations and Purchase Intentions,” Grewal et al. (1999) discuss a similar issue, but also incorporate the perceptions of value and brand quality into how the products are perceived by the customer, especially when there are discounts. The store image itself can suffer when there are a lot of discounts, as customers trust stores that purport to carry a large number of high-end products. A dramatic change in store image from a discount store to a high-end retailer can often take some time to implement, and may lead to the store closing. (p. 2) The need for store image improvement is made more pressing with the Internet making competition global, and it has been claimed that price promotions do not build sales. Despite their ability to generate traffic, a discounted item is thought to be of poorer quality, thus destroying the store’s image.
There is a close correlation, as well, between the store image and store brand products, as the store brand products are typically considered the low-quality alternative. Therefore, this effect can bleed over into perception of the store’s reputation and quality. Perceived value of a product is important to both consumers and retailers; it is important to find a paid price that will be lower than the individual’s reference price for the item, as it is only then that they will feel it is a bargain. (p. 6)
References
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., & Borin, N. The Effect of Store Name, Brand Name and
Price Discounts on Consumer’s Evaluations and Purchase Intentions. California Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1999. Retrieved April 15, 2011 from
