A framework for market analysis based on customer perceptions of substitutability-in-use is presented. An empirical application in the financial/banking services market is used to illustrate that when product preferences are dependent on the use/consumption context (especially relevant when products have multiple uses), situational variables can help predictive ability, and hierarchical clusters (requiring exclusive group membership) may be misleading. Additionally, it is shown that interactions among situation, product, and person factors may be more managerially meaningful than the main effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbellD. F. (1980), Defining the Business: The Starting Point of Strategic Planning, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2.
AlpertM. I., and PetersonR. A. (1972), “On the Interpretation of Canonical Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (May), 187–192.
3.
ArabiePhipps, Douglas CarrollJ., DeSarboWayne, and WindY. (1981), “Overlapping Clustering: A New Method for Product Positioning,”Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 310–317.
4.
BassFrank M. (1974), “The Theory of Stochastic Preference and Brand-switching,”Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (February), 1–20.
5.
BelkRussell W. (1974), “An Exploratory Assessment of Situational Effects in Buyer Behavior,”Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (May), 156–163.
6.
BelkRussell W. (1975), “Situational Variables and Consumer Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (December), 157–164.
7.
BelkRussell W. (1979), “A Free Response Approach to Developing Product-specific Consumption Situation Taxonomies,” in Analytic Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning, ShockerAllan D., ed., Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 177–196.
8.
ChanKi-Taek, and CampbellJ. B. (1974), “Dimensionality of the Rotter Interpersonal Scale,”Psychological Reports, 35, 1059–1070.
9.
DayGeorge, ShockerAllan D., and SrivastavaRajendra K. (1979), “Identifying Competitive Product Markets: A Review of Customer Oriented Approaches,”Journal of Marketing, 43 (Fall), 8–19.
10.
EndlerNorman S. (1966), “Estimating Variance Components from Mean Squares for Random and Mixed Effect Analysis of Variance Models,”Perceptual and Motor Skills, 22, 559–570.
11.
FennellGeraldine G. (1978), “Perceptions of the Product-use Situation,”Journal of Marketing, 42 (April), 39–47.
12.
HagertyMichael R. (1980), “A Deterministic Model of Consumer Choice,” in Advances in Consumer Research, 7, OlsonJerry C., ed., Ann Arbor, MI: Association of Consumer Research, 129–133.
13.
MillerKenneth C., and GinterJames L. (1979), “An Investigation of Situational Variance in Product Choice Behavior and Attitude,”Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 111–123.
14.
PekelmanDov, and SenSubrata (1976), “Stochastic Weights in Multiattribute Decision Making,” in Advances in Consumer Research, 3, AndersonBeverlee B., ed., Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 81–87.
15.
PengK. C. (1966), The Design and Analysis of Scientific Experiments, Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.
16.
SAS Institute (1981), “The ADCLUS Procedure,” in SAS Supplemental Library User's Guide, Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Institute.
17.
ShepardR. N., and ArabieP. (1979), “Additive Clustering: Representation of Similarities as Combinations of Discrete Overlapping Properties,”Psychological Review, 86, 87–123.
18.
ShockerAllan D., and SrinivasanV. (1979), “Multi-attribute Applications for Product Concept Evaluation and Generation: A Critical Review,”Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (May), 159–180.
19.
SrivastavaRajendra K. (1980), “Usage-situational Influences on Perceptions of Product Markets: Response Homogeneity and Its Implications for Consumer Research,” in Advances in Consumer Research, 7, OlsonJerry, ed., Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 644–649.
20.
SrivastavaRajendra K. (1981), “Usage-situational Influences on Perceptions of Product Markets: Theoretical and Empirical Issues,” in Advances in Consumer Research, 8, MonroeKent, ed., Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 106–111.
21.
SrivastavaRajendra K., LeoneR. P., and ShockerA. D. (1981), “Market Structure Analysis: Hierarchical Clustering of Products Based on Substitution-in-use,”Journal of Marketing, 45 (Summer), 38–48.
22.
SrivastavaRajendra K., ShockerA. D., and DayG. S. (1978), “An Exploratory Study of the Influences of Usage-situations on Perceptions of Product-markets,” in Advances in Consumer Research, 5, Keith HuntH., ed., Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 32–37.
23.
StefflreV. J. (1971), New Products and New Enterprises: A Report of an Experiment in Applied Social Science, Irvine, CA: University of California.
24.
StefflreV. J. (1979), “New Products: Organizational and Technical Problems and Opportunities,” in Analytic Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning, ShockerAllan D., ed., Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 415–480.
25.
UrbanGlen L. (1981), personal communication.
26.
UrbanGlen L., and HauserJohn R. (1980), “Market Definition,” in Design and Marketing of New Products and Services, chapter 5, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
27.
WildtAlbert R., LambertZarrel V., and DurandRichard M. (1982), “Applying the Jackknife Statistic in Testing and Interpreting Canonical Weights, Loadings, and Cross-loadings,”Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (February), 99–107.
28.
WindYoram (1977), “Toward a Change in the Focus of Marketing Analysis: From a Single Brand to an Assortment,”Journal of Marketing, 41 (October), 12, 143.
