The study draws attention to the increasing number of aging consumers who have been a neglected group in past studies on non-prescription medicines. Past research has shown that perceived risk is a critical determinant of high-risk products such as pharmaceuticals. To reduce that perception, extant consumer literature suggests that consumers use intrinsic product cues, as they connote more risk-reducing information than extrinsic cues, although they are also used as a significant variable for that purpose. Focusing on these salient product cues, a conjoint study was performed with two product types for two age groups to examine if the impact of the cues varied according to age. Results suggest that the impact of some cues may be culturally bounded and some product related, but the impact of packaging-related cues of colour in particular seems to change in relation to age. The results put forward that segmentation due to aging in response to packaging design may lead to more effective marketing.
MoschisGPFriendSB. Segmenting the preferences and usage patterns of the mature consumer health-care market. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing2008; 2(1): 7–21.
2.
DeLormeDEHuhJReidLN. Seniors’ perceptions of prescription drug information sources. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing2007; 1(2): 107–127.
3.
SansgirySSCadyPS. Effects on information processing from over-the-counter medication labels. Health Marketing Quarterly1996; 19(1): 61–78.
4.
ChisolmDJBuchananL. Measuring adolescent functional health literacy: a pilot validation of the test of functional health literacy in adults. Journal of Adolescent Health2007; 41(3): 312–314.
5.
MiyazakiADGrewalDGoodsteinRC. The effect of multiple extrinsic cues on quality perceptions: a matter of consistency. Journal of Consumer Research2005; 32(1): 146–153.
6.
MitchellVWCreatorexM. Risk reducing strategies used in the purchase of vine in the UK. European Journal of Marketing1989; 23(9): 31–46.
7.
MuellerSSzolnokiG. The relative influence of packaging, labelling, branding and sensory attributes on liking and purchase intent: Consumers differ in their responsiveness. Food Quality and Preference2010; 21(7): 774–783.
8.
MossGSchuilingI. A brand logic for pharma?: A possible strategy based on FMCG experience. International Journal of Medical Marketing2004; 4(1): 55–62.
9.
LaukkanenTSinkkonenSKivijärviMLaukkanenP. Innovation resistance among mature consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing2007; 24(7): 419–427.
10.
Minkus-McKennaDBeckleyJMoskowitzHD. Evaluation of in-market communications of selected OTC products targeted to older consumers. Journal of Medical Marketing2006; 6(3): 222–232.
11.
KennettPAMoschisGPBellengerDN. Marketing financial services to mature consumers. Journal of Services Marketing1995; 9(2): 62–72.
12.
MoschisGP. Marketing to older adults: an updated overview of present knowledge and practice. Journal of Consumer Marketing2003; 20(6): 516–525.
13.
WilliamsPDroletA. Age-related differences in responses to emotional advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research2005; 32(4): 343–354.
14.
LarocheMClevelandMBrowneE. Exploring age-related differences in information acquisition for a gift purchase. Journal of Economic Psychology2004; 25(1): 61–95.
15.
LumpkinJRGreenbergBAGoldstuckerJL. Marketplace needs of the elderly: determinant attributes and store choice. Journal of Retailing1985; 61(2): 75–105.
16.
LeventhalRC. Aging consumers and their effects on the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Marketing1997; 14(4): 276–281.
17.
HiteREBellizziJA. Consumers’ attitudes toward accountants, lawyers, and physicians with respect to advertising professional services. Journal of Advertising Research1986; 26(3): 45–54.
18.
SchufeldtLOatesBVaughtB. Is lifestyle an important factor in the purchase of OTC drugs by the elderly?Journal of Consumer Marketing1998; 15(2): 111–124.
WiedmannK-PHennigsNPankallaLKassubekMSeegebarthBReehM-O. Online distribution of pharmaceuticals: investigating relations of consumers’ value perception, online shopping attitudes and behaviour in an e-pharmacy context. Journal of Customer Behaviour2010; 9(2): 175–199.
21.
DholakiaUM. A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception. European Journal of Marketing2001; 35(11/12): 1340–1360.
22.
ErdemTSwaitJ. Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research2004; 31(1): 191–198.
23.
BansalHSVoyerPA. Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research2000; 3(2): 166–177.
24.
ForsytheSShiB. Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in internet shopping. Journal of Business Research2003; 56(11): 867–875.
25.
de MortangesCPRietbroekJ-WMacLeanJC. Marketing pharmaceuticals in Japan: background and the experience of US firms. European Journal of Marketing1997; 31(8): 561–582.
26.
CarvalhoSWBlockLGSivaramakrishnanSManchandaRVMitakakisC. Risk perception and risk avoidance: The role of cultural identity and personal relevance. International Journal of Research in Marketing2008; 25(4): 319–326.
27.
AquevequeC. Extrinsic cues and perceived risk: the influence of consumption situation. Journal of Consumer Marketing2006; 23(5): 237–247.
28.
TseA.C.B. Factors affecting consumer perceptions on product safety. European Journal of Marketing1999; 33(9/10): 911–925.
29.
SrinivasanNJainSCSikandK. An experimental study of two dimensions of country of origin (manufacturing country and branding country) using intrinsic and extrinsic cues. International Business Review2004; 13(1): 65–82.
30.
PecotichAWardS. Global branding, country of origin and expertise: An experimental evaluation. International Marketing Review2007; 24(3): 271–296.
31.
FergusonJLDadzieKQJohnstonWJ. Country-of-origin effects in service evaluation in emerging markets: some insights from five West African countries. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing2008; 23(6): 429–437.
32.
VealeRQuesterP. Do consumer expectations match experience? Predicting the influence of price and country of origin on perceptions of product quality. International Business Review2009; 18(2): 134–144.
33.
PurohitDSrivastavaJ. Effect of manufacturer reputation, retailer reputation, and product warranty on consumer judgments of product quality: a cue diagnosticity framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology2001; 10(3): 123–134.
34.
YeungR.M.WYeeW.M.S. Risk reduction: an insight from the UK poultry industry. Nutrition & Food Science2003; 33(5): 219–229.
35.
Kauppinen-RäisänenHLuomalaHT. Exploring consumers’ product-specific colour meanings. International Journal of Qualitative Market Research2010; 13(3): 287–308.
36.
FunkDNdubisiNO. Colour and product choice: a study of gender roles. Management Research News2006; 29(1/2): 41–52.
37.
CreusenM.E.HSchoormansJ.P.L. The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management2005; 22(1): 63–81.
38.
BlochPBrunelFFArnoldTJ. Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: concepts and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research2003; 29(4): 551–565.
39.
PaddisonAOlsenK. Painkiller purchasing in the UK. An exploratory study of information. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing2008; 2(4): 284–306.
40.
Garber LL. Jr Burke R and Jones JM (2000) The role of package color in consumer purchase consideration and choice. Working Paper 00–104, Marketing Science Institute.
41.
SchoormansJ.P.LRobbenH.S.J. Effect of new package design on product attention, categorization and evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology1997; 18(2/3): 271–287.
42.
McCarthyMSMothersbaughDL. Effects of typographic factors in advertising-based persuasion: a general model and initial empirical tests. Psychology & Marketing2002; 19(7/8): 663–691.
43.
MundellH. How the color mafia chooses your clothes. American Demographics1993; 15(11): 21–23.
44.
WalshLMTomaRBTuvesonRVSondhiL. Colour preference and food choice among children. The Journal of Psychology1990; 124(6): 645–653.
45.
JacobsLKWorthleyRGhymnK–I. Cross-cultural colour comparisons: global marketers beware. International Marketing Review1991; 8(3): 21–30.
46.
UnderwoodRL. The communicative power of product packaging: creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice2003; 11(1): 62–77.
47.
DittmarM. Changing colour preferences with ageing: a comparative study on younger and older native Germans aged 19–90 years. Gerontology2001; 47(4): 765–781.
48.
DoyleJRBottomleyPA. Dressed for the occasion: font–product congruity in the perception of logotype. Journal of Consumer Psychology2006; 16(2): 112–123.
49.
SilayoiPSpeeceM. The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis approach. European Journal of Marketing2007; 41(11/12): 1495–1517.
50.
RaghubirPKrishnaA. Vital dimensions in volume perception: Can the eye fool the stomach?Journal of Marketing Research1999; 36(3): 313–326.
51.
FolkesVMattaS. The effect of package shape on consumers’ judgments of product volume: Attention as a mental contaminant. Journal of Consumer Research2004; 31(2): 390–401.
52.
GarberLLJrHyattEMBoyaÜ.Ö. Does visual package clutter obscure the communicability of food package shape. Journal of Food Products Marketing2008; 14(4): 21–32.
53.
GarberLLJrHyattEMBoyaÜ.Ö. The effect of package shape on apparent volume: an exploratory study with implications for package design. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice2009; 17(3): 215–234.
54.
GreenPESrinivasanV. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing1990; 54(4): 3–19.
55.
TharpMMarksL. An examination of the effects of attribute order and product order biases in conjoint analysis. Advances in Consumer Research1990; 17(1): 563–570.
56.
HairJFJr.AndersonRETathamRLBlackWC. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings1998, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
57.
HailuGBoeckerAHensonSCranfieldJ. Consumer valuation of functional foods and nutraceuticals in Canada. A conjoint study using probiotics. Appetite2009; 52(2): 257–265.
58.
KumarR. Research Methodology2005, London: Sage.
59.
DibbS. Market segmentation implementation barriers and how to overcome them. The Marketing Review2005; 5(1): 13–30.
60.
LindridgeADibbS. Is ‘culture’ a justifiable variable for market segmentation? a cross-cultural example. Journal of Consumer Behaviour2003; 2(3): 269–286.
61.
Dutta-BergmanMJ. The demographic and psychographic antecedents of attitude toward advertising. Journal of Advertising Research2006; 46(1): 102–112.
62.
BruwerJLiEReidM. Segmentation of the Australian wine market using a wine-related lifestyle approach. Journal of Wine Research2002; 13(3): 217–242.
63.
WedelMKamakuraWA. Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations2000, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
64.
KovalchikSCamererCFGretherDMPlottCRAllmanJM. Aging and decision making: a comparison between neurologically healthy elderly and young individuals. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization2005; 58(1): 79–94.
