-o—O“ \ “ . . 0“- an. . pun... ". _ a- .‘ 0 0 An—\'__ a-" _ .- ' "‘ . . “u...” p-50- " var- . .. ‘ ‘n ' - . o. A _ 0r ‘.4 .. vadco- ,, ‘ O --o- —-'- :V~ f . u. . ‘ -‘ v-;..- --v i- . O " '-~~-.a. ~_ l...‘ '- - “ ' - . .4 h 5. pvt...vu . u..-. ‘ o . _ h“ ' ”a rv-v .. .v.-I .3. v.3» :- ‘ _ ‘_ - . ' ' ‘ V . '.I.. "“‘ 0.... on ‘ _ ~ \..-.-u .a.-- .‘.V ‘ v-- ..__‘- _ . . Ova. ,. “A ". .- -_ " H .. . 0".-U. 3.. -.. u. . o~llqnh Vag'.-'~ h...“ - D‘\ ‘7. obs-o ‘vhbv..~ . > 5 Q-.. P‘- ‘ — p. N "; -.o~. u... .. .. . '3. . .._‘ . p -. u y..." - . h.” . .u.‘.v ‘- W ‘vy . - . ‘ '- ( I- ‘- .. .. \ - '.. ~.. - ‘.-'.. .'~~.~ h--- IF. 1 ‘1‘ c ..p . " v.- \I‘ - ‘-:-FV"= .. 5‘..‘ .- u ,. v-p- .“ y“ 4' _: s "to‘Lv . . .. ;. ‘v._ . I ‘.‘..I ‘ Ava -F'. b'“ I a. _‘ O . 532- ‘ ‘..-.. “4“; -:"t.- ! .,. . “5“ . N. -._‘n: ”z. ' v I . v... “e fink, _ v4. . v‘ u‘ . .” ~ I s ‘a _ ~ 0.... .c-y... “a "v- . - u. -l._: . . I a o A. ~. . ‘- .A . ‘ "h ‘“ “‘ v- - - cv“ ~ray-P.T 1.4 .. R. ‘A .. .'. ‘ O u.,lg~v F‘ 0‘ s r ‘ U‘ A “4-4:. ix .,_ . .": :.'I\F H ”Hat-Zr 3"»: . .‘-‘ a. P ABSTRACT THE IDENTIFICATION OF BEHAVIORAL, KNOWLEDGEABLE, AND DEMOGRAPHIC MARKET SEGMENTS OF PURCHASERS (3F HOUSEHOLD DURABLES BY S tanley Dewayne Sibley Consumers are frequently considered problem solvers in the decision—making process when purchasing goods and services. In the problem solving process consumers can be classified into the following three major stages: (1) extensive problem solving; (2) limited problem solving; or (3) routinized response problem solving. The stages, dependent upon the degree of consumer simplification of the purchasing problem for a given good or service, suggest that consumers will vary on the extensiveness of brand, store, and brand-store search activities in the market- place and will perhaps differ on the amount of unused and total brand, store, and brand-store knowledge. The con- sumer shopping activity and unused knowledge of brands and stores can be combined for distinguishing among four major market segments--(l) the active shopper and high knower of unused brands and stores, (2) the active shopper and low knower of unused brands and stores, (3) the inactive shopper and high knower of unused brands and ,. .o ‘ "- .u- -.:‘ .. d..— -- - . -. r" - .- ...v . -- :_‘ _, -..-': . ---v-_"‘ . u..—-‘- _..- o.- ' - -.._‘ -.. -o ......-0 . .. ,'_ ~....~o u... n . ---.._. - _ ._ o-‘vn.-- ‘u- u . --<.‘ - .-. _ “Q. .- ..-'.. - ' “--. - -‘ '1- “‘5 ‘— a v--_ ”‘— --__ " ‘~.-’ ..‘ - a _. - u -‘ .. .. o._ a e \ ~U -- ‘o ‘- ~ ‘5 u ‘ 0-. - ... a. ‘s ~- "s '1‘ ‘3 . ‘ ~. 4. - b,- “s \ ~- a ‘2 ”U _.. ‘ . .J _ o- _-r ‘ . Q?“ _-u'" . o u! " -. y'- - _ ._.o . - WV ‘ ~§ - ‘1'- ‘G ‘4' -i a. «a .0- _‘ x ‘9': - ‘ I, ..-.._ ’-.. - -- 5 .rv‘ v- . -.'.‘- :v—~,. ‘-—.. n., ‘ .0 ,‘ .fi 4. '- " F a w .o ~ s .- ’- n-n ‘ v-.. ‘ .0 0-“ F—r ‘ ‘b- s. "a - s ‘vb. g-u F r’ — U o“ ”v- _ n.- ‘v ‘ ‘- e.‘ -r 5. § ‘Fxn .‘_3. - '- 5‘ , - Y u e‘8 . v- ~ 5 - v‘- ‘ - . - -_"5- ._'- Stanley Dewayne Sibley stores, and (4) the inactive shOpper and low knower of unused brands and stores. The research investigated the level of product and store knowledge, the amount of shopping effort, and demo— graphic characteristics of recent purchasers of household white goods and brown goods for the purpose of market segmentation. The research included the analysis of individual products as well as product groups, single and dual independent and dependent variables, product classifi— cations, and market trends. The research utilized exten— sively the matrix approach for classifying purchasers on shopping activity and/or knowledge levels of brands and stores. The general null hypotheses were formulated to guide the research and to be tested with empirical data. The four major hypotheses were: 1. The purchasing groups within the product— store total knowledge matrix will not differ on selected demographic character— istics. 2. The purchasing groups within the product- store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on selected demographic character- istics. 3. The purchasing groups within the product— store shOpping matrix will not differ on selected demographic characteristics. I..-- -‘ b~ I ‘.“'.tav - 0. . - ' o u. ~- . “ 'n q ’_ . a ‘7' _ y -.o. co" 0 . ._--- - '. ~“' ...-~Jh _ ,.‘F-""" ...o' ~ _, .--o :r v .V U C - ’ ',¢-..v “" ,-.. o. —‘ ‘ .. ....vc' .' -~ A, .. ¢~-"v- ~- --V.O bub- .. u... n- : :.: . -.- '---o '0! a v. s . ‘4....--_ -.,.. ‘ ‘ '- —Q‘ ‘llp‘-“O u‘- r "'- »... u....y_,‘ - u ,_ "‘°"-¢ can--. -_ 2..-... _. V' ‘_'- ~... " 4" .. .. "u" "U 5---..- . .. . .' '~ ' "‘" ‘v . .- mvu. —. .~-_‘ _ -V. ~~‘. l." u.‘ .‘i :w -‘ "' Uta- fig ‘ . o .. v--. .__ .. —:‘v--v "V A. . .a‘~..._ “ . o c- -q o " a“. v-. n. .._. '. .-~_ , e-‘ ‘ u Stanley Dewayne Sibley 4. The purchasing groups within the product- store unused knowledge and shopping matrix will not differ on selected demo- graphic characteristics. Specific hypotheses on the predicted direction for the single dependent and single independent variables were also tested. The research methodology included a telephone survey based on a systematic sample of households in the Lansing, Michigan area in 1971 and 1972. The total number of completed interviews was 897 with 295 respondents categorized as recent purchasers of major household appliances or color televisions. The primary analysis of the data was chi—square for the testing of the differences between purchasing groups. The major results of the research indicated: 1. Considerable variation on shopping activity and knowledge levels tends to exist between pure chasing groups of white goods and brown goods. The buyers of brown goods in contrast to buyers of white goods tend to be more active brand, store, and brand-store shoppers, tend to be more knowledgeable of unused stores, and tend to be more knowledgeable of total brands, stores, and brands—stores. 2. Purchasers were differentiated on demographic characteristics, shopping activity, unused knowledge, and total knowledge of brands and stores for brown goods and for white goods. For example, the findings for buyers of brown goods on the dependent variable sets and a demographic descriptor, among others, were: a. The high knowers of total brands and stores were buyers with l) a smaller household and white collar occupation, and 2) a larger household and non-white collar occupation; the low knowers were the larger households engaged in white collar occupations. 0‘... .u—u o pv ‘.. ..- . 5.. .. on _- ,.-r . , : '-~ a:.. - .o—v .....o:' 1 n . _, ...-.vv. . 0.. ---'o;" O‘- s .n-ovv‘ "' --. I.."’ Q _, l ,. uv--‘- .. on- .so'- P Y“ b v '0' 5‘0-.. - . . , . «.p .- ‘ U‘ODdoch—I 9 ..--av- .. .- s n. 'A' Q. n . - . . .- Q'.- Di 4 p . .J 03.5 -d--- .v-c'. ‘. ..,".. d. .- o .v‘.-. - ~ . Donna- ‘n.‘ o n. . - r. 2 v. ~o-l...a... . l _ I- p--- 4 ‘~p—- ~ ~n‘ ~..___‘ :: -Z-Cv :. -~ . 45 ._., o . ' c - -..- ”""O c‘. - n. ' .; ~..,' .’ 0‘ 'uw. ‘ ’. -t--. a ".:—- "‘Anv.. "‘0':- “‘rvs... 9.. F - ”‘15. 5.. :bt' “ 7 .--~r u. . In V-~ In. h‘;:VnL ."~‘- -.. '0 -: -~. _ 'U . a- _ “‘ ~. :~’_v U.‘ . s - ._ . . ‘- ’~. . .- v " ~ ..: “‘v- . .. -v. '.‘~. 'u . . .. ‘ ""c‘ ~= .- .. Stanley Dewayne Sibley b. The high knowers of unused brands and stores were non-white collar people living a shorter time at their residence; the low knowers were white collar people living a shorter time at their residence. c. The active shoppers of brands and stores were purchasers living in multi—family buildings, and the inactive shoppers were buyers living in single family housing. d. The largest segment of total buyers of brown goods were high knowers of unused brands and stores and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. Within this segment and based on proportions, about three times as many single family housing dwellers as multi-family housing dwellers were found. 3. The major independent variables describing buyers varied according to the dependent variable and the specific product. 4. Consumers are actively comparing fewer brands and stores in the marketplace for white goods over time. The research demonstrated convincingly that pur- dxmers can be separated into homogeneous market segments based upon behavioral, knowledgeable, and demographic duuacteristics. The findings on shopping activity and mnmed knowledge of brands and stores suggested that one Ornmre of the four possible segments could be valuable ‘UDthe firm. In particular, the findings on the active thmers and high knowers of brands and stores should be 1meflfl.to the firm entering a new geographical market. av—- ou-v l "‘ .g. u .-.. ‘.I o“ ‘ u. ‘ ~.. .p—uVQV- . .- ‘.‘.-v-O --..-. -...— .- (I: " THE IDENTIFICATION OF BEHAVIORAL, KNOWLEDGEABLE, AND DEMOGRAPHIC MARKET SEGMENTS OF PURCHASERS OF HOUSEHOLD DURABLES BY Stanley Dewayne Sibley A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Marketing and Transportation Administration 1972 C0pyright by STANLEY DEWAYNE SIBLEY 1972 Dedicated to my dear wife, Dianna, for encouragement and typing assistance ii u ‘ A-o-I- ’O .. -.D.~-- a... u . .., .n n.‘-— '- .. . uh - 5 .U 0 ..-.. ‘ u ‘ - ' v A o--- -- " ‘ 'l .. ‘ ._. - . ~o~u~vo ova-4- ,.. .... r-n--"_ ue...‘ .... Cob-‘. u. ... .. _'-_. .- - ”4 I ‘5....‘ d.-‘-- I C ' Q ~. ..- "v----_ _ ‘w v. on- b--.___‘- - n'. O- . h" on. a .,' . . ' "~-_‘_’ -..‘ u _“ .« Q...‘~-“ . . ‘. .,.- - ._ . _“ .1 - N..~‘~ ' mg- H. . C .. -_.,v‘--‘ V I“"" *- .v1 ‘ ‘u_‘ ‘ .i- . "' ~ ":vu .._ -s- ‘- . . up . x -. -- -._, -.__ ng.‘ -. y . ~- ' ‘ fi ' . -~. ._‘ - ‘ ’ ‘ .‘. .‘. ‘. 0 ~ xv-“ “-‘.‘ \‘I ‘I ._ A n... a ‘:_V-.. ..'- ‘ -“‘~' .. . ‘~ g" ' .. ‘ ¥ -vn.. ‘ -‘ 5.. b v, ...' “5, ;~-- _-- u-‘. .-. ‘ ‘ ‘V .n. . ‘ '-'>. I ~ . n.- . "e‘... ‘. w‘ . s- ‘ '. .o - ,, “. v-‘ " "‘ 8 . Q‘ -‘ ‘5 ‘Q ‘D .. .~ .‘ ‘ - ‘In u. ‘- .. 5‘__‘ ‘~.I - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of the research allows me the cmportunity to express my appreciation to those people who (mntributed academically and financially to the research project. The research committee guided the research and contributed greatly in the total process from the develop- ment of the proposal to the final completion of the disser— tation. The Chairman of the Committee was Dr. Donald J. Bowersox, Professor of Marketing, who contributed numerous useful ideas at all stages of the research. Dr. Donald Bowersox provided guidance, assistance, and encouragement which were very well received and greatly appreciated. The two other members of the Committee were Dr. Donald A. Taylor, Chairman of the Department of Marketing and Transportation Administration, and Dr. Everett M. Rogers, Professor of Communication Arts. Dr. Donald Taylor provided innumerable assistance on the research methodology and the final chapter. Dr. Everett Rogers provided many ideas and editorial suggestions on the first draft of the dissertation. My sincerest appre- ciation is extended to Dr. Donald Taylor and Dr. Everett iii ' -opot . . . at ‘ n V v a... ' 1‘: ...~o‘ " a . c. I . ' .oev‘“".. ,.-..-O"' no v‘F ‘ . .Il - . 0 . 1‘ u... v. .A-- s... "'-y ‘9'? .' 9 . U) lI' (n a ‘ 'e‘ h. ~ 5 , . . ‘- \ ‘ ~ \ N. s ‘, ‘ o "A Rogers for their many contributions as committee members and educators. My appreciation also extends to Dr. John E Griggs President of Systems Research Incorporated, who encouraged me on the research topic and provided the opportunity to twilize the facilities at SRI and to work with SRI staff. by sincerest gratitude extends to Mr. Charles 8. Foster, Project Manager, to Mrs. Cheryl Fuller, Research Associate, and to Mr. Selcuk Ozgediz, Senior Research Associate of SRI. The discussions and idea exchanges provided stimula— tion for everyone during the questionnaire formulation, sampling procedure, and the data collection process. My gratitude extends to the Whirlpool Corporation and to Mr. Russ Minges, Administrator, Retail Marketing Department, to Mr. Bill Payne Smith, Manager, Retail Marketing Analysis, Economic and Marketing Research Depart“ ment and to Mr. Douglas Wattrick, Manager, Survey Research, Economic and Marketing Research Department for sponsoring the data collection and freely contri- buting their ideas during the formative stages of the research project. My appreciation also extends to the College of Business, University of Wisconsin-«Oshkosh for computer time and to Mrs. Barbara Johnson of the University of Wisconsin--Oshkosh who competently assisted in the pro“ gramming of the data for analysis. iv My appreciation extends to Dr. Bernard J. LaLonde who encouraged me to continue my education and contributed so much to my marketing education. The research benefited from the varied and numerous experiences that I have received at Michigan State University. The contacts with faculty members, fellow marketing students, and my class- room students contributed much to my education. .- .- . .. A -. —- T- cu A ' O . -o---. o- I ' o a . u n--- “- U.- c-- . n I‘ h " Io-U-cu I ' -.., ..U‘ I... '“U "fi-v .. . , _ ' i --n—-—-- uvq— .— \‘ :. -,.- .["‘ 0-! b- - _-‘;-. bu.“ .. .- .9». up, v‘. I "\(f DEDICATION. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS O O O O O C O O 0 LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O IJST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. PROBLEM DELINEATION .. . . . . Nature of the Problem . . . Background of the Problem Statement of the Problem. Specific Hypotheses . . General Hypotheses. . . Methodology . . . . . . Contributions of the Research Limitations of the Research . Organizations. . . . . Footnotes--Chapter I . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . The Concept of Search . . . External Search. . . . Internal Search. . . . Summary . . . The Concept of Market Segmentation. The Conceptual Foundation Empirical Research. . . Summary . . . . . . Footnotes-—Chapter II . . . III. RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . . The Conceptual and Operational ‘Independent Variables. . Dependent Variables . . Operational Definitions . vi Framework. Page ii iii xiv l6 16 21 22 23 25 26 28 29 29 31 52 57 58 59 64 74 77 90 9O 92 92 92 D - - ' >- -_ gnu 9' . c ' .--o ‘5 '4. on. ."‘ I -V" r v- I ..-- n ‘ —..-,| s .’ -..n . ‘u d .-o--" ~ -..A . ‘ y--.l no _ . ‘v— .. .--_ - ‘ 4 up... . a - “.—-. ’ U A -. oug‘ooo... - -..- 4 but-.- _ .. ‘9‘. ~--‘ '-‘-'4“u . --. . -. v v-o 'c-‘.._. a n e. . ‘.H g ‘00‘ A. H."— 5...... ,— .‘ :- Do. p H"'_ be».- - ‘ —. I‘- u. .- ve.-. - I-o.“ .. .- u.- q ‘ -—— H... p .v - “O - a- 0'- - \ ‘1‘. O-- - :—~- u .""s. ‘I :V. l‘.. . . .q’H n..‘ ‘- U- - s h.l .- u 'I _ ~ \- ~ - Q g \ u h u‘-‘ ‘ . Q..‘ §.. . \h- u.' . . ‘1‘». A. a. \‘fi Chapter Page The Telephone Survey . . . . . . . . 97 The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 99 Pretest of the Questionnaire . . . . 100 Selection of the Sample . . . . . . 100 Selection of the Interviewers and Data Collection . . . . . . . . . 101 Selection Procedure . . . . . . . 101 Data Collection. . . . . . . . . 102 Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . 103 Data Preparation . . . . . . . . 103 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . 105 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Footnotes--Chapter III. . . . . . . . 108 IV. PRESENTATION OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH AND FINDINGS. 109 Description of Shopping Activity and Knowledge . . . . . . . . . 110 Brand Shopping Activity . . . . . . 111 Store ShOpping Activity . . . . . 114 Brand and Store Shopping Activity. . . 118 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Unused Brand Knowledge . . . . . . 124 Unused Store Knowledge . . . . . . 124 Unused Brand and Store Knowledge . . . 127 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 132 Total Brand Knowledge. . . . . . . 134 Total Store Knowledge. . . . . . . 137 Total Brand and Store Knowledge . . . 143 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 147 Specific Hypotheses and Demographic Variables and the Shopping Behaviors and Knowledge of Purchasers . . . . . 148 Shopping Activity . . . . . . . . 149 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Unused Knowledge . . . . . . . . 158 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 167 Total Knowledge. . . . . . . . . 168 Summary . . . . . . . . . 174 Findings on the General Hypotheses on Shopping Activity, Unused Knowledge, and Total Knowledge of Brands and Stores . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Brand and Store Shopping Activity. . . 178 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 196 Unused Brand and Store Knowledge . . . 197 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Total Brand and Store Knowledge . . . 210 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 220 vii Chapter The Combination of Knowledge and Shopping by Purchasers for Household Durables . . White Goods . . . . . . . . . . Brown Goods . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . An Evaluation of the Hypotheses and the Demographic Variables . . . . . Single Independent and Dependent Variable Analysis . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . Single and Dual Independent Variable and Dual Dependent Variable Analysis Brand and Store Shopping Activity . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . Review of Major Findings . . . . Descriptions of Shopping Activity and Knowledge. . . . . . . . Specific Hypotheses on Demographic Variables and Shopping Behavior and Knowledge of Purchasers . . . General Hypotheses on the Demographic Variables and the Shopping Behavior and Knowledge of Brands and Stores of Purchasers. . . . . . . . Combination of Knowledge Levels and ShOpping Activity . . . . . Summary and Conclusions . . . . . Profiles of Purchasers of Household Durables. . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions on Profiles . . . . . . Research Results and Marketing Theory. . ShOpping Activity and Product Classifications . . . . . . . Market Trends: A Comparison Among Researchers on Brand and Store Shopping Behaviors Over Time. . . Strategic Marketing Planning . . . Future Research . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . Footnotes--Chapter V . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 221 224 234 239 241 241 250 250 263 263 264 266 268 273 279 281 282 302 302 309 319 324 327 329 331 I... ,4.“ ’ ---. ~- 0 ....-a~ - .u 0‘ V- - O . I.-. . C .l I h .. y...“ .- F 5 --d-..v_\ .vq- Q r A .- vi: Page APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 A. Handbook for Consumer Survey. . . . . . 344 B. A Comparison of the Sample with the 1970 Census Data on Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . 353 C. Matrices on Behaviors and Knowledge of Purchasers of Household Durable Goods . . 360 D. Tables 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 377 ix H .a n- . ' ~p —‘ n... ~¢ouu A‘ _ - r v p.. a. ‘ n...--- a..- n-g. .n... ‘ '- unabh- ..... - .. u- “v‘ .,....,. s _ ‘ --‘-. “nude. — ._ I... ‘v-n '- D-‘v. ‘..‘ . ‘9 “1v --.. §~.. "-~—a . " ¢v_.,‘ .' 9...- -V ~._' . .. ‘ ~ 1. ‘ u..‘ \‘Qvn ." u n , . .v‘- .--I‘ .. V-.- "I. ~V :v- t»‘ _..J u 0"... ‘- h ‘ . _ §-..‘ . .. h ‘ ‘ “Q '- ‘, ' fi.‘ “ .._ a ‘.'v. u. '-_ t— . .- a ‘ . .. -I. ~D ‘ CV '~~~ : -- “~ — -0 ‘ n..' ’v.. ‘ “‘. :‘R v. ‘1. h“~‘ a “-. ' x. s . p- . 5-- ‘ n- ‘ -‘ u‘.‘ _‘ ‘0 h“ p . I... v. ‘ -‘_ e. 3‘» -. ‘0... ._-_' .._‘V . 1' ‘D - ‘\ ~h~ ”w n - s» _ ‘. ~ A- l“ r-‘ ‘v‘ u- e '- -__ d. y. w. o. .. ‘ uh- ~~ \ ‘ ‘u a! ‘ .‘ A I-' ~hv. ‘ o -v‘ ‘ —‘ -b" .’ -“ h’- Table 1-1. 2-1. 2-2. 2-3. 2-4. 4-2. 4-3. 4-7. 4-8. 4-9. 4-10. LIST OF TABLES Unit Sales of Selected Household Durables. . . Product Shopping Activity . . . . . . . . Store Shopping Activity. . . . . . . . . Store Visiting Behaviors . . . . . . . . Percentage of Respondents by Sex and Number of Known Brands for Specific Products . . . Number and Percentage of Purchasers Engaging in Brand Shopping Activity by Product . . . Number and Percentage of Purchasers Engaging in Store ShOpping Activity by Product . . . Number and Percentage of Purchasers with Unused Brand Knowledge by Product . . . . . . . Number and Percentage of Purchasers with Unused Store Knowledge by Product . . . . . . . Number and Percentage of PurChasers with Total Brand Knowledge by Product . . . . . . . Number and Percentage of Purchasers with Total Store Knowledge by Product . . . . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand Shopping Activity and Home Ownership for Brown Goods . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Grand Shopping Activity and Home Ownership for Portable Televisions . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Home Ownership for Brown Goods . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Home Ownership for Portable Televisions X Page 14 40 46 48 54 112 117 125 128 138 140 150 150 159 159 ’---.v . . o . --~" ‘0“ - .-.d---: .-- . -- _ c- -Q 7 .VQ- - ... v O.-. i go. ..._ H... _ ' .- - in.‘ CC --- . O -... ‘oo‘y nn-v_‘ - q .. fun”--. -. ‘nn-vfi. ’ . I5- °"'-.~.- . I '- .“ -- C '- b «.q‘ .._. _ ‘ “‘v~ .. c- ‘ ‘ .‘§~-_ “. “I\- '. v- _ . .ov-o-“‘. --'-.. “ . av-“‘-. ‘ ‘v- _ I. _ ~ I ‘~'.H g - on I. ‘ ' s. .,__. - c ». e“- " ~V: : ‘-~--‘ “ -. . ~‘V.. C. --. “ F‘.‘ .,‘ .‘ .._-‘ ‘- :--- 'F~ I ‘ h ‘ ~.._- ~- ,. ‘. “ns 2.7.. . ~- ‘ .- ‘~ ~ - . ~_"-‘ ‘Q C.” “. ‘. ~~ ...‘ I.- . .‘ . ‘ 1‘ ‘ -. I ..__'~ . ~ . ‘~ ‘ I -‘- \ “-_v ' .,'- u~ “ ’0 our.'_ .1. -'. ~ ‘~ ‘ s-‘ ...-- _ y. .\ ._ .fl‘ ‘~: . ‘w u a. - ~- . “~ V. - an“ lh-. . O . - I“~ N “ \ ""~-- t. .‘~*.-- ‘- 4-14. 4-15. 4—16. 4-17. 4-18. 4-19. 4-20. 4-21. 4-22. Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Home Ownership for Washers. . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Home Ownership for Brown Goods . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Home Ownership for Portable Televisions Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand Knowledge and Home Ownership for Washers. . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand Knowledge and Home Ownership for Dryers . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store Shopping Activity and Home Ownership for Brown Goods . . . . . . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store Shopping Activity and Home Ownership for Portable Televisions . . . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store Shopping Activity, Age, and Income for White Goods . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and SLore Shopping Activity, Age, and Income for Automatic Washers . . . . . . . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store Shopping Activity, Age, and Income for Dryers. Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Home Ownership for Automatic Washers . . . . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge, Age, and Length of Stay at Present Address for Refrigerators. . xi Page 160 160 161 169 169 179 179 186 187 188 198 203 ..4,;..._' | v.“ .... . ., ..,.. . b. o‘v-g- - 4 o-« an... an ‘ .- "-..-- .’ ‘.‘ 'CI "0--.. o <'-.- _ . ._ -. v‘ I -"‘~ u...~‘ ‘.-"’"'v- _ o --- .— 5— 0'.- ..“ 1.. .v- . 6., _ . ... ".,--_ ‘7‘ ... " s 4 -"‘ .o«. p . ~--_ .- . ..---.‘-.. ~. ‘ .' . -" -, \F I I..n'_’ ‘ ‘ I 6" I. '- .~. ‘4‘.. ’ 'w- _- _ ‘ ‘- .~..‘ 4.. \ .-'v- H n ..v-’-‘-.. . -,.. \p. . ".“-4 0 c- o. - ' "~:_. .. “v- ‘-.-in -- - ~ 4 ‘~.‘ ‘A “~ - v-__‘ bovlv“--l ‘u- .\‘-- ‘ o. . .‘ -v- ‘ u. .h'; s ’0 - u- h.‘ ‘._-‘ _ ‘ a - ‘9‘ ‘0 c-.. A‘ .. s a, . s '°._~.. “ . o ‘. . .-~ _‘.- V ~‘~'_ I. ---‘ .. ’u - ~ . ‘§‘ ._“~ ..‘_ . ~'\-- - u. "~ ~ ~ I‘. *5 hv. 4 g-‘ ‘ ~~-AV ‘\ -"\ .o . A ~‘I“-. . ‘-b - Q4.‘ d . ~n ‘ ‘ ‘L \ n-‘g- '- - -v‘ '. b I , .‘ ~ ex... . § - v . \ Table 4-23. 4-25. 4-26. 4-27. 4-28. 4-29. 4-30. 4-31. 4-32. Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand and Store Knowledge, Age, and Household Size for Refrigerators . . . . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Number of Recent Purchases for White Goods . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Type of Purchase for White Goods. . . . . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Type of Purchase for Laundry Durables . . . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Length of Stay at Present Address for Washers. . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Length of Stay at Present Address for Dryers . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Number of Recent Purchases for Dryers . . . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Type of Housing for Brown Goods. . . . . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Type of Housing for Portable Televisions. . . . . Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Home Ownership for Portable Televisions. . . . . xii Page 215 226 227 229 230 232 233 236 236 238 a“ ' CI " ---q .r . ‘V . . ...u-.-n .u'q- ::.“ . o. och-nu- .. u. ‘ .'.-.- - ‘D-fl “"“-‘v- I - -_- .. c ‘ ‘v '---.. I- g...’ In:— no..-‘.'- '- \'. u- ”y.-. .‘.' ”'h". n .. "o- . _ it. Page Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Number of Recent Purchases for Console Televisions. . . . 240 Number of Significant Relationships Between the Independent Variables and Brand Shopping Activity by Product . . . . . 244 An Empirical Data for the Goods-- Store Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . 308 A Summary of Major Research Findings on Brand Shopping Activity for Major Household Appliances . . . . . . . . 310 A Summary of Major Research Findings on Store ShOpping Activity for Major Household Appliances . . . . . . . . 311 The Number of Family Members of Two Samples on Appliance Purchasing . . . . . . . 316 xiii o: ‘ Clo-p. ._ ‘ . ... ....-~. . . -.. ",.-,- ‘ ' \v- I‘ a... u.-‘-... I O -.. ___". ' i . ...- -_,-_b-.. . . - ‘ "“ ~.-‘. t u.-.... '-' I "O‘... -" u 0"... . - 'u-a. .- "" ~v..- i"-- . "v. c; ’ I- 'V'n- .1 — ._ 9-: '3- - .'-'v v- ~ I ‘.“ 'u...._.' . n .‘ .. ‘V‘A "‘ v . “‘- 2- .. -. "‘v-~ u h‘ .“~~ I - ‘ - v y.. . - I “ “"-‘- -. ’A h _ .‘v. '...V-~ . -.' 'I n ~-': "O“>— .. — °' §. '1 .. ‘-- H'A” ‘- .‘v‘ ' ‘1‘" s - ‘v._- u ~ ‘ a 0‘ .. - .I" ’...v-. o ‘.I - . Q s . _ V-‘§ .' s, i. -. ‘ o.- ’ .‘ r...»- 's ‘ ‘-- . d u-‘ . ' ~ .‘ e. ‘ -. ."u unpu-A Q_. n s V - ‘\ v.- ‘ | ->. - -..-; ~-_ ”N ‘5 ‘ Q n.‘ ‘ v 5'“ ‘_- Figure 1-1. 1-2. 1-3. 2-1. 3-1. 3-2. 4-1. 4-2. 4-3. 4-9 0 4-10. LIST OF FIGURES Page The Shopping Matrix. . . . . . . . . . 5 The Unused Knowledge Matrix . . . . . . . 8 The Shopping and Unused Knowledge Model . . . 9 Product-Store Classification Matrix and Search Activity for Alternatives . . . . . . . 37 The Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . 92 A Schematic Breakdown of the Total Sample . . 104 The Percentage of Buyers with the Number of Brands Shopped by Product . . . . . . . 113 The Percentage of Buyers with the Number of Stores Shopped by Product . . . . . . . 115 The Product-Store ShOpping Matrix for Purchasers of White Goods . . . . . . . 119 The Percentage of Buyers with the Number of Unused Brands Known by Product . . . . . 126 The Percentage of Buyers with the Number of Unused Stores Known by Product . . . . . 129 The Product-Store Unused Knowledge Matrix for Purchasers of Brown Goods in Percentages . . 131 The Percentage of Buyers with the Number of Total Brands Known by Product. . . . . . 135 The Percentage of Buyers with the Number of Total Stores Known by Product. . . . . . 142 The Product-Store Total Knowledge Matrix for Purchasers of White Goods in Percentages . . 144 The Separation of Purchasers into High and Low Knowers for Total Brands and Stores . . 146 xiv 5-2. 5-3. 5-4. 5-5. 5-6. 5-7. 5-8. 5-9. 5-10 0 5-11. A Graphic Description of the Groups in the Matrices for the Dependent Variables . . . The Combination of Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge for Brands and Stores . . . . . Profile of Purchasers of Brown Goods from the Single Independent and Single Dependent Variable Analysis . . . . . . . . . Profile of Purchasers of Brown Goods from the Single and Dual Independent Variable and Dual Dependent Variable Analysis. . . . . Profile of Purchasers of Portable Televisions from the Single Independent and Single Dependent Variable Analysis . . . . . . Profile of Purchasers of Portable Televisions from Single and Dual Independent Variable and Dual Dependent Variable Analysis . . . Profile of Purchasers of Console Televisions from the Single Independent and Single Dependent Variable Analysis . . . . . . Profile of Purchasers of Console Televisions from the Single and Dual Independent Variable and Dual Dependent Variable Analysis . . . Profile of Purchasers of White Goods from the Single Independent and Single Dependent Variable Analysis . . . . . . . . . Profile of Purchasers of White Goods from the Single and Dual Independent Variables and Dual Dependent Variable Analysis. . . . . Profile of Purchasers of Laundry Durables from Single Independent and Single Dependent Variable Analysis. . . . . . . . . . Profile of Purchasers of Laundry Durables from the Single and Dual Independent Variable and Dual Dependent Variable Analysis. . . . . Profile of Purchasers of Automatic Washers from the Single Independent and Single Dependent Variable Analysis. . . . . . . . . . XV Page 177 223 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 l u '|.0 to- .ub ’0‘ . n .-n- IO... 9 ...¢ .4 u-a- Q Q I Q ' .- AO ' d. ‘ - cpq Q P .onflgb 4 q Pr-v- bl F Inf—bul- s ' I- P. ‘ V d. o u ~¢--' .- u w-IJ-Q- .- . C wow. 9 h A. h do A 9 u .- 4 ‘fl. . "‘I-b 5-15. 5.16. 5-17. 5-18. 5-19. Profile of Purchasers of Automatic Washers from the Single and Dual Independent Variable and Dual Dependent Variable Analysis. . . . . Profile of Purchasers of Dryers from the Single Independent and Single Dependent Variable AnalYSj-S. O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Profile of Purchasers of Dryers from the Single and Dual Independent Variable and Dual Dependent Variable Analysis . . . . . . Profile of Purchasers of Refrigerators from the Single Independent and Single Dependent Variable Analysis. . . . . . . . . . Profile of Purchasers of Refrigerators from the Single and Dual Independent Variable and Dual Dependent Variable Analysis. . . . . Profile of Purchasers of Cooking Ranges from the Single Independent and Single Dependent Variable Analysis. . . . . . . . . . Profile of Purchasers of Cooking Ranges from the Single and Dual Independent Variable and Dual Dependent Variable Analysis. . . . . The Goods--Stores Matrix . . . . . . . . xvi Page 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 306 '.-—y-uo .p - a. .y u..- o- ‘ . .1. -—' "‘-o.~n ‘b— ...- "---- .- -..,-~.-‘ ‘. ~~‘ ..-~ .."‘~_ _- a -.D"-‘. . , - ‘ "0 -D“---‘.’ h-‘ . .. ..- .- -r \. -§ - ' ...- “as ~‘~§.- t .- h-‘_’_ . p h' in .: ‘7'Vn‘ '1'- :~~ - A..i‘ , - ‘R ‘ ‘l ‘: :: 'Yp, -‘ . v~‘ ~ I .. ;~ u..-_‘ a. - -';. .~ . “v, ‘ “v’ .. , ‘. 2... ¢ n._. - .. H .‘l ' v.‘ " u o - 5‘s.’ "."~.-I \ \ .. . ‘ . 7‘.‘\; A}. ‘H‘ L‘A- . u-..- CHAPTER I PROBLEM DELINEATION The primary objective of this research is to investigate brand and store knowledge and shopping behaviors of purchasers of household durable goods for the purpose of market segmentation. Nature of the Problem This section presents information on the problem solving process of consumers, the application of the matrix approach, the background information on household durables, the problem statement, the hypotheses, and a statement on methodology. Background of the Problem One approach to consumer behavior is to View consumers as problem solvers who are seeking an ideal product assortment to maximize their total satisfaction. In solving his problem the consumer reduces his uncer- tainty and makes a series of decisions that result in either rejection, postponement, or purchase. To under- stand these decisions, a decision-making process approach a '-v.‘ ,- 4 v4 “0’ u .g. -‘ .~‘ .- ‘1' .l1 O ‘7 . q ‘ an- ._ .....‘-I .«‘-' -‘- . r-v'--~.r‘ . v . . .-.v,.a~ . I ' a- _. .ao‘ " ...-‘ a -...I .r v ..OO" U " . . .".' 0‘ " - I - .5-- -..'. '- ‘It .. - -a-r .- .o v-‘V"..‘ .. '. .cov""- "- ...--" '"l. ..~ - .: ..--~ fl...— .rv- .~- -""-._ .n - . ...- ovco---o ., .... n... u- 1. - \ I .... -s-O- ~-O\ Q ...._. -- .. .. . D h '. ...~....~. . A-‘-.c -~ ‘v. an ,g- ‘§. __. . § .— "'"l u..- vv — - ‘ Q ~‘- .. . ' V“- - . a I ‘.-..-¢ - ‘ ' ‘- U -0 . O. . . ‘ .._. - ‘ , 1 ,. . . . ‘ ...-..- .’ -. v-.-... 4- "" -‘ w -c. 1 ‘-~-.... _. .. . v :I- ’ -. p .- ~.- ‘ - _ n" <4 .v ‘- ‘ I '- .— ‘ o -" v d .‘- - ‘1 ‘ -v- . ‘ .- -— -‘- I ' ‘Q I ‘ -- :-~ - . 1 .‘ - ‘§- ‘. -' - ‘47 t _u-. ‘ ‘ v~~ ' v— _ ~ ‘ ~ " 1'- --“‘.- v ‘5 . ‘u. . ‘ u ‘ '— ‘Q ‘- . f‘ fin- - - ~.— ~_ ‘ - '— \- y- x - ~_ ., I ‘ ‘. \_‘ ~ ‘1 -s. - .- ‘ ‘— . 5‘ .“§ - - - A ‘ - “‘ ‘\_e \ % s \ — ‘\ s - - s - ‘ \I ~_. “ appears to be particularly relevant to marketing researchers. As Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell stated: . . . a purchase is one point in a particular course of action undertaken by a consumer. In order to understand that one point (the act of purchasing) it is necessary to examine the events that precede and follow the purchase. What are the conditions of decision-making? Katona believed that six major conditions were associated with real decision-making. These conditions included (1) infrequent, subjectively expensive disbursements, (2) ungratified past experiences and unfulfilled expectations, (3) individual behavior differing from reference groups, (4) purchasing of innovations, (5) major new informational inputs, and (6) some personality attributes, related frequently to education.2 In addition, "When genuine decisions are made, consumers are not marionettes that can be manipulated. The main reason for this is that consumers' problem solving is commonly guided by a desire to understand . . . having an answer to the question of why."3 In the problem-solving and decision-making pro- cesses the consumer in attempting to understand often engages in search activities to gain the appropriate information to reduce the uncertainty of making an incorrect decision. Such activity can be delineated into external search and internal search. External search can be defined as: . I .'.... ‘ . . | . o I‘ A.» '.-I-—~. . . ‘-v~. q-’ a. b— ‘ 4:. ' ‘y‘. 0.: V- I u... \. ~....' .—-... . _'~ ... :;'-V- 9-: a ..-. --_._‘-- . ..~-~ .P ..- - _,_ " c». Iv ""' .a.: - 4 - . ‘ .-"‘h— . ‘A. .u- -"‘v.. . . ‘ Q ..-. “- :~ ‘ ~ I.v~~_._ ~~,,- . .,.. . . .-".;.-:—" 'v- ... ......—-‘ U‘ - . .- -_:- .u. A»¥M. - ‘ - ~.. - yv.4~“‘ o .. . . -__ . - ‘ ‘4 _ v“- I .H' ~‘A..q .. . .‘ v- A- -— ‘h n- .u.:=. -‘ .,' - .~ ~-. s ~-; _ ..‘ t. -,.“ - . ‘ -u ‘.‘ - c . ‘ i U. ’. ‘ .A .— “c \ - U. ‘ .- ‘ - ‘ 4.. ‘u 5"- v‘ A. ‘ n 5.. _ “‘v \. . s 8,- - u‘ ... h w. -“ . I v. t~ V . . - . ._ s . ‘ -.“h“- “w qu‘ .: ‘h. u . . . - - I... ‘ ..§ _ - .h .‘_.‘ ‘l b.‘.' "- . “9: ‘ q . “I . . . processes and activities whereby the consumer uses various sources of information, including mass media, personal sources, and marketer-dominated sources (advertisements, dealer visits, and so on) to learn about the number of alternative solutions to the per- ceived problem, the characteristics and attri— butes of these alternatives, and their relative desirability.4 Internal search can be defined as ". . . all information which is utilized is stored in memory, having resulted from past experiences."5 In a comprehensive buyer behavior model, Howard and Sheth separate decision making into three stages according to the experience of the buyer in decisions making. The three stages are extensive problem solving, limited problem solving, and routinized response behavior. In the extended problem solving stage the consumer is char— acterized by considering a number of brands without prefer- ring any one brand and without having definite selection decision rules. In the limited problem solving stage the consumer is characterized by liking several brands with— out preferring any one brand but with a definite set of decision rules. In the routinized response stage the consumer is characterized by considering actively only a very limited number of brands and preferring one brand with a definite set of decision rules.6 The authors posit, "The farther he [the buyer] is along in simplifying his environment, the less is his tendency toward active search behavior."7 - . ,,-..- v- .F ‘ IP I In. “' H . I Q. u 9" " . . _ ' ' n..... .- ,..-. -; _ —.~.-.-I- .. --. .- --. 5. .,..~.-..._ .. .y. 3.. .... ~ .-vu« -. ‘v< - - - ‘U—C - ~'----. .. .A- — 1.... ._ . ~ . _ _‘ ..,.... ”A. _ n ~.. . - , u-‘.‘ ... -_.‘ -_. -‘ . ‘ .- . ...{ . - . .__- .— I --.- v ~ _ ~ - |. ~ ‘ I‘ ‘-.—~_-_ . _,_ - ‘-.. ~’ I-g .. -"I d - —. ... ~ ‘.. - H ~‘v—. -.. 4 “'I~. -‘;~. ‘- 1 - .1, ....‘. ::;v-§ ~-‘ “7. ‘AI- " . ‘5. '§__.. ~ v. "" o.‘ -- s ~ . .‘ \_.v-- ‘- ¢_ .. ‘§'. - . n. ._l ‘- -‘ v. T“ —‘V~ . ‘ ‘ ' ‘ “.. ‘ _... . - .. s .. "-:‘ D , -.- ~‘D- ‘. ~.“ ~ ”I. Z. . ‘i ‘ . n‘ \ .._ . . \\ b _ ‘0 _‘~ "- \ “. -~ ‘ ~. . i h ‘. _ .~ nu; - ‘u. . \ ._' . ~_ ~ 0-.” ‘n d L-“ ' O .§ ‘ s -_ n»- \‘ § - r. ‘ ‘h , ‘._ - b - -'\ —»-- “"_v - '- ‘ K ‘ . a - ,v.‘ N. —-..' § ‘.‘ . . ~ . . f-..‘ . <.. ‘ \ .. a . . ‘ . . \\~. -‘ S.- ..—.\ ‘- v- . I“ § l -L .“ .‘ ‘ _~ ‘Q‘s‘ ‘~»-._‘ _ \ The above model on stages of decision-making and search activity is quite similar to another model also separating decision-making into three stages of extended, limited, and habitual behaviors.8 The major difference between extended and limited decision—making behaviors is that external search is found in the former but not in the latter. Habitual decision-making is different from the other two stages because alternatives to the purchase decision are not evaluated.9 A measure of external search for brand alternatives is the number of different brands of a household durable good actively considered by the purchaser, and a measure of external search for store alternatives is the number of different stores actively considered in the market. The two search activities can be meaningfully combined in a shopping matrix. Based upon search activity, Dommermuth constructed a theoretical shopping matrix defined as the number of retail outlets shopped on one dimension and the number of brands examined on the other dimension. Each cell of the matrix included the proportion of purchasers who conducted the particular amount of search for brands and stores. Four major areas of the matrix were further discussed relative to brand and store loyalty. The four areas were A, B, C, and D as illustrated in Figure 1-1. Dommermuth theorized that people in the A cell (one brand-one store) were purchasers with either strong brand loyalty, strong Jr A 1. ”iv ”V ...u x. w w . \as I t 1.... Q .h. a . . c 1.. Number of retail outlets shopped Number of brands examined 1 2 3 4 S or more 5 or C D D D D more 4 c D D D D 3 C D D D D 2 C D D D D 1 A B B B B Figure l-l.--The Shopping Matrix.* *William P. Dommermuth, "The Shopping Matrix and Marketing Strategy," Journal of Marketing Research, II (May, 1965), p. 128. F'- -' v ' '..H «a iv“ ’. :.-'l I - a ‘ u .. 9" v _ '. n. u -' : on. V" ,-. A, ' ...- -:-:-' V'. . ' . :..-- 0'. .' o -.- .. -. P. ' "i . 2.3-..‘1 . O“. ..- --V- -.“r L. .....- a. '0A— > -v ‘ ‘ ,. - . ’V‘F‘ ’ .1..-:. “o. v. .- . ..-- .. _~~; ‘~ ‘ ~41 0. .u "T - ‘ s ' ‘0- z . ‘ -— "‘ a... u- 0 . A. n-A”-v_ ‘ o... _ ‘0 ~..-..:,_-_ . .0" .0- ., 7 a I." ’ '50 -- -. - Q 1. .; .— __' ‘1’ ,-. '0. .U‘..- -.. h I... v . .‘ .‘- .‘-- F - l - I. H . _. .‘.z' ~~ .;- --_ _‘_~. ,. - ‘v..--- ‘ . H -~“ ”vavww .. .A-‘-- . .‘s -\~v~ ’- ‘ ..- ": vs . v . - ‘ h". "--I 2-.. ~§~oi “.“ .,_ V .A ‘ ‘ - '~- ‘ \C. ..~-‘-—~ fl ~~..~-‘ V-;‘_ t F- s... 5.. ~ ~ ;. -“- ' . .."‘- I -._‘b ‘._- ‘ » v..._~~ ,. A‘ s..- \ ~‘_- “s r. “:2: -» ‘ .-._ .4 W.“ . . ‘- —..: .." . w - T:-. “s Q ‘ o o a _P .."I—. .- 'n‘ . .‘. s .- ‘5‘... .' “ a h, _ _ ‘ 5..t;. \ ‘l. ‘ a -y “- :4._ ‘w‘ ‘ & ‘..‘ ~ ' ‘§ _ -' ._ ’v- ‘ ._ '- u H 5“. ‘ ~§~ '5" ‘ - "b ,_ ‘. ~ ‘ H‘H L‘n‘ q - ‘...‘ ‘- .‘ s 1 .‘ :-. .. ‘ ‘at- .. \ ‘UI‘ ~‘ns. ‘. t ”5‘ : o . V ‘Q. ‘- store loyalty, and/or an insignificant purchasing decision. Consumers in the B cell, were strong brand loyal but were not store loyal. Consumers in the D cells were, as Dommermuth stated, the "truest 'shopping market'" since these consumers shopped in a number of stores and shopped a number of brands.10 It was suggested that the potential of the shopping matrix was its ability to distinguish the behavioral dif— ferences of shoppers between product types and within a product type. It was also suggested that differences might be found in other related factors, including differ— ences over time, between brands, between market areas, and between socioeconomic groups.ll Dommermuth found that purchasers of one household durable good differed on their brand and store shopping behaviors with purchasers 12 of other household durable goods. In addition, the purchasers of television sets differed on their brand and store shopping behaviors relative to income levels.13 A measure of internal search for brand and store alternatives is the number of different brands and sources of supply of a household durable good known but not used in shopping by the purchaser. This measure is consistent with the definition of internal search because the infor- mation on brands and stores is used to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable brands and stores. These unacceptable brands and stores are stored in memory but not used in the active comparison process in the market. . nr‘ .- ' "'~':-'— ‘ . I“-..J-~-U ....- _ .-. :.—.'q “ .u. A -...: b o 0— -. ‘ ,.. - ..-'- .,. '- ~ “ -I _A- -.'.' “I ,. ..- ¢ .— - on uv. —..'-- - - ' _, ‘U‘oc. A matrix, similar to the shopping matrix, can be constructed to place purchasers according to their unused knowledge levels (see Figure 1-2). No research on the combination of brand and store unused knowledge of purchasers was found in the literature. A measure of combined search activities, internal and external, is the total brands and stores known by the purchaser. This value includes the brand of the product purchased, and the store purchased from, the brands and stores actively considered, and the brands and stores known but not related behaviorally to the shopping process. Finally, the two major search measures for brands and stores can be combined into a two—by—two paradigm (see Figure 1—3) according to whether the shopper is (1) high on brand and store shopping and high on unused brand and store knowledge, (2) high on brand and store shopping and low on unused brand and store knowledge, (3) low on brand and store shopping and high on unused brand and store knowledge, and (4) low on brand and store shopping and low on unused brand and store knowledge. The first two groups (high shopping—~high unused knowledge and high shopping--low unused knowledge) would correspond to extensive problem solving, the third group (low shop— ping--high unused knowledge) would correspond to limited problem solving, and the fourth group (low shopping-- low unused knowledge) would correspond to routinized response problem solving. 4 or more Number of Brands Known but Unused The Number of Stores Known but Unused 0 l 2 3 4 or more Figure l-2.--The Unused Knowledge Matrix. un-os E ~“V ‘Q .1 1 nt. Brand and Store Shopping High Low High Shoppers and Knowers High Shoppers and Low Knowers Low Shoppers Low Shoppers and and High Knowers Knowers High Low Brand and Store Unused Knowledge Figure 1-3.--The Shopping and Unused Knowledge Model. . . ..--v-' ‘7“ ‘ >.\y.3 ‘- .- .rup‘ . - o ...p.. -~v". .. a- ‘ It. .,.-..-..-a . ‘.-| C - u n- o-n- - .' ' n." ,4 .n no 'bnvovd- _ P .. --— a..a—' . A p— ->..- oooo— iv.-. iv - ~... "0‘V.’ _ ‘ a — — '4. ‘- 0..-..‘on—Ivfi ‘ ‘ .- = '- n . ..... - . ‘ ..~-fl ' n- 9 -~ "' ...'." an I c as us..-‘-‘- ~.. ‘ o .. “. ." ' ~ .,‘ '. w .4" .. a h .. v 4-. .. - 10 These purchasing groups categorized according to shopping behaviors and to knowledge may constitute a new or redefined market opportunity to a retailer, manufac- turer, or vertical channel system. At the micro level for the firm attempting to assess different territories for the determination of which territories to enter first and to assess within a territory those segments to sell to first with a new brand of a generic product, the model should be beneficial. Some market areas would likely be composed of relatively active shoppers and high knowers of brands, stores, and brands—stores, while other market areas would be composed of relatively inactive shoppers and low knowers, and other areas would be between the two extremes. A firm deciding upon which market area to enter, with all other things being equal, would, it seems, select the market area with extensive problem solving or active shoppers and high knowers. This conclusion would appear to be warranted if the generic product were in the intro— ductory, growth, or even the maturity stage of the product life cycle. High brand, store brand—store knowers would be more likely susceptible to giving their attention to information on a new or old specific brand or store than the low knowers because this latter group is only aware of a very limited number of brand and store alternatives. Their attention to advertising and sales promotion by firms outside of their evoked set (i.e., acceptable brand or store alternatives)14 should be much lower than for the high knowers. . .-. ": ~ O . - a - 'Ib Ivv'v- '- ‘a.-.g . w I... «v' “ :‘O‘.‘ .H » .~ tutu-V-.- . - a ”.1. vu-v-nu. a 0-. -. .. ..-‘.- h ‘ fl ‘ o. .uc— nio'v.-. . .. .. ‘ ' ' " .‘ A-"' F "““ 'b a... v. . 9 ; . ‘V’ 4-5.. fl .. —-. .,. ”6““ .' p —..'fl ‘ ......- ~-.-.." b n . J “Pnr‘ 7" b Osv- ." ‘ A. -_‘_-" _ "0. ,.. ap- "v-..b a ' u... v» Q.“ ~‘ o .. 'v . .i- ~ - . _ ~‘- '~ '- R “ “cc; :- ' 5.- .. s. s_ _- -‘ u v -°-: ‘0... s u a . ~ 5 ‘. - u, . ‘ ‘-‘-' ’2 £-.. §_‘ - . : V... . ~ "Q 5 .~ . ‘ ‘. :‘ r‘ s .. u. ‘ 'n.= ”‘- V -‘ .n _ H" . ‘ “H .V.‘ o‘~.t: . - . - 4“ . .‘ D E ‘ .‘9. h. ‘L‘ _ . . . I .R A "~~"~; _ s a; ‘«a v- _ . .1 ‘ I 5‘ “A ‘n'.. ‘V - t .. ~"E‘C. \v\ P \ i“ Z '- . “ ‘ u ,1 ..v‘,. ~ I. I“‘~ I.- ‘Q H s. . \\ ‘5‘... ‘ \..:+ 11 For the firm currently in the market area, the model would add to its understanding of its market share position. the position of its brand and its stores rela- tive to competitive brands and stores, and whether its current purchasers are extensive, limited, or routinized problem solvers. Then, the firm could attempt to cater rmue fully to any one of the groups not a part of its nmrket and/or could try to cater more fully to the group currently buying its brand(s) to maintain its market share. Active shoppers would likely place a greater emphasis on pertinent product and store information which would need to be provided for these people to make the necessary comparisons among brands and stores. In addi— tion, strategies aimed at persuading this shopper to return to the store after other comparisons would be particularly relevant. The furnishing of comparison information would seem warranted also in the firm's adver— tising. At the other extreme, inactive shoppers would probably require generally less capable retail salesmen than the active shoppers, but the salesman would need to be qualified in closing the sale at the earliest possible moment since this consumer may never return again. The firm's advertising would appear to play a more important role since these consumers are either presold or not presold but do not wish to expend any more energy and time comparing alternative brands and/or stores. III |.r| I .. .A. o .. .‘ p. — z“ ~a. a» s r” p. O. —. 2. Av “a ”J .C r. .C . v. .3 ~. ‘ S u. ..m .5 .. w" :. a» .. v§ p.v >- .‘ .3 .\ .: u. . A: L. ... :. ... . a" L.“ p .3 .. at .3 C. a» ... :a r. .L :s s. vs R... .2 Z I. u. u. H. 3. .. .. .2 Z Z .. C C I S .I E :— nv. v" ”w .. .. S : .C . . .. a. v. r .._ a. he .u‘ 5.. 41 s. «v .. I. .. .u . 1. .. z. .. I 1. I. c. i C. .. T .\ : ... z. .: .2 .3 .2 .. a . a. . . t. :. : . u... .a v .Q .3 .. . .1. .. I. .. .. ... .. ~: a. ~.. :~ 4‘ . .u on . . .. Z¢ .3 ... u v. .. .3 :. ... s a u.. -.. - L. .t in . . . . ..~ .. . ..n L. ... . . 2. 1. ... L. . . .~ .. 2. i. .i . s an“ .o.— . . .._ ”u ... .. . n... u. Q . x“ . s V a .1 .: a: l. s.\ 2 a .4 .. _ .. .... .1- .u .. .. ‘ .5 . .% ... . h . 1. o .x. . W .._ .N a. .1. a...“ ... .R K. ... 4 a s n . . u . A. x 12 Researching the stages of problem solving by pur- chases will open potential avenues to follow for other purposes, one of which is market segmentation. Although purchasing groups might be isolated on the amount and type of search activity, this factor alone does not appear to be valuable to the firm unless these groups can be identi— fied through other independent variables for the develop— ment of a suitable marketing mix at the strategic and tactical decision—making levels. These independent vari— ables can include a multitude of different ones, but the variables most frequently reported for markets tend to be demographic and socioeconomic. These independent variables can include education, income, age, mobility, home owner— ship, marital status, occupation and so forth. Purchaser characteristics derived from demographic and socioeconomic variables are probably the most applicable independent variables for company usage if differences were found in purchasing groups. To fulfill the criteria for decision-making sugv geSted by Katona, to circumvent non—existant or minor purchasing problems as much as possible, and to research search.activities on brand and store alternatives, it would seem most feasible to use a product category that in most cases, if not all, would cause the consumer to con- sider the alternatives, to utilize past and present know- ledge, and to determine a solution for a major purchasing problem. Household durable goods would usually a priori .. Ant-‘0'" " ° ‘0.- -.-v ‘ ‘ an . 'VOO. OQ‘O . - ann- :": a ,. “,1 vuuvob m..- .u‘ » pi..--, ‘ ... v‘-“‘ . " 'V- ”-A. . '1' 3 ~--—- "0.. .-,.- _ w b ..:: .. '-l < -- .._ I... . -. i. ‘5’. ...._ _ ‘ f 4 on. . a , d "-.. .‘ v. _ ~“" "‘ Q‘ 4-: ..---V= V- . a . ‘--‘- v. a _ “"-~‘- : - . . -- ‘~v—F " .. ~.,‘ 1 “I _ . .K- ..:.-. '~‘ In‘ ‘ "" o- ‘u . a v: _ ~ - . - \“:‘ ‘ \- ' as. ‘Qu — a ‘- ns . o . V a _ ~ “‘ \ h— - ”5 a..."‘ Q.‘_ ~_ ‘.‘ . ‘ v- Q . . ‘ - ‘ .. :_ “y- ‘| a V ‘ a‘ “ H-.. U.- I" ‘._ v.‘ . - _‘ c - ‘n.-...- ‘ ~ - .. ' ‘. ‘ . - ‘ Q q -“....‘_. ‘.~ u‘ ‘ h. ‘— s . ‘-_. ' ~ ‘ b “ ‘ I ~— ‘. u. ‘- "-~ ‘ —‘ h in ‘ ‘- . .~ 1‘, ‘ § .- . ‘-— ‘. W! ‘x ;. -‘ :In 4 Q. a ‘ rs it ,_ i‘ “ 13 fit these constraints of decision-making because these products tend to be purchased infrequently, they tend to constitute major expenditures, and the retained brand and store knowledge of the replacement consumer tend usually to be outdated during the time period when the old product was purchased and when the consumer perceived the need for a new product. General background information concerning house- hold durable goods will establish the proper perspective. Data were available concerning the number of units sold by product in 1969 and the demographic and purchasing characteristics of purchasing families. Based on the number of units sold in one year, household durable goods represent an important purchase for many families in the United States. Approximately 60 million units of house— hold durables, including domestic radios, televisions, refrigerators, furnaces, and so forth, were purchased in 1969. For selected products that year, consumers bought 10.5 million televisions (monochrome and color), 5.5 million air conditioners, 5.3 million refrigerators, 4.8 million ranges, and 4.1 million automatic washers.15 Most of these products have been increasing their annual sales over time, but none of these products, except perhaps air conditioners, have been rapidly increasing sales. The trends on sales evidently reflect the saturated market and dominance of replacement sales. (See Table l-l.) .- a- u- 0 \ I. a... Ut-O- h an ‘.CD.'A' . . ....., . -"‘ - ‘ "' > n— ‘ ""‘H 0.--! -_. 7“, .,_ -' ‘~._ ' .ls, I' ‘7. . q- r...‘ .- . '§'.. -.3 ~ "" h‘: :V- ‘u....: L" \ ~u .‘ an . ’ ‘ 'o-‘ :V 14 TABLE 1-1.--Unit Sales of Selected Household Durables.* Durables 1965 1967 1969 (000) (000) (000) Color Television 2,747 5,224 5,523 Monochrome Television 8,028 5,435 4,976 Dishwashers 1,111 1,100 2,118 Freezers 1,111 1,100 1,195 Ranges 4,293 4,033 4.814 Refrigerators 4,678 4,713 5,296 Air Conditioners 3,240 4,129 5,459 Dehumidifiers 210 280 637 Automatic Washers 3,771 3,921 4,111 Dryers 2,048 2,678 3,022 Vacuum Cleaners 5,107 5,677 7,134 *Table was adapted from "Econographics," Appliance Manu- facturer, March, 1970, p. 12. b o 4 a n v. y...- L .. .00- , . 5. p in» ' v- i at u. .w 4.. t ‘9. ’- v ‘ ‘vIl- - ,.... .- .. .I‘ ’ O O "b‘a. ‘ ‘ 3 -- v..--.. ~u. "‘v‘u~~_. ... I . . y . Dig-o--o ‘- - ". It . -~ . z” D“ ; «1-... -.. ‘hov—w ’ - . 9 ”y‘ r; A V. up: u... .‘.“--‘-"I . A... .' ‘ ‘ . ' ~ ‘ .7......~' ‘~_ -‘ ‘- 7' I‘.. - - - o 0 - a. v‘ A ..~..-.u.~' I“ - .-q__--.- ‘ . ‘1‘ ~"'"-..‘_ v - an- ‘ ' .‘ n by--.-.“ .- I 3’.:‘ " -r. ..~-. -‘ .' . A-‘ ‘ ‘- a a- . I~“ - U‘ -Q.‘ .. .. , . .- — Van. \“.-= Va-~- . b“- _-\‘.~ - ‘~-~_ a ..- ~ " - .. o~ 10*. u: 'v -.- . -. ‘— - A . -~ ‘.'v n._ “ . -"s - ~ ‘ ' .c..,‘~ ‘- I ‘ ‘H‘ I \- - u- . ~‘-‘ V “‘-‘~~:P ' “\ __ ‘ h -- ".- ls... 's‘-‘ ~ . . “‘ ‘ . _ ‘ ‘ i .- ‘5 “‘ ‘ ~~ 5 .. “. -\- -‘s‘¢ : ‘ x.“ '1. , ‘. .‘ -. \“—‘ - ‘7‘ 5*- ““. .v- ‘- «._ ‘ \ a u..- - Q C‘ ‘, ‘ ‘- 1-; ~ “‘~. . 15 Based upon data compiled by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, several interesting conclusions emerged on the proportion of the sample pur- chasing specific household durables, the demographic characteristics of the buyers, and appliance ownership. In 1966 approximately one-half of the sampled families bought one or more household durables. For specific household durables about one-fifth of the families pur- chased furniture, about one-sixth of the families bought televisions, about one-tenth of the families purchased refrigerators, about one-twelfth of the families bought washing machines, and about one-twentieth of the families purchased cooking ranges. Most of the purchasers were younger families with the head of the household under 45 years old. The number of families purchasing household durables increased as income increased and decreased as age increased. In addi— tion, the number of families who purchased two or more appliances increased as income increased. The amount of money spent for household durables also increased as income increased. Relative to appliance ownership, about four-fifths of the families owned three or more large appliances. The lower income subgroup owned older appliances and had a greater frequency of having two or more repairs in a year than for the higher income subgroup. Relative to appliance ownership and home ownership, about one-third of the home '\ . . . .o t" ’;";r_ —.c .UCIU~.~ ,.. .. t. I: u l ...-.--.-y-. a - --O-wuw.‘ in. no... . "I. .. . ‘ ‘A,. - ‘-.. ‘\_v-n _.‘.u-~ v. ._ ~ ‘h. .n 2‘ . A . h .- ~~.:' u... x- . . ‘- »., _. -Vr-‘ v - n . ; UL..- _ I! ‘ --::‘ _ ’ v. \ - - "'-..\. ~- ~-- v: I u a I. D "-.: a‘n ‘ I _‘-‘ — ‘-. ‘I'§ ‘\ ‘ "v-. ." -‘ . u... O. - ~ ~\. ‘2 . 1" I ‘1 ’s. g .‘u‘ a - \ V ..‘\- "-. ’3 . '~" ‘- -- n‘ .- .‘\ «‘. .. - A ‘o 'n ‘1 .. A n“ u. v ‘v .Q ‘..~ g - “ V‘ I '._ . \s‘ ..§ Q ». 16 owners possessed five or more appliances, while only one- tenth of the renters owned five or more appliances.16 The background information on the problem solving process, stages of problem solving, the matrix approach, and household durable goods and the literature search resulted in the statement of the problem and the formula— tion of hypotheses. Statement of the Problem The research investigates the level of product and store knowledge and the amount of shOpping effort of recent purchasers of household white goods and brown goods relative to selected demographic characteristics for the purpose of market segmentation. The research focuses specifically on purchaser characteristics and on their behaviors, their unused knowledge, and their total knowledge of brands, stores, and brands-stores. In addition, the research attempts to isolate those independent variables that are more efficacious across products and within products for delineating buyers. Furthermore, the research includes the analysis of the relationship between shopping activity and product classi- fications and the study of market trends associated with purchasing activity for household durable goods. Specific Hypotheses The specific hypotheses were formulated for testing the possible relationships between the independent variables . .‘O :V; :“O ~~III ..' vans- - ‘ . n. .4 no‘n-Rrur . u - ~ .,. ouc‘oo-n-b.o-: «.1 ... \u ‘ .-...-...- ' I n... sag-v .F“ “HUG cuvvoa-..- . :- "- - ‘ . ; . b - - ... .. r u a “ a " - s,‘ ‘I. "' v 0 ""0. . ' 5 -" ‘v-v ---..- t I..‘ 0 l o - III “‘-r (I! ‘1' .o 17 variables and the single dependent variables. The specific hypotheses are stated according to the expected direction of the relationships based on previous research, theoretical discussions, and logic. There are three major sections separated according to the dependent variables of total knowledge (Set A), unused knowledge (Set B), and shopping activity (Set C). Within each section the hypotheses are for brands and for stores; therefore, for each stated hypothesis with "(stores)" following "brands" there are in actuality two hypotheses. Set A H1: Home owners will have relatively less total knowledge of brands (stores) than non—home owners. H : Single-family home dwellers will have relatively less total knowledge of brands (stores) than the multivbuilding dwellers. H3: Mobiles will have relatively greater total knowledge of brands than non-mobiles. H4: Mobiles will have relatively less total knowledge of stores than non—mobiles. H : People living a shorter time in the market area will have relatively greater total knowledge of brands (stores) than people living a longer time in the market area. Marrieds will have relatively greater total knowledge of brands (stores) than non-marrieds. H7: Larger families will have relatively greater total knowledge of brands (stores) than smaller families. Families with the head of the household engaged in professional or clerical occupations will have relatively greater total knowledge of brands (stores) than families not in professional and clerical occupations. ‘OIO" .4 II” pcuv! D-. Q Q A v aw» —‘ . or H a a C I I .1 v.1 6 ‘ Phu a . . . . . . . . ‘ a . ~: .3 — A u s o . a a ..aa ”4“ pa “Wu .. .n‘ a» a» .«a ”My .:‘~ ”a. no. . e 3‘. I :u .. .‘ A: .u. 2‘. a ~. .u .. on g. ... u. an .. .u» V. I. ... .m .. v. .. .. .L a. .. .3 v. J. .«V. a: va .ry . o A" .h. a: an ~u. on p» up. a: o. . \ up. . . . n\v 6 . o. v .n u- ..o n...‘ . u ”4» :a . ~2- .-u .1 g I u (‘9. §..v~ l Set B m 10‘ ll: 12' Cl: 18 Families with the head of the household having more than 12 years of school will have relatively greater total knowledge of brands (stores) than families with the household head having 12 years or less of school. Families with annual incomes less than $15,000 will have relatively greater total knowledge of brands (stores) than families with incomes of $15,000 or more. Families recently purchasing more than one household good will have relatively greater total knowledge of brands (stores) than families purchasing recently one household durable good. Families purchasing the household durable good for the first time will have rela- tively greater total knowledge of brands (stores) than families purchasing the product as a replacement. Home owners will have relatively less unused knowledge of brands (stores) than non-home owners. Single—family home dwellers will have relatively less unused knowledge of brands (stores) than the multi—building family. Mobiles will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands than non— mobiles. Mobiles will haVe relatively less unused knowledge of stores than non-mobiles. Families living a shorter time in the market area will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands (stores) than families living a longer time in the market area. Larger families will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands (stores) than smaller families. I. .‘-. \n‘v .. Io‘..‘v‘ ~ s. .. us. u... . § 5. ~ : .. .... a. .s L. 2» .. ... 2.. E T. .C r - .Lc n-Icv . Q n‘ . ~ :~ g: SetCZ :1: :12 10 ll 12‘ 13‘ H 19 Families with the head of the household engaged in professional or clerical occupations will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands (stores) than families with the household head not engaged:k1professional or clerical occupations. Marrieds will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands (stores) than non-marrieds. Families with the household head having more than 12 years of school will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands (stores) than families with the head of the household having 12 years or less of school. Families with annual incomes less than $15,000 will have relatively greater unused knowledge on brands (stores) than families with annual incomes of $15,000 or more. Families purchasing recently more than one durable good will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands (stores) than families purchasing recently only one durable good. Families purchasing the household durable good for the first time Will have greater unused knowledge on brands (stores) than families purchasing the product as a replacement. Families with older heads of the household will have relatively greater unused know~ ledge of brands (stores) than families with younger household heads. Home owners will do relatively less shopping for brands (stores) than non-home owners. Single-family home dwellers will do relatively less shopping for brands (stores) than the multi-family building dweller. Mobiles will do relatively greater shopping for brands than nonamobiles. «O. -:vv. .- . ‘6.-- ' 'g I.) 'f (D I: '1 (I) '{Y A l f.’ t" t 1 t A 3 ) l t a 10 ll 12 13 ‘ 20 Mobiles will do relatively less shopping for stores than non-mobiles. Families living a shorter time in the market area will do relatively greater shopping for brands (stores) than families living a longer time in the market. ,Marrieds will do relatively greater shopping for brands (stores) than non- marrieds. Larger families will do relatively greater shopping for brands (stores) than smaller families. Families with the household head engaged in professional or clerical occupations will do relatively greater ShOpping for brands (stores) than families with the household head not engaged in professional or clerical occupations. Families with the head of the household having more than 12 years of school will do relatively greater ShOpping for brands (stores) than families with the household head having 12 years or less of education. Families with annual incomes less than $15,000 will do relatively greater shop- ping for brands (stores) than families with annual incomes of $15,000 or more. Families purchasing recently more than one durable good will do relatively greater shopping for brands (stores) than families purchasing recently one durable good. Families purchasing the household durable good for the first time will do relatively greater shopping for brands (stores) than families purchasing the product as a replacement. Families with younger household heads will do relatively greater shopping for brands (stores) than families with older heads of the household. . .A- ‘V ‘ y- -:u». u. a -: t--b- '- ~ ..' a. ‘Il. ‘ C. Ui-D a... n- In», . -- 0.. . . _, ‘§ _, . .‘ .. .‘..’ .— i <1 ‘.-.h .u .‘ _ _~ .“.V-. .. " u u... c " - a 3". .- v.o--.»~M :. ~ .. V~v~~ “'"vc _. r; -_ C." h.‘ ‘ "s ‘ ”*3 ~_"- . _- “‘2‘”- H- ‘b‘ - \ fl " h. ‘ p h “° .2 h V‘ '. -1 . H. .. ’ A C. .. I .. .. a .- " ~ 4 d. . . ‘ V O I. ‘ . ‘l ‘ ‘. ‘ ‘ F \ Q d N . I! \ I ' § ‘ I ‘ V . ‘. l 1 . -5! a. . Q..- _.. “”‘—- V‘H‘ . A.:: ““ . n “I N y. b V. [V ‘- E. - § ‘I h 'u-l .. . - 21 General Hypotheses The general hypotheses were formulated for the purpose of testing for possible relationships between the purchaser demographic and behavioral characteristics and the combined dependent variables of the matrices. The general hypotheses are divided into four major sections with the first three sections for two dependent variables and the last section for the combination of two dependent variable sets or four dependent variables in total. These hypotheses are presented in the form of null hypotheses with no difference between the dependent and independent variables. H1: The purchasing groups within the product— store total knowledge matrix will not differ on: a. Age of Head of Household b. Education of Head of Household c. Income of Household d. Marital Status 4 e. Occupation of Head of Household f. Home Ownership 9. Type of Housing h. Length of Stay in Market Area 1. Length of Stay at Present Residence j. Size of Family k. Number of Recent Household Durables Purchased 1. Purchasing Experience H2: The purchasing groups within the product— store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on: a. Age of Head of Household b. Education of Head of Household c. Income of Household d. Marital Status e. Occupation of Head of Household f. Home Ownership g. Type of Housing h. Length of Stay in Market Area vvbu .5. L. .‘m 6?. h; .. \. .. . .m .u a. r . r. v. . . - _.. a. .1 . u 0 I I O u sfi - o & L ;» .» s Q I u a a {Q ‘ u‘fo .. s .. .. .1 . Avie at... :.L. .u . s . . .. C. .1. .3 ..~ . r. . a .2 L. . p. a. 2» ‘u. .N. .\ . ‘u ..‘ s. .v. I‘ s. ..‘ . ‘ ~.« .3. ~._ .t. i. j. k. l. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. 1. lb .0 22 Length of Stay at Present Residence Size of Family Number of Recent Household Durables Purchased Purchasing Experience The purchasing groups within the products store shopping matrix will not differ on: Age of Head of Household Education of Head of Household Income of Household Marital Status Occupation of Head of Household Home Ownership Type of Housing Length of Stay in Market Area Length of Stay at Present Residence Size of Family Number of Recent Household Durables Purchased Purchasing Experience The purchasing groups in the product- store unused knowledge and product-store matrix will not differ on: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. 1. Age of Head of Household Education of Head of Household Income of Household Marital Status Occupation of Head of Household Home Ownership Type of Housing Length of Stay in Market Area Length of Stay at Present Address Size of Family Number of Recent Household Durables Purchased Purchasing Experience Methodology For this research project telephone interviews were completed in the Lansing, Michigan area from a sample drawn SYstematically from every 56th telephone number after randcmuy selecting the first number from the first 56 numbers. The total number of respondents contacted was 897 an. ... ”up i“ .~v “ _ u- a ....... ‘nu o.-. .‘n- an—yvv- . I— ,. out 00¢ ~\-. '- _ I . ..- 09- II'.. ...', ' ~ ‘D' In. .0... 60-. "' "VF ~w-. A, .. . .uv .. ~ . -... ..' ”bib Va. . n v..'. _’. A, ‘ a “. ‘ 5 .,_. a..¢-.vs. _. - 0" Di.....-. - V ' ‘ V..- a. ~....~-._.. ‘~‘ . .1 "‘D‘ ~~‘ ‘ .. _. _ ... .‘l_‘ a ‘V b..-" ‘;-..._ . “u " ~ '5.“ .‘.| ea “_'>C . - 4“H~,.‘ ‘- . -_ v-‘ \, I N ‘ u. .5. A..." I. \— - .v - . ~v a, ‘ .".I b F‘- a h ._ v a“ s. a ‘5 ._ ‘ u ’- u ‘ a- A v V" s. s '~ -. - . ~: :~.. ‘g" av ‘3‘ ... A:- ~ ~ ’~_:’~- ‘3 ‘~ ~ 6. " 4“ p I ‘.. “u 4"- -‘u:..V-~ ‘~: r s ‘L . I. ‘.‘\ s n A "~": : -‘~ A H ._ . ‘3‘:\ Q ‘ ‘ ‘A . 5“ ‘3 I“ ‘- — \‘~b‘~ ‘o . - ‘ h ‘\ '1- In“- ‘- h“ \4 C.‘ 23 and the total number of respondents classified as recent purchasers was 295. The interviewing by trained women was conducted mainly during the first three weeks of December, 1971. Inter— viewers were spot checked during the interviewing process and no variation attributed to interviewer errors was noted. If the potential respondents were not reached with the initial phone call, these people were telephoned eight more times, if necessary, by the interviewers. After nine telephoning attempts without success, the potential respon- dent was categorized as unreachable. After the data were collected, the data were key- punched on IBM cards. The data were tabulated for gross frequency counts, and then used for the statistical analysis for confirming or disconfirming the research hypotheses on purchaser knowledge, unused knowledge, and behaviors . Contributions of the Research Two comprehensive consumer behavior models related knudng behavior to three major stages of problem solving. Therresearch will demonstrate the possibility of separat- ing purchasers of major household durable goods into three stages for analysis. In conjunction with the stage Of problem solving is the extensiveness of search activi— ties undertaken by the consumer. The research will add to the current findings of external and internal search and will demonstrate the usefulness of combining the two . \ II .. 1 _. ~ . ~. . . q .t v. .3 . 1: . . .. .. _._ i E r . . . : . Z L 1. q. _. :\ l ‘ .x F. L. . ._ . . ;_ t 1 S .2 ; z. ‘ . n :. . I T E . I . .7 1 . .: C 1: ~: a. w. ‘ L» . .. v .a . v . ‘ 2 :‘ ;~ “a E “a" i E H“. T. ”a if. . u . .. . . ”i. .._. i Z. T. 1 ._ . é 11. t. .31 E 1% .w E _. . ._ . . . . . . V. 3 . X X :w .2” ”a z. n... .. ... __._ T .. .: S .: . _ L .3 . . T. .1. .. l . . ”u .. I. H. ... v. .. , ._ .n ... . .. :.. r .. . . .2 .~ 1.. .\ t. .1. ;\ _: I... ... 2. .. ... .: 2. . :. .. _.:. .. . ;. .. _ .. .. .. I .. _. .. .x. .:. .H .. i .1 : ... .... : : : .. : - . .. 1.1.. ... u... .3. m.” ... . .. . .. . i ... .... .. a. n 1 u 1 .. . _ I 24 measures into one. Furthermore, the theoretical framework, applying matrices, appears to be especially relevant to this study since the matrix approach tends to illustrate succintly the differences in consumers on search behavior and the differences in products bought by consumers. Con- tributing research using the matrix approach for shopping behaviors is necessary since only a few studies in the past have been reported on its application. Studying major household durable goods and search activity will contribute to the confirmation or not of several theoretical frameworks on the classification of products. These products are often theoretically con— sidered important enough to motivate consumers to engage in extensive search activity and to learn about the brand and store alternatives. There is accumulating evidence that this particular relationship is no longer relevant to a relatively large number of buyers. Differences in consumer characteristics can isolate identifiable market segments. The research will contribute to the rather extensive body of knowledge on the application of the market segmentation concept in marketing. Relating behaviors to demographic variables appears to be a worthwhile project, given the past success with these independent variables in other research. The importance of the demographic characteristics tends to be the availability of these data in market areas whereby the firm can easily obtain. A I. . a. oponv. -;:.:' .. . ..’-vO.V|O its..- . -o¢ .....‘ .. , I\.... 0‘ d...-- '..' “' n-u- quiv ‘ "" vv vy-t...ag._ " ll...- ' ‘ .- ~~ l|0¢n~1.. -. ._~ 50- 7. ‘ sug-‘ ‘- . a l . . ~ .~ . 4 .__ ' ..... a.. o ~‘>I- . . . I... § "u. ‘ . ._ Q‘.. ' a ‘1- '~.‘- ‘A ”v 25 To the manufacturer of major household durables, the research offers a framework to be used in other market areas to assess the company's current or potential status relative to consumers' behaviors and knowledge. The crux of the channel selection problem is determining which stores are most worthwhile to sell to and which stores need greater manufacturer's assistance in the marketing mix. The search activities of consumers will show for the firm engaging in this type of research which stores are the potentially major alternatives for the future purchase. To the retailer of major household durables, the research offers a framework also which can be applied in the market area to assess the company's market position. The retailer has to make decisions on which brands are actively considered by consumers. The search measures would appear to lead sales and, thus offer a faster reaction time to the market's dynamics in changes of con- sumers in response to the marketing mixes of several manufacturers. Limitations of the Research A number of pertinent limitations to the research are evident. First, the research at best is exploratory since the knowledge variable has not been widely pursued in marketing. Second, a telephone survey always carries a certain amount of risk on the randomness of the sample from the distribution of telephones in the market area and from the greater probability of a turndown on partial or ...-o"‘"' ‘. I - r . F 4.»:- '.". .gn ‘ - o .- 1 4- F A‘V" .'u U ' ,. h..." "o. ‘ . "> . -n- ”-0.. "".“ ;:.-~vu‘~\. .3.- . a 1 ,‘,.'..'. no (FA' .- — '- .... .V". U. ”"" p! ,.g.- ‘F. - n . ”V. C Ic§u. ' a “I""ubIOtnn‘o o,_ ,‘ .- - ~- .‘th'...‘Ifi-. u . - J... .. ,. ..._ >’ " a . "‘s-‘u .on.‘ J b u: L ' I «u.. ‘ . ‘\ fl. ‘. -u- a. ., ‘ ‘.’.‘ "' uco,_ . .. . _ . _ ' . - *' o. -. L o.....‘__‘ r-- ' —.o, .. . .. “ ‘V; ' VPv- - _ .... 3.. v- I.- ‘ ~ '. v». ‘ . 2 fin..- ‘ “-u p. v. - ‘ .‘._~ y... .Q. -. a n. . . I \_.~ 5,- R - 0- ---~ .2 _ ‘- ‘- . '- --. -. h o. . " — A __ ”"0‘. V w. . . ....~‘. ’-..t, 5"-—"__~ ----~;- . .. ‘ .. .:. . . .— '~ ‘I- s . _. ~ ‘P‘.. .I - .' “I. ‘ u ..,.‘ § ’A . .- ‘~» PV~ V‘ .- ‘- v». -"'~.. ‘ ‘ .I- _- ‘c. .- a: "- o. ..i h s - ' - ‘: ". - ‘,‘ KAI - V v a \‘,. N ~ u? ‘ '~ 'I s ‘ v-~ I '— ‘ s: a ' “‘ H. '- 5 VI, ‘ o “ '\ ..\ ~ . - a n x . y \‘ 1‘ ‘ ‘. .-- V‘:_.- -\ I.‘- ~ '- § \ 26 all of the questionnaire because of the ease of saying "no." Third, the possibility of post—transaction dissonance and post-purchase information seeking resulting in a greater level of knowledge will not be analyzed, and it may or may not influence the results regarding the new owners identification of brands and stores. Fourth, the research only attempts to measure awareness which is just one dimension of the multidimensional concept of knowledge. Fifth, although the analysis is post-transactional, the findings are proposed to be applicable to the pre-trans— actional time period for other consumers. Finally, the emphasis of the study is on relative knowledge levels, shopping behaviors, and identifying characteristics with- out determining moral judgments on whether a relatively more knowledgeable or more active shopper is better or worse off than a relatively less knowledgeable or less active one. Organization The organization of the dissertation is according to general topic area. Chapter II summarizes the germane literature on search activites and market segmentation. Chapter III describes in detail the research methodology for the collection and analysis of the survey data. Chapter IV presents the research findings from the survey on recent purchasers of household durables. Chapter V reviews a summary of the research findings, presents purchaser profiles for specific products, discusses the . ,...n-u *‘ . 14-..“..- ~- . ...q- - a H... ‘1‘ y... .1 'Ilb 27 relationship of the findings to marketing theory and practice, and suggests researchable ideas for study in the future. - '.-q- r t' . ~\ ...~u A' ~" .‘ p .‘ .'- ~-' I ‘ ’ ... .ol v-“~‘ “ W . . .-.-- w. . . ...-.u[ .u-" - I no ‘ D“ .h.‘.’ by. D h‘.‘ ‘fig‘. 1 I 'u. o'- ‘ ~¢ndb" C“ \p v ‘- n 1 1‘. ~ a... §~ ‘. Q‘. ' b~n CHAPTER I- -FOOTNOTES 1James F. Engel, David T. Kollat, and Roger D. Blackwell, Consumer Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968), p. 7. 21bid., pp. 378-379. 3George Katona, The Mass Consumption Society (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, l964Y} pp. 289—290. 4Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell, op. cit., p. 378. 51bid., pp. 378-379. 6John A. Howard and Jagdish N. Sheth, The Theory of Buyer Behavior (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1969), p. 27. 7Ibid. 8Engel, et al., pp. 351-352. 91bid., pp. 352—353. 10William P. Dommermuth, "The Shopping Matrix and Marketing Strategy," Journal of Marketing Research, II (May, 1965), pp. 128-129. llIbid., p. 129. 12Ibid., pp. 129-131. 13Grady D. Bruce and William P. Dommermuth, "Social Class Differences in ShOpping Activities," Marquette Business Review, XII (Spring, 1968), pp. 2-3. 14Howard and Sheth, op. cit., p. 98. 15"Econographics," Appliance Manufacturer, XVIII (March, 1970), p. 12. 16George Katona, et al., 1967 Survey of Consumer Finances (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Survey Research Center, 1967). 28 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The words of Pierre Martineau still are applicable today as in 1955 when he stated: How can we so ignore the consumer in our research? Almost nobody is trying to understand him as a human being, as a creature who buys song hits like "Shake, Rattle and Roll" and "Let Me Go, Lover" by the million; who idolizes buffoons like Milton Berle and Jackie Gleason; who suddenly deve10ps passions for lavender cars and sectional sofas; who spends his money for such illogical things as dog racing, filter cigarettes, and oversize cuff links.1 The basis for this research is the previous theory and research on two major concepts--search activity by consumers and market segmentation by firms. The first section reviews the theoretical foundation and empirical research on consumer searching behaviors of brand and store alternatives, and the second section describes the current status of market segmentation and the research related to this study. The Concept of Search The concept of search is a critical component in attempting to understand the whys of buyer behavior and the decisiondmaking process of individuals and groups. 29 '0 ‘1. z c : ‘ i t .z. i t. : _; 2,. . ‘ x 30 Consumers frequently seek information by reading, listening, and observing at home or by shopping in the marketplace and by recalling and thinking about different product, brand, or store alternatives and their attributes for the purpose of delimiting the alternatives to the solution of the purchasing problem and reducing the uncertainty of deciding incorrectly. From a theoretical perspective, search activity can be delineated into external search and internal search. External search can be defined as: . . . processes and activities whereby the consumer uses various sources of information, including mass media, personal sources, and marketer-dominated sources (advertisements, dealer visits, and so on) to learn about the number of alternative solutions to the perceived problem, the characteristics and attributes of these alternatives, and their relative desire- ability.2 Although external search encompasses a variety of behaviors, the behavioral dimensions of concern to this research include actual shopping behaviors of (l) brands, (2) stores, and (3) brands and stores. The number and identification of brands and stores actively compared measures the extensiveness of the external search of primary brand and store alternatives by the prospective purchaser prior to consumating the transaction. It is these alternatives which the buyer has undertaken search activity for the purpose of comparative shopping of brand . . ...y-r~~9~ :u 7- n y. 't- CICOOHO- .q. . ..;.-.. . r ,. - ,: -¢.—..auo:.? : . a. .'V-u~ .u‘ ‘ rho-J! .o.-,_, c . '."' 'V’ ~-.n‘ ....:. a. .. a..- _' u -- n. _ .— u. ._v -—— - "\ba A ......-_. UH-u- ‘ ' I I. . ' "§\u-— f' a O_v-. p - .. .......¢.,.,v ‘- .. ‘ a. A P," . vk‘ ..c-u ‘-_}‘-- .. . _ . .- p._ _ 'D I, - ‘. .~ ..- ..._.‘ . ‘ ..., V. "" v~.. “' A ‘n ‘ '..-.. -h‘ - " “h- ‘ . . o n- -“"'-V. 7" ' p.- .. ‘ u . -- " s. . - .m. rv.’_.‘ ‘~‘--.‘ < ‘ ~ ‘ ‘....~ ...D--- . A -' ' _‘\ “'V,‘ “'.'*~ 0 u. H .,_~ ~ ..; . -. I ..Q -. .' I ‘0. ‘~. V“ Vs . -9 .n ‘Q ~ ~ A '. -’ l‘.— ~~ _“: ‘ ‘ -“ :.'v. ‘. . ‘ ’u-‘ ‘s».. ‘-"‘.: ‘u.’A‘ "' ‘\ -F ‘-- s " ..-~ 4‘ ‘ ‘Q .'~ . u“ u ‘ ‘. ;,._‘ Q " ~‘ u‘_._‘ - w .- Q. _ ~ . -. .— . I»- ..~ g -- :~:»'\~ . “‘ . ‘ "§_ .L .‘ . _ ‘— '\ gvh- . \":‘ . v‘ .‘ s -.. . ‘. ~_. ‘ s-.. fi‘ \ ". ‘C L. . ‘ n “I ‘a. “t Pv. . v‘ '§ s.‘ ‘ -‘ IN‘. ~ . ' 31 and store attributes and to derive logically a solution to the purchasing problem. During this process the prospective buyer often knows other product, brand, or store alternatives but does not consider these alternatives as primary factors in the set of alternative solutions. These secondary brands and stores could result from external search or from internal search but likely from internal search because of selective perception and retention desensitizing influence on the prospective buyer in the market as he makes comparisons of primary brands and stores. Internal search refers to the process where "all information which is utilized is stored in memory, having resulted from past experiences" and could be measured according to the recall of all brand and store alternatives or the recall of only those brands and stores not actively considered and identified as primary alternatives to the problem. External Search In the marketing literature external search has been most frequently related to product classifications and the searching or lack of searching for product and/or store alternatives by the consumer. Relative to the theoretical discussions, search is either actually making comparisons or the willingness to make comparisons which implies active comparative shopping at a later time. In . . --- -v'9-r ... u| 0-0 .-.:..4 -oo--.. Iv - ' c Q o I 5 no 'n- a :y- ....: ‘nn‘ "dbfi‘ _. 'o. . -..,.v . ‘ ” «--vI A..- . _, _. .. qu"‘.~ ”A! > I . v».'-~...U "U“ .. ,7 ‘ ’V‘ a»- .‘ p “" " ‘vfiq.’.s' \‘ -.\. ~-...‘_v._. .H'” 'I Oav .u-p . _ ' p.- .- .. .'. 'Ic- ‘~ O'vflpq-va ‘~ . '..'_.‘--‘.‘ . ‘ ‘.~v. ,- “ ‘ -- iv._‘\ '...._. 5“ o H ‘v- ~.‘ ‘ ." A’nr, .. “v. vv. ...’; ~ .-. ' "A - -- .A. ~ In “ "- n," F. ' "i- hh§ ' F 1 "‘w 'Z-a _ ~§.._." _.,. ‘.~ ‘0 . I a.‘; a... _. '- ~ 0-- . C "U' 2,... h \ . _ “ -.__ ,_y-._’- - ~ _“~" .~’>.; ’ -. ‘R‘I . v- A -_ ‘ fit ._.. . .‘ 'v".._‘ .“"’-‘ '- A “t N - .‘~ "- ‘- . ...~::_ “- — «-h . . . p... ‘-. 4. .- . -J ' h -‘ k . .. . q -1 '9‘, . I 3‘ ”a ""3 N‘n- V‘.‘ ~D—‘ - v A“ "'n: 2.. a . \._.. ~ 9 h - q. NL‘. .. s‘.. . ~. . ”a p ‘I. |.“:~ “ ~ h ‘ '1 §. ‘-l‘ ‘:O ‘0‘ .‘ ‘- ' h -. ‘0‘ b‘. ‘~ —.~‘ .__ .. ,. -‘ k . .. ,. . ‘\,._ .. '.‘ b F .. . . '1 ~-‘ .., ‘ O VI.‘ ~ ‘- ‘C‘ a .‘- - p -‘ “ C V- .‘ . 32 1923 Copeland extended the clasSifications of consumer products and clarified the distinctions among the classifi- cations. The major product classifications were convenience goods, shOpping goods, and specialty goods. Convenience goods were characterized by consumers not searching extensively for the product, frequently purchasing the product, purchasing the product at a convenient, accessible retail store. Specialty goods were characterized by consumers not comparing product or store alternatives, making special effort to purchase from a specific store, and infrequently purchasing these products.4 In both of these two product classifications the external search of product, brand, and/or store alternatives is lacking. Shopping goods, the third major product classification, were characterized by consumers making comparisons mainly on the product's attributes (quality and style) and store (price) through search activities and infrequently pur- chasing these items.5 In 1958 Holton argued that Copeland's category of speciality goods was ambiguous and overlapped the con- venience goods and shopping goods categories. Convenience goods were defined as: . . . those goods for which the probable gain from making price and quality comparisons among alternative sellers is thought to be small relative to the consumer's appraisal of the searching costs in terms of time, money, and effort.6 .‘ '- I. app. . LC»: 3:..:.: , at. A--. A" u; ,- r. ovnomu. . . V . .n.....‘ ‘-' ‘ .n... ‘ "0'1.A.... .‘ 50.. b ~ n. - onus... ,. V V I— a “kw“. . ""' o .. t ‘ . ‘ "a. . _ . . a .' Oh_ - ( "' I... bu. «a- . “""""--~.- ~F~ .. ' C "“"-m-..- ' a O ~ "3“? ':u-... ‘ ~. uuou-.‘-“ a "0:. ~‘u~.. ._. .- ‘ nvo..~ b...~‘ . ' ’c-. ._n _y “fr: 1...»; v-.‘h . ‘Q-A ' d‘ ‘- - h .u ‘4‘. .. -‘ - .:-. ..‘ . .M.‘ A F! ~;‘.. “‘ “3.. n, . " §~’._ . D"‘~ ".‘:‘ " '..I‘|. . ' a "n ‘. "“‘ ~:: . h ‘ ‘D -:.. . ‘ NI.‘ ‘ .' ~’ '““Q1 .— .. -‘-.Q .. _ h . \I“ ‘ v:- ‘-‘ ‘~—:‘. ‘. . u . ‘1 :v.‘ _ . “ .-‘ : a: \ U . s..- .— .“‘ - .. . ‘. I ‘ .~ “A 1‘ fl... ‘ \ Cu. VC.~ ‘. . .I ,. - ‘ § s.‘ n: C. -_.~ ‘ ‘ .n p. ..p ‘ . _ ‘ . 'g“~‘\ V- E‘ ‘>. v x. u “ o ~~ .:; “~':S ‘ Q ~. C“-- -‘{ .;.‘ ‘I‘ .'.Q‘ '~. 15‘ a, 33 Shopping goods were defined as: . . . those goods for which the probable gain from making price and quality comparisons among alter- ‘native sellers is thought to be large relative to the consumer's appraisal of the searching costs in terms of time, money, and effort.7 The essential implication from the definitions was the searching behaviors attributed to consumers of shopping goods and the lack of comparing products among sellers for convenience goods. In addition, Holton pointed out that any particular product might be considered a shopping good by some consumers and might be considered a convenience good by other consumers.8 In 1958 Aspinwall extended the earlier work by Copeland and develOped the characteristics of goods theory. In the goods theory Aspinwall argued that the characteris- tics should be pertinent to each product, should be operationally measurable for each product and should be logically related to the other characteristics. The (maracteristics of goods included (1) the replacement rate, (2) the gross margin, (3) the adjustment, (4) the Ume of consumption, and (5) the searching time. Products himnin.the first attribute but low in the other attributes wenacalled red goods; products medium in all the attributes were called orange goods, and products low in the first attribute but high in the other attributes were mflled yellow goods.9 Therefore, yellow goods would be , , - ‘va: :lflfler-w '- . Dru-nth“ ‘ a In“. ' ”H." .8 o. .....,. ;,. .Le "_ H V ..,..au: .5 u ‘ ' I ‘v I- ”a; H v'. 5‘ can... vi I—C.".' U ""‘o‘n - ”awn-.3 | o ,. ’. ' . du~ \.. V on .4 .. I.-- . A ‘ u. A. -— \ It V; F ‘ easuu. b..." ‘1 ‘ a a. ‘ W ‘\ ‘H :‘Y' .v -nA“- -.- w... M W . ‘- ' M": ... ". '~ A h. .’F “' .h—v., —‘ 4 34 considered shopping goods under previous definitions. According to the yellowgoods classification, major house- hold durables, such as refrigerators, freezers, color television sets, would cause potential purchasers to consume relatively high amount of time Searching for viable alternatives. In 1965 Miracle elaborated on Aspinwall's paradigm to include more buyer and product attributes and to encompass industrial products.10 The major character- istics were (1) unit value, (2) significance of each purchase to the purchaser, (3) time and effort spent shopping, (4) rate of technological change, (5) technical complexity, (6) consumer need for service, (7) frequency of purchase, (8) rapidity of consumption, and (9) extent of usage. Products were classified according to their relative value for each of the characteristics. The products were then classified as "Group I, Group II, Group III, Group IV, or Group V." For example, Group I contained those products which were very low on unit value, on significance of purchase, on time and effort consumed in ShOpping, on the rate of technological change, on the technical complexity, and on the buyer's need for service but were very high on the frequency of purchase, on the speed of consumption, and the variety of uses. At the other extreme the Group V ""C Pv- .L— Vow va- (1 «n ,.u l - a - .FA ' v‘r Oss A .h‘u- “ -‘ . . .n- .-n ' ‘ro I\ -..-..-| in .un. ....,.,...,~ ,, - -1- (I) 4 vacuum...‘ .‘ 4 c . . ,......,,,.~ RP“-‘ fl, ..-....‘...I d, v _. I a 4 ’1' "' O‘~~ , . ’ .- A ‘ c, -" '0' - it...‘ U L . , "“‘9 0-. ‘, F M...“ .. he - . . P*‘-~'- ..~.. .‘-:.:. \ v 0-... . ~Y w... "'-v 4 .u ". L... 0" ‘ U.‘ -a . ‘ “5.. u...'.‘ : ., ‘ ~-. 0. u ' 'o. . A.- ” VI.- .5..\' v :‘u-u . v... -.I-9. ; v. l“. ' n . I... ‘ "--. f - um. . in“.- V‘ IQ... "‘ “ . ....~E : :v _,.. ~— V‘- g 35 products were ones which had very high values for the first six attributes and very low values for the last three attributes. In this verbal model the time and effort spend searching was a necessary but insufficient factor in classifying goods; however, it is reasonable to conclude that the time and effort spent shopping for a product is a function of the other eight attributes in part or total for most buyers. Another major contributor to product classifications and search activities was Bucklin. Products were classi- fied into convenience, shopping, or specialty goods according to the consumer's "preference map" or lack of one and amount of effort exerted to compare alternatives or to purchase a specific, desired product. Bucklin defined consumer products as follows: Convenience Goods: Those goods for which the con- sumer, before his need arises, possesses a preference map that indicates a willingness to purchase any of a number of known substitutes rather than to make the additional effort required to buy a particular item. Shopping Goods: Those goods for which the con- sumer has not developed a complete preference map before the need arises, requiring him to undertake search to construct such a map before purchase. Specialty Goods: Those goods for which the con- sumer, before his need arises, possesses a preference map that indicates a willingness to expend the additional effort required to purchase the most preferred item rather than to buy a more readily accessible substitute.ll n 0.50 ::":.. - on! '-.--u 0o.‘. 0 u u ... ..,..~-,. -.,. n. _ ... -:--u¢~n.- Va“— . g . . u. r----V.-' - a ‘ '~-.--—-.v. | R 0.m..... ,. \‘,_ u u u. .....-- a- ""--n-- q _ ~\-\‘— A "V ‘ "'--ve»: u 5. _ O I. .- ‘ " A .. ~~§ . * 'l “J". ' -- ha! a . .- . W. ‘ -‘~ A .. ‘|.‘. \‘PV ~- _~ ~. .“I‘ ..0 . . ~‘ 4“ '. n‘ “" ‘ “VA ~-V‘u f ‘- \ A ,- . :'-.-VIA “ 5“~ _ ..‘ .A ". . ’.- o . .. §’_ “s ~..s- _ C. .. .- .‘ ~ ~‘ ~ ‘5 - . o ~~:_A.- u“ . “H. ‘5 Q..‘ ' ‘p‘s _ u- . ‘ ‘§ db, fl... ‘5. I '- 'u‘.‘ :h- . u*—y ; “ ~. \‘. ...._ ' “>’. "~~'> “\.“ I J 1 ‘. . ' a 9 " P Q n ' ; v \‘ ~, ‘h‘ M V 36 Extending the classificatory model, Bucklin also divided retail stores into convenience, ShOpping, or specialty stores dependent upon the consumers' "preference map" and search behaviors. Convenience Stores: Those stores for which the consumer,3before his need for some product arises, possesses a preference map that indicates a will- ingness to buy from the most accessible store. §hopping Stores: Those stores for which the con- sumerEhas not developed a complete preference map relative to the product he wishes to buy, requir- ing him to undertake a search to construct such a map before purchase. Specialty Stores: Those stores for which the con- sumer, before his need for some product arises, possesses a preference map that indicates a willingness to buy the item from a particular establishment even though it may not be the most accessible.12 Products and stores were interrelated by a three-by-three matrix in which each cell was for each specific product class and store class. Searching behaviors would be hypothesized to occur in five of the nine cells. Brand and store comparisons would be found in the shopping goods-shopping stores cell; brand searching only in the shopping goods-convenience stores cell and the shopping goods-specialty stores cell; and store searching only would be found in the convenience goods-shopping stores cell and the specialty goods-shopping stores cell (see Figure 2-1). 1.14 - 942 u.. ..,-.-.n %~_:v \J- ‘ Anni hdulvuu. .v and sun s... un§g Inn-nua- - - ~U-.vz .~...I.~. -. - UpJH~nJ~ .N Hknd\fi "NFLVo U .vmlmm .Ammmfl .%HMSCMbV HH>xx smqfluwxnmz mo HmcHDOb =.m©oow HmESmcou mo coHDMOAMHmmMHU map cam mwmumupm Hflmumm= .cflaxosm .m mflooq Eoum cmmoam>wp mp3 xwuume mafia «.mm>wumcnmuafi How mufl>fluom soummm cam xfluumz COHuMOHMHmmmHU mnoumluosconmul.alm musmwm 37 Mano muaamaommm mcoz mcflnoumwm mHoum mcoz . . . haco maflsoummm wage mcflmmonm mafinoummm camnm muoum can pcmum mcflnoummm pcmum maso mocmagm>co mcoz mcflnonmmm muoum mcoz . U mpflamwommm mcflmmonm mocmflcm>cou mmuoum sqonpoxd .— ..o -v ~00- " o .— v . 4‘ v. .3 .5 4‘ a. a: 38 Product searching activity.--Brown reported the lack of brand shopping by automobile purchasers. Sixty- to-seventy per cent of the families purchasing automobiles bought the same brand as previously owned. This high repeat purchase rate was attributed to ". . . their inability to predict with certainty the outcome of a decision to purchase any other given make car."13 In a recent study on purchasers of household durables the researchers found that 33 per cent of the purchasers shopped one brand, 30 per cent of the buyers shopped two or three brands, and 37 per cent of the buyers shopped four or more brands. The brand shopping activity was for purchasers of major appliances, televisions, furniture, and similar products with a price of $100 or more.” Product searching activity for major household appliances tends to be limited to four brands or less. In 1962, in Washington, D.C. purchasers of refrigerators, freezers, washers, dryers, and ranges were differentiated by brand comparisons as follows: (1) 35 per cent shopped and purchased only one brand; (2) 28 per cent shopped two brands; (3) 24 per cent shopped three brands; (4) 11 per Cent ShoPped four brands; and (5) three per cent ShOpped for five or more brands. For purchasers of refrigerators and freezers 32 per cent of the respondents shoPPed only .. on" .1... .n' u u v - - no. .u .- -o‘ . 4 ‘C L. .4‘ .3 v. we I.“ .~_ .3 Z. .2 a v” . . E .‘ ..« .2 F: v» I! .- 5. _. . .~ .5 ... . h... an i o. v o .... I. L :— 3‘ ‘ ,2 .1 q: .- .~ ‘ _.. _ ~.. .: ‘ . .. A . .: 39 one brand; 28 per cent shopped two brands; 26 per cent shopped three brands; 14 per cent shOpped four brands; and one per cent shopped five or more brands. For the pur- chasers of washers and dryers the results with the exception of the categories of four brands shopped and five or more brands shopped were quite similar to the behaviors of the purchasers of refrigerators and freezers. For these purchasers 35 per cent shOpped and purchased only one brand; 30 per cent shopped two brands; 22 per cent shOpped three brands; nine per cent shopped four brands; and five per cent shopped five or more brands. Although the sample was quite small (n=35), the purchasers of ranges tended to have a greater percentage of the respondents in the one brand shopped and purchased category. Forty-three per cent shopped and purchased one brand, 23 per cent shopped two brands, 23 per cent shOpped three brands, and 11 per cent shOpped four brands (see Table 2-1).15 Dommermuth found that refrigerator purchasers had the highest proportion or 58.6% examining more than one brand, followed by television set purchasers with 50.6%, followed by washing machine purchasers with 39.5%, followed by vacuum cleaner buyers with 29.0%. For examining more than one brand (point 4 above), there was a significant difference between refrigerator and television set pur- chasers and washing machine, electric iron, and vacuum cleaner purchasers.l6 3.! FA ~.:~2:.z III1|I .. 5;.n; 5...”; 8.: av ~a.aa.._. I...-.:-.2 .~.~..\w.~.~ nu.4.vu..u...,~..~ ~12. infyfluufidarvmafi u.)- 1.. ...:pa.~..~.d.- ~vuua. .u.~.~.~—...-.>a nu...-..~..-.~.~u.~v~ ~.;-.a Non:\.&~: .. 5.. n..... c...-‘..-.-.- ha. ... n...-..~.. -...— .~.- ‘..-.v:.-..~..,.-..— \.a up. .-—.-.....o..-.-.~ -.v .-.-.-~.o.a~.u.~ v-u--.,h: .\.~ .cmmmnousm ocmun mmUSHocHN .om .a .Ammme .mmflpsum mcwumxumznummflumm coflumowabsm cofipmupmwcmfimm mmmchsm mo Hoocom wuflmum>mco savannae one “.0 .o .coumcmrmmzv cone capflaomonpmz .U .Q .coumcfinmmz mnp ca mmOCMflammfi Honmz Mom vmxumz Headmcoo one .cmmHOOU .w xcmum a“ «IN mafinflnxm Eoum pmpmmcm magmaa 40 ~.m o.m N.~ m~.m pmmmoem mpamum mo Hmnfidz mmmum>¢ com mm awe mm mucmpcOQmmm Hmpoe wooa wooa wooa wooe memuoe a.m .. m.e o.H magnum who: no m>flm H.HH a.HH e.m m.ea mpamnm “son m.mm m.- o.~m m.mm museum mange H.mm m.mm m.m~ G.hm mpamum oze mp.vm mm.me we.em am.em pamum mco Hmuoa mmmcmm mummua mnmnmmum can mUmHmapcmpH cam cmmmozm mccmum mo Honesz wnoumummflnmmm mo mummmaonsm mo mmmucmonmm mo mummmnousm mo mmmunmoumm cam mumzmmz mo mummmgousm mo mmmucmoumm )ll" I, ll III H.mufl>fluo< mcflmmozm uosponmnl.alw mqmfie n.. .,.o-..‘. .2 a. S .l .C ‘. 41 Store searchinggactivity.--Empirical research has bafllconducted on the amount of search of store alternatives bycxmsumers for products. One empirical study, applying Copeland's product classifications, on search behavior was conducted by Kleimenhagen who used three measures of shOpping acthdty. These operational definitions included (1) nmflmm of stores visited, (2) time spent at the shopping maker, and (3) distance traveled to the ShOpping center. Fartme number of stores visited, consumers purchasing convenience goods shOpped primarily (over 90 per cent) in muzstore and consumers buying specialty goods or shopping goods shopped mainly (around 75 per cent) in one store. Thepnmchasers of shopping goods were the only group with smmaconsumers shopping at five or six stores. For the tnmaspent at the shopping center, purchasers of shopping goods shopped longer at the center than the buyers Of mnwenience or specialty goods. Finally, on the distance traveled to the ShOpping center, purchasers of specialty goods traveled the farthest followed by buyers 0f shopping goods.l7 Cunningham (1961) concluded that the average family in his research purchased 70 per cent of total fOOd Purchases in two stores, high store loyalty did “Qt lead to Shopping in less stores, and high brand loyalty and high Store loyalty did not correlate significantly in 15 0f the 18 product classes.l8 I... 'c'A'.S . a“. .5z'v- ‘ - o-v: RQ“ '3'" c» ...-:.- nag- new- UI- u- .l— :.q‘-- I ..¢.o v. a in.» Hui-v- - -"10I. A_ o . -‘~ .. 'v-r .. um... “ a 6-. r-v .M‘u u ' ';---..... , " ‘ P a m.--.---|e 52:.‘r‘r— “we. ‘-" .l n “'5. A a I 0“..-~,_.:- l'- . .Q ~. _:~. 0': "2.~‘,. “"5 _ .. -‘b -.. - “4:;- v. " .- . ~ '1' ' - 'u, . I g- ‘- -1 o d v' . ‘y .- ‘o ’A‘ . h. ‘w "a- ' s,_“ c.- .- . . '-- .‘r. '. ..b ,? ¢. -5 ‘ .-'- I ~- . . ‘ _. .. - \ I‘ ., A \,= “b” ‘ «““‘\. ~. 1;. iv ‘5... .‘\¥ “‘5 . .“:-.-"‘ ‘ \ H M a |- a " - .‘z A‘ ‘. ,_‘ c”: ‘5 TV A" n “ ‘:‘.~ g . "‘ VI. " “ v—I ‘ba . Q t U‘ ‘. 2‘ . ‘A s‘.‘ ‘- ‘n 2“ ‘ 42 Two reports on automobile purchasing and the exten- siveness of shopping at automobile dealers suggested that consumers did not shop around to a great degree. About one-half of the automobile purchasers of automobiles shopped at only one automobile dealership, and very few 19 Feldman purchasers shopped at more than three dealers. concluded that data on search behavior were inconsistent with Aspinwall's product theory which suggested that an expensive durable good purchase would cause consumers to do extensive seraching.20 Additional data on search behaviors were found on the relative value of the product and the amount of search. Fifty-six per cent of the 891 products across price categories were purchased at one store on one ShOpping trip without further search. As the price breaks increased from $5.00-14.00, to $15.00-49.00, to $50.00-99.00 to $100 or more, the percentage of products purchased at one store on one shopping trip decreased in the same order as above from 61 per cent to 37 per cent. Thus, for the most expensive product category about one-third of the products were purchased at the first store visited and about two- thirds of the products either were purchased on another shopping trip(s), at another store(s) or were not yet purchased after visiting one store.21 “‘ F“ "‘2". . 3 : ~-- “-1... v . 4 ~ . -' AH .- -.—--.~- -;:: YH‘ A. " M’u‘udh— ... a. t ..-v- ~.,~.,~.;~ '- ..:.: .......-_,, . v. " not». .. ..: .- V‘-‘_ ”V. ..-.,.. 5|“ _-".' u .. --n: nv-Av-y-Hv: A \ ..‘.... ~,.‘.~_ ‘V e. O "‘ 'tn- - “V ‘ vol-. ‘ u. h ‘ .- PVH ‘r‘. ... v .._.‘. b.. . . .- A_A- "’\u——V~r ‘O. .U~'~‘- nil. .\- . ‘ ‘ -. "‘~ .. ‘._.. u ‘ ‘ ~: z», 3.. ~ , a-. h-~-“. ~. :..‘A- . .. ~\ A v‘." l.. IN ‘ w v "a._' .' " h “. " ’2‘. 9‘... a- v“‘ r‘ ‘ “I -- N l. s ‘v.. 4 IQ"‘.. is . ‘. .- 'Lv- ~ ‘ ..~': ‘4‘ In 11’ 43 Data on generic products suggested that shopping activity, measured by the number of shopping trips, varies by type of product. In one study 35 per cent of all shoppers conducted more than one shopping trip for all products. However, 62 per cent of furniture and large appliance shoppers conducted more than one shopping trip. At the other extreme only 20 per cent of the shoppers for shoes made more than one shopping trip.22 In researching the mobile family, Bell found that mobiles did search retail outlets before making their first major appliance purchase in their new market area. Before the purchase mobile families visited on the average 2.0 stores. In comparison, mobile families visited 3.1 retail stores prior to making their first purchase of 23 Even though these findings are beneficial in furniture. broadening the scope of knowledge on the amount of shopping activity by mobiles, it is unfortunate that comparable information was not researched on non-mobiles to determine if a difference existed between the two market segments. Store searching behaviors tended to be limited for consumers purchasing small electrical appliances and soft goods. In a small appliance study approximately 60 per cent shopped at two stores, and 22 per cent shopped at three or more stores.24 For soft goods an average of 71 per cent of the purchasers shopped at only one store and -~ A'- \.-'a F—Ifl' u—Jsv :V‘.‘ll- x 1,:‘cvn O '2'! Q .~....-u. 'III‘AA . u. . ung- QC — ‘ ‘ ... y.w'.~--||' -- . . :“ :‘V IRA" ‘I-‘U ‘.b be... -. :2" “'5 Inf-b .- """--D u.u .oJ . a "lv. 0..., _: l .’ . ‘ ~_ r...“ -... ._-___ v.“ J b- . _ ~ '--~~ ~..: T's.‘: w. 4|“ ~ . .“Q‘b:_‘ H, .._ “-k. 3"»- . .. -_ '~ ‘-~ L . .5 ‘:‘.-~4 ~L": - s.._‘ - V": :Z‘w‘g -‘ '0‘. r‘» “~V ‘ “- - ’ ‘ . .h ‘ < . a. H”‘ a... 9; -~ ‘ \ R “3‘ " a‘ vi“ ,- -..’; “v” No \‘ a! .q_ ' Q \ H “w- Ly- ~ fi“__I-‘ “ _‘ ‘- ~:. e.“ ‘3‘. -v ‘vg :2 ‘4 - L- . “ a " "AV\ " '~ V ‘ "‘b.~C.~ < ‘§ ‘~‘ 44 an average of 29 per cent of the buyers shOpped at two or more stores.25 Store searching behaviors tended to be relatively more extensive than the above for innovations, including color television, stereophonic equipment, automatic dish- washers, and air conditioners. Twenty per cent of the purchasers did not visit any stores before purchasing, 56 per cent visited one store before purchasing, 10 per cent visited two stores before purchasing, 10 per cent visited three stores before buying, and 30 per cent visited four stores or more before buying. Sampling the purchasers of color television sets from one department store in northwest Texas, Riter found that 52 per cent of his sample (n=92) shopped and purchased at one store and 48 per cent shOpped two or more stores. No significant difference was found among income groups and shopping behaviors; however, slightly over 50 per cent of his sample were in the high income category (over $10,000). In addition, 60 per cent of the respondents purchased on the first visit to the department store. Although the product brand or the availability of the set were considered important to the majority of the respondents, neither factor appeared to be related to the number of stores shopped.2 ~— 0 v . a-“ o... ‘—A‘* —¢V—“A I .- ‘ . u - \. -—— a -.. —-_---‘.-—v .- ~0- --o.--d I: t . t v. r .. Z . .2 I l I E .. c . u». v‘ by Q» 4‘ .. >r ‘. _. 4‘ ‘\ :c. c .2 T Z .1 T. i .2 .a. I a. I. I .: 4 i I. e .3 {a ... ... .r . a. z. : .r.‘ ah» P . . A .u A. g—‘ o . ‘ .. u A .c G... a . ..... ...:. so. 2‘. . ... . . .... .c .;.. 4.... . ..:. .. _ . . ... . .. t . . . Jae . .. . .3. . . 45 Brandt and Day found that for the buyers of house- hold durables store searching activity included 48 per cent of the sample shopping one store, 30 per cent of the sample ShOpping two or three stores, and 22 per cent of the sample shopping four or more stores. Household durables included major appliances, televisions, furniture, and similar products with a price of $100 or more. Although the above data provided background informa- tion on search activity of durable goods shoppers, more specific information would be useful on store searching behaviors for large appliances. Reporting on 366 reSpond- ents who had purchased a large household appliance and had verified their store shopping activity, Coolsen found that 40 per cent of the appliance purchasers shopped and bought at only one store, 27 per cent shOpped two stores, 20 per cent shopped three stores, and 14 per cent shopped four 29 In addition, most major stores or more (see Table 2-2). appliance purchasers (56 per cent) visited the store where the product was purchased only one time. Thirty-six per cent of the purchasers visited the source of supply two times, and 28 per cent visited the store three times or more. Data for types of stores and purchaser visits suggested that shopping behavior varied with the type of retailer where the consumer did her purchaSing. Sixty- nine per cent of the purchasers from independent retailers bought on the first visit, 52 per cent of the purchasers .-u-v ‘__ . \‘Fv.. u'-:= \‘A - -_ '5.“ -"v: -“. a a- .- \ "“_ 46 TABLE 2—2.--Store Shopping Activity.* Number of Stores Percentage Shopped and Number of of Identifieda Purchasers Purchasers One Store 145 39.6% Two Stores 97 26.5 Three Stores 72 19.7 Four Stores 34 9.3 Five Stores 17 4.7 Six Stores 1 0.2 Totals 366 100.0% *Table adapted from Exhibit 23 in Frank G. Coolsen, The Consumer Market for Major Appliances in the Washington, D. C. MetrOpolitan Area (Washington, D. C.: The American University School of Business Administration Publication Series-~Marketing Studies, 1962), p. 60. aIncludes the store where the respondent purchased. _ o «C . on w . as 4 . .9 .. . v L. . .n A b . . .4. .» w. u “a v. . M ~: . .n‘ ~. A. :~ Av 5. .. I“ a .. L. '. p. .c _. a. ‘. A. v‘ v .2 A .. A . ..« .. . .. ..v¢ u . . . . ~ . n! t i . .- ~ . G .‘ —. \b —. . ~ 2. n. “a“ m. :w .. “ .—~ .p. .... .e. 2‘ 2‘ a I: I: m.‘ t. .7... 0.“. a.” .... l . .LH ... .: J. ... __.. .... : ;. . ._._~ ... .t .2“. u . . - .... I h”. M.H. .v,. c... .. . 2‘ .~.. .; ._. .. . a T. .; v.“ .3 ....... .._ ... ... .. L .. .. i i. . _ 47 from large volume retailers bought on the first visit, and 36 per cent of the purchasers from kitchen specialists and other retail outlets bought on the first visit (see Table 2-3).30 Dommermuth found that refrigerator purchasers had the highest proportion or 57.6% shopping at more than one store, followed by television purchasers with 41.7%, followed by washing machine purchasers with 37.6%, followed by vacuum cleaner purchasers with 20.6%, and lastly followed by electric iron purchasers with 17.6%. For shopping at more than one retail outlet there was a significant difference between refrigerator purchasers, television set and washing machine purchasers, and vacuum cleaner and electric iron purchasers.31 Some evidence suggests that the number of stores visited or the number of brands considered is not related to the amount of time expended in decision making by purchasers of household durables. Newman and Staelin reported on purchasers of household durables and auto- mobiles and the purchase decision time between first con- sidering the product and the actual purchasing of it. The average number of weeks for the decision was 18.0 weeks for the sample (n=639). The authors used the Automatic Interaction Detector program to denote sequentially the Inajor independent variables in the binary analysis which minimize the within group sum of squares and derived as . I- ._..c.c.o e.......,. la. L - Kalil) I'llil; 3 I _~.ufiH-.¢QZ THLH “19443: $1.44 mud: u. p n— . . . . J... . T a a .. .3... ...._.. 3.47:: 35:59.13: :5: ~o> :3 a .3... rifle. 93:2 ... . : _ .1 7.1;: 13:34 x» ~ 113.... ~3 3.3.2333. ...........i 3g 2.83%..) um... ~.».~::._>~ . v a. n..- II.-,n- Q... n h e ., ‘ 4-I|.cu -.'..r~'nlill'.llo lll:...|-..~n 48 IHW om ~Ammma ~mwwcsum maflumxumzllmmflumm UflHnsm cowumnumfiafiEwd mmmafimsm mo Hoonom muwmum>mab ".0 .Q ~coumcflnmmzv mmum cmuflaomouumz .U .a .Goumcflnmmz may cfi mmUQMHmmmm cmomnmam 0:9 Hmflmz you umxnmz “mammcoo mzh .cmmaoou .w xcmum cw vm pwaflnxm Eoum wwgmmwm magma H nvm «H om mfim mmmmnonsm m0 qu852 wo.ooa mo.ooa wo.ooa wo.ooa manpoa m.m m.n m.m n.m mpfimfl> who: no usom m.HH v.am m.m m.HH muflmfl> wwuns H.mm n.mm o.om H.Nm muflmfi> 039 wm.mm wn.mm wo.mm wm.mm uwmw> mco mamuoe mgmauso mnmaflmpwm mnmawmuwm mam: mmz Hmsuo can ucmocmmmwcH wEdHo> gofluommcmne mums: mumflamwowmm momma mammsm mo muusom Gmnouflm ou muwmfl> mo umnadz H .muofl>mgmm mcwuflmfl> muoumuu.mnm mamas .2 ‘ . y--- ’ . ..ua s' V ..I\- Q .0 ~ .- .. .d 3. p . I b. a: p: .uu I“ .U ‘. .~. .pu I. ~V . 2 .ua aw .2 -§- III .. .‘ u C u“ ..; --:.a~.-~ ..~‘ .vn ‘ F ~“t‘ol“ vca¢a -~ 0 :: uh .. — C t .~« T. 2 :~ . s: I?‘ L» «fin . \ .M ...\ ..... RIM a; .s » .~¢ gs. ..... 49 many as five splits and few as two splits.32 The first split was between satisfied users (14.2 weeks, n=366) and dissatisfied or nonusers (23.2 weeks, n=273). For satisfied users the next split concerned the products purchased with the buyers of monochrome televisions, washing machines, and air conditioners spending 9.2 weeks in decision-making and buyers of cars, stoves, refrigerators, and color televisions using 16.6 weeks in decision-making. For dissatisfied previous owners and nonusers previously, the next major variable was the amount of information seeking with low information seekers taking 14.2 weeks (n=82) for the purchase and high information seekers using 33 Even though first 27.0 weeks (n=l9l) before purchasing. time purchasers were combined with dissatisfied users, there seems to be some evidence that these buyers would likely be high information seekers and perhaps be more inclined to consider more brands and stores. Questions were asked, however, on the number of brands considered and the number of stores visited, but the results did not indicate either variable being as important as five other variables in one situation and three variables in the other main situations. However, the amount of purchasing experience for white goods and automobiles was inversely related to decision-making time.34 «£- .u. - __.' .— n... :;':.FVA ‘ (I) .. . "‘-”""-C"“ .‘V i- v‘ . . . " 'Vzu-us '- " «a..- 5.. I D “ A-- ~-... ,.. In '1‘ vv-‘_ ~¢t 50 Product-Store shopping activity.--The shopping matrix based on the number of stores shOpped and the number of brands shopped was tested by Dommermuth and Bruce and Dommermuth. The first test was on the shopping behaviors associated with specific products, which included refrigerators, television sets, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, and electric irons, and specific brands of a specific product.35 The second study concentrated on social class, defined according to income, and the amount of ShOpping activity regarding the purchasing of television sets.36 In the first study the general research results were: 1. Even within this relatively homogeneous group of consumers there are variations between purchasers within every product class with respect to the amount of shopping effort expended in the purchasing process. 2. There is not much evidence of consumers who are highly brand loyal but who wish to visit several retail outlets before purchasing the item. In general, where there is shopping effort, it is directed toward a consideration of both brands and outlets. 3. There are differences in the pr0portions of consumers who are willing to expend ShOpping effort between the categories of merchandise examined.37 Specific research results on the particular generic products and the shopping behaviors are illuminating. These results included: bl avg-1' (A, U'. V:- ~~=-‘-c'e .~.- butch-l-.. 3- --.L. . ..I Er. "E. AA ‘4 v J R " q s ‘ Q‘AQ~;'aF . Uv.~:-%'- ~- . I .- Och—.vsa. . a 5" '5‘. be.» ~Fu~.~-:‘v “Y” Vvo. -. ‘ H-‘ . -. n .25 56"" " c ‘9’.“ g .... ~ . ; a ‘-~;i “—0-; .h-‘ '-‘::v 0 a C.: ‘ . “ an on- - 'AQL —.- bv‘Z'lD'- a~g_ ‘ v. '.. ’ o a ~ ‘5. n. ‘A . - _“- =-_,v:- 4“; ‘h v- "."g - -- . ..--_ s ._,.,__A “ ‘.t~v. N \— _.-:- ._ '- “nu—A .oau‘v.‘.= 2*» v‘ ‘— .' -‘*— ' '- ‘v s.." H- ‘ -“V ‘ “A, ‘v ‘ 7 y -‘ \ " \- “‘xfi. ‘. l .‘. _ ‘ ‘2 :-_. “ '\ .V ‘A rue». s \‘S '.'~, - -. ‘\‘ h“ -‘ . .‘:Q 5‘ Q . \- n C \. ‘ r2“ \ K a \Q“ \“ :‘A~ “~\ “ C ‘R“ vfifin "s (1 51 1. Cell A (one brand and one store shopped) contained the highest proportion of purchasers for each generic product. 2. Considerable variation did appear to exist between the two brands of television sets and consumer product-store search activity.38 The second study researched television sets and income classes. These income classes were median ranges of (l) $2,009-4,436, (2) $4,299-5,49l, and (3) $5,009- 9,081. The researchers found that the lowest income group had the lowest amount of shopping activity if the one- brand-one store cell were compared to all other cells. The middle income group did the mOSt searching, while the highest income group was between the activity levels of the other two income groups. The authors also concluded, ". . . the social class structure [income classes] (a marketing uncontrollable) in a community may play a crucial role in the determination of brand and store competition in the community."39 In another study on household durable goods the researchers found that store and brand shopping was highly correlated for purchasers for the product combination of brown goods, white goods, and similar products priced at $100 or more. In addition, 61 per cent of the single store shoppers considered only one brand, 57 per cent of the two-three store shoppers considered two-three brands, and 82 per cent of the four or more store shoppers con- sidered four or more brands.40 S .l l: . r a. s . .: .1. .PV fi.‘ 5 a .l «a E q a . a. ~u um A. C. £~ . g . vs :~ .x.‘ by Q . a A p. .. . qflm m” .74“ s "v F. . “c. C» ‘1 . 3‘ s. \h~ PM a; sfi‘ gs & U V \ a. . .Q. o a . f .L .m. 7. E .7 i 3. .. I v. . a. S r .. C . Z i .: a. p . a o . ,.u .6 . . no 2. .1 .3 2. .2 .3 .s _. _ .. .. .. .. .. .. . .n .2 a. . . 4. .. ts .\ . u" . .u.. v . - ... . . MS. 4.. as. h: - .s ‘2 .£ .A I L. .\ .a a. 9.. .a . . l - ~.. (a . . . ~. . . u .v—M a. .s“ ..~. .M .~. m u H” 9... .n._ y s l- "5‘ . s; .u.“ e.‘ .n .s .s... I .\ .__.. .Jrs . . ”N" L. . . . . .1 _. .. .1. . ...., .. .1 ~x . . .. . ... m m .L n u .... 1 La. . a; 2‘ _ 52 Internal Search Internal search was previously defined according to stored information as total awareness of brands and stores and awareness but unused knowledge of brands and stores. It is the former which has been primarily re- searched. From the literature there is some support for studying the number of brands known and the rankings of brands known for a generic product. In an extensive research project on newspaper advertising effectiveness and the introductory stage of the product life cycle for Lestare, a dry bleach, and Chicken Sara Lee, a convenience food item in a boilable bag, Stewart measured the brand awareness of each product over time. Stewart used thirteen independent variables to predict brand awareness. In rank order for predicting Lestare's awareness the number of brands known by free recall was first, the age of the husband and the inter- viewer were tied for second and third, social status was fourth, and education of husband was fifth. In rank order for predicting Chicken Sara Lee's awareness the sub- scription to the newspaper which carried the advertisements was first, education of husband was second, interviewer and social status were tied for third and fourth, and number of brands known by free recall was fifth.41 Further computations on the interaction of the independent variables suggested that the number of brands mentioned .u-Io Quin-Ar. nfi : ‘ 0.- Ac. J-OI' -&:~ 9;- routs-Ar loud in: OA“ .A .-..¢..’.:-‘ " 4..-... "... | o 2:23.355 a: VC‘ v ~ 4» -S. . a 3,. \_.‘__ a I... ‘ A.‘ -~ '0 9" . O—b. C..- A" I "‘ ‘ . v-q -.‘..‘° ”ea.‘c: . . '.. . 1 can - ... _.: :;:--__“ w~:,‘_’.“. ‘I . ._. _. u ' .---..5" I: V“, s C... ..' .- . . - ...‘ a . . -v v cfi.‘ -c“- ‘ .._ . o... ‘h ‘ .‘ 3: va“:~‘~ .. . ““413 " fl \— '. "‘.. . .‘ -‘-.‘ e‘..‘: P: ; 3" ‘p- IE . ‘-‘ - s .“'~ v.2“v-A ‘ \ “'~:n.~. s -_‘ \‘A § .Iv- p“... V..‘J - .; a. ‘5 ,- . ‘°’ ’v& 'u v; a-“ h V ‘ ~4_ . . ‘~ u _ . ‘sz-A‘. ~¢ .- “. QR“ ‘»§b ‘ .‘- “: =‘fi ‘~ t s s F ‘ V ‘1 ‘: ‘a “- . ‘ ‘ ..‘\r" H' { I J I . I . s . A ‘ a... h \ .h‘ ~‘fi‘r: ‘5 u. . \ ‘~ ‘ n. “¢t 53 was most important in predicting the brand awareness of Lestare and the number of brands mentioned was the third most important variable in predicting the awareness of Chicken Sara Lee.42 Hotchkiss and Franken reported on the number of brands known by respondents (n=1000) from schools and companies.43 The brand awareness question was asked on generic products relevant to the sample. The number of known brands tended to vary across generic products and by sex of the respondent for some products, especially the infrequently purchased ones. For example, the percentages of males and females who recalled six or more brands of typewriters were 39 per cent and four per cent respectively. The percentages of males and females who recalled six or more brands of fountain pens were 18 per cent and three Per cent respectively (Table 2-4) .44 Not only is the number of brands or stores known like”)! important but so could be the position of the named brand or store relative to other brands or stores. Several writers have suggested that brands mentioned first on a brand awareness question would be more favorably liked or more apt to be used by the respondent than brands named Second: third, and so forth. Hotchkiss and Franken con- clUdedI ". - . the brands which led in familiarity were .45 also the brands most extensively used.’ 0f the brands named first, 56 per cent were currently used or had been \ Ina—s: i: Q :udn-a..un~ .uflfllxa xpv.a dpv~d~dfilr~pN Pdflu~nv-nvuu TI..2..-~2 7.23; . 3 a: a 1.2 3.u—~Va NE... x‘uu 3ob—uv— .~AJ» .u>m.~ .y V N OfihdndiJ‘vFVQ-V .d u d '9' a.» nit. stung-l. no. n-zauan/IC Inc Ilv~hnunna7fi -<-lu Xi'an. >o~ It filhouuu-.A~.N~\UI~\ \Av :ihvo. bq~nuuwhoith ...~.-~<.~. .Umpmfiflxoummm oum3 mommusmoumm mnam .Hm .m .Ahmma .mumcmflansm mumcuonm cam ummumm "xuow Bmzv whommmm msflmflpum>©¢ mo psmEmHSmmmz one .smxsmum .m cumgoflm pom mmflxnouom :ouusm mmnomu Scum ammum m mo soaummpm cm mmz mHQMBH m NH mm mHmEmm we wva wmm mam: mumm m m vm mHmEmm wa. wma wam mam: mama mamassom m ma mm mHmEmm mm wmm won mam: monopmz a v mm mHmem ma mam mom mam: mumuflusmmme M m mm mm mamsmm mm wom wme mam: mooom ummmxmmnm m oa mm mamfimm wv wHH wmm mam: mommou II mm ma mHmEmm II wmm mmm mam: mmmom mmocmum mopsmum muoz Nmosmnm mqu xmm pospoum Daumsmu oz swam no xam.3msm Ho w>flm 3msM . H.muoopoum oawflommm How mosmnm ssosm mo Hmnfidz paw xwm he musmpsommwm mo wmmunmouwmln.vum mamda . 4:" av- Qty-.Ar :: val-4w...»- ... b; uo~v . - ‘ .-. OpopeA“;fl by; -:. run.-v..»~‘ U. .s . ‘ . 41-. -:w; v: Inn“ . «H- odon--‘ v-.. _- h.- o... .. - - . xt- a '2 , . 0.. - ’;v ":v ;° ‘ ”v ibtdvfi .‘t‘- I. ‘- .‘u— -.. h , —.. A \ I A v..‘ “A: “V § J";-. -.‘—:- . “'5 ‘ R ‘- *b ‘ .:~ -.1 v - . -. .< .~ .. ~ - Q ' ‘ “". 2.“ v \ '- ‘~ ' s. ~ ~ \ ~:\‘ ‘ ~_ A ‘ ~ I s \'~I \ .“ .~~ - ~.‘ ~ ‘* e-c v‘ 'C \« ‘- A "‘_ Q. ~ ~ =~~ ‘ q‘ ‘ .~ & a. .i . '\‘ ‘_ ~- -“"¢~ . -~“ 5‘ $.- \. ‘: ‘\~$A .\N‘ \‘ N a '- 55 used by the respondents. Cohen found that the first mentioned brand by the respondent tended to be the brand usually consumed by the respondent in the two market areas of the study. In one market 78 per cent of the respondents (n=74) named their regular brand first, and in the other market 73 per cent (n=44) mentioned their regular brand first.46 In addition, the second mentioned brand tended to be the one that the respondents would switch to if the respondents were to change brands.4 Another consideration of brand awareness is its association with market goals of firms. Reporting on awareness and purchasing behaviors, Assael and Wilson found that unaided brand awareness was correlated (r=.35) with product category sales and unaided advertising awareness was also correlated (r=.4l) with product category sales.4 One possible limitation of studying brand or store awareness is the inconsistency of recall by the same re3pondents over time. Researching brand awareness of appliances, Day and Pratt found that unaided recall of brands varied considerably over time since 50 per cent of the sample knew more brands in the second interview, 28 per cent of the sample knew less brands, and 22 per cent of the sample knew the same number of brands. The authors concluded that the main variables explaining these differences were the number of brands identified in the . . ' .prvt‘ no. ‘5 """ - V' w“, is. -z. Ono-'. . ..' ...;,.,. r“ 5, ‘ y... Zz‘fivit‘udu w. ‘UDFOPA' V‘!‘ _‘ I M u.. Inn-v”... ‘ ‘ Ann ‘ n 0.; z'o‘-':’_~; -3 H... .— -.'.‘_~ ' - ...."3" ‘2n.... .— -. .‘Z .. -‘v_‘_ . . '. A , "‘ ‘9” M 4. - hv- 'E 5-‘.. ._. ...-..._‘- ' 3 ~.. . V .-,_v- A“ :A‘ ‘ I..- 3 VI. -‘VU‘ ~-.__v H.-. H ._‘ u.-—b :v.‘v- “-._‘ . . a " ~“ ‘-A r‘ "“"“: -.. -..:: .. F.- r ‘ ~ ~ ~__‘_‘ l-. --~A I ~'. — .- A-‘v-~- - ‘-‘.v h—o‘ o v..u..‘. -. c I" .-C - v-. ‘ ‘2- _ A A ‘.":-~Y~ ‘ - -" -‘ -_ p . .‘ I “-.. Fv“.,.’: " u.3 ¢.... -: ‘-‘ ‘ " a_ “--' a h‘ -"- ‘1 . s ._‘. ‘ r V - . "‘~ . o. ' I .v‘ ,. “0—¢ H l a _,‘. —~‘ 'V~~‘.-I‘ ‘ -b‘ . ‘.4 -~“ * ' ‘ “A- “‘ - ‘ _ fl - ‘H“_‘ 5‘ ‘ d b‘ ‘, ‘ . 9:2..fi I ‘-u u ‘I I. I ' Po vfie~.‘; I ~: :~v-‘. “ ;“._ . ‘ _ ':‘_:\-- '. g—a “§ 9“ ‘v.. .._ ‘- .“‘: 5‘ 1“; ‘. ‘ .i F ~ ‘4 . b. ~ I. a ‘ ‘ a - < ‘ V ‘:;'~ . ‘ '- ‘ F ~flzy. ‘ “~~ '- ~ “ 56 first interview, the need for shopping information, and the education of the household head.49 Another possible limitation to studying brand or store awareness is the apparent general lack of a relation- ship between factual knowledge and behaviors. Surveying the literature, Haskins chided advertisers who tested consumers on factual recall because he found twenty-six studies that generally showed no relationship or a rela- tionship in the opposite direction between knowledge and attitudes or behaviors. Haskins, however, concluded that knowledge changes may influence attitudes and behaviors, and therefore it needs to be researched relative to the number of brand alternatives being considered by the consumer, the product familiarity of the consumer, the tYPe of individual, the type of information, the source, the credibility of the source, the type of PIOdUCtr and the timing of the decision-making process. Brand or store awareness is certainly factual recall, however, the research does focus on the number of brands correctly identified. In addition, there appears to be ample reason to extend beyond the more tYPical aPPI‘Oc'aChes on the analysis of the awareness of brands or Stores and to research the feasibility of separating markEtS by all brands or all stores known, known but unused brands or stores, and in combination with shopping ‘ .... n ,. , ' 3 '38 517‘.- u ‘.-u . n.,.. .-_,_.y O — -‘I\n .- o..- A- . ..‘ \'I‘ .‘ . v - ’..._' fi'.‘ a. ""“-»Q ' -““vu- ".. .': FV—Q‘ \— u l “'i- I ~—... ~ . - - .A‘V" u.,_ A I ' h... . v '. .,....... .1“- I up: RA_A;- .co- H~.--"- I a. , ...-.~-..aq‘.' . “‘ ~ ~. ..-~~.--"b ‘ ‘ ‘ . .. g"v~-.- -‘ “rt ,..-u[ t¢~~-‘. “ o ‘ ._ < I "-. — ‘ . .- a- (as "F‘ C‘vsg v "-.‘ ‘~ “c; ‘2‘» ‘0.» V. V § ’_. t N --~~g ._ a ~- ~‘—_:\._: .' ~~~ l-.,_ ‘ . . ...~ PI‘ ‘N_~a .‘ I" “V... d .‘ ‘ . __A ‘ -v ~~ VL~.‘ - ~.‘\“ \ ‘ ~u ‘ K. ‘A t.‘ "y ‘ "I “V- -y.‘ .. .. - ‘ ’ . . ‘ ~ “ \‘ a... -\‘ ~ ‘ ‘ . “.2- .‘ s- “\‘~.y— \‘ . i ‘fl‘ .‘ ‘ -: Q~,‘ N ‘V ;v b- I I ‘ ‘ ~~k \\~ ‘I ‘* 57 activity since some purchasers will likely be low or high knowers of brands and/or stores. Summary The concept of search was discussed in this section of Chapter II. Search activity was separated into external search, the active shopping of brands and/or stores, and internal search, the mental awareness of brands and/or stores. The conceptual framework for external search was the classification of products and stores by COpeland, Holton, Aspinwall, Miracle, and Bucklin. The empirical research on the external search for brands suggested that external search tends to be limited to three brands or less, to be increased for relatively higher priced products, and to vary by specific products within the general classi- fication of white goods. The empirical evidence on the external search for stores suggested that external search tends to vary with the type of good (convenience or shopping or speciality), not to be reduced if shOppers had store loyalty, to be limited to three or fewer dealers for automobile purchasers, to be limited to two stores or less for major white goods, and to differ between purchasers of major appliances and color televisions. The number of store visits tends to vary directly with the price of the product, to vary o. u a. . 3.; C. .1 O a a” M n a» “W. W h a r. .. ”a .a I n... 5“ . nu mph 4 . Q r u. n u .a A . . . .H J .u. u.w ' O Q i In. . ., ._. .. v c- '.. a.“ , n - \n ‘ H \ v-nua \— -- ..-..-A 5; .. vw‘ -p- ‘- 4‘ .7 '— ‘ —\...“ ~- ‘ A-“ ‘U-'o¢: a; D.- h _. a: . ‘ I :_ E E T. E Z .\ :\ \‘ \— \~ \.~ L. ‘xx . . 58 by product, and to be limited to one trip only to the source of supply for most purchasers of white goods. The research on product and store external search suggested that external search tends to vary for different household durables, to be for brands and stores instead of just stores, and to be non-existant for most purchasers of household durables because no comparisons of brand or store alternatives were made. Different brands of televisions tended to have purchaser differences on external search patterns. Middle income purchasers of televisions tended to search brands and stores the most, lower income buyers of televisions tended to search the least, and higher income purchasers tended to search in- between the other relative income groups. The research on internal search suggested that the number of brands known in a product category tends to be an important variable in predicting the awareness of a brand in at least two cases and to vary according to the sex of the respondent. The brand named first tends to be the brand currently or historically consumed by the respondent. The Concept of Market Segmentation In the marketing literature a viable concept for assisting marketing theorizers and practitioners is Inarket segmentation. The genesis of market segmentation was stated in the early 1900's when Shaw stated that the 7" R, I‘S I‘ UV- ,". an! t ‘flfi u on. _‘ p c - . _ -u-...-vbu -a- w.— - p - -.-onp 9‘" RAH! * I- Pu..- . we 'uv .Q-h' an--az. ~‘I y.. ‘ \ l V‘ ‘.S S” ‘... g... ‘, s.-- . ’ u “"2“ fl‘ - .. A “'-~- “as o.“ . -V -0.“ . - '4";v--.-~ u».‘.‘v--‘..‘..:‘A . 5. . 1 . '-~‘---~ :l' "'“ ry. h- . . . . finnf‘. CC~”:_F 4 - - h, ‘ N—l -. F w c P" :‘Ay "5 “”4 .a d - .-' D Q l - PA“ "0 b A 5 t- “y... .-~~-_ : - . ‘x— -‘I ~ . Q u. n. , "-~ .- H-‘: ~‘ I Lye. ‘-‘ “ -1 — ‘.." 'H‘. 59 marketplace was composed of market contours based upon differences in social and economic attributes of people and the firm needed to analyze the market by strata and 51 This to adjust its selling strategies to its contour. concept of market segmentation was best stated recently by Smith as: . . . viewing a heterogeneous market (one characterized by divergent demand) as a number of smaller homogeneous markets in response to differing produgE preferences among important market segments. The Conceptual Foundation The major premise is that people are different. Since people are different, their needs and wants will often be different; thus, one product cannot satisfy everyone's needs well. Although peOple are dissimilar, they can be classified according to their needs and wants and other characteristics into more homogeneous groups of peOple. These characteristics are people-oriented attributes, such as demographic, socioeconomic, and behavioral variables. Each group will have different needs and wants than other mutually exclusive groups of people, but some individuals can be classified into different groups at the same time. In addition, the needs and wants of a group may be filled by different products. The rationale for market segmentation is based on the long-run profitability and survival of the firm in the . ' v- 0: ‘:.':." “‘ ‘ .u.|yoa 58 b' -. I ‘ a L“. up II: 1“ 0. -v P . ”-1 .y ~‘--‘..v‘b - ‘ O I ’ -----v :p-\ 5-3 ‘ ,. -—.:- ‘0‘ up..- ‘0- . F'FA ‘ap. Q “-: N A..v "‘ u...u..‘ M~A§ . U..- . "‘ - vv. ~ ~ ,5 car .---.~ g... ~v‘ ' ‘ .‘0 op: ‘gh :,_F‘ ‘. ...- -‘-“_ ~..V ‘ ‘~"'0 -. . ‘I‘ " (a- 6'- t. .- .. “‘-b -..‘ ‘. ‘ ‘ ~."-' “" :Ahfin, . a! ‘Vv'. C "‘ n- o. ‘ c...‘ ._,_ ::--‘ ‘CVS ~‘Qy‘ ! V..- \: l.“ H. ‘ DVD . “ '—-.¢ ‘ e...‘ r us‘ K.‘ 1 f 1 41’ 60 marketplace. The market is viewed as numerous submarkets, and if taken to the logical extreme, each person consti- tutes a separate market. However, the marketing manager needs to balance the advantages of delimiting the market further and the increased costs incurred from less special- ization in production and marketing. Each submarket has its own demand curve; that is, preference schedule for products and services. Because each submarket is differ- ent, the firm should tailor its marketing mix to each target market that is deemed potentially profitable to pursue. By accomplishing this task, the firm provides want-satisfiers that will provide greater satisfaction to the particular group of people than if the marketing mix were developed for greater aggregations of people with different demand schedules. If greater satisfaction were true for individual segments, then taken to the extreme, society should also be more satisfied. The firm catering to the target market should gain consumer loyalty to its product offering and should be isolated, partially or fully, from competition until at least another firm more exactingly caters to this market's needs and wants. The firm using market segmentation achieves its differential advantage in the marketplace. In short market segmentation is the process of subdividing a larger market into smaller submarkets, each with its own unique demand preference schedule for , . .......-V .-.-.-~...~ ~yv- . . . ‘ ...... I. . ‘ _ ‘V‘V‘V‘V IQ -.. .vv'.--.u' ‘J. ‘ i '9!" IV”. . r‘ \ "F;‘v ‘ v-u..-i ._ . :- ~ "" u 82 69Douglas J. Tigert, Richard Lathrope, and Michael Ifleeg, "The Fast Food Franchise: Psychographic and Emmographic Segmentation Analysis," Journal of Retailing, XLVII (Spring, 1971), 84-87. 7OSidney Goldstein, "The Aged Segment of the Market, 1950 and 1960," Journal of Marketing, XXXII (April, 1968), 62-68. 71Paul E. Smith, "Merchandising for the Teen—Age Market," Journal of Retailing, XXXVII (Summer, 1961), 12-13. 72William H. Reynolds and James H. Myers, "Market- ing and the American Family," Business Topics, XIV (Spring, 1966), 57-58, 63-64. 73Leon G. Schiffman, "Perceived Risk in New Product Trial by Elderly Consumers," Journal of Marketing Research, IX (February, 1972), 106-108. 74Charles R. Goeldner and Henry L. Munn, "The Significance of the Retirement Market," Journal of Retailing, XL (Summer, 1964), 43-52. 75Paul Gilkison, "What Influences the Buying Decisions of Teen-Agers?" Journal of Retailing, XLI (Fall, 1965), 34-41. 76Patricia M. Decker, "Color Choices of Older Women: Preferences or Necessities?" Journal of Retail- ing, XXXIX (Winter, 1963—1964), 16-25. 77Janet L. Wolff, What Makes Women Buy(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1958), pp. 219-223. 78David J. Rachman and Linda J. Kemp, "Profile of the Boston Discount House Customer," Journal of Retailing, XXXIX (Summer, 1963), 3. 79D. L. Wilemon, "An Analysis of the Age—Occupation Matrix as a Criterion for Vertical and Horizontal Market Delineation (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967), pp. 13-18. 80Charles E. Van Tassel, "ThejNegro As a Con- sumer--What We Know and What We Need to Know," in Marketing for Tomorrow . . . Today, ed. by M. S. Moyer and R. E. Vosburgh (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1967), pp. 166-168. '.:v¢;' ’Y n ‘ - ......vO, V. " - .~ 1 ' 9 ' .-~.;y.‘:“~' H " '. ....u.--V ! r.“ ‘ ‘ ...«n ‘9""' 1 0‘5' .....' \UIQI' ‘1‘“: A 5Zfrei C. I- ‘ ' . .5'2'V‘fl7‘0 n ...o uy-.‘I.VA I a . . ." Jan ' ' "'~ Fr! .. F '~o.nn. V a '- .r... ME; - :Vl'lou up- ~ v 1'- ”....v’ “' 4 RH... 83 81John W. Gould, Norman B. Sigband, and Cyril E. Zoerner, Jr., "Black Consumer Reactions to 'Integrated' Advertising: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Marketing, XXXIV (July, 1970), 24-25. 82Fred C. Akers, "Negro and White Automobile- EMying Behavior: New Evidence," Journal of Marketing Research, V (August, 1968), 288. 83Raymond A. Bauer, Scott M. Cunningham, and Iawrence H. Wortzel, "The Marketing Dilemma of.Negroes," Journal of Marketing, XXXIX (July, 1965), 6. 84D. F. Blankertz; "Shopping Habits and Income: IXPhiladelphia Department Store Study, Journal of Ehrketing, XIV (January, 1950), 574. 85Preston Martin, "Savings and Loans in.New &nmmrkets: Search for Predictive Factors," Journal of Durketing Research, IV (May,f1967), 166. 86James H. Myers, Roger R. Stanton, and Arne F. lung, "Correlates of Buying Behavior," Journal of Market- ing,.XXXV (October, 1971), 12-14. 87Barbara Davis Coe, "Private Versus National Preference Among Lower— and Middle-Income Consumers," Journal of Retailing, XLVII (Fall, 1971), 70. 88Louis E. Boone and John A. Bonno, "Food Buying Habits of the Urban Poor," Journal of Retailing, XLVII (Fall, 1971), p. 84. 89Pierre Martineau, "Social Classes and Spending Behavior," The Journal of Marketing, XXIII (October, 1958), 125. 90Kim B. Rotzoll, "The Effect of Social Strati- fication on Market Behavior," Journal of Advertising Research, VII (March, 1967), 23-26. 91John E. Lansing and James N. Morgan, "Consumer Finances Over the Life Cycle," in Consumer Behavior, ed. by Lincoln H. Clark (New York: New York University Press, 1955), pp. 36—39. 92David G. Moore, "Life Styles in Mobile Sur- burbiag" in Toward Scientific Marketing, ed. by Stephen A. Greyer (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1963), Pp. 158-163. 93,._ O! F (1-5.. I‘. ., -o Aewpubav \ ' ‘ I .4:- utilb-yoru b- ..r .4 ‘ .e 1\' A g. ”"3-er l‘ ... o'b'mww ’ ' « '"2 no ‘n..A,.¢ "“"“ v :1... ‘ ... u “... ‘-¢I " “r 4.... . ‘ | - ,. ‘\“‘-\-fi 4 A. ' ‘ v“ “‘ ‘.':-.'.:.. ..‘v-I -c: ..u‘." y. u... . _‘ no! -‘ '. A ‘I‘rn I. .‘F luv- 4 --‘vav..' -4 v 4' Pa j. ‘v. ‘ . ("‘- ~- \-“‘,. -. v-n.” "' . ..-.:.' ngv..;._ : a s-u._~\'- s. ' . I - A‘ ‘ I ""l ;:,.: P~- h“ V w. 1 ,- '- "~ .4 ‘ I A...” .V. ‘ '1 . ‘J .. _._.. ”J“ ‘ ‘~ A . Ax“ I “"1.‘ fig”. _.‘ ‘-§“: Pyh s‘ :‘s a: «V2. \ id: JV \ I I V P. 4g} .. “N .‘. I \ . .. ‘ .-:‘:‘.2 x ‘ rq.,‘ ". ' Ca.» " y. A‘ . ‘ ‘1 .H]1 ' ‘4 ~ ‘1 84 93Alan R. Andreasen, "Geographic Mobility and Market Segmentation," Journal of Marketing Research, III (November, 1966), 344-345. 94James E. Bell, Jr., "Mobiles--A Neglected Market Segment," Journal of Marketing, XXXIII (April, 1969), 38-39. 95Ingrid C. Kildegaard, "Moving Markets," Journal of Advertising Research, VII (March, 1967), 48-530 96William D. Wells, "Segmentation by Attitude Types," in Marketing and the New Science of Planning, ed. by Robert L. King (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1969), 124-126. 97William H. Cunningham and William J. E. Crissy, "Market Segmentation by Motivation and Atti- tude," Journal of Marketing Research, IX (February, 1972), 100-102. 98Franklin E. Evans, "Discussion of 'The Strategy of Market Segmentation,'" in Advancing Market- ing Efficiency, ed. by Lynn H. Stockman (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1959), p. 165. 99Morris J. Gottlieb, "Segmentation by Per- sonality Types," in Advancing Marketing Efficiency, ed. by Lynn H. Stockman (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1959), pp. 150-157. looPurnell H. Benson, "Psychometric Procedures in the Analysis of Market Segmentation," in Innovation-- Kgy to Marketing Progress, ed. by Henry Gomez (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1963), pp. 63-83. 101Leslie A. Beldo, "What Customer Profiles Don;t Tell You About Who's Buying Your Product," in Advancing Marketing Efficiency, ed. by Lynn H. Stockman (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1959), pp. 132-134. 102Ralph Westfall, "Psychological Factors in Predicting Product Choice," Journal of Marketing, XXVI (April, 1962), 37-39. 103Franklin B. Evans, "Correlates of Automobile Shopping Behavior," Journal of Marketing, XXVI (October, ' \f‘ v. I‘ .0.‘ i ‘ ' ”' I‘... “"van _ ..~:....-’ ‘ l ‘.‘_‘ _ Q" q .vd‘ rfiu-.‘ ..- .....- ““A I! I ... VAF_‘.-v\ ‘ u -‘.u-.‘.‘_‘., . —« ' 1 . ,, ””"r ,. ' “ .1. . ‘P- ."~- .1 ”Pu- 2 ‘ ..‘4‘ ‘4. k u. .. fl .'~A—: T." by, ...-UII‘.‘-' \py-‘ ‘ N u --.a.. .‘vv; ~.~"‘ r, .... B ~ "-.~ ‘ P? “_V 'N " “--A n“. F. .v'o.- . ' . H““. e -. " .1 0" 'IA‘ ... ounv nuu‘_.:. ‘ c.»- “d. v C... I""‘"‘~ ‘a-e ‘. "‘uu ~\\I‘r“ ‘ ‘.V~VV‘; 7‘, L w '1'!“ ’ ‘ ,-< " 4‘ ...“. A ._ "r..- ‘ ‘ .- .. ._ h A . ...~. -U ~.;:; 5‘ .... 1‘ ‘ \.l ..‘Fv. .I; .. ~ ‘ “' ¢, “ 85 104Joel B. Cohen, "An Interpersonal Orientation to the Study of Consumer Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research, IV (August, 1967), 273-277. 105Arthur Koponen, "Personality Characteristics of Purchasers," Journal of Advertising Research, I (September, 1960), 7-11. 106Ronald E. Frank, William F. Massy, and Thomas M. Lodahl, "Purchasing Behavior and Personal Attributes," Journal of Advertising Research, IX (December, I969Y, 21. 107Thomas S. Robertson and James H. Myers, "Personality Correlates of Opinion Leadership and Innovative Buying Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research, VI (May, 1969), 164-168. 108Willaim E. Bell, "Consumer Innovators: A Unique Market for Newness," in Toward Scientific Market- ing, ed. by Stephen A. Greyser (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1963), pp. 85-95. 109David L. Appel, "Market Segmentation--A Response to Retail Innovation," Journal of Marketing, XXXIV (April, 1970), 66. 110Thomas E. Ness, "Innovation in the Building Industry: The Architectural Innovator," in Marketing Involvement in Society and the Economy, ed. by Philip R. MCBonald (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1969), 352-356. lllYoram Wind, "Incongruency of Socioeconomic Variables and Buying Behavior," in Marketing Involvement in Society and the Economy, ed. by PhilipR. McDonaid (ChiCago: American Marketing Association, 1969), pp. 362-367. 112Ronald E. Frank, "Is Brand Loyalty a Useful Basis for Market Segmentation," Journal of Advertising Research, VII (June, 1967), 28-31. 113Ben M. Enis and Gordon W. Paul, "'Store Loyalty' as a Basis for Market Segmentation," Journal of Retailing, XLVI (Fall, 1970), 50. 114George S. Day, "A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty," Journal of Advertising Research, IX (September, 1969), 31. . O» - .‘L w. v. v“ ..I C ... . u. I e A w. . . E r. r e r . . ... . c F. 4 C. 4.. .... u. 71 C .1. .r. c . . .C» I h .C C ... .ru H...“ _ . .. C r. C. . 4 F: .u Tu . T“ u a. .c f. ‘n t) rr. 2 . - 3 CC 5. .7 . . I . . v . I u. a: .. no 9 . s ¢ I ‘1 ‘ u . wad ~-s w“ I.-. v‘. v... .I u. § a "b. «L r“ 1.4 v. u. 2. a]. ... . .2 I 1.. ... ”-.. ... ... .ln .J “flu...“ ». ... ... .. .n .: v . .... on u . ..vn. ..nu ..J—n ... n .I‘ ' ..d ... .I .... ...1. .. . . a ... Z S .\ ... .... .. . . ..... r: .: ‘ .... . s. 1‘. 1. ... 86 115Peter L. Gillett, "A Profile of Urban In-home Shoppers," Journal of Marketing, XXXIV (July, 1970), 42-43. 116William H. Peters and Neil M. Ford, "A Profile of Urban In-home ShOppers: The Other Half," Journal of Marketing, XXXVI (January, 1972), 63. 117"The Awesome Potential of In-Home Selling," Sales Management, CVI (April 15, 1971), 27. 118John R. Thompson, "Characteristics and Behavior of Out-ShOpping Consumers," Journal of Retail- ing, XLVII (Spring, 1971), 70-80. 119Allen F. Jung, "Buying Habits of College Students," Journal of Retailing, XXXVII (Summer, 1961), 27. 120Bryan Thompson, "An Analysis of Supermarket Shopping Habits in Worchester, Massachusetts," Journal of Retailing, XLIII (Fall, 1967), 18-19. 121H. Robert Dodge and Harry H. Summer, "Choosing Between Retail Stores," Journal of Retailing, XLV (Fall, 1969), 21. 122Ronald E. Frank, "But the Heavy Half is Already the Heavy Half!" in A New Measure of Responsi- EiIiEy for Marketing, ed. by Keith Cox and Ben M. Enis (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1968), 172-176. 123Henry Assael, "Segmenting Markets by Group Purchasing Behavior: An Application of the AID Tech- nique," Journal of MarketinggResearch, VII (May, 1970), 153-158. 124Lewis Alpert and Ronald Gatty, "Product Posi- tioning by Behavioral Life-Styles," Journal of Marketing, 125Ronald E. Frank, William F. Massy, and Harper W. Boyd, "Correlates of Grocery Product Consumption Rates," Journal of Marketing Research, IV (May, 1967), 184-190. 126Frank M. Bass, Edgar A. Pessemier, and Douglas Tigert, "Complementary and Substitute Patterns of Pur- chasing and Use," Journal of Advertising Research, IX (June, 1969), 24. 87 127William F. Massy and Ronald E. Frank, "Short Term Price and Dealing Effects in Selected Market Segments," Journal of Marketing Research, II (May, 1965), 179-184. 128Ronald E. Frank and Harper W. Boyd, Jr., "Are Private-Brand-Prone Grocery Customers Really Dif- ferent," Journal of Advertising Research, V (Decmeber, 1965), 32-35. 129Ronald E. Frank, Susan P. Douglas, and Rolando E. Polli, "Household Correlates of Package-Size Proneness for Grocery Products," Journal of Marketing Research, IV (November, 1967), 383-384. 130David W. Cravens and James C. Cotham, III, "Characteristics and Purchase Preferences of Interstate Highway Travelers," Journal of Retailing, XLVI (Winter, 1970-1971), 58-68. 131Robert D. Breth, "The Challenge of Charge Accounts to Discount Merchants," Journal of Retailing, XL (Winter, 1964-1965), 13. 132Burton F. Bowman and Frederick E. McCormick, "Market Segmentation and Marketing Mixes," Journal of Marketing, XXV (January, 1961), 25-29. 133Alan A. Roberts, "Applying the Strategy of Market Segmentation," Business Horizons, IV (Fall, 1961), 68-69. 134Murray L. Weidenbaum, "The Military Market in the 1960's," Business Horizons, IV (Spring, 1961), 64-650 135Haley and Gatty, loc. cit. 136Edgar A. Pessemier, Philip C. Burger, and Douglas J. Tigert, "Can New Product Buyers Be Identified?" Journal of Marketing Research, IV (November, 1967), 350-352. 137William E. Bell, "Consumer Innovation: An Investigation of Selected Characteristics of Innovators" (unpublished D.B.A. dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1962), p. 181. 138 Ibid., p. 182. y. C .4 .C . m“. —. W V s v‘ 4‘ In C. 9.14 ...u‘ ‘ - .... a. ‘1‘ $.“ “‘s \... .f _: 2. _ . . I l .4 .3 C. 5.: a: 3.4 . o H... .s . .... n... .1 ... .9. .3 C .2 . .3 .3 c. A 1L ‘1‘ s1... .... s - a» a.» 0‘ n « s: T T. -1 ~ . Pb ‘. I {u .._ ; I. \~.. . v 4: - .; r: _ - . 5 .3 5 r. . 5 1 1 L c 3 l l ..-t pk. «. C I J‘ .. \...\ 88 139Bass, Tigert, and Lonsdale, op. cit., PP- 264-266. 14°;p3g., pp. 266-268. 14ll§£g., pp. 268-269. 142Frank Massy, and Lodohl, lOC- Cit- 143Frank, "Is Brand Loyalty - - or" 22;_E£E° 144 John W. Slocum, Jr. and H. Lee Mathews, "Social Class and Income as Indicators of Consumer Credit Behavior," Journal of Marketing, XXXIV (April, 1970), 73. 145 Myers, Stanton, and Haug, op. cit., p. 14. 146Wind, op. cit., p. 366. 147Bruce and Dommermuth, 0p. cit., p. 32. 148Blankertz, 0p. cit., pp. 572-574. 149Brandt and Day, op. cit., pp. 8-ll. 150 William H. Peters, "Relative Occupational Class Income: A Significant Variable in the Marketing of Automobiles," Journal of Marketing, XXXIV (April, 1970), 74. 151 Ibid., p..77. 152Peter and Ford, loc. cit. 153Andreasen, op. cit., p. 347. 154Akers, op. cit., p. 286. 155Bauer, Cunningham, and Wortzel, loc. cit. 156Goeldner and Munn, loc. cit. 157John A. Rienecks, "The 'Older' Market--Facts or Fiction?" Journal of Marketing, XXVIII (January, 1964), 63. 158 Ibid., pp. 67-68. 1591bid., p. 64. Q Q C. . r... l: .3 r“ A“ .n. §. ... .C .q. v: r~ L» n. .L “t . . ... .. FL .. . . 1 . ... a o 5'» nl I». u: ,ru Ir» .3 . ,r. are ... . . :1 ... . . Hu.- I nu .. ur ... . "...... 89 160Evans, op. cit., p. 162. 16lIbid., p. 165. 162Franklin B. Evans, "Correlates of Automobile Shopping Behavior," Journal of Marketing, XXVI (October, 1962), 74-77. 163Frederick Wiseman, "A Segmentation Analysis on Automobile Buyers During the New Model Year Transi- tion Period," Journal of Marketing, XXXV (April, 1971), 43-470 164Ibid., p. 48. 1651bid., pp. 47-48. --- "v "s . . A F...‘ 7‘... ‘VV‘ NYC. ’__I. H! w '1 ‘N L. ‘ Q . 2.~ L- 2“. .“-" ~.‘e “Q “a. ”a... -.“ HV‘ ., ‘ I .V. .~ A ‘ ...-.... ‘a.":¥: ~EUV‘H‘ ..‘ -‘ N ‘ . _ ‘ “v. m. ’4' H 'r-“‘ c..\‘ "-. ”s. t H w. .I ~0) V ».. IV - '-- H.‘~ ~ \-:‘ ...‘9 A '- ' .. 5.. g 5“ ~- ‘ Q ‘_ ‘.¥ \— ‘ .:‘ . _; L‘_ . ‘~ «\ “_d.e “- §.‘ .§ ‘\‘“‘.“ -\~‘5Q g: ¥ \- ”1“ ..-..~ V,:‘_ ‘ ' ~1*l‘ ‘Q fi-‘ .t.~ ,_ ~ ‘4“ t“ ‘§ \ ‘ ~ ‘ “:‘Qfi _ “* 7.. “ (L- .‘~ CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN The purpose of Chapter III is to present a detailed description of the methodology used in this thesis. An in-depth description of the methodological design will enable other marketing researchers to understand better the procedures of the research and to replicate, if war- ranted, the study. The general format of Chapter III is organized around several major topics. The topics include (1) the conceptual and operational framework, (2) the telephone sur- V€Yr (3) the questionnaire, (4) the sample selection, (5) the interview selection, and (6) the data analyzing steps. The Conceptual and Operational Framework The purpose of this section is to identify and to define the independent and dependent variables which constitute the framework for this research. The inde- pendent variables and dependent variables were carefully chosen on the basis of the previous theory and research discussed in Chapter II with the objective of potential market segmentation. 90 ‘5 ~vm—————_—_“ .:.n:u.aq A: fi‘ne .o-vcvu V. \pta v ~ ‘ ..np "“"“G“"Ca"‘ uqu ..- ‘ n‘viv ‘nn‘ukv.lu\pulu - 0' unit ‘FAVI ‘ ‘ ‘ - c ”A ’1 " --- ..‘\J¢u I new in: ”' [1“, \wn(.q‘ .- u ' A "'/' 0] Gonnaum- . _ . . ':~‘u—:‘.n'— C 'qu»-\./a. ‘_ . -__ .. .I-':"v~ (7‘ ~ ...‘r- n ':'s..: ”'2. ‘ . ‘ . M . ~“‘ .I' -L A .‘§‘1 v‘, a- L ““ y- s LL 2 .-. a...“ . ‘fls-~ -~ ... § ‘§ ’_' . .: (“I _*., “ ‘U‘ i‘ .l i““§ “~—\~4 '. I 91 Independent Variables The independent variables were selected charac- teristics of the head of the household and the household. These independent variables included (1) age of the head of the household, (2) education of the head of the house- hold, (3) annual income of the family, (4) marital status, (5) occupation of the head of the household, (6) home ownership, (7) type of housing, (8) length of stay in the market area, (9) mobility, (10) size of the family, (11) number of recent household durables purchased, and (12) type of purchase (Figure 3-1). Dependent Variables The dependent variables were consumer knowledge of the brand and store alternatives and brand and store shopping behaviors. The dependent variables included (1) total brand knowledge, (2) total store knowledge, (3) total brand-store knowledge, (4) unused brand knowl- edge, (5) unused store knowledge, (6) unused brand-store knowledge, (7) brands shopped, (8) stores shOpped, and (9) brand-store shopping (see Figure 3-1). Operational Definitions The working definitions for the dependent and inde- pendent variables plus related terms are contained in this section. The specific working definitions for the dependent variables are given in Chapter IV. THESE v.3 U ‘dlifl A‘fv.~:am a. a 1:2... u 3< >L 1:39.; zuunvgvuv 5‘0“ at - .noc... 3.1:... .....lwhn... .- tic-...... u.» - 13......3322 ..;s- ..--\Ia. .-\> 2:24.12— .~ ~ ...» ~ azvo~e -Tfiimflbfl:_ .< ~ LETlS: .: ..T. T. ~.~fi:~.:..:. .: ...... 4....-. ...; ...: KC ......a- . ‘2 T2,»: ...»: .:.< C.:“... ...“..N. c .2\ .~ 92 mumw conH>0HmB HoHou maomcou mumm coamfl>mame uoaoo mflnmuuom mpoow c3oum mmwcmm msflxooo mnoumummflummm mnmauo oaumfious< muosmmz nauseousfi moanmuno hnpnamq mpoou mafia: mpooo manuufla paonmmaom mo wuoapoum ownmcmw .Hmpoz Hmsumwosoo o£B||.HIm ousmwm monoumlmpcmum .m monoum .N mpcmum .H muow>mnom mcwmmosm monoumumpcmnm .m monoum .m mpcmnm .H mmpmasoqx woman: monoumumpcmum .m monoum .N mpcmum .H mmpoazoqu Hmuoe mmfinmflum> pampcmmma mmmsousm mo mama pwmwaousm moanmuno paonwmsom unmoom mo Honssz haflsmm mo oNflm suflaflnoz mmud umxumz ca hmum mo Summon mcfimsom mo mama mfismuwcso meow paonwmsom mo pmom mo :oflummdooo msumum Hmuwumz pHogmmsom no 9895 Uaonomsom mo pmmm mo cowumospm paogmmaom mo paw: mo omfl mmHQmHHm> ucwpqwmoch .NH .HH .OH P“ " - P6: HY< ...-l- "‘" . a .. ...IUA‘ a! p P .. .:....-.. b - a! Q ‘ ......”- p. Q'P‘ ‘A .a p.- ..IZ...... ...-» . . n ‘ '1’.‘." ...:~ ”a“ .n.- ...V d..‘-u\.\4 I O ....-F. .. . . ... I “ ~~v- :_ '---~-" Egg-u “....An. N . ,. ‘ .:..,Afl . ‘1‘ «m:-a the .’ : fl..- _' -- . 3"“vu .... -a»..--~. “u.“- o '--- “on a "’ I ‘ Ya Q“r~y 'uv-» - v..\,. . n- ‘ flfi‘ v~ ..H. :r -~. Q ~-. 3“; v.4 ‘ q . ..~.-~ *“‘ r ‘ b... ‘ , ".- U. - ~-* ‘ 5‘ -.~ V- S‘FVC 5V; ~ u. w. _ ‘ - .._‘:;.m _ —~.A ‘ F- ‘ - p . ~ ~‘: Cc~~- ~ “m...- C" ‘\—~.4 \ -“ n § D. ' u... \C‘F‘f“ ‘ -~“‘.IU"—‘ 9. H- . -l ‘1. ._ . ”“38“,, “.~4 — . f- . ‘c‘ ,; ~ . b _:_C‘ ‘s “c. “-u’. -... .I “ K- a _ ‘u A‘. .‘v QR N! .N ‘0‘ ‘o ~‘K ( ‘Q 'V _‘ “'- 2‘- g ‘. s‘ V" ‘g ‘ ‘~ \‘ - ‘H . . ‘pce~ < u‘ \‘ “, ‘ 93 Total Brand Knowledge: Total brand knowledge will be defined as the total number of brands of a specific household white good or brown good that the respondent can identify unaided. It includes brand purchased, brands shopped, and unused brands known. Total Store Knowledge: Total store knowledge will be defined as the total number of stores selling a Speci- fic household white good or brown good that the respondent can identify unaided. It includes the store purchased from, stores shopped, and unused stores known. Total Brand-Store Knowledge: Total brand-store knowledge will be defined as the number of brands and numbers of stores that the respondent can identify unaided. Unused Brand Knowledge: Unused brand knowledge will be defined as the total number of brands of a speci- fic household white good or brown good that the respondent can identify unaided but did not use during ShOpping and purchasing. Unused Store Knowledge: Unused store knowledge will be defined as the total number of stores selling a specific household white good or brown good that the respondent can identify unaided but did not use during shopping and purchasing. Unused Brand-Store Knowledge: Unused brand-store knowledge will be defined as the number of brands and :5: :f steres .- ... Annflb‘:9' \~V\:‘ . .- - , ... odv-cb.‘ ‘ u...‘- a :vgn;s C‘v— Usaacu 5.... .- V” \ , ‘ DR‘OQA ”(on “' uvvo. ..V‘ .......‘A ~ a“. fin, ‘ _ 5‘0. ‘5. ......,‘V.‘ . ' ...: ‘fi‘31 v-~~'- ...-AA ., -. .-v- A. 94 number of stores known but not used that the respondent can identify unaided. Brands Shopped: Brands shopped will be defined as the total number of brands which were actively considered of a Specific household white good or brown good that the respondent can identify unaided. Stores ShOpped: Stores shopped will be defined as the total number of stores which were actively con- sidered for a Specific household white good or brown good that the respondent can identify unaided. Brand-Store Shopping: Brand-store shopping will be defined as the number of brands shopped and the number of stores shOpped that the respondent can identify unaided. 522: Younger household heads will be defined as being thirty-five years old or less, and older house- hold heads will be defined as being over thirty-five years old. Education: Lesser educated household heads will be defined as completed twelve years or less of school, and more educated household heads will be defined as completed over twelve years of school. Annual Family Income: Less affluent families will be defined as earning less than $15,000 a year, and more affluent families will be defined as earning $15,000 or more a year. .1 fl ”9‘“:1 \' l1‘-."- ‘— . . l I .. .- oH-u-o-u-up s anlrr ...-~5-auspb v45.- . . . -- ._ 1 Mr. «.....Ip a-‘ v -..: A . it"‘RNF ‘6‘ ’— ~ I “'V‘U‘Ab‘ ‘ " -p_. ‘ ‘ Q - :v-nflvM '9 F "- dew-OVA“ noEa-,‘ ‘I“I' I V ‘ . ... " ‘FA ' ' “$ Chauc' '- .- ‘ ~. P.‘~ ‘ Ouu V‘ H‘yfi”:~ . ‘vecub 2‘ ~ A: -“A— ‘- 9‘ -“ s s ‘\Q\ s\_ . . N .“ i, ' *l 1’: ‘ ‘s ,‘N\\ \ 2‘— ‘\' \Qx \‘ s 7" ‘ \ ‘ \— - \-\“ \ 3 ‘ “‘ ~— A — \f - x ‘ ‘ \_‘ § ‘ \ - .‘ 95 Marital Status: Marrieds will be defined as the respondent's acknowledgement that he or she is legally married; all other respondents will be classified as single. ‘Occupation: White collar workers will be defined as household heads engaged in professional or clerical work; all other household heads will be classified as non-white collar workers. Home Ownership: Home owners will be defined as having or purchasing their home; renters will be defined as non-home owners. Type of Housing: Single family housing dwellers will be defined as living in one family building units; multi-family housing dwellers will be defined as living in multi-family building units. Length of Stay in the Market Area: People living a shorter time in the Lansing, Michigan area will be defined as being in the area for six years or less unless noted; people living a longer time in the Lansing, Michigan area will be defined as being in the area more than six years unless noted. Mobility: Mobiles will be defined as people living two years or less at their current address unless noted; immobiles will be defined as living more than two years at their current address unless noted. Size of Family: Smaller households will be defined as having one or two members; larger households will be defined as having three or more members. ‘_ A.“ By ~ on —. a e - Q S O Q VP" 2 . \vso.‘ “vi“: . ‘1 ‘F I; 1. Me a Nut 8 ....Ap‘g ”an? “\\ D"~’v- ‘- a to. 0- I 9' u 'C ‘h- -.—.—ou u-.... l C "......n 'v-... u...“ u.-. :L 2‘ ...Iu M”. h“ w. o A o . . t C; ..m. a?“ .5 3.. n. r t .. . Q : J C .2 D. .. a ... .2 ll... has i ., . 4 C .2 . A ”A." 9..“ ”4‘" ... “C ”MAW nh.“ "HQ. uRM ~\~ ‘IQ a - —.. as a. «In .finw ..d ..s .. ~ Ad.» 8‘ ... ... .... A . .... . I L s ... 1» . ..m .z .... ...A. I... u... . e . . .s e .. st .. o .- .. . ... . a s ‘ . . . u: ..k ... .... ... .... . z . . 96 Number of Recent Purchases: Single product pur- chasers will be defined as recently buying one household durable good; multi—product purchasers will be defined as recently purchasing two or more individual white goods or brown goods. Type of Purchase: A first—time purchaser will be defined as not having previous purchasing experience with the specific product; a replacement purchaser will be defined as buying the specific product to replace a previously purchased one. .. Household White Good: A household white good will be defined as an automatic washing machine, an automatic dryer, a refrigerator, or a cooking range (free-standing). Household Brown Good: A household brown good will be defined as a portable or console color television set. §EQ£EF A store will be defined for the shopping activity as any store's name or adequate description; a store will be defined for store knowledge as any store's name 0 , __’.—— Brand: A brand will be defined as the word, words, or other symbols which distinguish one manufacturer's pro- duct item or line from another manufacturer's product item or line. Recent Purchaser: A recent purchaser will be defined as a person who has purchased a new household white good or brown good within the last two years. Q sense Res ,,_, _. ~‘.- . ~ 4 y « . . r.. n a ... .3 _. 3 a. p. y .9 ‘ § . a» v. «a u . C‘ F~. V‘ A A A» S +.. .c I .. .: ... . LC. C S C . C e .. ”a a. . I. 3 E .... k \u u. L 2 u. ... x a .... ... .) K r 3 .z r 3 i L . mt . e S a. x «A .3 t. a v Cy .. C S I S . C .. e .. _ Z .c 2. . . S .a .. .. Lu . u . ... E .2 .1 .2: t . é. .. I: .3 L» .4” a: a: .“ ~u. .... .1 I .2 a. - a: .: ... . .... .. .... ...“ ... .. .2 v. .. ... n. 3. .. A a n u . _. . .... ..g. .. .s J... .. H. ....v .. w :L.» in ...“ — ~ . m "...... ...”.M. ......m. ....... w; h... ...; ......u. .. .. .... w... . .. .._.... um ..x.‘ i. av ...J v: A: is Lt c n. S s ‘ .1 A: 5: S I e .. ...u l .. .. a a . E .2 .f. . \ ._ .. a. ... ...... ..n pl. ~.~ .... ... 97 Respondent: -A respondent will be defined as the head of the household or the spouse of the head of the household. The Telephone Survey Given the nature of the research, it was decided that the most appropriate method to obtain a large enough sample size for the purpose of testing hypotheses was a telephone survey. A telephone survey offers a number of advantages and disadvantages over other research methods, particularly in-home interviews. The most important advantages usually include (1) the ease of obtaining a sample, (2) the lower cost per completed call, (3) the easier task of supervising interviewers, (4) the ability to obtain responses from special groups of people, such as dentists or Ophthalmologists, who are difficult to interview by other means, and (5) the Opportunity to reach a large portion of the defined pOpulation in a short time. Some of the important disadvantages with this approach include (1) the interviewer's inability to react to the reSpondent'S non-verbal communications, (2) the Inistaking by potential respondents of order-getting sales- Inen with legitimate research, (3) the respondent's apprehensiveness in giving personal information, such as income or education, over the telephone to an unknown out- sider, (4) the problem Of systematic bias from not reach- ing a Specific segment of the population, even with call- loacks, (5) the problem of bias due to the proportion and , . .~-- ab OF P"“ p.» i. ale pvt - o. ‘ ‘ -’ ... “VA” ~ (f .: »-v~¢ ~-- ~ ‘ i u. w fi.“A"-Q Y’- 9.. .. -.::..~.n..u&-': Q . -—n- . ‘ u: . -FA‘R .a»- fi . ...v- H” ‘ Q ";" "Y'Nr- A... .-.-..- ”#V - ~-C- ' ' .. .. c“... - C- ...- -v-t~- . \‘-‘ Q _ .FA\._',~ “-b“v‘q‘. ’ ... _- g ‘ ‘ 9!- ‘~ -: b ‘ :v— . . ‘d ‘-H‘ I. ‘- . F .-..‘ q '-~-~ ‘ ~' ‘A "I‘ur V . c b“-L_ ‘ “ ~ ~'- “A ’V!- I“ "‘~-~‘ F, ' U. . ‘ -...~ "O I ‘F C " A -h' ‘:‘F'PAV‘a—. “'~“v‘ L... "" I ‘--“r_. . .— "--g ‘ V‘ ‘ ‘¢v , -.. ‘.. . . p. .. ‘A--“ - '- 'v._: 0. ‘ ‘- ‘ - ' . ‘ Q ‘-. . h- - ...: .“9. -- Vs . b.‘ .- -. “ ‘ - C. “ ~ VA -" k ‘A ~ . \t 9‘ ..‘.~-_ I“;~:_V-~ - ‘ ‘5 “c.— s .. y” .2- \no‘ t” N ‘ ~ ‘- ~ A _-~_ ‘~ QC. 7 ~\—« . C.“ ‘\ 3‘- Q.:‘~-, C‘“ Q f“ " ~.. to . \ . - V i A \“‘ ‘ . :‘z 2 s ”o \ N “ -\\ \Qlfi V ‘L a. \_~.‘ ‘ ~ R CA ‘\.I .- ‘92‘ . \ta‘ ‘ \ ¥ \ 98 .— type of the population with unlisted phone numbers, and (6) the problem of invalid responses due to impreciseness of questionnaire wording Where the verbal response is the only form of communications received by the inter- viewer. Although telephone interviewing when compared to personal in-home interviewing contains a number Of inherent problems, there is some evidence that the answers can be Similar with the methods. In a newspaper reader- ship study telephone-owning respondents were divided into two groups. The first group (n=7l) was interviewed on the telephone, and the second group (n=98) was interviewed personally in-home. Each group was then reinterviewed personally in-home. The two interviews allowed the com- parisons of the two interviewing methods and comparisons over time on the consistency of responses. The telephone-home group's consistency on the same identified newspapers read as in the previous interview ranged from 93 per cent to 98 per cent with an average of 95 per cent for the seven newspapers. The home-home group's con- sistency on the answers ranged from 91 per cent to 99 per cent with an average of 95 per cent for the seven news- papers.2 A second study (n=200) on telephone interviews and then a follow-up in-home interview was conducted on neWSpaper readership. The consistency of responses ranged 99 from 95.5 per cent to 99.5 per cent and the average was 98 per cent for the seven neWSpapers.3 The Questionnaire The major purpose of the questionnaire was to determine knowledge levels and shopping activity of the respondents. The general format of the questionnaire included the introduction, introductory questions, appliance ownership and Shopping questions, knowledge questions and demographic questions. The introduction included the interviewer's name and a brief statement concerning the general product area under study and associated questions. The introductory questions on housing and length of stay in the Lansing area were asked to set the respondent at ease and to obtain answers early during the interview to build quickly a rapport between the interviewer and the inter- viewee. The appliance ownership, shopping, and knowledge questions were sequenced to Obtain the most reliable answers possible. The respondent was first asked questions on current ownership of appliances and color television sets, the brand purchased, the store purchased from, and the year of purchase. 'If the respondent had purchased one or more of the chosen products within the last two years (i.e., January 1, 1970 or later), the respondent was then asked what brands were shopped for and what stores were Shopped at. After these responses the respondent was asked the knowledge questions concerning luau-i and tore " v 2: the . l-“FFv-q ‘ k.: ."‘~— .A‘ b A. v .... us- ~‘ “~‘ ‘ ‘- ‘ ~ . ‘.- A s V-‘ - _~ - ‘v\ = ‘ N" b. ' - Q ‘— ~~ —. "~ \‘ —. A ...~ \ ‘ \. v. ‘\‘ ‘5 "‘ - £ ‘ \ ‘\ ~ \ s g s V. s ~o-».....--. V - an. ' , ..._ _‘~h.""‘v~y~:“ ‘ v~--v...._‘-l ... - . -:I-._“:"‘-.~ ‘ '.I"~'"\-:O o-A 0‘ .. . ‘ .' ‘~ 5.. ‘4 “s..- e a ho. "c L‘o V: I .“n ‘0 ‘ _ N ...b a- ‘A‘ ““A' no. 5"“. .‘ v V. -.-.. ‘ . - ~~ "' r-A _ ..- ... :y- P .- § »‘ ‘ v - s- ‘FAAV‘ V“ w..- ~‘ :‘ an.‘ \- .n b ‘ C. " ¥ . V — ‘tQ ‘ I 7" ‘nc; \ ¥ ( ~ 100 brands and stores (see Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire). Pretest of the Questionnaire During the weeks of November 14, 21, and 28, 1971 the questionnaire was pretested in the Lansing area. The questionnaire was administered over the telephone to respondents. A total of 200 telephone calls were made during the times of 9:30-11:30 in the morning, 1:30-3:30 in the afternoon, and 7:30—8:30 in the evening. The total number of completed interviews were 56 with 16 in the recent purchase group for one or more of the selected products. At the end of the pretest a discussion with the interviewers suggested changes in the questionnaire's format to facilitate the interviewing process. Very few changes were necessary concerning the wording of the questions. The data were also tabulated to illustrate the possible direction of the responses for the selected variables. Selection of the Sample The geographical territory selected for the sample was the nine townships which constitute the general Lansing area. TheSe nine townships were (1) Delhi, (2) Meridian, (3) Windsor, (4) Delta, (5) Watertown, (6) De Witt, (7) Bath, (8) Aliedon, and (9) Lansing. These - - M: . » A . .~,,n.-u\ ‘F U ~’”:".:¢s ‘obV‘ “l r - '~—-—r~ . “” ‘ ~ -4 ‘v‘ 1:. oiAnkfili ' -. '.'--l-A.Q ....'-...u» 9-- v ‘- 2";* “;v'b r‘ “ ~----. Uus'i- VJ. _. . . ‘ . n.-- ‘ :_.;" ‘wavQ. ‘ "v-vu ‘..-'._ ‘ I . ~v .- A ... , c... Hflfir-n ".-. ”~-~—~r»~... -.. __ ‘_ l. 3" OHQVVo .; .- ...-.. -.v- , _. ‘ ‘. . . -."‘"~- J».— ..v‘. .. h..e .‘- ’. -.. .....-“ Qe C: H V - 0 5 :- - --. : 'A~. . Q - ‘I-n“ NG“; - VU‘ ‘ “y..-*: >.. Ixx~l C “A .. ' Y . ~-t‘ V‘u‘ev-p. ‘- .. :v- “ ~ \ F- " F ‘9. ~ ‘~IV'.Q 2 v .4. . . .2- ‘ ---. ‘C ‘ v. ‘ Arvhu’; \— ;'§“§ ' --: A,“ _ ‘ V¢.e' ‘v‘ L.. J; \_ §.,~. lOl townships included the city of Lansing and the towns of East Lansing, Okemos, and Holt. The source of the sample was the Michigan Bell Telephone Directory which was issued in March, 1971. A systematic sample of 1353 names was drawn during the latter part of November, 1971 to give an estimated 800 completed interviews. The first telephone number was randomly selected from the first 56 telephone numbers, and then every 56th telephone number was selected. The specific process of selecting names and telephone numbers was through the use of a plastic template fashioned for the purpose of selecting every 56th name, providing it was a residential phone number. If the selected name and number were non-residential, then three names and numbers above and below the original selection were eval— uated. If none of these names and numbers were a resi- dential one, then the sample selector took the 56th name and number measuring from the original unused selection. Selection of the Interviewers and Data Collection Selection Procedure The interviewing supervisor and two interviewers were selected on the basis of maturity, previous inter- viewing experience, pleasant-sounding voices, and proven ability to administer the questionnaire over the tele- phone. Each interviewer was given detailed instructions to insure accurate recording of the responses to the ‘ 9 ...-out-" o .50» e . .4"... 5A ‘ " C” V' .:‘ w'u Atou-I‘ q Q v---\—\' "U‘A '... F.‘ - .- ..v. a a o .C ”II ...e ...5: "no " ‘ ~..\' ca‘&s . . I. ‘~‘ l. ,2.,. ‘l‘ ognb 102 open-ended questions. Each interviewer was tested before actually doing any telephone interviews for the final survey to insure that the interviewer understood com- pletely the instructions and the format Of the question- naire. Data Collection The data were collected between NOvember 30, 1971 and January 11, 1972 with mainly callbacks between late December and January 11, 1972. The actual timing of the telephone calls were (1) 9:30-11:30 a.m., (2) 1:30-3:30 p.m., and (3) 7:00-8:30 p.m. If a household could not be reached on the firSt call, then a Schedule of callbacks was developed whereby the calls, eight calls, if needed, were distributed at different times to minimize the problem Of poor timing with the first call. If a house— hold were contacted on the first call but the respondent wished not to answer the questions, the interviewer then asked if another time would be more convenient. Often, the respondent was willing to complete the questionnaire at a more Opportune time set by appointment. The total number of households in the potential sample was 1,353. Of this total 1,313 were actually contacted and 897 completed interviews. The total number of recent purchasers was 295. The number of disconnected telephone numbers was 143, the number of new telephone numbers found for the disconnected ones was 40, and the number of new households added was 103. The number of ..- 4 5 ...-..-:Sehv-us r ....r' » .p- .Ao “ p ' ‘- “ DOAb O.* A... ~. . ' ~ "A «...“’: ,- Q‘A.. . ‘ ...-3-.... _ gm, 2: . V ..r A-' -.--n“ 7'" ' v—-:v'-v.h A... ‘ -.. - ~ ‘V‘-.. ‘- u“-an~4 ‘. on .‘-‘A- . -~ "~~- .- Q A ._ H v- »--.-I ‘..v It..- ...- - ‘ -‘-A.~:".= " .-v~_-§"O.~~ I ‘V‘ ‘- . hw ‘ Q ‘ ~C. . -~. ~¢§~‘ ~ ... g“ - . :‘ nuhfi P‘ '— vv..- V‘ ‘V ‘!~‘Q ‘ ‘s ..-‘:-c ‘. ‘ . - 5‘, ¢ ' ¢€L 5‘ .‘ Q-..‘ ._ ~ -..‘5 ”NAC~.~.~ ~~“‘“‘: .‘77 :_: I . a...‘ 52“ W‘. *~- ‘ ' ‘ ":‘t". —. ' . “.‘H ha ‘ - &.“ ‘ e I ‘1‘ c“ ‘ ._~ ‘ A ‘v‘ a. ‘; -g ‘ .‘ ‘ - ~ ‘\ ..‘;~«S (\C ~ h‘- '.- - L ‘ ... A ‘ \ u ‘.;‘af“‘ 5 C b; > ..‘. w . ‘A a‘ ' \ y... .;§ v“.: 1. b‘. ~~~ ‘ .. ’ g- ba‘a ‘ k A \— .‘ ‘ ‘ s ‘2 ‘ 103 non-households reached and the number Of new households added was 15, the number of households living outside of market area and the number of new households added was 16, and the number of refusals was 416. Figure 3-2 contains a schematic breakdown Of the sample for data collection by the telephone survey method. During the data collection process the only question with a high number of refusals was the one on income. The refusal rate was 33 per cent of all respondents, recent and non-recent. This figure is somewhat comparable to other available data on income refusals. Skelton found in one study (n=2,507) that 69 per cent of the respondents answered the income question completely, 16 per cent answered it partially, and 15 per cent refused to answer, even partially. According to sex and family relationship, the percentage of respondents answering the income question completely ranged from 45 per cent for adult sons or daughters to 75 per cent for male heads of households. In between the extremes were female heads of households with 62 per cent completion and wives with 65 per cent completion. For refusals to answer, the rate increased as age increased for wives and male heads of households.4 Analysis of the Data Data Preparation The research data were keypunched on IBM cards and were programmed to produce a frequency count of all 4 IIIIIIIIIIIP O'hob....V.—..->- .WL. F—d a) 3udfl>hnu .p—n T: a... 772:; il‘ll nr..r‘ I ...-0":- . n.3,- .. o ‘3 c-.-...'- I. rnt-\(a.§ ...- ............ -.v.- I11] .....i—LEfc :..l.llll|lll.llllt ..__....- _= 7 .... lllll‘llll: \ S «J. S: 2... p... 7:15.... o ,1: Il\ .oamsam Hopes may no czocxmoum ofiumswnom «--.mum ouswfim l()4 ov wouoaoo undonnaom ma ma uoxudz ocfimuao undonomsom 3&2: moaonouaom end moaonomsom ma ma mmn.a 3oz Haves moaonmmaom smz mvaoaouaomlcoz mamamm Hacwmfiuo oae uxmfi>umucH MOH vmmauom moaonwmnox 3mz mva nuanasz coccoom Now ov can an an 30 muommnuunm mam.a «nauz z unmountaoz mHHuo and: 30w>umucH voumHmaoo Hmuoa cocoamaou mma.a madmu muommmuusm cmuoamsou uncoom an“: m30w>u0unu caumamaou ‘~.4 . ' I-noki‘A". . 7' .‘frfi‘va ‘C‘ :- .9."‘ o o. ‘ ”Av ‘--v- V. 105 respondents for all the variables.5 Then, the research data for recent purchasers only were keypunched separately to streamline the computer programs. A computer program was developed to derive the matrices for the dependent variables. After the matrices were obtained the statis— tical analysis was performed for the purpose of confirming or disconfirming the research hypotheses.6 Statistical Analysis The primary statistical test used in this research was chi square. The chi square test is for finding whether two or more groups are significantly different on various attributes. Chi square analysis was particularly relevant because the research contained a preponderance of nominal level data. The chi square test includes the following steps. The respondents are categorized into a matrix according to their responses on the independent and dependent vari- ables. The frequencies are summed across for the rows and down for the columns in the matrix. The expected frequencies are then computed for each cell in the matrix. The expected frequency is subtracted from the observed frequency, this difference is squared, and then this value is divided by the expected frequency for each cell. All values in the cells are summed to obtain the chi square statistic (x2). The degrees of freedom are deter- mined by the formula (r-l)(c-l) where r refers to the number of rows and c refers to the number of columns in -_-; Etflx. 61"" v . - fl...” 9» I!" ”‘I" 2.4:: 5: v“ V": s I:- ‘r\ :P ;...... ' u-VJ “' . _ . :~v:":”*9“” .v-n-v “h-~-\rv-y . - ... .pg ¥'.' 5 ... .... e on: ;.C b}:- 2215 are in the ' v .. .4? ‘- r‘- ‘ . u. .— 'v- Donut. e u.- - : - . -Q on.‘ “...-1' .0. ..., i‘ ‘ ‘~¢..' ' -:--S“ c ‘ ‘*\r“¢\ .‘ L. '\, ~~ :A“% ~ --.,ctfa-T . 3v.“ ' u p. 1“ Q. a h.— \—.‘ »2;:-v-',. “ 5.. ‘5 ‘ t. 8"" ‘O‘so mi; ‘ ' v q‘A I,‘ ‘ JV: “:5.“ \ >.-:' L’Z‘: \ ) R V‘- B: "~.‘ ) -’ .‘:-§ ‘ C. 3 u,- r.- . ‘ ‘32‘Q H. "' (6) :--. . :~~‘ ‘5‘, (A. - 5"E‘.. ‘. 'E‘ F~g ‘ cal. ‘5Eia ‘ 0*: ~ « t~ ‘1 .2 ‘-V .‘_ .. . “:-'\ V moi ‘ r: v " 2" "c. Q. ‘C' (F ‘ ) {Dr ‘ i 7.; «- ..A‘u .‘Ey- \ a. '* ' 106 the matrix. Given the degrees of freedom, the table of values is checked for the predetermined probability (alpha = .10) for x2 greater than or equal to the chi square theoretical value. For the alternative hypotheses which do not predict direction a two-tailed test is used; for those hypotheses which do predict direction and the data are in the predicted direction, the one-tailed test is applied. If the chi square statistic is equal to or greater than the theoretical value, then it can be con- cluded that the null hypothesis of no difference between the groups can be rejected and the alternative hypothesis of a statistical significant difference between the groups can be accepted. Summary This chapter focused on the methodology of the research on shopping behaviors and knowledge levels. The nine major dependent variables were (1) total brand knOWv ledge, (2) total store knowledge, (3) total brandvstore knowledge, (4) unused brand knowledge, (5) unused store knowledge, (6) unused brand—store knowledge, (7) brands shOpped, (8) stores shopped, and (9) brandestore shopping. The twelve main independent variables were (1) age of the head of the household, (2) education of the head of the household, (3) annual income of the family, (4) marital status, (5) occupation of the head of the household, (6) home ownership, (7) type of housing, (8) length of stay in ‘A. In- ‘ a 0" {3' is“ ”n‘- ‘ ~ A Q ‘Q 107 the market area, (9) mobility, (10) size of the family, (11) number of recent household durables purchased, and (12) type of purchase. In addition nine independent variables were combined for portions of the analysis. The research design involved the use of a telephone survey which had several notable advantages and disadvan— tages over in-home interviews. Some evidence suggests that the responses for telephone surveys and in—home inter— views are comparable between methods and consistent over time. The questionnaire was the vehicle to obtain the reSponses to the questions. The questionnaire was pre— tested by making 200 telephone calls and completing 56 interviews in late November. The final sample of 1,353 names was drawn. The two interviewers were selected and most of the datarwenecollected during the early and middle part of December. A total of 897 households completed interviews, 416 households refused to answer the questionnaire, and 295 households were classified as recent purchasers. The data were keypunched and programmed to derive the matrices on shopping behaviors and knowledge by product category. The statistical analysis was then performed to determine if the differences were statistically significant. ‘_ ‘» . . . . v. ._ .3 5.; ... I w. H. :_p.:. . C.:. a Z .8; ~.” , A. av 0 Ya 0 Lu Y. "1“ YL F». a. a. .U ..C .... w. . H“ ..3 .l. L.» 5 Z .... .—. «AM :u ..m : . .. -. ... . I . . f I. ... . . a ... 5 rung, . . FOOTNOTES --CHAP TER I I I 1For further discussion on the use of the tele- phone survey method, see David J. Luck, Hugh G. Wales, and Donald A. Taylor, Marketing Research (3rd ed., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), pp. 280-281; J. Stevens Stock, "How to Improve Samples Based on Telephone Listings," Journal of Adver- tising Research, II (September, 1962), 50-51; J. O. Eastlack, Jr. and Henry Assael, "Better Telephone Sur- veys through Centralized Interviewing," Journal of Advertising Research, VI (March, 1966), 2-7; Robert C. Judd, "Telephone Usage and Survey Research," Journal of Advertisinngeseargh, VI (December, 1966), 38-39; and Stanley L. Paine, "Some Advantages of Telephone Surveys," Journal of Marketing Research, XX (January, 1956), 279. 2Don Cahalan, "Measuring Newspaper Readership by Telephone: Two Comparisons with Face-To-Face Interviews,‘ Journal of Advertising Research, I (December, 1960), 4. 3Ibid., pp. 5-6. 4Vincent C. Skelton, "Patterns Behind 'Income Refusals,'" Journal of Marketing, XXVII (July, 1963), 39-400 5 . . . Appendix B contains a comparison between the total sample data and census data on four demographic characteristics. 6The computer facilities at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh were used to derive the matrices and to complete the statistical analysis. 7Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics: For the Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956), pp. 104-110. 108 ‘_ ".— . “VI.” < ... L--.“\ . 1.. -‘ ‘ ‘ . z“ ‘(va ‘ ....5v.~ “as“ ‘.h “ . u‘» :- VQCEZv-n no» §\__ u‘ w .....- ‘ ‘ ' ‘. "~ :. .. , 1-... .c “..‘ v- " ‘ ‘ v‘_. - ~L“, 3:?" 2' h““ I- ~ -..e CT. ._ ... ,_- ‘¥~‘ ~ ~~L«:5 QQA‘ ~‘»'- - . s..- . -..: :“vx‘ ‘_ “ -L L-- |~.i : ‘; Q \ ‘~‘ ~“: :3 - V s -‘V \ ~L. -~ ‘ “~p.‘ A ‘s. L... I. ‘ . .‘ -_ ~ I: , ‘~. c. \— c. .. _. \ “‘1“ _ “ .2 Q: m CHAPTER IV' PRESENTATION OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH AND FINDINGS The primary objective of Chapter IV is the presen- tation and eXplication of the empirical data and findings from the research. The major thrust of this chapter will concern the findings on shopping behaviors and knowledge in relation to the independent variables. In addition, general patterns of shopping behaviors and knowledge levels and findings on the efficacy of the demographic and socio- economic variables used in the research will be discussed. The chapter is organized into five general sections. The first section will present a description of purchasers by product according to shopping behaviors and to knowledge by the application of the matrix approach. The second section will present the empirical evidence for the confir- mationcm'lack of confirmation of the specific hypotheses on the single independent variables and the single dependent variables given in Chapter I. The third section will reveal the empirical evidence for the confirmation or lack of confirmation of the general hypotheses discussed in Chapter I. The fourth section will present the evidence 109 - 1 " "= :Ctentlsl r— ..n- . " 1 . ...-v01." .“C (wr- ..'.v.u: a0. n-ovnu 9.;11 yew- ::vv.vM .-- 5 ~ 4 , . . .-o-~y:aa‘ J..¢...~...Ly 4 . ‘) 4 {u H H ‘ ‘ ':‘:'"r*1' grq “r. ' v in.“ ..g “A I H: - v- ‘ .. ."‘ .Fa C' A. "h ”“5 ‘lrSL t ..., , - "‘7n n.. . -..“: [vi—l»... ‘ ‘ Nah _‘ ....- ‘~ - ‘ \ -. ! ~“~,~ . ..--t :1" FY“ - . d A y x .9.“ ‘ I.‘.:= F. ‘I . “ +5 CL I \— ..: ..VA‘ s~‘_‘:‘.s “Y- ‘ ’P~Cc;r \ “ ... . . ‘ N ~ ‘ W- la may N.H‘V V‘- “:.. .17 “.~ ‘ ._ a a ‘U ~ - ' Q ‘m- ~‘\—.|‘ i.~. “... 2 ‘A n‘ q ‘ ”:Ofi‘a ‘ u. c; h .3” “b ‘u 8- . P‘PdeS l »_ , -:y;-_ - - .. I“ h ‘M IQ":. 1 x- a, ‘ v- “us”. “*Q S t C. \ .h “T ‘L a \‘un‘ N c F. “E Y «*1 : 1. ‘. 't I“- .:3 110 on the potential market segments based upon shopping activity and knowledge of brands and stores. The fifth section will review the overall contribution of the demographic variables for the explanation of shopping behavior and knowledge levels. Descriptions of ShOpping Activity and Knowledge The section is organized into nine subsections with the first three subsections describing shopping be- haviors by product for brands, stores, and brands and stores, with the next three subsections describing unused knowledge by product for brands, stores, and brands and stores. This section, as later sections, discuss nine different product categories which need to be clarified at the beginning. For multiple products, such as white goods or laundry durables, only respondents who purchased recently one of these products in the product group are included and all others are excluded. For individual products, such as refrigerators or automatic washers, the single product recent purchaser and the multi-product recent purchaser are combined. This difference does not relate to brown goods, portable color television purchasers and console television purchasers, since no one purchased more than one color television in the last two years. In this section the matrices combining brands and stores for behaviors and knowledge for purchasers of white -'-.u—~_—'— » H C: er V. . ._..-n ‘v'.' .--..." 1" .....- '9'. ‘ ' a! a. y— .. ‘" ' 221?: Elie ‘53 . F...‘ .3. ~ ---‘aa .. o»'--~‘ .«-‘.-' ... --fi -. ‘ I”. e c v-é- . L— a v ... .2 ... 4 ‘. --c-- -.. 3' .-- r. y. .4 E r i k r ‘z 2 3 .2 111 goods or of brown goods will be presented in this section of Chapter IV, but the other matrices for purchasers included under the nine major product categories will be placed in Appendix C. The tables depicting behaviors and knowledge of buyers of brown goods or white goods will also be presented in this section of Chapter IV, but the remaining tables for the other product categories will be shown in Appendix D. Brand Shopping Activity For brown goods only 31.8 per cent of the purchasers were in the one brand considered and purchased cell while 46.2 per cent of the purchasers for brown goods considered three or more brands. In contrast to brown goods' pur- chasers, the purchasers of white goods tended to be less active brand considers. Over fifty-seven per cent of these purchasers who purchased either a washer, dryer, or refriger- ator were in the one brand considered and purchased cell, and 28.4 per cent of the purchasers examined three brands or more. Since laundry durables (washers and dryers) were a large proportion of total white goods, the purchasers of laundry durables who purchased either a washer or dryer 'were separated from total white goods on brand shopping activity. There appears to be a tendency for less shopping by these purchasers than for the purchasers of all white o-—.-.u h...— {1'11"} III.‘ o....-.—-.- 0' N. >.- Onvz fink-Viv Nav.— I.\.$h Sq .. ...... >~«>. u..< n..~ -. I‘.‘ _u.u -.-~ .- w.a..-.y.v 7.3:... a. ll. ~.-u-uu uv.~u.h.~ an. — uav .~.:~Z-~Z ~vuu .u ~.-.~,.-.._~ ..G‘~.-s-..~.v ....n .sav ro\-.. -~.-.v no... ...-... .~ .32....21 TVZECRQ Ilil- ylll'l' - ~ :9 ...~.~.~<.~. .cucmunmso umoumoc on mcwpssou on moan .pmumaoc mm3 ucmpcommmu menu swan .xuommpmo uoscoum may ca mausoonm whoa no 03D pmmmcousm unmocommou m ma .moHOB Honuo CH .muomoumo uosoona comm How poom manmusc mco haso mcammcousm mm pocwmoo mum mnowmnonsm macho unsponm menu moms o.ooa mm m.~ H u- .. m.m m v.Hm Ha H.5m cm mmmqmm aa.ooa as H.s m H.¢H OH m.mH ma m.HH m m.mv mm muoumummflummm o.ooa mm m.v m m.m m H.HH s m.m~ ma H.5m. om mummuo nH.OOH as H.m s H.m e m.ma .HH q.HH m w.vm Hm mnmnmmz Mu . o.ooa mm n.a H u- .. m.mH a , o.aH as m.mo hm mmmanmuso museums 1. nfl.ooa mm H.m m H.s s «.mH ma H.¢H «a m.sm km #0380 mung: o.ooa mm o.v m v.mH OH «.mm as N.mm pH m.v~ ma msowmfi>mame odomsoo o.ooa he m.v m «.ma m v.mm 5H m.na NH m.mm mm meowmfl>wame manmuuom o.ooa NMH m.¢ w ¢.QH ma m.s~ mm o.- mm m.Hm ms mooou czoum ucou mom .oz ucmo mom .oz usou won .02 usmo mom .oz psmu Mom .02 usmo Hon .oz mamuoe ouos no m v m N H uosooum oonooflmsoo mocmum mo Hmnasz .uospoum an muw>fluo¢ mswmmonm pcmnm :H msflmmmsm muwmmnousm mo ommucoouom can Honfiszau.anv wands TECAT «>5. H L... ECCflEHKVQHUJ T4,: :ouv AmmununVuu .LCEZCL UHSthOL .... u .— £3 :3. ...- : -.—.-.v.—~.. I ‘I‘ll ......7.<~—: Ln 2m 113 .vompoum an commonm mwswum mo Honfidz on» cuwz muomsm mo.ommucooumm o£B&I.HIv ousmam commonm mosmum muoumuwmflumom IIIIIII mumnwmz llllll mummhn II. II mwmcmm II----| mQOflmw>wHoB oHomsou_ll.;-ll mcofimfi>oaop manmunom.ll.:fll mpoow 9:33 I. l ..l mpooo :3onm Qmmmomm mngm I 10¢ mv om mm on mm on sxexna go afiequeoxed "' d + :— lXt Q 0 "er 5 A y l III . ‘ _r. »K I- . . ‘ n. . ._ 1 t 2 . C 8 use. m: E r .c I . t. r a C e S . r ... S r. b r .r E h . a g t C. i d e . t I C a .4 C l .l g G. u a a h . r +. t ... .t. d 2 u . T. n .c r X a C. ... O r. . . e . L .1 C C .2 e I. e l c a a r p rm 7... .C. r”. “m. M... e S r I S C m 7 u. p . . . .5 ... e E .3 e an r. L. e ... Y. 1 MW .. .. . 3 .j .C -2 ... E 2. C C ... r .r: . u ..3 .2 a. .. .L ...“ a. .. . ... ..a a: Va AC ..u I g; ... .. . . .w .... S v. S ... _: : . u: ”m ..u ...: .... ... “r 2 .... .... .... I I. .: u r ... .. .. .... .... ... ... ... . ~ ~ . "a nu .~ .... .... 1..“ m...» a. .... ... t ... .\ ... Sane. . we. .. 114 goods. Over sixty per cent of the laundry durables pur- chasers were in the one brand considered and purchased cell, and only 17.2 per cent considered three or more brands. Individual products were also examined concerning brand shopping activity. Considerable variation appears to exist among generic products within the household durables group of products. Although there are slight differences in the one brand considered and purchased cell and in the two brands examined cell, the purchasers of portable color televisions and the purchasers of console color televisions seem to be more similar in their brand shopping behaviors than different. These brand ShOpping behaviors can be contrasted to the brand shopping behaviors of purchasers of refrigerators, washers, dryers, and ranges. The pur- chasers of automatic washers appear to engage in less brand comparisons than the other purchasers. At the other extreme refrigerator purchasers appear to do the most brand compar- ing before purchasing (Table 4-1). A summary graph of the nine product categories and brand ShOpping behaviors is presented in Figure 4-1. Store ShoppingActivity Considerable variation again was apparent between the purchasers of brown goods and of white goods. A summary graph for the nine product categories and store ShOpping activity is presented in Figure 4-2. The purchasers mm~w~.-_4- moanmusa xutczmq \-i mCOflm‘C/GHGB THOmCOO \Il --- MUHW“IN.“1HOA~ .1" I: I. IIII| «\K So its i macamq>wHus au—quaunv .-. l1". -3AU.-— 1.5—.aU-.vu v .... uV... u~uaun 115 pommocm monoum mnoumnomflumom IIIIIII /Uflfl muonmmz lllll 1: //x 9.3qu II II .../”V, momamm ll.;:ll moanmuso muonsmq ..... I: mcowmfi>oaoa odoucoo.ll--:ll mGOfimH>onB manmunom.ll.!.ll @0000 0923 I: l .I... mooou szonm BUDQOMA mv om .mm .00 .mm .uosoonm an commoam monoum mo Honfisz Gnu suflz muomdm mo ommpsooumm mssll.muv madman sxefina go ebeiueozea 3:37. gccds fer. die purchase: igtasers who ccr. gs: 221‘: and 44,4 “Per cent of t .';v V ~ '. «..., 0~ Cryers. ‘ 'r‘r ' .. . ”Fa QUL 1.1.u“~“.’: . ‘sa 1 . ‘- I “" 1'“ ¢ -.. .-.a‘ ‘fi- rer‘. .... ..a 116 of brown goods tended to be more active store shoppers than the purchasers of white goods; the percentages of purchasers who considered two or more stores were 60.6 per cent and 44.4 per cent respectively. For the pur- chasers of laundry durables 63.8 per cent of the purchasers considered and purchased at only one store in comparison to 55.6 per cent of the purchasers who purchased a refrigerator, washer, or dryers. For individual generic products there were sub- stantial differences in store ShOpping behaviors dependent upon the product. The purchasers of console color television sets tended to do more active considering of retail stores than the purchasers of portable color television sets. About 65 per cent of the console color television pur- chasers considered more than one store, and about 58 per cent of the portable color television purchasers were in this category. The purchasers of refrigerators were similar to the purchasers of Color televisions on store shopping activity with 47.9 per cent considering and purchasing at one store and 52.1 per cent examining more than one store. The purchasers of automatic washers, dryers, and cooking ranges were quite inactive store shoppers since about 60 per cent of the buyers of each product considered and purchased at only retail store (Table 4-2). ub2§3HR LLL .CZ Larrv L1; HCGO HSQ .02 ans HOB .03 aggro .m‘i‘l‘l‘} ......hS—oeicsu mushroom a: 5:252 {i‘kil‘c‘t.\l. .L 3:: hz:E:ZII.NnV 34:55 11‘1" ...Hhv fivxw—m..-~momv.~t 32%}...323 It ..2...:LH:.~ air-afiq—A‘PV-‘nc. omit-av.“ .PM P.“ .U::.L:L.— >2 \nuqxri «.../x .cusoploco umonmms on mswossou ou moan .pouoaop mm3 ucoosommou mflnu soap .muommumo unspoum ogu cw muoscoum whoa no 039 wondrousm uswocommmn m ma .mpuoz Hmnuo :H .huomoumo unspoum comm MOM doom manmusp mac haso mswmmsousm mm pocflmmo mum muowmcousm msoum unspoum mflnu momm 117 o.oON mm I. .. N.m N N.NN m m.vN m N.Nm 0N mmmcmm o.ooN NN N.¢ m N.NN a m.mN NH N.NN m m.nv qm muoumummNumom nN.ooN mm o.N N N.m N m.mN ON m.NN NH N.Nm mm mumsua o.ooN NN m.m n m.m m s.NN a N.NN «N m.mm om mumammz am.mm an c.n N N.N N m.o v N.vN «N m.mm Nm mmmNnmuso Nuocsmq o.coN am a.¢ a N.N N H.8N «a N.NN NH o.mm mm mmcoou mpNaz nN.ooN mo N.N m m.oN N N.mN mN N.mN mN «.mm mN mcoflmmwwwww aN.o0N no e.a u o.n N ¢.NN NH v.mN NH m.mv NN meowmwwaww am.aa NNN m.o an a.» a N.NN mN N.¢N Nm «.mm Nm mnoou agonm undo Hum .02 undo mom .0! undo Hum..oz. uaou mom .oz psoo mom .oz usoo mom .oz mNmuoa ones no m a m N N posooum UOHQUflmGOU meOnwm MO HQQESZ .Dospoum an mufl>fluo< mswmmonm ououm cw msamwmsm muommnonnm mo omnusmonom pom HmnESZII.NI¢ mqmda . l Iv" tel. .... 'I I- bit .... a .n.‘ ...-;.:e:. We If. .' ‘ 4. .. .anc S.cre S The acti‘o ‘ Q ; «in: 10983 " -\,. - upon- FY5AI~ {spud . . b”. In 118 Brand and Store Shopping Activity The active shopping of brands and stores were combined into matrices to determine if this approach might be helpful to isolate shopping variations. The matrices were developed for combinations of products and indi- vidual products. For white goods slightly over 50 per cent of the purchasers considered and purchased one brand and con- sidered one store. Five per cent of the purchasers compared several brands but did not consider more than one store, and six per cent of the purchasers compared several stores but considered and purchased only one brand. The more active brand and store shopper comprised 48.4 per cent of the buyers (Figure 4-3). For brown goods 27.3 per cent of the purchasers considered and purchased one brand and considered one store. The respective percentages for multi-brand and one store shoppers and for one brand and multi-store shoppers were about 12 per cent and five per cent respectively. About 55 per cent of the buyers of brown goods shopped two or more stores (Figure C-l). From the data it appears that the brown goods buyer tended to be slightly more active in the comparison of brands and stores than the white goods purchaser. Console television purchasers tended to be slightly more active brand and store shoppers than purchasers of portable television sets. Twenty-two per cent of the n I A, 1 -‘. .A’A ~'.~ '\j 119 Stores 4 more Sums 5 or more -- -- 1.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 4 -- 1 0 5.1 -- 1.0 7 1* U) '2 3 1.0 6.1 5.1 4.0 -- 16.2 m 33 2 4.0 8.1 1.0 -- 1.0 14.1* 1 50.6 4.0 2.0 -- 1.0 57.6 Sums 55.6 19.2 14.2 7.0 4.0 100.0% (n=99) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure 4-3.--The Product-Store Shopping Matrix for Purchasers of White Goods :zs:1e televisior. ;:::'. televisic .- ;::".=.=.e:s and 1E) . risers car-.5161: ‘-‘- . . \ A... "~ V- ‘ \A ‘ . s ‘ ‘ . b‘b‘ ‘7—‘tra—2 ““ no - 1“ «e L. x . ‘ veg ~‘: _ 5". Je l. V t can ‘ _ S a. “‘:E‘- s 120 console television purchasers and 32.8 per cent of the portable television buyers were in the one brand and one store cell. Fourteen per cent of the console television purchasers and 10.5 per cent of the portable television purchasers considered one store but compared two or more brands; the respective percentages for one brand considered and purchased but two or more stores compared were 3.1 per cent and 6.0 per cent. Therefore, 61.6 per cent of console television buyers and 50.7 per cent of portable television buyers compared two or more brands and two or more stores (Figures C-2 and C-3). For laundry durables considerable less shOpping activity is apparent than for white or brown goods in general. Slightly over 60 per cent of the automatic washer or dryer purchasers considered and purchased one brand and considered and purchased at one store. Multi-brand and multi-store shoppers constituted only about 30 per cent of the total. About seven per cent of the shoppers con- sidered more than one brand or more than one store with the other variable's value of one store or one brand respectively (Figure C-4). Considerable shopping variations were apparent for different white goods. The percentages of purchasers who considered and purchased one brand and considered and purchased at one store were 40.8 per cent of the refriger- ator buyers, 48.6 per cent for the range buyers, 58.2 per :32: of the washe; 2.75:5 (Figures C- :f'.'as':.ers are re ‘ . "“'"“‘r “H P‘ v :......:. Qua t‘..e ‘5 121 cent of the washer buyers, and 52.4 per cent of the dryer buyers (Figures C-5 to C-8). It appears that purchasers of washers are relatively the least active brand and store shoppers and the purchasers of refrigerators are relatively the most active brand and store shoppers for individual white goods. Summary A number of generalizations can be drawn from the data on brand, store, brand and store shopping activity. Brand shopping appeared to be limited for the most part to three brands or less including the brand purchased for most consumers regardless of product category. Considerable variation seemed to exist between the purchasers of white goods and the buyers of brown goods. The purchasers of white goods tended to be relatively inactive brand shoppers with three-fifths of the respondents purchasing a brand without examining any other brands and two-fifths of the purchasers examining at least one brand other than the one bought. The purchasers of brown goods tended to be relatively active brand shOppers since only one-third of these buyers did not consider any brands other than the one purchased but two-thirds of these buyers examined at least one brand other than the one purchased. Considerable variation appeared to exist within the general product category of white goods. The buyers of automatic washers Y" o ‘ twee c. m. re be Store 5 to be relaf .-IS 0 active . 31‘ ‘- .- ......u‘ . ‘ )- - C CA ...u N H'e - ...-d o ..v- A - "..uv .. . b I O‘J-TTI E Q .3 1. ~.. 122 tended to be relatively the most brand inactive, the pur- chasers of refrigerators tend to be relatively the most brand active, and the buyers of dryers and cooking ranges tend to be between the extremes. Finally, considerable similarity on brand shopping activity tended to exist between purchasers of portable color televisions and of console color televisions. Store shopping tended to be limited to three stores or less regardless of the product category. A sub- stantial difference seemed to exist between buyers of white goods and of brown goods. The purchasers of white goods tended to be relatively less active store shOppers with three-fifths of these people not examining any other store than the one selected for the purchase, and the buyers of brown goods tended to be relatively more active store shoppers since three-fifths of them considered at least one other store before buying at the selected retail outlet. Within the brown goods category the purchasers of console color televisions tended to be slightly more active store shoppers than the buyers of portable color televisions. Within the white goods category, the purchasers of refriger- ators appeared to be more similar to the buyers of brown goods on store ShOpping activity than to the buyers of other white goods who tended to be relatively inactive store shoppers. ‘ For the c a cc.s r cire 2:222: :urc‘..aser-: :35 cf vii e C. Is... 7 ".z...:e" t e11 wit :: v:.-r‘r gr CS ( .. gases tenc'e 7.. H - . ... .. ...: One-ffl ‘ A " = $039 Wli'TQ‘ -. . T??? "Err: . " :WuS tenc 9m 5“ -. : 3L”:ov c V‘ 0‘ 7'15 here: - ‘~ llr< J Ii: U ‘l g? ,‘ 6‘ . ‘ rL-r: 5' ‘r-x-l ' V‘fl‘fl: K.‘u av) \ 4‘ C Ce 1 . 3“ .‘Lfih t. V- .‘t :r“ o d_‘lY'ye C b Cg] ‘5 A . attlve ‘ I ~:“ ‘ “v ‘V . ‘ ' I‘m k“Q N '» r .-. ,- « .‘_\:‘: g ‘. ti.“ \ . h‘l‘ 123 For the dual shopping behaviors of brands and stores a considerable difference appears to be evident between purchasers of white goods and of brown goods. The buyers of white goods tended to be concentrated in the inactive cell with slightly over one-half of these peOple purchasing a brand at a selected store without considering any other brands or stores. In contrast, the buyers of brown goods tended to be less concentrated in the inactive cell with one-fourth of these people purchasing a brand at a store without further examination. The buyers of brown goods tended to be more apt to shop a number of brands than a number of stores if the corresponding variable's value were limited to one. The buyers of white goods tended to be equally likely to shOp a number of brands or a number of stores if the corresponding variable's value were limited to one. Within the category of white goods, the purchasers of refrigerators tended to be the most brand and store active, the buyers of cooking ranges tended to be less brand and store active, and the buyers of automatic washers tended to be the least brand and store active. Within the category of brown goods, the buyers of console color televisions were slightly more brand and store active than the buyers of portable color televisions. Finally, the buyers of individual brown goods tended to exhibit similar behaviors on brand and store shopping, and the purchasers of individual white goods tended to behave similarly on shopping activity. 1‘ n ufifi' . Any. A - I ll. .- m'u" ~.““ 4'2“ 5 and. n I ‘ hv'vv yu‘v er ‘ .1- \ .4 \A ‘ brown 6 rs ha C I ".T‘" U»! Q d ‘ 7.. .s‘.‘ ‘ HS concl .- m-‘Q '_‘-.~ ‘~- V: O: L o M Y. ~ ..it . ‘i— -‘ v‘. '- ‘ E. \lICl ‘ hf 124 Unused Brand Knowledge A summary exhibit on the nine product categories and unused brand knowledge is shown in Figure 4-4. Brown goods' buyers and white goods' buyers were quite similar in unused brand knowledge with the exception that brown goods' buyers had a slightly less (9.1% compared to 18.4%) in the no known brands category and slightly more (18.2% compared to 10.2%) in the four or more brands known cell. If brown goods' purchasers were separated into portable and console color television buyers, the distri- butions of unused brand knowledge tend to be quite similar. The same conclusion is warranted for the purchasers of laundry durables if these buyers were compared to the pur- chasers of white goods. For individual white goods,purchasers of refriger- ators and washers tended to be distributed similar to a normal curve, peaking at known but unused two brands. The buyers of cooking ranges were distributed decreasingly from zero brands known to four or more brands known but unused; however, the sample size was very small (Table 4-3). Unused Store Knowledge Purchasers tended to peak sooner for known but unused stores than for brands. The modial values for purchasers of brown goods or white goods were two brands, but the modial values for these purchasers according to («C-y'v \~;»n— ..yz (id'u‘l‘l Ill ..wHCE H3 v .‘0 32252 m. H .r. & CH. C3323 ECG—....hmu 1333:: ll u‘l-Il\.ll\4ll.l \‘l’l‘vy' ‘qll.\ I."\Ilnll.|.".'\ll" 1 1523:: Sufi)» E-~.;..r.£vuy~:n~ ..C .13..92.39L3; :33 h..v.~:~22\l.~:\§ CQ2<~L on N o 0n.v-—vav.h.- >a~ ouh...—.v¢1~.3ay—~V~ Fu—-~.h*— .125 uosuoum on» ca muosvoum whoa no 03» cmmmnousm pcmocommmn m ma .mouos “mayo :H .sucmulmco umonmw: o» mcflquon on use a .cmumamn mm3 ucmccommmn was» awn» .muommumo .huommumo uoacoum sumo How coom manmuno wco haze wcwmmnousm mm omcwmmn mum mummmnousm msoum uonvoum was» Homm am.mm mm m.~H w m.~H q o.mH m H.m~ m ~.Hm OH mmmcmm o.ooa mm o.ma m m.o~ «a o.m~ on m.o~ «H v.5a NH muoumummflummm na.ooa em ¢.h q H.¢~ ma H.¢~ ma H.e~ ma v.o~ Ha mummua nH.ooH ch m.m n o.m~ ha m.¢~ ma o.m~ pH m.o~ ma mumnmmz o.ooH mm p.ou m H.oH m ~.m~ ma m.m~ ma ~.m~ ma umoanmusa muocsmq o.ooa mm ~.c~ ca m.oa ma w.a~ mm m.m~ mm «.ma ma mmnooo mufinz pa.ooa mm m.au NH m.mH «a «.aw ma «.mm 5H n.” m mcoflwwwwwww am.am no a.u~ «A m.pu «a m.~m mm m.o~ «H v.oa h mnoflmfl>mflma manmuuom na.ooa «ma ~.ma qm «.ma «w H.Hm av m.m~ Hm H.m NH mooou czoum ucmu mom .oz ucmo Hmm .oz admo Hum 902 9:00 Hmm .oz ucmu Hmm .oz ucmo Hum .oz uoncoum mamaoa once Ho v m N H o azoqx magnum cmmnao mo Hmnadz .aoncoum ma mmwma3ocx cnmum cwmsco nuw3 mummMAUHnm mo mmmucmoumm can “mafiazll.m1v mqmde .. wt..».r~_-* SEGA mfldflfiksa >H3 mCOflmfi>0H@B QHOWCOU GCOflNflKIMvHOR; nvfindCUHOnn annaaanunv ruqe w~_>> czflV.~l- IbuiAIA u . :5 126 .uoscoum >9 c30GM mocmum @mmscb mo Hmnadz may spas mummsm mo mmmucmoumm mSBII.vIv musmfim czoqm mvamnm Ummscs v m N H o I F P L _ L — — _ d W 4 _ _ — fl 4 a fi d A - 1 q — _ I. m 4 v # w 1 m 1 0H \\. a \\ NH N r «H / // /,/ , g m \\ Ir 0H 1. \ x// ,x, \\\\\\ \\\\IIHI ,m IIII--- ..-- / /, / \ \ IIII \ m.” e // x/xx/ / .. \\\\ \: ON m: muoumummaummm IIIIIII/z ///x ,x \\0\ mV\\II I '/III II , / / \ ll. \ \ 4 NN nu mumnmmz lllll 47, IIIIIIIIIIHW \\\\\A$ «N .m mum» .III.III obu x .u \ I -\\\\ 9 .HQ / / \ II 1 . . J/WV/ \\ I\\\\ I mm s mmmcmm ..l---.ll / x \\ - / xx 1% .I/ Ir mN mwanausn anwcsmq ..... II ,// \\‘ III/I- I om mcowmfi>wawa ma0w:00.ll--:ll /\\\ IIIH mm mcowmfl>mama manmuuom II.IIII. F m v 308 333 II I .l gr mm mcoow ckoum BUDQQmm q a. l C s C. . , . S I E I r. .1 . C S x ‘C . E S . mu. m a ..r ‘m .m r l .c 5 g E e r. s e r... s a I L s e m m m n o . r o r MI 3 m 0 .l :0. I . l w... C. l . S S Q I “m“ C v E r P ~ . . t S n.“ .H . . I O E X e . .5 .1 I . . : a. go. a s a e y. m .m ,m a. a. s A “I 3 n s an C “a S ... I C S .l a S .... 24 u. r . . . ‘ ‘ x .. -. w... .5 w.“ W... v I». 1 .mn .: z. .3 ... J. C C a 6 2 a: .1 4... a" ... ..u .. x .. I h ....H I .: .l I. . .. E I E . I\ u u n H. n n\ c 0 «av a - Mt. .A a I J . ... .m L I I .u" M... .5... n... J .3 :1. .3 ... v.‘ I 3 .: t.\ M... ‘3‘ .e I. .I ... .. . 5‘ ...-s fix ..p W I“. a“ s . A . \\. \~..» . ‘ ... _, a 127 number of stores were one store known but unused for brown goods and no stores known and unused for white goods. Pur- chasers of laundry durables reflected a similar distribution as buyers of white goods in general. For individual products the purchasers of portable‘ color televisions tended to have a few more respondents at the two extremes of the distribution than the purchasers of console color televisions. For individual products in the white goods category the modial values were no stores known and unused for purchasers of washers, no stores known and unused and two stores known but unused for purchasers of dryers, and one store known but unused for ranges. For all purchasers of these white goods the unused store knowledge tended to be a decreasing function ranging from 24.9 per cent of the buyers with no known and unused stores to 13.1 per cent of the buyers with four or more store alternatives known but unused (Table 4-4). A summary exhibit on the nine product categories and unused store knowledge is shown in Figure 4-5. Unused Brand and Store Knowledge Placing the purchasers in a five-by-five matrix according to the dual variable of unused brands and unused stores tended to illustrate the variations of knowledge across products. For brown goods'purchasers tended to be grouped as follows: 8.3 per cent knew four QhCE HO ' .3 H3322 'A‘IIII‘l'I‘I‘l'" :3.C:;:.T.L 3:... C .m r. as? “v.‘wm- —-~ llln' "l.‘l“|lll| £3.25. mouCum 2‘73 c.~.....l.._~.o-~.s.~ NC ..~....:=SZII.VIV 2.225: . «USCCLL *2 2......3—3CSV. 5-397% 3.92:2: 128 uoaoomm map a“ mposwoum whoa no 030 commnousm unmocommmn n ma .mouo3 nonuo :H .sycmuImco pmmumm: on mcwondou on one Q .Umumamc mm3 ucmpcomwmu was» con» .huommuwo .muomoumo unspoum zoom How boom oHQMHSG mac maco mcflmwnousm mm coswmmo mum muommsousm msoum posooum was» Homo o.ooH mm m.ma m m.mH m m.m m m.m¢ ma m.mH m mmmcmm am.mm mo H.oH a «.ma ma m.o~ «a m.o~ «H e.om Hm muoumummaummm na.ooa «m H.HH m «.ca Ha H.¢~ ma «.om HH H.¢~ ma mumsua o.ooa as ~.uH NH m.vH HH s.m~ ma m.mH «a m.v~ ma mumsmmz am.mm mm m.¢a m m.oa HH m.mH HH e.H~ NH o.m~ as ammanmuaa muccsmq na.ooa mm «.ma ma w.ma ma v.H~ Hm «.ma ma m.s~ hm «macaw mugs: o.ooa nu «.ma oH H.m~ ma m.H~ «a m.¢~ om «.mH OH maoflmfl>oflma oHOmcoo o.ooa so a.m~ ma ¢.nH a m.c~ va v.- ma ¢.mH ma maoama>maoa manmpuom o.ooa ~MH p.mu mm ~.ou qm ~.H~ mN m.m~ Hm v.sa mm mcooo czoum ucmv now .02 unvu Mom .02 unmo Hum .02 Hflwo Mom .02 uch me .oz ucmo mom .oz mamuoa whoa Ho v pospoum azocx monoum woman: no Hmbfisz .uonwonm an mwwmaaonx muoum cmeGD ngw3 mummmzouzm mo mmmunwonmm can HmnEszII.vIv mqmfla . \ a \ 2 I. .3. mthcmm ’ :: csmq . mmvHQOH—AQ \nhmv B GHOQCOD “COA3#>0HQ InhOfl‘fixlflvflwU'H. QHQHUHOQ 31.3.03 ..uUfi—tS -.I'¥nv5#nv F~3AVINV- I ‘SIII..I\I‘ ...yc.--- 129 .uodpoum an CBOQM monoum comma: mo Hmnfidz mnu suflz mummsm mo mmmucmouwm oSBII.mIv ousmwm QBOGM monoum woman: -b§‘ m N H O d a 1 o a u 1. D. . 5 /, e muoumuomwummm IIIIIII ,. \\\ ,//a.om M mumnmmz llllll // . wmm .m mnwauo III II , x .1 «M m mmmcmm .I. ....II x, \ r mm moanmuzo auocsmn ..... II \ Iov mcoflma>mama odomcou.ll--:ll \ rmv maofimfiroams manmuuom II III: /\ I 3. ’ moooo 333 II I I. T WW moooo :3oum fi.om BUDDOfinH u ‘1 'I‘.onB mHOmcou ll.i-ll 3335.32. manmuuom I. --.l mooow wuwnz II I II moooo czoum V Bonnomm j W .uosooum an GBOGM mocmum Hmuoa mo Hmnfidz map :ua3 mummsm mo mmwuomouom mnBIJ.>Iv wudmflm sxexna go afiequeoxea . ,’,,.. {sh n" ..y.‘ 9.0- U. ""‘;‘::O"C UV-“ In. uni-I - .I:‘ “‘vai" -.¢- if“ wt. - u: 1-‘rva~ up It'b-“|h‘ 4 v c ‘Dl. 1. r n o.¢..¢b. 5“; ll . I H..- (_ ..y" n-‘ ,- '1 y.-. \ " A "'"’--~‘d ‘3} d rv- . ....-AV Q ‘ n ‘ in.-- b; '- ~p. ‘~';p— ‘" .~----c A, I... 136 from one brand to eight brands for white goods. Separating purchasers into brown goods and white goods' buyers showed that purchasers of brown goods tended to be distributed according to a fairly normal distribution peaking at five brands, but purchasers of white goods tended to have a skewed distribution with more than one-fourth of these buyers knowing only three brands. The purchasers of laundry durables tended to reflect rather closely the distribution of responses for white goods in general. For portable television purchasers 29.4 per cent knew totally three brands or less, 65.7 per cent knew four to six brands, and 4.7 per cent knew seven or more brands. In comparison, the same breaks for console tele- vision purchasers were 16.9 per cent, 69.2 per cent, and 13.8 per cent. The distributions tended to reflect greater total brand knowledge for console television purchasers than for portable television purchasers, and greater total brand knowledge for brown goods (totally and separately) than for white goods or just laundry durables. Separating white goods purchasers by product and including multiple product purchasers revealed a close similarity among purchasers of washers, dryers, and ranges according to total brand knowledge. Refrigerator purchasers tended to be differentiated by having a relatively smaller proportion of these respondents knowing three brands or ‘ l ...... I’V‘:"cs C. u-wAt . ...... .. “f ' "' “We “.... -uu‘v ...— ..LZE' C1556 SlI ...:rs:-:res arc . n W 4:10:65 ttk :‘v C.“ _ wJ stores Alt‘ficug seven stcz .. . Va.‘ 5 ~ ‘ ~'-'~«::e*s t” § I ‘ 137 less and having a relatively higher proportion knowing seven brands or more than for the other white goods (Table 4-5). Total Store Knowledge The distributions of purchasers of brown goods or of white goods according to the total number of stores known tended to be quite similar. The modial values were quite close since the purchasers of white goods peaked at four stores and the purchasers of brown goods peaked at five stores but it was less than one per cent more than for four stores. The distribution of responses by pur— chasers of laundry durables reflected again the distribution of responses for all white goods. Although a few more purchasers of console televisions knew seven stores or more than for portable television purchasers, the distributions appeared to be quite similar peaking at four and five stores. For individual white goods the response patterns on total stores known were similar across refrigerators, washers, and dryers, but the pattern for purchasers of cooking ranges tended to show heavier concentrations at two stores or less and six stores or more; however, this tendency could be a result of the small sample size (Table 4-6). A summary graph on total store knowledge on brown goods, white goods, and the remaining seven product categories is presented in Figure 4-8. 138 :~ ahrv-V alsam IFK'Z $Efi\r\ Ix": II ufivb .74; .22 nmfifidnu. .JHCE :40 D m k. 0 .1 \lil luir‘x‘1inl. . (1 II E .lllll' i1 , .I I'll .Ilcllllllll'lll“! .I Q {,1 u E. III‘ --i‘ .Ifr" .svcmnlwco ummnmm: Op mcflocsou on $503 .omumHmo mms ycmpcommmu wasp soap .wnommumo posooum may as muosooud once so OBu pmmmnonsd ucmpcommmu m ma .mpno3 umnno CH .mnoqwumo oozooud zoom now pooq wanmnso mco Mano mnflmmsonsm mm omcflmmo mum mummmsousm msosm posponm mean Homo m.HN s v.m m o.mN m o.mN m o.mH m mmmcmm m.ON «H m.wH mH H.mN NH s.m m m.m a muoumummHnmmm m.aH m H.vN mH N.NN NH N.NN NH m.m m mummuo m.mH «H m.vN NH o.HN mH m.HN mH a.m a mumnmmz m.nH OH v.HN NH o.mN sH m.mH HH m.NH n mmmHnmuso huncsmq v.mH mH m.sH 5H 0.5N 5N _ m.mH mH N.m m mmpooo muHrz N.oN pH m.mm NN n.» m n.» m m.H H mconH>mHme mHomcoo m.mN ON v.mH mH v.NN mH m.v m o.m N mconH>mHme anmuuom o.mN hm m.mN mm N.mH ON H.o m m.N m mpooo czoum usmu mom .02 oan Mom .02 ammo Mom .02 ammo mom .oz pcmo mom .oz uosooum m v m N H c3ocM mpamnm Hmuoe mo HGQEDZ .posoonm wn mmomHBOQM pcmnm Hmuoe sofl3 wumwmnousm mo mwmucmonmm paw Hmnfiszll.mnv mamas 139 o.OOH Nm .. u- I- u- I: nu H.m H Qm.mm mm 11 ll m.N N N.> m H.0H n nH.ooH vm II II it II m.H H m.m m 0.00H vs II II II II v.H H m.m m 0.00H mm II II II II II II m.m N o.ooH mm II II o.H H H.m m H.h h Qm.mm mm m.H H m.H H w.OH h N.m w QH.OOH hm m.H H II II o.m N v.mH HH o.o0H NMH m.H N m. H m.m m m.NH 5H ucmu How .02 pamo mom .oz ucmu mom .oz ucmo mom .oz unmu mom .oz mHmuoa mHoE Ho m m h w 140 . #COU .HnwaH . 02 a CEO .H my; ...w 263 .HT& .02 U :00 .H OR .02 UCQU .Hmunw .02 E H a.» aCL. «U .H AVE: HO O. m. h .0 I I'll.‘ .Sucmulmao umwumwc Op OGHCCSOH OH mso Q .ompmHmo mmB ucmmcommmu chp awn“ .Nuommumo nonpoum on» :H muosooum whoa no 03y ommmnonnm pcmocommmu m MH .m©H03 umapo :H oHanso oso wHao mchmsonsm mm omcmeo mum mummmsonsm macho uospoum mHnu Homo .muommumo nospoum nomw How boom m.mH m m.NH v m.mH m H.mN a m.NH a mmmcmm v.5H NH m.sN mH m.NH mH m.mH HH h.m o mHOpmummHuumm m.vH m m.Hm 5H N.NN NH m.sH N H.HH m mummso m.sH mH m.HN SH o.mN 5H o.mN pH m.o m mumnmmz m.mH HH N.mN mH a.sH oH N.mN mH N.oH m mmmHnmusQ muocsmq «.mH mH m.mN MN ¢.HN HN «.mH mH m.w m mmooow muHaz m.aN SH H.MN mH m.HN sH N.k m m.s m mconH>mHme mHomcou v.mN NH «.mN pH m.vH OH m.aH OH m.q m chHmH>mHme mHnmauom o.mN mm N.VN Nm N.NH sN v.HH mH m.v m woooo czoum ucmu How .02 pnmo nod .02 pcmo mom .oz pnmu Mom .02 uomu How .02 m v m N H czocm mmHOpm.Hmuoe wo Hmnfisz uozooum .uospoum ha mmomHBOsm mHOHm Hopoa asz mummmnousm mo mmmpomonmm was HmnESZII.oIv mamas 141 o.OOH Nm II II II II m.m N v.m m am.mm mm II II m.N N m.v m m.v m o.OOH em I: II I- I- II In m.m m nN.o0H an II II II II v.H H.. m.o m c.00H mm II II II II m.H H m.m N QH.OOH mm II II o.H H H.v v H.v v o.OOH mm m.H H o.v m N.@ a N.@ v c.00H hm o.m N m.H H II II w.0H h gm.mm NmH m.N m o.m v o.m v m.m HH ammo mom .oz udmu Mom .02 ucwo Hmm .oz ammo mom .oz pcou mom .oz mHmwoe mHoE Ho m m h m truer." mfi>r§ Fpuwr IIIIII I F qu.~F.~LCL I!) I . ‘11 mumuooo QUflHHZ IIII II. III @3000 czoum .HIUDQONNAN \, VT 0 M. 142 .uosoonm an qsocM monoum-Hmuoa mo Hmnasz may nuH3 mumhsm mo mmmgcmoumm mnBII.mIv musmHm GBOGM mwuonm Hmuoe V e m N H m m //l!iILVl & a I o a u A4: 2 5 muoumummHummm IIIIIII a muwnmmz .II-.II. m. 98:30 I III. M rA mwmcmm Il;;:ll_ m menmuso muocsmq ..... II s mGOHmH>mHmB mHomcoo.ll--:II mGOHmH>mHmB anmuuom.ll.!.ll moooo wait» I I III moooo asoum Buoaomm Imm q o ‘ :v-""‘ 7:” no: a“ “I. a. I‘. . . L $132213 £3193“ . ‘ . - 1 -4 33139.3 {El-G . " ..u‘naa R“ 8‘33 ‘. “...u \A- v u». .':u~ —’ -~‘U ‘5‘. . ClES , =‘ W “er .-¢.A- ‘a*0~\a . . , . § .. 1 ‘3‘ -...:.:A.Za-¢ ‘ ‘I a c ‘ ""t c ... :“:-. :~"V~ \hfi '-:..:‘D’ Qagu -‘~.:F‘ Hay-r- ..I..\,:, L, r»‘ v‘ .. ; ‘3 \‘§ “ Pa ‘ . “' “‘ Lash - h ~ng° gs ...“‘~ -j .:-‘:NA (:2 "u ‘— "4\- X“. .._‘ . . "‘ a. ~~~EE E . ._ ,. n: .R“V- ‘h. _ sy“ Li. I... H «.- ’v ‘~“‘& ”A ‘ ‘“ ~uca - ‘. "~.. .‘ $- ,5 . h‘A ‘-“‘:c+ ”C ‘ kw ‘ \ L-; .- s K. P5" ‘ "~" 1' < \ . ’ _ . ‘—‘~ ‘ ‘--::::-v-. -I; _. ~- “"A “~: 3‘. :“4 ..~ ‘ \_Q}-\ _»\~ -‘ . 7‘ ‘ ‘. D! . \"§ '5‘- “$ ‘- ‘§ *‘:~~R ‘v: 143 Total Brand and Store Knowledge Total brand and store knowledge tended to show slightly greater responses toward the brand side of the matrices relative to the store side if the matrices were divided diagonally in half. The cells with the highest frequencies, however, tended to fall on the diagonal with equal number of brands and stores known. This last generalization held true for all product groups except for slight deviations for purchasers of refrigerators, washers, and console televisions. To illustrate, the highest percentage (10.2) of purchasers for white goods was in the three brands and three stores known cell (Figure 4-9) and for laundry products the highest per- centage (8.9) was positioned in three cells--three brands and three stores cell, four brands and four stores cell, and four brands and five stores cell (Figure C-l7). The highest percentage (9.1) of purchasers for brown goods was in the four brands and four stores known (Figure C-l8). For portable television purchasers the highest percentage of respondents was in the four brands and four stores known cell, but for console television purchasers the highest percentage was in the four brands and five stores known (Figures C-19 and C-20). For refrigerators the highest percentage of purchasers was found in the five brands and four stores cell (Figure C-21), for washers the highest percentage was found in the four \- ‘7 u XV; o. -- ~- g I .. -- v - I ..- -- 1 tr Q- -- " 2.3 144 Stores 9 or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 more Sums 9 or more -- -- -- —- -- -- -- -- -- —- 8 -- -- -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0 7 -- -- 1.0 1.0 -— —- -- 1.0 -— 3.0 6 -- -- 3.1 1.0 2.0 1.0 -- -- -- 7.1 5 -- 2.0 1.0 7.1 8.2 1.0 -- -- -- 19°3 3 ‘4 1.0 2 0 2.0 5.1 5.1 1.0 1.0 -- -- 17.2 c m S 3 3.1 7 1 10.2 5.1 1.0 -- 1.0 -- —- 27.5 2 2.0 4.1 4.1 2.0 2.0 -- 2.0 -- -- 16.2 1 2.0 4.1 -- 2.0 -- -- -- -- -- 8.1 Sums 8.1 19.3 21.4 23.3 18.3 4.0 4.0 1.0 -- 99.4%* (n=98) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure 4-9.--The Product-Store Total Knowledge Matrix of White Goods in Percentages. for Purchasers :rszis and five ij'ers highest :‘cur store: :3363 the .Lig‘: ‘ n A... .'F ..-..s and two I I I L1,: V‘s 57% 0r 1': situation were I 1:: knowers) a .2; mowers) are as f0 1 10‘“ "’- '«‘=::s hrs: Wis. The ks... bars 7' . 2811‘: We: 2.5.9, 145 brands and five stores known cell (Figure C-22), for dryers highest percentage was located in the four brands and four stores known cell (Figure C-23) and for cooking ranges the highest percentage was positioned in the two brands and two stores known cell (Figure C-24). Another approach was to divide the matrices into two major subparts to isolate the percentage of purchasers who were high or low total brand and store knowers. If the separation were four brands and four stores known or less (low knowers) and five brands or five stores known or more (high knowers) as illustrated in Figure 4-10, the results were as follows: (1) for brown goods 31.3 per cent were low knowers and 68.7 per cent were high knowers; (2) for white goods 55.8 per cent were low knowers and 44.2 per cent were high knowers; and (3) for laundry durables 64.3 per cent were low knowers and 35.7 per cent were high knowers. The comparable figures for individual product purchasers were: (1) for portable color televisions 34.4 Per cent were low knowers and 65.6 per cent were high knowers, (2) for console color televisions 27.6 per cent were low knowers and 72.4 per cent were high knowers, (3) fOr refrigerators 47.5 per cent were low knowers and 52.5 Per cent were high knowers, (4) for washers 48.8 per cent Were low knowers and 51.2 per cent were high knowers, (5) fbr dryers 63.2 per cent were low knowers and 36.8 per Cent were high knowers, and (6) for cooking ranges 62.7 Were low knowers and 37.3 per cent were high knowers. TOIE 0 angry Pu V- EHV n u ...»;h nu ufi ab :s .20. «:33.— 146 or more High Knowers Low Knowers Number of Brands Known .5 l ' 2 3 4 5 - 6 7 8 9 or more Number of Stores Known Figure 4-lO.--The Separation of Purchasers Into High and Low Knowers for Total Brands and Stores. Pu: aha ”""a‘w: of h 34“.»g: Tit-e. Cancerr 0 "ate goods te 11:68: Gui-$5.11; Liz-.13; tires ...:ee ,"..V‘v-rw ‘ "ha I P F, ."'" ‘5 gc‘. . I, . . ‘ .V‘FI-‘1 H"~¢u‘- p I ‘ V1 . \ I “lug ‘fi\‘r ':"‘l .“ HE" * ‘ H. BO SFLF '1' .- W \\I“ StOI ,‘ . a. usvfrn gGOC: to 1.7 Summary Purchasers demonstrated differences in total knowledge of brands, stores, brands and stores by product type. Concerning total brand knowledge, purchasers of white goods tended to be differentiated according to a skewed distribution with one-fourth of the purchasers knowing three brands only and one-half of them knowing three brands or less for white goods, and buyers of brown goods tended to be distributed according to a near normal distribution with slightly over one-half of the buyers knowing four or five brands for brown goods. For indi- vidual brown goods the buyers of console color televisions tended to be more knowledgeable on total brand alternatives than the purchasers of portable color televisions. For individual white goods the purchasers of refrigerators tended to demonstrate the greatest total brand knowledge and the buyers of cooking ranges tended to reflect the least total brand knowledge. On total store knowledge a close conformity on response patterns tended to exist for purchasers regardless of the product groups or individual products. The distri- butions between buyers of brown goods and of white goods tended to show total store knowledge peaked at five stores and four stores,respectively,with slightly higher proportion of brown goods' buyers knowing seven or more stores. Within brown goods this difference tended to be concentrated within :‘ze console cc} ' figs tfxo ,,..‘, N , ing-e 1': luv \4 “ In ’D\‘I‘P D .... . ...Es for k zerxeen the to “4‘5“ : sé-(NV‘ .'-““ . ivy“ nu “up“, H g” n‘. Hairl'n :OOL‘D I ”.711 by w.“ ‘46 5:65 a ‘ V 93038 wr. .. ‘ I‘O- I I A. h " Q‘d.‘b hrofln C - p.11 ....“ 5: Proper .,_. .. ..:.:‘ . sysl‘gg of s "‘:' '. ._i KJ.CT"vledOe ....lflc to t'n 535266.. m‘ 15'“ £38 ’45:: rv 148 the console color television category. For individual white goods total store knowledge tended hardly to vary across products. On total brand and store knowledge the major con- clusion from the data tended to be the congruency of responses for brands and stores, that is, the association between the total number of brands known and the total number of stores known appeared to be high. The purchasers of brown goods tended to be relatively high knowers of total brands and stores in contrast to the purchasers of white goods who tended to be relatively low knowers. Within brown goods the purchasers tended to exhibit similar proportions on total brand and store knowledge. Within white goods the purchasers of refrigerators and automatic washers based on proportions tended to be more knowledgeable than the buyers of dryers and cooking ranges. Specific Hypotheses and Demographic Variables andwthe Shopping Behaviors and Knowledge of Purchasers This section is organized into three major parts consisting of ShOpping activity, unused knowledge, and total knowledge. Each of the parts is further separated according to the independent variables analyzed in the research. The research hypothesis and findings pertinent to each category will be reported. For this section a total of 648 statistical tables 'was scrutinized for the purpose of determining the wfilwation C: "‘uo . I ‘“ . I IV “A .-n. s 1:: as: .Cuoe “Md ...‘ L1 V ‘7" I::.:“‘es ‘“l ‘5 I ‘ «snap-V185 A .C.C-~.‘s¢ ' J i ' U; .I . pm 1‘“ ......snce leve P y. .. ...ese prof: u "I. u. 149 confirmation or lack of confirmation of the specific hypotheses on brands and on stores. The large number of the tables was a result of analyzing twelve independent variables with six dependent variables across nine product categories. All the statistical tests were one-tailed, unless noted, and a confidence level of .10 was considered significant, but individual confidence levels better than .10 are reported in the tables. Only the tables with a confidence level of .10 or less numerically are reported. The significant tables for the independent variable--home ownership--will be presented for each dependent variable in the section, and the other tables with significant relationships will be shown in Appendix D. Shopping Activity Home Ownership.-—The hypothesis states: Home onwers will do relatively less shopping for brands (stores) than non-home owners. The data confirmed this hypothesis on brand shopping activity for purchasers of brown goods and portable color televisions. The active brand shoppers for these products were purchasers who did not own their own homes (Tables 4—7 and 4—8). The purchasers of portable color televisions showed a particularly strong relationship between shopping activity and renting. None of the other product categories showed significance in the predicted direction or a significant relationship in the opposite . .. .‘,"nn~ n ....»u‘.1 O. gnaw-1‘; o' ~v~.|&'_v CD:A+ "a ...—g. I \— :4... 'G l .4--- , v - ‘1“... (I) F‘- I n ' ~‘Tl t‘y’ * 4 \ ‘- \L‘: 3&‘N., .~§ ' es 2 E 150 TABLE 4-7.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand Shopping Activity and Home Ownership for Brown Goods. Brand Home Owner Renter Total Shopping Activity* - No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 56 57.1 16 44.4 72 53.7 Actives 42 42.9 20 55.6 62 46.3 Totalv 98 100.0 36 100.0 134 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence TABLE 4-8.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According To Brand Shopping Activity and Home Ownership for Portable Televisions. Brand Home Owner Renter. Total Shopping Activity* _ I No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 28 65.1 9 37.5 37 55.2 Actives 15 34.9 15 62.5 30 44.8 Total 43 100.0 24 100.0 67 100.0 * Significant at the .025 level of confidence. .‘.‘ 1' “IECLlOn. stcre shopp: .0": :3. nan; :oflttcg‘b 9‘» a Tip: 'Du0 ..yers of b .i:*:_ w .uec to b 'wAIQ‘IA ~v~¥ I y‘ ' 1n ::~ 151 direction. The data did not confirm the hypothesis on store shopping activity. None of the relationships were significant for the purchasers of household durables. Type of Housing.--The hypothesis reads: One-family home dwellers will do relatively less shopping for brands (stores) than the multi-family building dweller. The data confirmed the hypothesis on brand shopping activity for buyers of brown goods and portable color televisions (Tables D-1 and D-2). The relationships were highly significant in each case since about two-thirds of the purchasers living in multi-family buildings were active brand shoppers and about two-thirds of the purchasers living in single-family homes were inactive brand shoppers. None of the buyers for the other product categories showed a significant relationship in the predicted direction. The data confirmed the hypothesis on store shopping activity for purchasers of portable color televisions (Table D-3). The more active shOppers for these products tended to be the ones living in multi-family buildings; however, in each case more purchasers were inactive store shoppers than active store shOppers. None of the other purchasers showed a significant relationship between store shopping activity and type of housing. Mobility.--The hypothesis on mobility and brand shopping asserts: Mobiles will do relatively greater shopping for brands than non-mobiles. The data confirmed :2 hypcthesis f :10: televisior. aria-'9 shoppers I s n 1 ‘ > . ..:: cnanqed and: sag-errant var; :;;0site direct; 1152, I‘Efrigera :;:ecti0n predi Ends. 0 b L “:3: . 'Il ‘ :‘L‘l l i E FQI‘ ‘~. :‘EE 152 the hypothesis for purchasers of brown goods and portable color television sets (Tables D-4 and D-5). The more active shoppers for these products were the people who had changed addresses within the last two years. This independent variable was the first one to show a signifi- cant relationship between purchasers of white goods and brand shopping activity, but the relationship was in the Opposite direction as hypothesized (Table D-6). In addi- tion, refrigerator purchasers were also in the opposite direction predicted by the hypothesis with the immobiles being much more active brand shoppers than the mobiles (Table D-7). The hypothesis on mobility and store shopping asserts: Mobiles will do relatively less ShOpping for stores than non—mobiles. The data confirmed the store activity hypothesis only for purchasers of automatic washers (Table D-8). In this case over 90 per cent of the mobiles were inactive store shoppers while 75 per cent of the immobiles were inactive store shoppers. There- fore, the active store shoppers were very few in general but in the predicted direction. Length of Stay in the Market Area.--The hypothesis contends: Families living a shorter time in the market area will do relatively greater shopping for brands (stores) than families living a longer time in the market. For brand shopping activity and the length of stay in the market area none of the buyers for the product :ategc-ries 5110:." shcgging activi‘ air friaeratc: d iiiferen-tiated : . EZCZpEIS , b ut t: ‘p L‘p '- ‘. I -. he ...arxet sq 153 categories showed a significant relationship. For store shopping activity the purchasers of white goods in general and refrigerators in specific (Tables D-9 and D-lO) were differentiated on this independent variable. The purchasers of these products tended to be generally inactive store shoppers, but the more active shoppers were ones living in the market six years or less. None of the other pur— chasers for the product categories had meaningful relation- ships. Marital Status.--The specific hypothesis maintains: Marrieds will do relatively greater shopping for brands (stores) than non-marrieds. The data on refrigerator purchasers confirmed this hypothesis on brand shopping (Table D-ll), but the data on portable television purchases suggested that the relationship is in the Opposite direction, afl:1east, for this product (Table D-12). For store shopping activity the marrieds purchasing refrigerators tended to be the more active shOpper than the non-marrieds (Table D-13). muibuyers for the other product categories did not show a Significant relationship between marital status and shopping activity. Household Size.--The hypothesis submits: Larger familieswill do relatively greater shopping for brands (Stores) than smaller families. The data were quite mixed conCerning the relationship between household size and brand shopping activity. The larger households were more active brand 5:: its smaller hon; 3.235 were more :elevisions an ‘32:: the differs: iirection. For st :czfimed for E :3: l :31: the SmalL 31589:--produc :C the Criteri 1:13.08 (store. ‘ISQh‘Old The a we“ diffs I‘VpOtHeSis wl IT-AT‘N I wedOld du pothesis I We ‘33-‘39 . S Dr St :E’iea 1.5“ 154 active brand shoppers for console color televisions than the smaller households (Table D-l4), but the smaller house- holds were more active brand shoppers for portable color televisions and for dryers than the larger households (Tables D-15 and D-16). A difference among products, how- ever, can be as revealing or more so than if the purchasers for the different products were all related in the same direction. For store shopping activity the hypothesis was confirmed for purchasers of console color televisions. The larger households were indeed more active store shoppers than the smaller households (Table D-l7). The other pur- chaser--product relationships were not meaningful according to the criterion. Agg,--The hypothesis states: Families with younger household heads will do relatively greater shopping for brands (stores) than families with older heads of the household. The age variable was not particularly useful to present differences among brand and store shoppers. The hypothesis was not confirmed by any of the purchasers of household durables for brand shopping activity, and the hypothesis was confirmed only for purchasers of cooking ranges for store ShOpping activity. The younger shoppers tended to be more active store shoppers for this product than the older shoppers (Table D-18). i. Occuoaf ‘. 2.15 household 1* cczupations wi‘. Lstzres) than I o — ;r:fessional o: The dat :"V "“V r- . were 0: . 155 Occupation.--The hypothesis reads: Families with the household head engaged in professional or clerical occupations will do relatively greater shopping for brands (stores) than families with household head not engaged in professional or clerical occupations. The data confirmed the hypothesis on brand shopping for buyers of brown goods in general and console televisions in particular. The white collar workers (professional and clerical) were more active brand shoppers than ones not engaged in these occupations for these products (Tables D-19 and D-20). The data did not confirm the hypothesis on store shopping activity by buyers for household durables. Education.-—The hypothesis asserts: Families with the head of the household having more than 12 years of school will do relatively greater shopping for brands (stores) than families with the household head having 12 years or less Of education. The independent variable—- education--was not related either to brand shopping activity or to store shopping activity for buyers of household durables. Annual Family Income.——The hypothesis contends: Families with annual incomes less than $15,000 will do relatively greater ShOpping for brands (stores) than families with annual incomes of $15,000 or more. Annual family income and ShOpping activity was related in one instance. The relationship was in the Opposite direction {Ian the pr8d1¥ "rehasers of r . .- s:::»:ers man - .u I F” taxable a5 5‘” ;:.:e:eneent .a- ::.':e‘.:aviors 0. Recent I \ gzrehasmg reCE .elati‘sely 91’9“; fiilies purcha The dat .I I Arno H. ~‘ual~lg.i ing. MU singers cor-par for stores | 3011 relatio: active shop p e Tvoe of \ .- 1: “14.168 purCha ILIS‘ L time will '3‘:- me dat “‘itY for la “ted tO be a El? h“ ‘P‘I‘Chas r 156 than the prediction Of the hypothesis. The more affluent purchasers Of refrigerators tended to be more active brand shoppers than the less affluent (Table D-21). The income variable as some other more traditionally researched independent variables did not lead to substantial findings on behaviors Of household durables' buyers. Recent Purchases.-—The hypothesis asserts: Families purchasing recently more than one durable good will do relatively greater shopping for brands (stores) than families purchasing recently one durable good. The data on the purchasers of dryers were the most confirming. Multi-product purchasers were the more active shoppers compared to single-product purchasers for brands and for stores for dryers (Tables D-22 and D-23). However, in both relationships the majority of purchasers were inactive shoppers. Type of Purchase.-«The hypothesis maintains: Families purchasing the household durable good for the first time will do relatively greater shopping for brands (stores) than families purchasing the product as a replace- nent. The data confirmed the hypothesis on brand shopping activity for laundry durables; the first-time purchaser tended to be a more active brand shopper than the replace- ment purchaser (Table D-24). None Of the buyers for other household durables were significantly related to brand ShOpping behaviors for household durables at the acceptable confidence level. The ciat 53.32.13:qu activi tables. and C tended to be tt. 05 .. the replace:- Tfe -elationshii guitasers of w - \w‘u ‘ ‘Hv .- -...--“ 0‘ The Via .- ~ ‘hns zen: relations :;;-1E1C8.1"1 t re 3331': ‘ 9 Snoppe r. Jicltiles ten n...‘ ~17“ 0. “ seleVi '7'“ .1219 -:i‘w’~¢ I‘ V ‘ kl, DES 157 The data confirmed the hypothesis on store shopping activity for buyers of white goods, laundry durables, and cooking ranges. The first-time purchaser tended to be the more active store shopper when compared to the replacement purchaser (Tables D-25, D-26, and D-27). The relationship appeared to be most significant for the purchasers of white goods and cooking ranges. Summary The main independent variables describing brand shopping activity tended to be mobility with four signifi- cant relationships and size of household with three significant relationships. Mobiles tended to be active brand shoppers Of brown goods and portable color televisions; immobiles tended to be active brand shoppers of white goods and refrigerators. Smaller households tended to be active brand shoppers of portable televisions and dryers; larger households tended to be active brand shoppers of console color televisions. The independent variables describing store shopping activity best tended to be first-time or replacement purchase with three significant relationships and length of time in the market area with two significant relationships. First- time purchasers tended to be active store shoppers for 'white goods, laundry durables, and cooking ranges. Pur- chasers living a shorter time in the market area tended to be active store shoppers for white goods and refrigerators. stars will hat ‘ ‘ ”qr-I .....es (stores unused bran ........ ip is in 2': least for p; televisions . 'I ..:e purchasers :thralng to t': s.‘ ‘ Vrta‘l’jle C is 'r, ‘lgh ((110er V ~35? ‘goods 0 Pawn “hers O f 158 Unused Knowledge Home Ownership.--The hypothesis states: Home owners will have relatively less unused knowledge of brands (stores) than non-home owners. The empirical data on unused brand knowledge tended to suggest that the rela- tionship is in the Opposite direction from the hypothesis at least for purchasers of brown goods and portable color televisions. The high knowers of unused brands tended to be the peOple who owned their homes (Tables 4-9 and 4-10). The purchasers of automatic washers were differentiated according to the direction suggested by the hypothesis, (Table 4-11), but these purchasers were the only other ones presenting a significant relationship On the home ownership variable and unused brand knowledge. For unused store knowledge and home ownership the results were also in the Opposite direction from the hypothesis. Home owners purchasing brown goods in general and portable color televisions in specific tended to be the high knowers of unused store knowledge (Tables 4-12 and 4-13). There is evidently an inverse relationship opposite from the hypothesis concerning the purchasing of portable televisions and perhaps the purchasing of brown goods. This latter product category included the purchasers Of console televisions who made up one-half Of the high knowers for home owners and four-sevenths Of the e SIS-.25 Emile ‘ {Ii-OWE rs 2 9 Rowe rs '7 4 3:51 10 3 \\ * “failed tes .‘ - Si _ t c a (‘1 159 TABLE 4-9.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Home Ownership for Brown Goods. Unused Home Owner Renter Total Brand Knowledge* ' - No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 29 28.2 17 45.9 46 32.9 High Knowers 74 71.8 20 54.1 94 67.1 Total 103 100.0 37 (100.0 140 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. TABLE 4-lO.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Home Ownership for Portable Televisions. Unused Home Owner Renter, Total Brand Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low , Knowers 11 22.9 12 48.0 23 31.5 High Knowers 37 77.1 13 52.0 50 68.5 Total 48 100.0 25 100.0 73 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. “ABLE. bum-Nu! , to ‘.:used “c Brand Emledget‘ No . \ LII Knowers 3 2 in Knowers 3 4 33:31 6 6 \ * I Slgni 160 TABLE 4-ll.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Home Ownership for Washers. Unused Home Owner Renter Total Brand Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 32 48.5 3 25.0 35 44.9 High Knowers 34 51.5 9 75.0 43 55.1 Total 66 100.0 12 ‘100.0 78 100.0 * _ Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE 4-12.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Home Ownership for Brown Goods. Unused Home Owner Renter Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low ' Knowers 36 35.3 21 56.8 57 41.0 High Knowers 66 64.7 16 43.2 82 59.0 Total 102 100.0 37 100.0 139 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. new: 4 l3 \'.. In I - --~ art-Cd O .‘ v. to Unuse- ...:efl ‘uvu ".v Viv. q I'M A...’ * ‘4‘]. tuae J V . 0 . ¥ fig. ..II .7 flowers 3 3 “-' Q ~ 161 TABLE 4-13.4-Numbers and Percentages Of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Home Ownership for Portable Televisions. Unused Home Owner Renter Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. “Per Cent Low Knowers 15 31.3 16 64.0 31 42.5 High Knowers 33 68.7 9 36.0 42 57.5 Total 48 100.0 25 100.0 73 100.0 *Significant at the .01 level Of confidence with a two-tailed test. low knowers for home owners with the remaining proportions composed of portable television buyers. Type of Housing.-—The hypothesis reads: Single— family home dwellers will have relatively less unused know— ledge of brands (stores) than the multi-family building dweller. For unused brand knowledge the only significant relationship was for purchasers of dryers. The multiafamily building purchasers tended to be the high knowers of unused brands if compared to the purchasers of dryers residing in single-family housing (Table D-28). For unused store knowledge the high knowers of unused stores were again the purchasers of dryers who resided in multi-family housing (Table D-29). This relationship was in direct opposition to the significant findings on purchasers of brown goods rxi portable C:- It: were 1". ghe; ii'fiiflg in sing‘ 1‘39 IElative 1 .5; ‘E‘.‘is i On 5 8t The hr \’ ‘ . "3398 Will :.AVC. 'l . h. V (”a ‘3: Y‘T‘y 1 "*Cuase 5.. 162 and portable color televisions. These product purchasers who were higher on unused store knowledge were the people living in single-family housing (Tables D—30 and D-3l). Mobility.--The hypothesis on unused brand knowledge asserts: Mobiles will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands than immobiles. The data did show a significant relationship but in the opposite direction as predicted from the hypothesis. The immobiles tended to have relatively more high brand knowers for portable color television sets than the mobiles (Table D-32). The hypothesis on unused store knowledge asserts: Mobiles will have relatively less unused knowledge of stores than immobiles. The immobiles, as predicted, for portable color televisions tended to be greater knowers of unused stores than the mobiles (Table D-33). None of the purchasers of the other household durables showed a significant relationship between mobility and unused store knowledge. Length of Stay in the Market Area.--The hypothesis contends: Families living a shorter time in the market area will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands (stores) than families living a longer time in the market area. The data tended to confirm the hypothesis on unused brand knowledge for the purchasers of white goods and refrigerators. The high knowers of brands for these products were the ones who had been in the market area for ashcrter perir: alternative hy; accepted for ptl televisions. ' knowledge tend- :arket area t?" Marita #111 have real(3 Istcres) than . knowled£ of portable C4 Dcre knowleng hypothesis on :0: the purche ators in part is marrieds rt:- .t.er buyer-p 163 a shorter period of time (Tables D-34 and D-35). The alternative hypothesis on unused store knowledge has to be accepted for purchasers of brown goods and portable color televisions. These purchasers with high unused store knowledge tended to be the people who had been in the market area the longest (Tables D-36 and D-37). Marital Status.--The hypothesis maintains: Marrieds will have relatively greater unused knowledge Of brands (stores) than non-marrieds. This hypothesis on unused brand knowledge tended to be confirmed for the purchasers of portable color televisions. The marrieds were relatively more knowledgeable than the non-marrieds (Table D-38). The hypothesis on unused store knowledge tended to be confirmed for the purchasers Of white goods in general and refriger- ators in particular. The high unused store knowers were the marrieds in each instance (Tables D-39 and D-40). The other buyer-product sets did not show any meaningful relationships. Household Size.--The hypothesis submits: Larger families will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands (stores) than smaller families. The hypothesis on unused brand knowledge was confirmed for the purchasers of portable color televisions and refrigerators. The larger households were relatively more knowledgeable of brands (Tables D-4l and D-42). The hypothesis on unused store knowledge was confirmed across products for white . nil-fl: IVV‘~' r — AA—o v.81- --. '| n "-~~ . --Au"-..\ . .... A :I‘ P u ‘ R- .f \bh’ nu- 5‘.,\ “ . “'r .INC'rr F "~\rli\ PI R ‘ ‘I.. f‘ “L Q I ...c: 5 V? 13,: ‘Q 164 goods, laundry durables, washers, dryers, brown goods, and portable color televisions. The larger households were indeed the relatively more knowledgeable of unused stores (Tables D-43 through D-48). This relationship across products tends to be the first one with a high degree Of confirmation as judged by the number Of significant findings. Agg.--The hypothesis states: Families with Older heads of the household will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands (stores) than families with younger household heads. The age variable did not differentiate among purchasers of household durables on the dependent variable, unused brand knowledge. For unused store know- ledge the empirical data rejected the above hypothesis by showing a significant relationship in the opposite direction for the purchasers of washers and Of dryers. For these household durables the younger buyer was the higher knower of unused stores (Tables D-49 and D-50). Occupation.--The hypothesis reads: Families with the head of the household engaged in professional or clerical occupations will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands (stores) than families with the house- Ihold head not engaged in professional or clerical occupations. The data on unused brand knowledge and occupation rejected the hypothesis as stated for the purchasers of portable (color televisions. The non-white collar purchasers tended O ,2 ts . . pm ug‘usoou ‘E .A‘ ‘o- AM Jul ..LJ-e 2..” C( h‘ \ l ..Ihufi“ 4 ‘2.“ ad re p rm u-lb 1,... I 5‘}. on I i ’1‘ ~‘ fin} "“46. fr!- v 3% «IV -.V 165 to have relatively more unused brand knowledge than the white collar purchasers (Table D-51). None of the pur— chasers for the other household durables demonstrated a significant relationship between occupation and unused brand or store knowledge. Education.--The hypothesis contends: Families with the household head having more than 12 years of school will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands (stores) than families with the head of the household having 12 years or less of school. The data on unused knowledge confirmed the hypothesis in only one situation. The more educated purchasers of automatic washers tended to be the more knowledgeable of unused brands (Table D-52). Otherwise, this variable did not differentiate among buyers of other household durables. Annual Family Income.--The hypothesis asserts: Families with annual incomes less than $15,000 will have relatively greater unused knowledge on brands (stores) than families with annual incomes of $15,000 or more. The data on unused brand knowledge and annual family income did not present any significant findings. For unused store knowledge significant findings were found for purchasers of brown goods and portable color television sets. The less affluent buyer was the more knowledgeable for these product purchases; the relationships were highly significant especially for purchasers of portable televisions (Tables D-53 and D-54). . PJ'V‘FF H‘. U- . ' (D I): (‘I-n 'hqy" ‘Ve; “‘V\ on ( ) [It U) r) In 166 Recent Purchase.--The hypothesis maintains: Families purchasing recently more than one durable good will have relatively greater unused knowledge of brands (stores) than families purchasing recently only one durable good. The empirical data on unused brand knowledge confirmed the hypothesis for purchasers of laundry durables, washers, and dryers. The multi-product buyers were indeed the more knowledgeable of unused brands where compared to single- product purchaser (Tables D—SS, D-56, and D-57). The empirical data on unused store knowledge confirmed the hypothesis for purchasers of white goods. The multi- product purchasers were the more knowledgeable of unused stores (Table D-58). Type of Purchase.--The hypothesis states: Families purchasing the household durable good for the first time will have relatively greater unused knowledge on brands (stores) than families purchasing the product as a replacement. The findings on the relationship between replacement purchase or not and the amount of unused brand knowledge tend to confirm the hypothesis for purchasers of portable color televisions and dryers. In each product category the first-time purchaser was more knowledgeable of unused brands (Tables D-59 and D—60) than the replace- ment purchaser. The empirical data on unused store know- ledge rejected the hypothesis at least for purchasers of laundry durables. The replacement buyer was the more knowledgeable on unused stores (Table D-6l). q-‘h-Qr urn-— «- --—A __ . by» vux s ' . ‘vaou c-u‘ v. v "c‘— . A. 'Q 167 Summary The major independent variables describing the dependent variable, unused brand knowledge, tended to be length of time in the market area with four significant relationships, home ownership and number of products recently purchased each with three significant relation- ShiPS- Purchasers living a longer time in the market tended to be high knowers of unused brands of brown goods and portable color televisions; buyers living a shorter time in the market tended to be high knowers of unused brands of white goods and refrigerators. Home owners tended to be high knowers of unused brands of brown goods and portable televisions; renters tended to be high knowers of unused brands of automatic washers. Multi-product purchasers tended to be high knowers of unused brands of laundry durables, automatic washers, and dryers. The most important independent variables for unused store knowledge tended to be size of household with six significant relationships, type of housing with three sig- nigicant relationships, and a number of other independent variables with two significant relationships. Larger households tended to be high knowers of unused stores for brown goods, portable televisions, white goods, laundry durables, washers, and dryers. Purchasers living in single-family housing tended to know more unused stores for brown goods and portable televisions; purchasers . - «v.0 I --l-l no» 'vk .. 1 p-‘ A Ibo-‘- .....- x“! ”’ I‘v- l..A* V bw’- 168 living in multi-family housing tended to know more unused stores for dryers. Total Knowledge Home Ownership.—-The hypothesis states: Home owners will have relatively less total knowledge of brands (stores) than non-home owners. The empirical data on total brand knowledge confirmed the hypothesis for pur- chasers of washers and of dryers. The renters were the relatively more knowledgeable of all possible brand alternatives than the home owners for these products (Tables 4-14 and 4-15). For total store knowledge the variable of home ownership did not result in any signifi- cant relationships. Type of Housing.--The hypothesis reads: Single- family home dwellers will have relatively less total knowledge of brands (stores) than the multi-building dwellers. The findings on total brand knowledge were significant at a relatively low level of confidence for purchasers across a number of product categories. Pur- chasers living in multi-family buildings were relatively more knowledgeable than ones living in single-family homes for washers, dryers, and portable color televisions (Tables D-62, D-63, and D-64). Type of housing and total store knowledge did not result in any significant relationships for buyers of household durables. .‘g-v .. I ...v-Aa - ‘AOQ . ’- ‘\r wu- ~ . .v:y-,; ~gwu¥ .- 1 ‘Ifiot «.55. 169 TABLE 4-14.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand Knowledge and Home Ownership for Washers. Total Home Owner Renter Total Brand Knowledge* ' ‘ No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 49 76.6 6 54.5 55 73.3 High Knowers 15 23.4 5 45.4 20 26.7 Total 64 100.0 11 1100.0 ’ 75 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE 4-15.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand Knowledge and Home Ownership for Dryers. Total Home Owner Renter I Total Brand Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 36 78.3 4 50.0 40 74.1 High Knowers 10 21.7 4 50.0 14 25.9 Total 46 100.0 8 100.0 54 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. «p.2- v-1; ('F ...-y 9’. .9. 170 Mobility.--The hypothesis on total brand knowledge contends: Mobiles will have relatively greater total knowledge of brands than immobiles. The hypothesis on total store knowledge asserts: Mobiles will have relatively less total knowledge of stores than non-mobiles. This variable did not result in significant patterns for total brand or total store knowledge for purchasers of household durables. Length of Stay in Market Area.--The hypothesis maintains: People living a shorter time in the market area will have relatively greater total knowledge of brands (stores) than people living a longer time in the market area. None of the purchasers of household durables were differ- entiable on this independent variable and total brand know- ledge. For total store knowledge the purchasers of white goods and refrigerators were separated significantly according to the hypothesis (Tables D-65 and D-66). The purchasers of other household durables were not found to be significantly related to length of stay in the market- place and total store knowledge. Marital Status.--The hypothesis submits: Marrieds will have relatively greater total knowledge of brands (stores) than non-marrieds. The empirical data did not confirm this hypothesis on total brand knowledge and marital status for buyers of household durables. The empirical data were mixed concerning the total store knowledge and marital status relationship. The marrieds up. ..v ‘1 7“ . - u.‘ n-‘ .__. - s - ‘u ‘_ x."- ‘— “ ‘ ‘- 171 who purchased white goods were relatively more knowledgeable on total stores than the singles (Table D-67), but the non- marrieds who purchased portable color televisions were the relatively more knowledgeable on total store alternatives Table D-68). Household Size.--The hypothesis states: Larger families will have relatively greater total knowledge of brands (stores) than smaller families. The empirical data on total brand knowledge confirmed this hypothesis only for buyers of refrigerators. The larger households for this product category were the relatively more knowledgeable on total brand alternatives (Table D-69). For total store knowledge the purchasers who were members of larger house- holds were relatively more knowledgeable on total store alternatives for laundry durables (Table D—70). None of the purchasers for other household durables was significantly differentiated on total knowledge and size of household. Agg,--The hypothesis reads: There will be no difference between younger and older purchasers on total brand or store knowledge. The data rejected the null hypothesis of no difference between age of household head and total knowledge for purchasers of selected products. For total brand knowledge the older purchasers of white goods and refrigerators were relatively more knowledgeable than the younger purchasers (Tables D-7l and D-72). For total store knowledge the younger purchasers were "’22"; cu av- \ ‘ . ’ "Vug .‘. Q ..-_ _ H“ -"~-. V'Vfib; . ‘H I 172 interestingly, when compared to the above, more knowledge- able than older purchasers for white goods and laundry durables. The relationships on total store knowledge and buyers of these product were very significant (Tables D-73 Occupation.--The hypothesis contends: Families \mith the head of the household engaged in professional or clfierical occupations will have relatively greater total luuawledge of brands (stores) than families not in profes- sixonal and clerical occupations. The empirical data did rmyt support the hypothesis on total brand knowledge and (NZCUpation of the household head. The findings are mixed CH1 this variable and total store knowledge. The white C=Ollar purchasers of automatic washers were relatively ITlore knowledgeable on total store alternatives than the r“Du-professional and non—clerical buyers (Table D-75), hNJt the non-white collar buyers were more knowledgeable on t'-“~a ‘U." . v“‘ ‘4 180 not own their homes tended to be the more active compared across the product categories and doubtlesslyinfluenced the findings on brown goods. Type of Housing.--The null hypothesis reads: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the type of housing. The null hypothesis can be rejected for the buyers of brown goods and portable televisions. The active brand and store shoppers were buyers who tended to live in multi-family buildings for these products (Tables D-86 and D-87). The active shoppers constituted about three-fourths of the buyers living in multi-family structures for brown goods and portable tele- visions. Length of Stay at Present Address.--The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the product-store ShOpping matrix will not differ on the length of stay at the present address. The null hypothesis can be rejected for only one purchasing group--the buyers of portable televisions. The more active brand and store shoppers were the peOple living at their present address: (1) for three years or less, or (2) for seven to fifteen years. However, the relatively most active purchasing group were the ones living at the present address three years or less. On a proportional basis the least active shoppers as a group were the ones residing at their present address over fifteen years (Table D-88). 30*- H \- u: 4» fit“ SVOI TA.?‘ _ ‘fi 50 . . we be.“ . . p he‘ 5- 31215 e 1nd in. g. .- C I ‘- nu“ Us .3." v Hana . . ._~...¢u“ oz'! Q» ‘I‘ :\ 181. Length of Stay in Market Area.--The null hypothesis maintains: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the length of stay in the market area. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of cooking ranges and console television sets if the inactive shOppers were defined as not considering any brands or stores beyond the brand bought at the selected stores. The more active brand and store shoppers of cooking ranges were the ones living in the market area under seven years (Table D-89), but the more active brand and store shopper of console color televisions were the ones living in the market over six years (Table D-90). If the length of stay in the market area were fifteen years or less or sixteen years and more, a significant difference was found for the purchasers of automatic washers. In this situation the more active shOppers were buyers who lived in the market area sixteen years or more; however, as a total group the purchasers of automatic washers tended to be inactive brand and store shoppers (Table D-91). Marital Status.--The null hypothesis asserts: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on marital status. The null hypothesis can be rejected for the buyers of brown goods and portable color televisions. The more active brand and store shoppers were the ones who were not married. Active fisnfiars ...ybvv. H '55“! “VA! if» A. way . hub. for pM 2 . "Vv‘q A ~- g V .a:.: ‘ I "‘Vne . them-dy‘ Q.“ “h 21“» its ‘ '1 fl,:: - 22 ‘- ‘~~E. . 182 shoppers constituted about 70 per cent of non-marrieds for both product categories, about 40 per cent of the marrieds for portable televisions, and about 50 per cent of the marrieds for brown goods (Tables D-92 and D—93). Household Size.--The null hypothesis submits: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on household size. This hypothesis can be rejected only for buyers of portable color television sets. For this group the more active brand and store shoppers were households with a composition of two or one members, and the less active shoppers were households with three or more members (Table D-94). Agg.--The null hypothesis reads: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the age of household head. The null hypothesis has to be accepted for the age of the household head and shopping for brands and stores for all buyer groups for all product categories. Occupation.--The null hypothesis states: The pur- chasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the occupation of the household head. The null hypothesis has to be rejected on occupation and shopping for brands and stores for purchasers of laundry durables if the purchasers who did not compare brands or stores were contrasted to the ones who did make brand or store comparisons. The active shoppers were the white collar wor‘: collar pee c' airman; I Bill not < 7911 :1'pc. level and for all p _ «L - ::‘ Fa .N‘V‘A‘U # .1 183 collar workers, and the inactive shoppers were non-white collar people (Table D-95). Education:--The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on education of the household head. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected on the educational level and shopping for brands and stores for buyer groups for all product categories. Income.--The null hypothesis maintains: The pur- chasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on annual family income. The null hypothesis has to be accepted on family income and brand and store shopping for purchaser groups for all product categories. Recent Purchasers.--The null hypothesis asserts: The purchasing groups within the product-store ShOpping matrix will not differ on the number of recent household durables purchased. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of automatic dryers. There was a significant difference according to the number of purchases and shopping activity. The relatively more inactive shopping group purchased only one household durable good within the last two years. The relatively more active groups purchased two durables or more within the last two years (Table D-96). The null hypothesis can also be rejected HQ .H O 0 FA? w- ‘ '1 I ' V ‘ I O I c "W a: luv . . v . AU p? a 74 «(.4 r e C» E Wu Fm r .n u w». Hu 5 a» S -1. Au .3 r. C. . 4 S ”L Maw .28 .9» u u u .. Wu. u u e .- . I I. h s; AV -a fin Y. H . Av .».u 1: -1 . -..u C .5“. A y . a: t . .3 4““ "M 1! U QAIN 1!“ ml. 0 h a (.25 ‘IU Rb .51 gal ‘IU Ch .5 A’Ji Pyk' ‘ alt: In . v- ‘s F cl H . t i \u ~ ear"- I l 1| 184 for buyers of console color televisions if purchasers who did not compare brands and stores were contrasted to the ones who did make comparisons. The relatively more active brand and store shoppers, in contrast to purchasers of dryers, were the ones purchasing recently just one house- hold durable good (Table D-97). Type of Purchase.-3The null hypothesis submits: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on replacement purchase or first- time purchase. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of white goods, laundry durables, ranges, and console color televisions. For all the above products the first-time purchasing group was the relatively more active brand and store shOpper (Tables D-98, D-99, and D-lOO). For console television buyers the groups were separated into a group who did not compare brands and stores and a group who did conduct comparisons. About 85 per cent of the first-time purchasers were actives which compared to about 55 per cent of the replacement purchasers who were actives (Table D-lOl). Age-Income.--The null hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the age of household head and annual family income. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of white goods, automatic washers, and dryers. For white goods the more active brand and store shoppers 185 were centered in two purchasing groups: (1) the people earning less than $15,000 annually and younger, and (2) the ones earning $15,000 or more annually and older (Table 4-18). If the group not comparing brands and stores were contrasted to the segment comparing at least one brand and/or one store, the active purchasers for washers and for dryers were the same two groups reported above (Tables 4—19 and 4-20). Age-Household Size.--The null hypothesis reads: The purchasing groups within the product—store shopping matrix will not differ on the age of the household head and the size of the household. This null hypothesis can be rejected for the purchasers of white goods and refriger- ators. For each of these purchasing groups and product categories the more active brand and store shoppers were: (1) the households with two or less members with a younger household head, and (2) the households with more than two members with an older household head (Tables D-102 and D-103). Age-Number of Recent Purchases.--The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the product—store ShOpping matrix will not differ on the age of the household head and number of recent purchases of household durable goods. The null hypothesis can be rejected only for the buyers of brown goods. If the purchasers who did not compare any brands or stores were compared to the ones 186 .woswpflmsoo mo Hm>ma 0H. man as ucm0fiwwsmwm k c.00H an o.ooH mm o.ooa ma 0.00H mm o.ooH h Hmuoa «.mm mm n.am m p.mv w o.v¢ Ha o.o o mw>wuo¢ w.hm mv m.mh ma m.mm m o.mm «a o.ooa h mm>fluomcH usmu Mom .02 ucmo mom .oz ucmu mom .02 Demo new .02 ucwo mom .oz «sufl>flpo¢ mcammonm usmsammd mama usmsammm who: usmsammfi mmmq usmsamm< who: . Hmuoe . muoum was was saw was was psmnm Hmpao Hmpao Hmmssow Hmmcdow .mpooo spans MOM mEoocH was .mmm .myfl>fluo< mcfimmonm muoum paw Usmum o» mswpuooom mummmnousm mo mmmmuswoumm cam mumnEDZII.mHIv mamme 'sfiyv...» .— o - tel. V. e, I I'll-93400;... ....e.. . ., .....o- 1...... .55 a... 34...? ......wr... 187 .muowm cwuuwwwum was Am semanonsm scans Hmsuom was cans Hmnuo mwuowm cam mpsmun o: msflumpwmsoo mm conflmwp mum mamas mwau cw mm>fluomcH «« .mosmpwmcoo mo Hm>mH mo. may um HGMOMMflsmwm . ¥ o.ooa mm .. o.ooa. mm o.ooa m o.ooa , mm o.ooH m Hmuoe b.mm vm h.Hm m m.mm m m.vm NH ~.mm m «*mm>flpo¢ m.Hm mm m.mn ma m.>m m m.mv oa m.hn h *«mm>fluomcH usmo mom .oz uswu mom .oz .ucmo mom .oz ucmu mom .oz usmu How .02 usmsamwd mqu psmsammé who: unmadmmg mmmq pcmsamwm ouoz emwmmwwmm Hmuoa paw cam pas pcm .muou Hmpao Hmpao messow Hmmcsow m can pcmum .mumtmmz oflpmfiousm How mEoocH paw .mmm .mpfl>flu04 mafimmonm muoum tam psmum ou mcflpuooom mnwmmsousm mo mommucmonwm was mumnESZII.mH|v wands 188 .mnoum pmuummmum map as townhouse passe dmsuom 03» away Hmsuo moHODm was mpcmun o: mswuopwmsoo mm pmswmmc mum manna mass cw mm>wuomsH «« .moawpflmsoo mo Hm>ma ca. mnu um unmo«MflcmHm .1 c.00H mv o.ooa ma 0.00H 0H c.00H ma 0.00H m HmuOB m.hv mm ~.Hm m o.o5 n m.mm 0H h.mH H ««mm>wuo¢ H.mm mm m.wm Ha o.om m m.hm o m.mm m «amm>wuomcH usmo Mom .02 usmu mom .oz usmu mom .oz ucmu pom .02 snow mom .oz «wuw>wuo¢ Hmuoe usmsammm mmmq pawsammm who: usmsammm mqu usmsammm muoz mcflmmonm pcm paw was was mnoum Hmpao umpao Hmmcsow Hmmsdow new pcmnm .mummno How maoocH can .mmm .huw>wuom mcwmmosm mHODm tam psmum ou mswpuoooé muwmmnousm mo mommusmouwm tam mumnEsZI|.omnv mqmde we! on bu .~ 2.... "N. I‘D :54 189 who compared one brand and/or one store or more, the pur- chasers who were older and purchased two or more household durables tended to be more inactive brand and store shoppers than the other groups (Table D-104). Age-Home Ownership.--The null hypothesis maintains: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the age of household head and home ownership. The null hypothesis can be rejected only for the buyers of portable color televisions. There was a significant difference among the purchasers. The two most active purchasing groups were the renters regardless of age of household head; the most inactive group was the older home owner (Table D-105). Education—Household Size.--The null hypothesis asserts: The purchasing groups within the product-store ShOpping matrix will not differ on the education of the household head and household size. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of brown goods and portable color televisions. 'The only active brand and store shopping group was the smaller households with the head of the household having more than a high school education (Tables D-106 and D-107). The effect was quite pronounced for the between group comparisons for the portable tele- vision product category. Education-Length of Stay in the Market Area.--The null hypothesis submits: The purchasing groups within the 190 product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the education of the household head and the length of stay of the household in the market area. The null hypothesis can be rejected with qualifications for the purchasers of autOmatic washers. The most active brand and store shoppers for this product category were the ones with less education and lived in the market area over fifteen years. The most inactive brand and store shopping group was the people with less education but lived in the market fifteen years or less (Table D-108). Education-Length of Staygat Present Address.-—The null hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the edu— cation of household head and the length of stay at present address. The null hypothesis can be rejected for pur- chasers of automatic washers. If the buyers who did not consider any brands or stores beyond the actual brand bought at the preferred store were compared to ones who did consider at least one other brand and/or store, the very inactive brand and store shopping group was the house- holds living at the current address over five years with the household head having more education. The more active shopping groups were: (1) the households living at the current address five years or less with the household head having more education, and (2) the households living at 191 the current address five years or less and having less education (Table D-109). Education-Home Ownership.-—The null hypothesis reads: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the education of the household head and home ownership. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of brown goods and portable color televisions. For these product categories, the comparisons between inactive shoppers who did not consider any brands or stores other than the brand purchased at the preferred store and active shoppers who did compare brands and/or stores showed as the most active shopping group the renters with more education (Tables D-llO and D—lll). Although the number of purchasers who were renters with less edu— cation were small, this group tended to be the more inactive on shopping for brands and stores. Income-Household Size.--The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the product-store ShOpping matrix will not differ for annual family income and house- hold size. The null hypothesis can be rejected for the purchasers of white goods if buyers who did not compare any brands or stores were contrasted to ones who did compare brand and/or stores. The least active brand and store shoppers for the product category were the ones with smaller households and greater affluence; the most active shoppers were the larger households with more affluence (Table D-112). 192 Income-Length of Stay at Present Address.--The null hypothesis maintains: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on annual family income and length of stay at the present address. The null hypothesis can be rejected for the purchasers of white goods if the buyers who did not compare brands or stores were contrasted with ones who did make comparisons. The active shoppers were the buyers with greater affluence and residing at their current address over five years (Table D-ll3). Household Size-~Length of Stay at Present Address.-- The null hypothesis asserts: The purchasing groups within the product-store ShOpping matrix will not differ on house- hold size and length of stay at the present address. The null hypothesis can be rejected only for the buyers of portable color televisions. The more active brand and store purchasers were the smaller households living a shorter time at the present address. The remaining groups were brand and store shopping inactives (Table D-ll4). Household Size--Home Ownership.--The null hypothesis submits: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on size of the household and home ownership. The null hypothesis can be rejected only for purchasers of portable color televisions. The more active shOpping group was the renters with smaller households. The more inactive shOpping group was the larger households who owned their homes (Table D-llS). 193 Household Size--Occupation.--The null hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the product-store shOpping matrix will not differ on size of the household and the occupation of the household head. The null hypothe- sis can be rejected with qualifications for the buyers of portable televisions. The influence of occupation was really nil since the active shoppers were the smaller households regardless of occupation and the inactive shoppers were the larger households regardless of oc- cupation (Table D-ll6). Number of Recent Purchases--Length of Stay at the Present Address.--The null hypothesis reads: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the number of recent purchases and the length of stay at the present address. The null hypothesis can be rejected for the purchasers of brown goods. The two most active brand and store shopper segments were: (1) people purchasing recently only one household durable and living a shorter time at their current address, and (2) people purchasing recently multi-household durables and living a longer time at their current address (Table D-ll7). Number of Recent Purchases--Occupation.--The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the number of recent purchases and occupation of the household head. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of 194 console televisions. The active brand and store shoppers were the white collar workers recently purchasing only one household durable good; the inactive brand and store shoppers were the non-white collar persons recently purchasing multiple household durables (Table D-ll8). Length of Stay in the Market Area--Home Ownership.-- The null hypothesis maintains: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the length of stay in the market area and home ownership. The null hypothesis can be rejected with qualifications for the purchasers of brown goods. If the purchasers who did not compare brands or stores were compared to ones who did compare brands and/or stores, the active shoppers tended to be all renters and the home owners living a longer period of time in the market area. The inactive shoppers, however, turned out to be the people living in the market area a shorter period of time and owning their own homes (Table D-ll9). The null hypothesis can also be rejected for purchasers of portable televisions. The active shoppers were renters and the inactive shoppers were home owners regardless of the length of stay in the market area (Table D-120). Length of Stay in Market Area--Occupation.--The null hypothesis asserts: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the length of stay in the market area and occupation of the 195- household head. The null hypothesis can be rejected with qualifications for purchasers of automatic washers if people who did not compare brands or stores were contrasted to ones who did compare brands and/or stores. The active shopping group for washers lived in the market area a shorter period of time with the household head engaged in a white collar occupation. The inactive shopping group also lived in the market area a shorter time period but was not engaged in white collar work (Table D-121). Length of Stay at Present Address--Home Ownership.-- The null hypothesis submits: The purchasing groups within the product-store ShOpping matrix will not differ on the length of stay at current address and home ownership. The null hypothesis can be rejected for the purchasers of portable color televisions. The active brand and store shoppers were the renters who lived at their current address for five years or less (Table D-122). Length of Stay at Present Address--Occupation.-- The null hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the product-store shopping matrix will not differ on the length of stay at present address and the occupation of the household head. The null hypothesis can be rejected with qualifications for purchasers of automatic washers. Regardless of occupation, the active brand and store shoppers were people living at the present address for a shorter time period,and the inactive shOppers were 196 ones living at the present address for a longer time period (Table D-123). Summary The main single independent variables describing brand and store shopping activity tended to be first-time or replacement purchase with four significant relationships and length of stay in the market area with three signifi- cant relationships. First-time purchasers tended to be active brand and store shoppers for white goods, laundry durables, cooking ranges, and console color televisions. People living in the market area under six years tended to be active brand and store shoppers for cooking ranges; persons residing over six years tended to be active brand and store shoppers for console televisions; and indi- viduals living in the market area over fifteen years tended to be active brand and store shoppers for automatic washers. Independent variables having two significant relationships tended to include home ownership, type of housing, marital status, and number of recent purchases. The major bivariate combination tended to be age of the household head and income with three significant relationships. The combinations of two independent Variables with two significant relationships tended to include age of household head and household size, education of the household head and household size, and education of the household head and home ownership. The active brand 197 and store shoppers tended to be the groups composed of younger household heads with less income and of older household head with greater income for white goods, automatic washers, and dryers. The active brand and store shOppers tended to be the groups consisting of younger households heads with smaller households and of older household heads with larger households for white goods and refrigerators. Smaller households with higher educated household heads tended to be the active brand and store shoppers for brown goods and portable color televisions. Renters with higher educated household heads tended to be the active brand and store shoppers for brown goods and portable color televisions. Unused Brand and Store Knowledgg Home Ownership.--The null hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused know- ledge matrix will not differ on home ownership. The null hypothesis can be rejected for purchasers of automatic washers. The renters tended to be more knowledgeable on unused brands and stores, and the home owners tended to be less knowledgeable on unused brands and stores (Table 4-21). Type of Housing.--The null hypothesis reads: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused know— ledge matrix will not differ on type of housing. The null 198 TABLE 4-21.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Home Ownership for Automatic Washers. Unused Home Owner Renter Total Brand and Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 36 57.1 3 27.3 39 52.7 High Knowers 27 42.9 8 72.7 35 47.3 Total 63 100.0 11 100.0 74 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. hypothesis can be rejected for purchasers of console tele- visions. The purchasers living in single-family housing were the more knowledgeable on unused brands and stores for this product. About two-thirds of people residing in single-family housing were high knowers as compared to one-third of the buyers residing in multi-family housing (Table D-124). Length of Stay at Present Address.--The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on the length of stay at the present address. The null hypothesis can be rejected for purchasers of portable televisions, refrigerators, and cooking ranges. The two main groups of high knowers of unused portable tele- vision brands and stores tended to live at their current 199 address one year or less or greater than fifteen years (Table D-125). The two groups of high knowers of unused refrigerator brands or stores tended to live one year or less at their current address also or over three years but under seven years at their present address (Table D-126). The group of high knowers of unused brand and stores for cooking ranges tended to live five years or less at their present residence (Table D-127). Length of Stay in the Market Area.--The null hypothesis maintains: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on the length of stay in the market area. The null hypothesis can be rejected for purchasers of refrigerators, brown goods, and portable televisions. For refrigerator purchasers the higher knowers of unused brands and stores lived in the market area six years or less (Table D-128). The higher knowers of unused brands and stores for brown goods and for portable color televisions lived in the market area over fifteen years (Tables D-129 and D-130). Marital Status.-—The null hypothesis asserts: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused know- ledge matrix will not differ on marital status. The null hypothesis has to be accepted for all purchasing groups for all household durables. Household Size.--The null hypothesis submits: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge 200 matrix will not differ on the size of the household.‘ A significant difference was found for purchasers of auto- matic dryers and refrigerators. The higher knowers of unused brands and stores for dryers or refrigerators were the larger households (Tables D-131 and D-l32). Agg.--The null hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on the age of the household head. The null hypothesis has to be accepted for all purchasing groups for all household durables. Occupation.--The null hypothesis reads: The pur— chasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on the occupationsl work of the household head. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of brown goods and portable color televisions. The higher knowers of unused brands and stores were the non- white collar people for both product categories; the lower knowers were the white collar workers (Tables D-l33 and D-l34). Education.--The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused know- ledge matrix will not differ on the educational level attained by the household head. The null hypothesis has to be accepted for all purchasing groups for all household durables. 201 Income.--The null hypothesis maintains: The pur- chasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on annual family income. The null hypothesis has to be accepted for all purchasing groups for all product categories of household durables. Number of Recent Purchases.--The null hypothesis asserts: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on the number of recent purchases. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of white goods and dryers. For white goods the higher knowers of unused brands and stores were people who purchased recently more than one product (Table D-135); the higher knowers for dryers were people who purchased either one product or three or more products (Table D-136). Type of Purchase.-~The null hypothesis reads: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on replacement purchase or first-time purchase. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of laundry durables and cooking ranges. The higher knowers of unused brands and stores for cooking ranges were the first-time purchaser of this product (Table D-137). In contrast to buyers of ranges, the purchasers of laundry durables with greater unused know- ledge of brands and stores were the replacement buyers (Table D-138). 202 Age—-Length of Stay at Present Address.--The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on the age of the household head and length of stay at the present address. The null hypothesis can be rejected with qualifications for purchasers of refrigerators. The main group of higher knowers of unused brands and stores were older buyers living less than five years at their current address; the main group of low knowers were older buyers living longer at their residence; and between the two extremes were the younger buyers (Table 4-22). Education--Number of Recent Purchases.--The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on the education of the household head and the number of recent purchases. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of white goods. The main group of higher knowers were people purchasing recently multiple products with household heads having more than a high school degree. The remaining three groups were relatively low knowers of unused brands and stores (Table D-139). Education--Length of Stay in the Market Area.-—The null hypothesis maintains: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on education of the household head and length of stay in the market area. The null hypothesis can be rejected for .mosmpfimsoo mo Hm>mH Ho. may as usmOHmacmHm .1 o.ooa. mm h.NN m m.hh ha ,o.ooa Hm N.wh ma w.mm m o.ooa N 0.0m H 0.0m H o.ooa om o.mv m o.mm HH HMDOP mumzosm amen mumsocm.. seq ucmu mom pcwu now .02 ucmu 90m .02 “sou mom .oz “sou mom .oz 203 mocmpwmmm um OEHB Hmmcoq paw Hmpao wosmpflmmm um mafia Hmuuonm sum “moao moampflmmm um mafia Hmmsoq one Hmmnsow mosmpflmmm um mafia Hounocm paw Hmmcdo» *mmpmasocm muoum cam pcmum ponds: .mHODMmeHHmmm How mmmnppfl usmmmum am wmum mo npmcmq psm.mm« .mmpmazosm mHOHm paw psmum pmmDsD on mswpuoood mummmsossm mo mmmMmeonmm paw mHmQE52I|.mmuv mqmda 204 purchasers of white goods, laundry durables, and automatic washers. The higher knowers, as a group, of unused brands and stores were the less educated living in the market area fifteen years or less for all three product categories. The lower knowers, as a group, of unused brands and stores were the less educated living in the market area over fifteen years for the three product categories. Between the two extremes on knowledge were the higher educated (Tables D-l40, D-l4l, and D-l42). Education--Length of Stay at the Present Address.-- The null hypothesis asserts: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on education of the household head and length of stay at the present address. The null hypothesis can be rejected only for purchasers of refrigerators. The major group of high knowers of unused brands and stores were the less educated living five years or less at their present address. The major group of low knowers were the less educated, again, but living over five years at their present address, and between the two extremes were the more educated (Table D-l43). Income--Occupation.--The null hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on annual family income and occupation of household head. The null hypothesis can be rejected for purchasers of brown goods. The main 205 group of higher knowers of unused brands and stores for televisions were the less affluent, non-white collar people. At the other extreme the lower knowers were the more affluent, white collar workers (Table D-l44). Household Sizee-Length of Stay at Present Address.-- The null hypothesis reads: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on size of the household and the length of stay at their present address. The null hypothesis can be rejected only for buyers of refrigerators. In this product category the high knowers, as a group, of unused brands and stores were the larger households living five years or less at their present address. The major group of low knowers were smaller households living over five years at their current address (Table D-l45). Household Size-—Occupation.--The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on size of the household and occupation of the household head. The null hypothesis can be rejected just for buyers of refrigerators. The major group of higher knowers of unused refrigerator brands and stores were the larger households, non-white collar people, and at the other extreme the low knowers were the smaller households, white collar workers (Table D-146). 206 Number of Recent Purchase--Length of Stay in the Market Area.--The null hypothesis maintains: The purchasing groups within the product—store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on the number of recent purchases and a house- hold's length of stay in the market area. The null hypothesis can be rejected for the purchasers of white goods and refrigerators. For both product categories the high knowing group were the ones living in the market area fifteen years or less and buying multiple household durables. All three other groups tended to be mainly low knowers of unused brands and stores (Tables D-l47 and D-l48). Number of Recent Purchases--Length of Stay at the Present Address.--The null hypothesis asserts: The pur- chasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on the number of recent purchases and the length of stay at the present address. The null hypothesis can be readily rejected for buyers of white goods and refrigerators. The high knowers of unused brands and stores were mainly centered in one group composed of the multi-product purchaser living five years or less at his current address. The low knowers were the people living over five years at their current residence regardless of the number of household durables recently bought (Tables D-l49 and D-150). The null hypothesis also cannot be accepted for purchasers of brown goods. The 207 main group of high knowers of unused brands and stores for televisions was also the multi-product purchaser residing five years or less at his current address, but the low knowers, as a group, were the multi-product purchaser living over five years at his present address (Table D-lSl). Length of Stay in the Market Area--Length of Stgy at Present Address.-—The null hypothesis states: The pur- chasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on length of stay in the market area and current address. The null hypothesis can be rejected for purchasers of refrigerators and portable televisions. The main group of high knowers of unused brands and stores for refrigerators were buyers living at their current address five years or less and in the market area fifteen years or less; the low knowers for refrigerators were people living in the market area over fifteen years and at their current address over five years (Table D-152). In contrast to the above, the high knowers group for portable televisions were ones living in the market area over fifteen years and at their current address over five years (Table D-153). Length of Stay in Market Area--Occupation.--The null hypothesis reads: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on the length of stay in the market area and occupation of the household head. The null hypothesis of no difference can be rejected for buyers of brown goods, portable 208 televisions, and automatic washers. The main group of high knowers of unused brands and stores for brown goods and portable televisions were non-white collar people living in the market area over fifteen years; the low knower group were white collar workers living fifteen years or less in the market area (Tables D-154 and D-155). The purchasers of automatic washers who were high knowers of unused brands and stores lived in the market area less than fifteen years regardless of occupation; the main group of buyers who were the low knowers were non-white collar people residing over fifteen years in the market (Table D-156). Length of Stay at Present Address--Occupation.--The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the product-store unused knowledge matrix will not differ on the length of stay at present address and occupation of the head of the household. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of brown goods and refrigerators. For both product categories the main segment of high knowers lived five years or less at their current residence and were not white collar workers. The main group of low knowers of unused brands and stores for brown goods were the white collar workers living five years or less at their present residence (Table D-157). The main group of low knowers for refrigerators were white collar workers living over five years at their current address (Table D-158). 209 Summary The main single independent variables differentiating low and high knowers of unused brands and stores tended to be length of stay at the present address and length of stay in the market area each with three significant relationships across products. Concerning the length of stay at the present address the high knowers of unused brands and stores for portable televisions tended to live: (1) one year or less, or (2) more than fifteen years at their present residence. The high knowers of unused brands and stores for refrigerators tended to live: (1) one year or less, or (2) over three but under seven years at their current address. The high knowers of unused brands and stores for cooking ranges tended to live under six years at their place of residence. Concerning the length of stay in the market area, the high knowers of unused brands and stores for refrigerators tended to live in the market under seven years, but the high knowers of unused brands and stores for brown goods and for portable televisions tended to reside in the market over fifteen years. Over independent variables with two significant relationships tended to include household size, occupation, number of recent purchases, and first-time or replacement purchase. The combining of independent variables appeared to have some payoff for selected products in describing the dependent variables. The three bivariate combinations of 210 education of household head and length of stay in the market area, of number of recent purchases and length of stay at present address, and of length of stay in the market area and occupation each had three significant relationships across products. The less educated household heads living a shorter time in the market area tended to be the high knowers of unused brands and stores for white goods, laundry durables, and automatic washers; the less educated house- hold heads residing a longer time in the market area tended to be at the other extreme as the low knowledge group for the three product categories. Concerning number of recent purchases and length of stay at the current residence, the multi-product purchasers residing a shorter time at cur- rent address tended to be the high knowers for white goods, refrigerators, and brown goods. Concerning length of stay in the market area and occupation, the non-white collar people living in the market area over fifteen years tended to be the high knowers of unused brands and stores for brown goods and portable televisions. Purchasers residing less than fifteen years in the market regardless of occupation tended to be the high knowers for automatic washers. Total Brand and Store Knowledge Home Ownership.--The null hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the total product—store knowledge matrix will not differ on home ownership. The null 211 hypothesis can be accepted for all purchasers for all product categories of household durables. Type of Housing.--The null hypothesis reads: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on type of housing. The null hypothesis can be accepted for all purchasers for all product categories of household durables. Length of Stay at Present Address.--The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on the length of stay at present address. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of dryers. The more knowledge- able group on total brands and stores tended to be the people who lived at their present residence the shortest time (Table D—159). Length of Stay in Market Area.--The null hypothesis maintains: The purchasing groups within the total product- store knowledge matrix will not differ on the length of stay in the market area. The null hypothesis can be accepted for all purchasers of these household durables. Marital Status.——The null hypothesis asserts: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on marital status. The null hypothesis has to be rejected for all buyers of household durables. 212 Household Size.--The null hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on the size of the household. The null hypothesis can be rejected for purchasers of refriger- ators and automatic washers. For both products the main group who were more knowledgeable on total brands and stores were the larger households. Overall, the buyers of refrigerators had a greater tendency to have more know- ledge than the purchasers of automatic washers (Tables D-160 and D—161). Agg,--The null hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on age. The null hypothesis can be accepted for all purchasers of these household products. Occupation.--The null hypothesis reads: The pur- chasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on occupation. The null hypothesis can be rejected only for buyers of portable color tele- visions. The non-white collar group were more knowledge- able of brands and stores than the white collar people. Both groups, however, were quite knowledgeable relative to other groups previously reported (Table D-l62). Education.--The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on education. The null hypothesis can be accepted for all purchasers of these household durables. 213 Income.nnThe null hypothesis maintains: The pur- chasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on income. The null hypothesis can be accepted for income and total knowledge of brands and stores. Number of Recent Purchases.--"he null hypothesis asserts: The purchasing groups within the total product- store knowledge matrix will not differ on the number of recent purchases. The null hypothesis can be rejected for purchasers of white goods, refrigerators, dryers, and cooking ranges. For these product groups the more know- ledgeable group were the people purchasing recently two or more household durables. Comparing across products, the white goods and refrigerator purchasers recently buying multiple products tended to be more knowledgeable, as a group, then other product purchasers (Tables D-l63, D-164, D—l65, and D-l66). Type of Purchase.--The null hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on the type of purchase. The null hypothesis can be accepted for purchasers of all products. Age--Household Size.--The null hypothesis reads: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on age of household head and the size of the household. The null hypothesis can 214 be rejected for buyers of refrigerators. For refrigerator purchasers the most knowledgeable group was characterized by an older head of the household with a larger household. At the other extreme the least knowledgeable group was composed of older household heads with smaller households (Table 4-23). Age--Number of Recent Purchases.--The null hypothe- sis contends: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on the age of the household head and the number of recent purchases of household durables. The null hypothesis can be rejected with qualification for purchasers of white goods. In this situation the more knowledgeable groups were the multiple product buyers regardless of age (Table D-167). Age--Length of Stay in Market Area.--The null hypothesis maintains: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on the age of the household head and the length of stay in the market area. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of portable color televisions. The most knowledgeable group on total brands and stores was char- acterized by younger heads of households and greater time in the market; the next two more knowledgeable groups were the younger heads of households living in the market a shorter time and the older household heads living in the market a longer time; and the least knowledgeable segment 215 .mocmcflmcoo mo Hm>wa ca. was um psmofiwflsmflm k o.ooa mm o.ooH mm o.ooH ma o.ooa . ha o.ooH m .Hmuos m.~m em o.mn ma m.mm m ~.H¢ s o.om m mumzoas noes b.5e Hm o.mm s s.om NH m.mm OH o.ov m mumsons 304 ucmo umm .oz _uamo umm .oz sumo “mm .02 ucmo umm .oz ucmo umm .oz .mmcmazocs _ . muoum mpaonmmsom mpaonmmsom mpaonmmsom mpaonmmsom cam Hmuoa Hmmnmq Hmaamfim Hmmumq umaamam psmum one Hmpao was Hmpao one Hmmcsow was Hoodoo» Hence .muoumummwnmmm Mom mnwm paoammsom psm.wmm .mmcwasosx OHOpm can pcmum Hmuoa ou mcwpuooom mummmnousm mo mommuswoumm cam mumnESZIl.mmlv mqmde in up! m‘ 'V’- ..x. ”.A "f *1.) r) r—v" ’0‘ h. "a 216 was the older household heads living in the market a shorter time period (Table D-l68). Education--Number of Recent Purchases.--The null hypothesis maintains: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on the education of the household head and the number of household durables recently purchased. The null hypothesis can be rejected with qualifications for purchasers of white goods. The two most knowledgeable groups were multiple product purchasers regardless of education, and the two least knowledgeable groups were the single product pur- chasers regardless of education (Table D-169). Education-—Length of Stay in Market Area. The null hypothesis asserts: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on the edu- cation of the household head and the length of stay in the market area. The null hypothesis can be rejeCted for the buyers of white goods. The most knowledgeable group was clearly the less educated household heads residing in the Inarket a shorter time period; all other groups tended to be below average on total brand and store knowledge (Table D-l70). Household Size—~Number of Recent Purchases.--The Ilull hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the -total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on ‘the size of the household and number of household durables avAH' H..Ju . . "f‘HF "vii: 1: 1" U) AVID VA.»- I) 7 E. 5; »¢‘» Sat 5. .12: \v 217 recently purchased. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of white goods. The two most knowledgeable groups were multiple product purchasers regardless of household size; the least knowledgeable group of the four was the smaller household which recently purchased only one household durable good (Table D-l7l). Household Size--Length of Stay in Market Area.--The null hypothesis reads: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on the size of the household and the length of stay in the market area. The null hypothesis can be rejected for purchasers of automatic washers. The two most knowledge- able groups were composed of people who resided in the market a shorter time period regardless of household size; the least knowledgeable group was characterized by a small household living in the market a longer time period (Table D-l72). Household Size-—Length of Stay at Present Address.-- The null hypothesis contends: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on the size of the household and the length of stay at the present address. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of automatic washers. The two most knowledge- able groups of total brand and store alternatives were: (1) the smaller households living at their present residences a shorter time period, and (2) the larger 218 households living at their present residences a longer time period. The least knowledgeable group was the smaller household residing a longer time at the present location (Table D-l73). Household Size-—Occup§tion.--The null hypothesis maintains: The purchasing groups within the total product- store knowledge matrix will not differ on the size of the household and occupation of the household head. The null hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of brown goods, portable televisions, and refrigerators. For brown goods the two most knowledgeable groups were: (1) the smaller household with the household head engaged in a white collar position, and (2) the larger household with the household head not engaged in a white collar position (Table D-l74). The same two segments emerged as the most knowledgeable for portable televisions; however, the least knowledgeable group was the larger household with the household head engaged in white collar work (Table D-l75). The buyers of refrigerators were clearly different than the buyers of portable televisions. The most knowledgeable group was the larger household with the household head engaged in a white collar position. The two least know— ledgeable groups were the smaller households regardless <3f occupation (Table D-l76). Number of Recent Purchases--Length of Stay in Ddarket Area.--The null hypothesis asserts: The purchasing 219 groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on the number of household durables recently purchased and length of stay in the market area. The hypothesis can be rejected for buyers of white goods. The most knowledgeable group on total brands and stores was the multi-product purchaser living a shorter time in the market area; the least knowledgeable group was the single product purchaser living a longer time in the market (Table D-l77). Number of Recent Purchases—-Length of Stay at Present Address.--The null hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the total product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on the number of household durables recently purchased and the length of stay at the present address. The null hypothesis can be rejected for purchasers of white goods. The most knowledgeable group on total brand and store alternatives were the multiple product purchasers residing a shorter time at their current location. The two least knowledgeable groups were the single product purchasers regardless of length of stay at present location (Table D-l78). Number of Recent Purchases--Occupation.--The null hypothesis states: The purchasing groups within the ;product-store knowledge matrix will not differ on the Inumber of household durables recently purchased and the (occupation of the household head. The null hypothesis can jbe rejected for buyers of white goods and refrigerators. ZFor white goods the two most knowledgeable groups were the 'n' . .u (I) r: I s): t. ‘A a,‘ (II (D O r N :21 V ) N,“ . 'v“! ‘- 220 multiple product purchasers regardless of occupation (Table Dnl79). However, for refrigerators the most knowledgeable group was the multi—product purchaser engaged in white collar work; the second more knowledgeable group was the multi- product buyer not engaged in white collar work. The least knowledgeable group was the single product buyer not engaged in white collar work (Table D-180). Summary Although purchasing groups tended to be differenti- ated on the independent and dependent variables, the data tended to show a rather large number of insignificant rela- tionships, especially for the single independent variable analysis. Four independent variables demonstrated meaning- ful relationships with the dependent variables. The major independent variable describing the dependent variable tended to be the number of recent purchases of household durables. Multi-product purchasers tended to be the high knowers of total brands and stores for white goods, refrigerators, dryers, and cooking ranges. For the dual independent variables the two main sets tended to be: (1) household size and occupation, and (2) number of recent purchases and occupation. The high knowers of total brands and stores for brown goods and portable televisions tended to be composed of: (1) smaller households with the household head employed in a white collar occupation, and (2) larger households with the 221 household head not engaged in white collar work. In contrast to television purchasers, the high knowers of total brands and stores for refrigerators tended to be larger households with the household head employed at a white collar position. Concerning the number of recent purchases and occupation, the high knowers of total brands and stores for white goods tended to be multiple product buyers regardless of occupation; the high knowers of total brands and stores for refrigerators tended to be the multiple product buyers engaged in white collar occupation. The Combination of Knowledge and Shopping By Purchasers for Household Durables This section presents the findings on the know- ledge-shopping model presented in Chapter I. Purchasers were isolated into four major groups on the amount of unused knowledge and amount of shopping activity for brands and stores. These groups were subsequently statistically tested with the independent variables for each product category. The decision rule was a confidence level of .10 or greater. The four main groups are described as: (1) high knowers and active shOppers of brands and stores, (2) high knowers and inactive shoppers of brands and stores, (3) low knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores, and (4) low knowers and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. The operational definitions for each group were 222 respectively: (1) purchasers who knew three or more unused brands and/or stores and who compared at least three brands and/or three stores, (2) purchasers who knew three or more unused brands and/or stores and who bought without comparing externally any brands or stores or compared only two brands and two stores at most, (3) purchasers who knew no more than two unused brands and two unused stores and who com- pared at least three brands or stores, and (4) purchasers who knew no more than two unused brands and two unused stores and who bought without comparing externally any brands or stores or compared only two brands and two stores at most. Figure 4-12 summarizes the operational definitions and depicts the four purchasing groups based upon the combination of the shopping matrix and the know? ledge matrix. The statistically significant findings were few in number after testing for the nine product categories. The four purchasing groups were differentiated only on five different independent variables for seven product cate- gories. The independent variables were: (1) the number of recent household durables purchased, (2) type of pur- chase, (3) length of stay at present address, (4) type of housing, and (5) home ownership. The product categories were: (1) white goods, (2) laundry durables, (3) washers, (4) dryers, (5) brown goods, (6) portable televisions, and (7) console televisions. 223 .mmuoum 6cm mpcmnm How wmpma3osm condos cam >ua>fluo¢ mcwmmosm mo coflumcflnfiou wQBII.NHIv musmflm 3o NmNM mNM A mmUmHBOGM ma mmam max A .m m>fluomsH m>fluo¢ mcwmmocm monoum cam mpcmum How moccasosx woman: tam mcflmmoam once no m N a o mpsmum whoa Ho m monoum monoum paw mpcmum now Ho>oq mmpwa3ocm towns: oHoE no m m H mm H m + Hm whoa no m mououm mmuoum cam mpcmum How mufl>flpo< scammonm mpsmum 224 The findings to follow will not include statements of the null hypotheses of no difference because of the relatively few significant findings. The tables with the significant findings will be presented in this chapter. White Goods For white goods the greatest proportion of total buyers were low on unused knowledge of brands and stores and inactive brand and store shoppers. The next two largest percentages of buyers were: (1) high on unused knowledge and inactive shoppers, and (2) low on unused knowledge and active shOppers. The smallest proportion of total buyers were high on unused knowledge and active shoppers of brands and stores. Furthermore, the distribution of total buyers of white goods on the knowledge and ShOpping variables was reasonably close for all purchasing groups with the exception of the high knowers and active shoppers since the percentages ran from 24 per cent to the high of 34 per cent for the two extreme groups. The exceptional group contained only 10 per cent of the total buyers. The separation of the four purchasing groups of white goods by the number of household durables recently purchased revealed significant differences. Based on percentages of the total subgroup according to number of recent purchases, the following conclusions were warranted: 225 l. Multi-product purchasers were two times as likely as single product buyers to be in the high knowers and active shOppers category. 2. About 1.5 times as many multiple product pur- chasers as single product purchasers were high knowers but inactive shoppers of brands and stores. Forty-four per cent of the multi-product purchasers were in this category. 3. One-fourth of the single product purchasers and about one-fourth of the multi-product buyers were low knowers but active shoppers of brands and stores. 4. Single-product purchasers were three times as likely as multi-product buyers to be in the low knowers and inactive shoppers group. Forty per cent of the single product purchasers were in this category (Table 4-24). . The buyers of white goods were also differentiated on the type of purchase and the dependent variable set. Based on proportions, the following conclusions were warranted: l. About two and a half times as many first-time purchasers as replacement purchasers were high knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores. 2. About two and a half times as many replacement purchasers as first-time purchasers were high knowers and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. 3. About twice as many first-time purchasers as replacement purchasers were low knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores. 226 TABLE 4-24.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to ShOpping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Number of Recent Purchases for White Goods. Brand and Store Single Multi- Knowledge Level Product Product Total and Shopping Purchaser Purchaser Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent High Knowers, Active Shoppers 6 8.0 4 17.4 10 10.2 High Knowers, Inactive ShOppers 22 29.3 10 43.5 32 32.7 Low Knowers, Active Shoppers 17 22.7 6 26.1 23 23.5 Low Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 30 40.0 3 13.0 33 33.7 Total 75 100.0 23 100.0 98 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 4. About one-third of the replacement buyers and one-fourth of the first—time buyers were low knowers and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. 5. For replacement purchasers 38 per cent were high knowers and inactive shoppers and 36 per cent were low knowers and inactive shoppers. 1 6. For first-time purchasers 40 per cent were low knowers and active shoppers followed by 25 per cent who were low knowers and inactive shOppers (Table 4-25). The next major product category was laundry durables. The prOportions of total buyers for each dependent variable set category varied from 2 per cent up to 41 per cent. The largest group with 41 per cent 227 TABLE 4-25.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to ShOpping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Type of of Purchase for White Goods. Brand and Store Replacement First-Time Total Knowledge Level Purchaser Purchaser and Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent High Knowers, Active ShOppers 6 7.8 4 20.0 10 10.3 High Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 29 37.7 3 15.0 32 33.0 Low Knowers, Active Shoppers 14 18.2 8 40.0 22 22.7 Low Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 28 36.4 5 25.0 33 34.0 Total 77 100.0 20 100.0 97 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. of the total was the high knowers and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. The next two largest groups were: (1) the low knowers and inactive shOppers of brands and stores with 38 per cent of total purchasers, and (2) the low knowers and active shOppers with 20 per cent of the total. The smallest group with 2 per cent of the total was the high knowers and active shoppers. Based upon proportions and the type of purchase, the following statements can be made: 1. Twice as many replacement buyers as first-time buyers were high knowers and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. 228 2. Almost four times as many first-time purchasers as replacement buyers were low knowers and active shoppers. 3. About one-third of the first-time purchasers and about two-fifths of the replacement buyers were low knowers and inactive shoppers. 4. The greatest proportion (43 per cent) of first- time buyers were low knowers and active shoppers, and the next largest proportion (36 per cent) were low knowers and inactive shoppers. 5. The greatest proportion (48 per cent) of replacement buyers were high knowers and inactive shoppers, and the next largest group with 38 per cent of the total replacement buyers was the low knower and inactive shopper (Table 4-26). Purchasers of automatic washers were distributed quite similar to laundry durables but slight differences were noted. The high knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores accounted for 6 per cent of the total washer purchasers, the high knowers and inactive shoppers accounted for 41 per cent of the total, the low knowers and active shoppers constituted 22 per cent of the total, and the low knowers and inactive shoppers composed 32 per cent of the total. Using proportions to distinguish between mobility with the break at two years and the 229 TABLE 4-26.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Type of Purchase for Laundry Durables. Brand and Store Replacement First-Time Total Knowledge Level Purchaser Purchaser and Shopping " ‘ ' Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent High Knowers, Active Shoppers l 2.4 0 0. l 1.8 High Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 20 47.6 3 21.4 23 41.1 Low Knowers, Active Shoppers 5 11.9 6 42.9 11 19.6 Low Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 16 38.1 5 35.7 21 37.5 Total 42 100.0 14 100.0 56 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. dependent variable set, the following generalizations can be stated: 1. Seven times as many mobiles as immobiles were high knowers and active shOppers of brands and stores. 2. About two-fifths of the mobiles and two-fifths of the immobiles were high knowers and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. 3. About ten times as many immobiles as mobiles were low knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores. 4. About two-fifths of the mobiles and one-fourth of the immobiles were low knowers and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. 230 5. The two main groups of immobiles were: (1) the high knowers and inactive shoppers with 41 per cent of the total, and (2) the low knowers and active shoppers. 6. The two main groups of mobiles, each with 41 per cent of the total were: (1) the high knowers and inactive shoppers, and (2) the low knowers and inactive shoppers (Table 4-27). TABLE 4e27.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Length of Stay at Present Address for Washers. Brand and Store Shorter Time Longer Time Knowledge Level at Present at Present Total and Shopping Address Address Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent High Knowers, Active Shoppers 3 13.6 1 2.0 4 5.5 High Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 9 40.9 21 41.2 30 41.1 Low Knowers, Active Shoppers 1 4.5 15 29.3 16 21.9 Low Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 9 40.9 14 27.5 23 31.5 Total 22 100.0 51 100.0 73 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. For the total dryer buyers the major dependent variable groups, adjudged by the proportion of the total, were in the same order of magnitude as for the washer 231 purchasers. The purchasers of dryers were significantly differentiated on their mobility with the break at two years and the number of recent purchases in conjunction with the dependent variable set. Based on proportions for the length of stay at their current residence, the findings were: 1. None of the immobiles and 18 per cent of the mobiles were high knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores. 2. About two-fifths of the immobiles and one- third of the mobiles were high knowers and inactive shoppers. 3. About twice as many immobiles as mobiles were low knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores. 4. About two-fifths of the mobiles and one-third of the immobiles were low knowers and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. 5. The two main groups of mobiles were: (1) the low knowers and inactive shoppers with 41 per cent of their total, and (2) the high knowers and inactive shoppers with 29 per cent of their total. 6. The two main groups of immobiles were: (1) the high knowers and inactive shOppers with 42 per cent of their total, and (2) low knowers and inactive shoppers with 33 per cent of their total (Table 4-28). 232 TABLE 4-28.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Length of Stay at Present Address for Dryers. Brand and Store Shorter Time Longer Time Knowledge Level at Present at Present Total and Shopping Address Address Activity* ‘ ‘ * ' No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent High Knowers, Active Shoppers 3 17.6 0 0. 3 5.7 High Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 5 29.4 15 41.7 20 37.7 Low Knowers, , Active Shoppers 2 11.8 9 25.0 11 20.8 Low Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 7 41.2 12 33.3 19 35.8 Total 17 100.0 36 100.0 53 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. The purchasers of dryers were also differentiated on the number of recent purchases and the dependent variable set. Based on proportions, the following conclusions are warranted: 1. None of the single product buyers and 11 per cent of the multi-product buyers were high knowers and active shoppers. 2. About one-third of the single product buyers and about one-third of the multi-product buyers were high knowers and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. 3. About four times as many multi-product buyers as single product buyers were low knowers and active shoppers. 233 4. About twice as many single product buyers as multi-product purchasers were low knowers and inactive shoppers. 5. The two major dependent variable groups for single product buyers were: (1) low knowers and inactive shoppers with 59 per cent of their total, and (2) high knowers and inactive shoppers with 35 per cent of their total. 6. The two main groups for multi-product buyers were: (1) high knowers and inactive shoppers with 38 per cent of their total, and (2) low knowers and active shoppers with 27 per cent of their total (Table 4-29). TABLE 4-29.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Number of Recent Purchases for Dryers. Brand and Store Single Multi- Knowledge Level Product Product Total and Shopping Purchaser Purchaser Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent High Knowers, Active Shoppers 0 0. 4 10.8 4 7.4 High Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 6 35.3 14 37.8 20 37.0 Low Knowers, Active Shoppers l 5.9 10 27.0 11 20.4 Low Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 10 58.8 9 24.3 19 35.2 Total 17 100.0 37 100.0 54 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 234 Brown Goods The general product category of brown goods produced subStantually different distributions of total purchasers on knowledge levels and shopping activities than the findings for white goods. Based upon the proportions of the total buyers, the largest group of buyers of white goods was the low knowers and inactive shoppers (34 per cent), but this buying group ranked last for buyers of brown goods with 15 per cent. The second largest group for white goods was the high knowers and inactive shoppers (33 per cent), and this buying group ranked first for buyers of brown goods with 32 per cent. The third main group for white goods was the low knower and active shopper with 24 per cent of the total; this buying group ranked second for buyers of brown goods with 29 per cent. The fourth largest group for white goods was the high knowers and active shoppers with 10 per cent of the total, and this buying group was third in rank with 24 per cent of the total purchasers of brown goods. Based upon the type of housing and the proportions for brown goods the findings were: 1. About one-third of the multi-family housing dwellers and one-fifth of the single family housing dwellers were high knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores. 235 2. About three times as many single family housing dwellers as multi-family housing dwellers were high knowers and inactive shoppers. 3. About two-fifths of the multi-family dwellers and one-fourth of the single family dwellers were low knowers and active shoppers. 4. About one-seventh of the single family dwellers and about one-seventh of the multi-family dwellers were low knowers and inactive shoppers. 5. The two main groups of multi-family dwellers were: (1) low knowers and active shoppers with 41 per cent of the total, and (2) high knowers and active shOppers with 32 per cent of the total. 6. The two main groups of single-family dwellers were: (1) high knowers and inactive shoppers with 39 per cent of the total, and (2) low knowers and active shoppers with 25 per cent of the total (Table 4-30). The findings on portable color television pur- chasers and type of housing are similar to the findings for brown goods in general with two exceptions. The two exceptions were: (1) about three times as many multi- family housing dwellers than single family housing dwellers were high knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores, and (2) about twice as many single family dwellers as multi- family dwellers were low knowers and inactive shoppers (Table 4-31). 236 TABLE 4-30.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Type of Housing for Brown Goods. Brand and Store Single Family Multi-Family Total Knowledge Level Housing Housing and Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent High Knowers, Active Shoppers 21 21.4 11 32.4 32 24.2 High Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 38 38.8 4 11.8 42 31.8 Low Knowers, Active Shoppers 24 24.5 14 41.2 38 28.8 Low Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 15 15.3 5 14.7 20 15.2 Total 98 100.0 34 100.0 132 100.0 * . Significant at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE 4-31.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Type of Housing for Portable Televisions. Brand and Store Single Family Multi-Family Total Knowledge Level Housing Housing and Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent High Knowers, Active Shoppers 5 11.1 8 36.4 13 19.4 High Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 21 46.7 3 13.6 24 35.8 Low Knowers, Active Shoppers 10 22.2 9 40.9 19 28.4 Low Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 9 20.0 2 9.1 11 16.4 Total 45 100.0 22 100.0 67 100.0 * Significant at the .01 level of confidence. 237 The findings on portable televisions purchasers and home ownership were quite similar to the findings on portable television buyers and type of housing. The findings were: 1. About one-fourth of the renters and one-sixth of the home owners were high knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores. 2. About twice as many home owners as renters were high knowers and inactive shoppers. 3. About twice as many home renters as home owners were low knowers and active shoppers. 4. About twice as many home owners as renters were low knowers and inactive shoppers. 5. The two main groups of renters were: (1) the low knowers and active shoppers with 44 per cent of the total, and (2) the high knowers and active shoppers with 26 per cent of the total. 6. The two main groups of home owners were: (1) the high knowers and inactive shoppers with 42 per cent of the total, and (2,a) the low knowers and active shoppers, and (2,b) the low knOwers and inactive shoppers, each with 21 per cent (Table 4-32). The final set of significant relationships were for purchasers of console televisions. Before turning to the dependent variable set and independent variable rela- tionships, the description of the distribution of total buyers which differed slightly from the general pattern 238 TABLE 4-32.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Home Ownership for Portable Televisions. Brand and Store Knowledge Level Home Owner Renter Total and Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per.Cent High Knowers, ' Active Shoppers 7 16.3 6 26.1 13 219.7 High Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 18 41.9 5 21.7 23 34.8 Low Knowers, Active Shoppers 9 20.9 10 43.5 19 28.8 Low Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 9 20.9 2 8.7 11 16.7 Total 43 100.0 23 100.0 66 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. for brown goods will be presented. The three main groups were: (1) the high knower and active shopper of brands and stores, (2) the low knower and active shOpper, each with 29 per cent of the total, and (3) the high knower and inactive shopper with 28 per cent of the total. The smallest group was the low knower and inactive shopper with 14 per cent of the total. The significant findings, based on proportions, for the independent variable--the number of recent house- hold durable purchases--and the dependent variable set were: 1. Almost three times as many single product buyers as multi-product buyers were high knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores. 239 2. About two and a half times as many multi- product buyers as single product buyers were high knowers and inactive shoppers. 3. About three-tenths of the multi-product pur- chasers and about three-tenths of the single product buyers were low knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores. 4. Almost three times as many single product pur- chasers as multi-product buyers were low knowers and inactive shOppers. 5. The two main groups of single product buyers were: (1) high knowers and active shoppers with 35 per cent of the total, and (2) low knowers and active shoppers with 29 per cent of the total. 6. The two main groups of multi-product buyers were: (1) the high knowers and inactive shoppers with 50 per cent of the total, and (2) the low knowers and active shoppers with 31 per cent of the total (Table 4-33). Summary The combination of unused knowledge on stores and brands and of shopping activity on brands and stores resulted in significant findings for purchasers of all product categories except refrigerators and cooking ranges. None of the independent variables demonstrated efficacy across products, but the independent variables showing significant relationships tended generally to be product category specific--that is, brown goods or white goods. 240 TABLE 4-33.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Shopping Activity and Unused Knowledge and Number of Recent Purchases for Console Televisions. Brand and Store Single Multi- Knowledge Level .Product Product Total and Shopping Purchaser Purchaser Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent High Knowers, Active Shoppers 17 34.7 2 12.5 19 29.2 High Knowers, Inactive ShOppers 10 20.4 8 50.0 18 27.7 Low Knowers, Active Shoppers 14 28.6 5 31.3 19 29.2 Low Knowers, Inactive Shoppers 8 16.3 1 6.3 9 13.8 Total 49 100.0 16 100.0 65 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. For all purchasers of white goods the main group was the low knowers and inactive shopper. For multi- product purchasers of white goods the main group was the high knower and inactive shopper, and for the single product purchaser the biggest group was the low knower and inactive shopper. For first time purchaser of white goods the major group was the low knower and active shopper, and for replacement purchasers the largest group was the high knower and inactive shopper. For total buyers of brown goods the main group was the high knower and inactive shopper of brands and stores. For multi-family housing dwellers the main group was the low knower and active shopper of brands and stores. SE MM..\...H....\ 241 For the single family housing dwellers the largest group was the high knower and inactive shopper. An Evaluation of the Hypotheses and the Demographic Variables This section of Chapter IV is a succinct summary on the efficacy of the independent variables to explain the dependent variables. The evaluation will focus on the confirmation of hypotheses and will show which independent 'variables appear to be more worthy for further research. For the confirmation of the hypotheses the major criterion is confirming data by five or more product-specific pur- chasing groups. For the single independent and single j dependent variables discussed in the second section of this chapter the significant relationships need to be in the same direction as hypothesized; for the single and dual independent variables and the dual dependent variables presented in the third section of this chapter the signifi- cant relationships did not have to take direction into account since the null hypothesis was one of no difference. The dual dependent variable analysis in the previous section is not included in the discussion. Single Independent and Dependent Variable Analysis Brand Shopping Activity.--The twelve hypotheses on the relationships between the dependent variable of brand shopping and the independent variables were not confirmed. 242 Four independent variables had at best two significant relationships in the hypothesized direction; these variables were mobility, home ownership, type of housing, and occu- pation. The variable of mobility had four significant relationships, but two of the four relationships were in the opposite direction of the hypothesis. The independent variables with one confirmation in the hypothesized direction included household size, marital status, income, number of recent purchases, and type of purchase (first-time or re- placement). The number of significant relationships with the independent and dependent variables varied across products. Brown goods had four significant relationships between the dependent variable of brand shopping and the independent variables of mobility, home ownership, type of housing, and occupation. Portable color televisions had five sig- nificant relationships with the independent variables of mobility, household size, home ownership, type of housing, and marital status. Console televisions had two signifi- cant relationships based on household size and occupation. White goods had only one significant relationship based on mobility; laundry durables had only one significant rela- tionship with first-time or replacement purchase. Dryers had two significant relationships with household size and the number of recent purchases, and refrigerators had three significant relationships based on mobility, marital status 243 and income. The purchasers of automatic washers and cooking ranges were not differentiated on any of the independent variables and brand shopping activity. In total eighteen significant relationships regardless of direction or twelve significant relationships in the hypothesized direction were found for brand shopping activity from a potential of 108 combinations (Table 4-34). Store Shopping Activity.--The twelve hypotheses on the relationships between the dependent variable of store shOpping activity and the independent variables were not confirmed. The main independent variable emerging for store shopping was the type of purchase, first-time or replace- ment, which had only three confirmations of the hypotheses. The confirmations were for purchasers of white goods, laundry durables, and cooking ranges. Length of stay in the market area had two confirmations; type of housing, mobility, marital status, household size, age, and number of recent purchases had one confirmation. None of the purchasers of each product category were differentiated on more than two significant relation- ships out of the twelve possible; however, the independent variable differentiating store shoppers varied according to the specific product. Portable televisions had one significant relationship between the dependent variable on type of housing; console televisions had also one sig- nificant relationship based on household size; but brown .mHmmnuommn ecu mo COHpomHHp muHmommo map :H mmz mHamsoHHMHmn one i .mmHanumb map so pmHMHusmHmMMHp #0: me3 wooden paw muwcmmz mo mummmnousm one 244 N .meSHoxm wnoz mHgmGOHHMHoH HammcHsme oso pmmmH um mcHzogm Hos mmHQMHHm> usmpcmmmchH mH m N H H N m w mHmuoa H H mmmnousm ucmEmUMHmmm H H mwmmsousm uswomm H «H msoocH N H H GOHummsooo N H «H maumum HmuHHMS N H H msHmsom mo mama N H H mHzmuwszo mfiom m .H H «H oNHm sHoBmsom H .H .H H H suHHHnos mmHanso mcooo chHmH>mHme mQOHmH>meB mooou mHMHOB mnoumummHHmmm mnwmuo mupssmq muHsz mHomsoo mHnmuHom csoum HmmHQMHHm> Nmuospoum ucmpsmmmch .poseonm an suH>HHom mnHmmozm pamsm one mmHQMHHm> pawccmmmpsH mnu :mm3umm mmHanOHumHmm unmoHMHGmHm mo HmQESZII.vav mqmme 245 goods were not differentiated on the variables. White goods had two significant relationships between store shopping and type of purchase and length of stay in the market area. Laundry durables had one significant rela- tionship based on type of purchase; automatic washers had one relationship based on type of purchase; automatic washers had one relationship based on mobility; and dryers had one significant relationship based on the number of recent purchases. Refrigerators had two significant relationships between store ShOpping activity and marital status and length of stay in the market area; cooking ranges also had two significant relationships based on type of purchase and age. The brown goods product I category did not have even one significant relationship. In total a mere eleven significant relationships were found for store ShOpping activity and the independent variables from a potential of 108 combinations (Table Da181). Unused Brand Knowledg§.--The twelve hypotheses on the relationship between the dependent variable of unused brand knowledge and the independent variables were not confirmed. At best the data showed three confirmations between unused brand knowledge and the number of recent purchases for buyers of laundry durables, automatic washers, and dryers. Length of stay in the market area, household size, and type of purchase had two confirmations; home 246 ownership, type of housing, mobility, marital status, occupation and education had one confirmation in the hypothesized direction. Income and age did not have any confirmations. Considerable differences on the independent variables existed for purchasers of Specific products. Brown goods had only one significant relationship between unused brand knowledge and an independent variable, home ownership, but portable color televisions had six sig- nificant relationships based on home ownership, household size, type of purchase, mobility, marital status, and occupation. White goods had one significant relationship between the dependent variable and length of stay in the ‘ market area; refrigerators had two significant relation- ships based on length of stay in the market area and house- hold size. Laundry durables had one significant relation- ship with the number of recent purchases; washers had two significant relationships with home ownership and the number of recent purchases; and dryers had three sig- nificant relationships with the number of recent purchases, type of purchase, and type of housing. In summary seventeen significant relationships regardless of direction or fourteen significant relationships in the proper direction were found for unused brand knowledge and the independent variables from a protential of 108 combinations (Table DQ1821, 247 Unused Store Knowledge.--One hypothesis on the relationship between unused store knowledge and the independent variable of household size was confirmed with six significant relationships across products. The products demonstrating significance included brown goods, portable televisions, white goods, laundry durables, washers, and dryers. The other eleven hypotheses on the relationship between unused store knowledge and the inde- pendent variables were not confirmed. The two independent variables of marital status and income had two confirmations; type of housing, mobility, and number of recent purchases had one confirmation in the predicted direction. Type of housing, home ownership, length of stay in the market area, Hand age had two significant relationships in the Opposite direction as hypothesized and type of purchase had one significant relationship in the opposite direction. The number of significant relationships for the independent and dependent variables varied across products. Brown goods had five significant relationships between unused store knowledge and the independent variables of household size, type of housing, home ownership, length of stay in the market area, and income; portable color televisions had six significant relationships including the five above for brown goods plus mobility. White goods had three significant relationships based on household size, marital status, and the number of recent purchases; 248 refrigerators had only one meaningful relationship based on marital status. Laundry durables had two significant relationships with household size and type of purchase; washers had two significant relationships with household size and age; and dryers had three relationships with household size, type of housing, and age. In total twenty- two significant relationships between unused store know- ledge and the independent variables were found (Table D—183). Total Brand Knowledge.--The twleve hypotheses on the relationship between total brand knowledge and the independent variables were not confirmed. Type of housing had three confirmations, home ownership and age had two confirmations, and household size and the number of recent 5 purchases had one confirmation. None of the purchasing groups by product had more than two significant relationships, and purchasers of brown goods, console televisions, and laundry durables were not differentiated by any significant relationships. Portable televisions had one significant relationship between total brand knowledge and type of housing. White goods had one significant relationship with age; automatic washers and dryers had two significant relationships with type of housing and home ownership. Refrigerators had two significant relationships with age and household size; cooking ranges had one significant relationship with the number of recent purchases. In total only nine significant 249 relationships between total brand knowledge and the inde- pendent variables were found from the analysis (Table D-184)- Total Store Knowledge.--The twelve hypotheses on the relationships between total store knowledge and the independent variables were not confirmed. Confirmation of the hypotheses was two at best with length of stay in the market area, income, a number of recent purchases, and age (no direction predicted). Independent variables with one confirmation included type of purchase, marital status, occupation, household size, and education. Considerable variation on the number of significant relationships on total store knowledge and the independent variables was evident across products. Brown goods had two -significant relationships with type of purchase and income; portable televisions had four significant relationships with type of purchase, marital status, occupation, and income; and console televisions had one significant rela- tionship with education. White goods had five significant relationships with type of purchase, length of stay in the market area, marital status, age, and the number of recent purchases. Laundry durables had two significant relation- ships with age and household size; automatic washers had one relationship with occupation; and refrigerators had two significant relationships based on the length of stay in the market area and the number of recent purchases. In total seventeen significant relationships were found 250 concerning total store knowledge and the independent variables across products (Table D—185). Summary In general, the socioeconomic and demographic variables differentiated very few purchasing groups by product for the dependent variables. One hypothesized relationship between unused store knowledge and household size was confirmed; the remaining hypotheses were not confirmed. Specific independent variables appeared to be product-specific for brown goods or white goods instead of being generalized across a number of consumer products labeled consumer household durables. Single and Dual Independent Variable and Dual Dependent Variable Analysis Brand and Store Shopping Activity The twelve hypotheses on the relationship between the dependent variable of brand and store shopping activity and the single independent variables were not confirmed according to the decision rule of five or more confirmations across products. The relationships between the dependent variable and type of purchase had four significant findings for console televisions, white goods, laundry durables, and cooking ranges. The next most important independent variable was length of stay in the market area with three significant findings on purchasers across console tele- visions, automatic washers, and cooking ranges. Home 251 ownership, type of housing, marital status, and recent purchases had two significant findings; length of stay at present address, houshold size, and occupation had only one significant finding. For individual product categories the purchasers of brown goods and individual brown goods tended to have the preponderance of significant relationships. Brown goods were differentiated on home ownership, type of housing, and marital status; portable televisions were differentiated on the same three as above plus length of stay at present address and household size; and console televisions were differentiated on type of purchase, length of stay in the market area, and recent purchases. White goods were differentiated on the type of purchase; laundry durables were separated on the type of purchase and occupation; washers were differentiated on the length of stay in the market area and recent purchases; and cooking ranges were differentiated on the type of pur- chase and the length of stay in the market area. In total eighteen significant relationships were found on the relationship between brand and store shopping and the single independent variables across products (Table D-186). The null hypotheses on the relationships between brand and store shopping activity and the dual independent variables must be accepted. The hypothesis on the 252 relationship between age, income and brand and store shopping behaviors had three confirmations for purchasers of white goods, automatic washers, and dryers. The hypotheses on brand and store shopping behaviors and the dual independent variables of age-household size, education- household size, and education-home ownership had two confirmations only. Fifteen hypotheses had one confirma- tion. The dual independent variables included: (1) age- number of recent purchases, (2) age-home ownership, (3) education-length of stay in the market area, (4) edu- cation-length of stay at present address, (5) income- household size, (6) income-length of stay at present address, (7) household size-length of stay at present address, (8) household size-home ownership, (9) household size-occupation, (10) recent purchases-length of stay at present address, (11) number of recent purchases-occupation, (12) length of stay in the market area-home ownership, (13) length of stay in market area-occupation, (14) length of stay at present address-home ownership, and (15) length of stay at present address-occupation. For the dual independent variables and brand and store shopping behaviors by product the number of sig- nificant findings ranged from seven for portable color televisions to zero for laundry durables and cooking ranges. Similar to previously, the significant findings based on the dual independent variables were centered in 253 one product group, brown goods or white goods. Brown goods had five significant relationships based on education-household size, education-home ownership, age-number of recent purchases, number of recent pur- chases-length of stay at present address, and length of stay in market area-home ownership. Portable color tele- visions had eight significant findings from education- household size, education-home ownership, age-home owner- ship, household size—length of stay at present address, household size-home ownership, household size-occupation, length of stay in market area-home ownership, and length of stay at present address-home ownership. Console tele- visions in comparison to portable televisions had only one significant finding based on number of recent purchases- occupation. White goods had four significant relation- ships with age-income, age-household size, income- household size, and income—length of stay at present address. Laundry durables did not have any significant findings, but automatic washers had five findings with age-income, education-length of stay in the market, education-length of stay at present address, length of stay in market-occupation, and length of stay at present address-occupation. Dryers had one significant finding based on age-income. Refrigerators had only one sig- nificant finding based on age-household size, and cooking ranges did not have any pertinent relationships. In 254 total twenty-five significant relationships were found for the dual independent variables and brand and store shopping activity (Table D-186). From the above discussion four major generali- zations can be drawn for the benefit of other research. First, the independent variables, singularly or in combination, did not confirm the general hypotheses of expected differences among purchasers across products. Second, the apparent reason for the general lack of confirmation was the variability of purchaser character- istics and behaviors across different products. Third, the traditional socioeconomic and demographic variables of age, income, education, and occupation were not valuable as single independent variables to describe brand and store shopping behaviors, but these same variables, especially age and education, were quite valuable in combination with other independent variables. Finally, the purchasers of brown goods, portable color televisions, and automatic washers were relatively easier to find differentiating variables than the buyers of laundry durables, cooking ranges, dryers, and refrigerators who were relatively more difficult to isolate by the possible differentiating variables. Unused Brand and Store Knowledge.--The hypotheses on the relationships between unused brand and store knowledge and the single dependent variables were not 255 confirmed. The relationships of the dependent variable and the independent variables of length of stay at present address and length of stay in the market area had only three confirmations, purchasers of portable televisions, refrigerators, and cooking ranges for the former and purchasers of brown goods, portable televisions, and refrigerators for the latter. Four hypotheses based on household size, occupation, number of recent purchases, and type of purchase had two confirmations; two hypotheses founded on home ownership and type of housing had one confirmation. For unused brand and store knowledge and the single independent variables by product the relevant variables were generally dependent upon the product purchased. Brown goods had two significant relationships between the dependent variable and the independent variables of length of stay in the market area and Dev cupation; portable televisions had three significant relationships with the above two independent variables plus length of stay at present address; and console televisions had only one significant finding from type of housing. White goods had only one major finding between unused brand and store knowledge and the number of recent purchases; laundry durables also had only one significant finding based on the type of purchase; washers had one significant relationship based on home 256 ownership; and dryers had two significant relationships with household size and the number of recent purchases. Refrigerators did slightly better than other white goods with three significant relationships based on the length of stay at present address, length of stay in the market, and household size. Cooking ranges had two major findings with length of stay at present address and type of purchase. In sum sixteen signifi- cant relationships were found between unused brand and store knowledge and the single independent variables (Table D9187l. The null hypotheses of no difference between the dependent variable of unused brand and store knowledge and the dual independent variables must be accepted for purchasers across products. Three hypotheses had at best three confirmations; the major dual independent variables were education-length of stay in the market area for purchasers of white goods, ‘ durables, and automatic washers, recent purchases-length of stay at present address for buyers of brown goods, white goods, and refrigerators, and occupation-length of stay in market area for buyers of brown goods, portable tele- visions, and automatic washers. The hypotheses with two confirmations were results from three dual independent variables of recent purchases-length of stay in the market area, occupation-length of stay at present address, and 257 length of stay in market area-length of stay at present address. A number of hypotheses had one confirmation based upon the dual independent variables of age-length of stay at present address, education-number of recent purchases, education-length of stay at present address, income-occupation, household size-length of stay at present address, and household size-occupation. The number of significant findings on the possible relationships between unused brand and store knowledge and the bivariate independent variables by product ranged from eight for buyers of refrigerators to zero for pur- chasers of console color televisions, dryers, and cooking ranges. Brown goods had four significant relationships with number of recent purchases-length of stay at present address, occupation-length of stay in the market area, occupation-length of stay at present address, and income- occupation; portable color televisions had only two significant findings based on occupation-length of stay in the market area and length of stay in the market area-length of stay at present address. White goods, as brown goods, had four significant relationships which ‘were based on education-length of stay in the market area, number of recent purchases-length of stay at :present address, number of recent purchases-length of stay in the market area, and education-number of recent 258 purchases. Laundry durables had one major finding resulting from education-length of stay in the market area; automatic washers had two major relationships resulting from education-length of stay in the market area and occupation-length of stay in the market area. Refrigerators stood out from the other products with eight significant relationships from: (1) number of recent purchases-length of stay at present address, (2) number of recent purchases-length of stay in the market area, (3) occupation-length of stay at present address, (4) length of stay in the market area-length of stay at present address, (5) age-length of stay at present address, (6) education-length of stay at present address, (7) household size-length of stay at present address, and (8) household size-occupation. In total twenty-one significant findings resulted from the analysis on the possible relationships between unused brand and store knowledge and the dual independent variables (Table Dn1871- The discussion on the relationship between the dual dependent variables of unused brand and store know- ledge and the independent variables suggest four major conclusions. First, the independent variables, singularly or in combination, did not confirm the alternative hypotheses of a differences among purchasers across products because of the variability of purchaser unused 259 knowledge and characteristics across products. Second, the often used single socioeconomic and demographic vari- ables of age, education, and income did not demonstrate one significant finding. Third, the length of stay in the market area and the length of stay at present address emerged as being relatively more important, singularly or in combination with other variables, than the remaining independent variables. Finally, for specific products the differentiating variables for refrigerators were relatively more numerous when compared to other products. Total Brand and Store Knowledge.--The null hypotheses of no differences between the dependent variables of total brand and store knowledge and the single independent vari- ables must be accepted. Only one hypothesis on the relationship between the dependent variables and the number of recent purchases had as many as four con— firmations for buyers of white goods, dryers, refrigerators, and cooking ranges. The hypothesis with household size had two confirmations for purchasers of automatic washers and refrigerators. Two hypotheses with length of stay at present address and with occupation had one confirmation for buyers of dryers for the former and of portable color televisions for the latter. A total of eight significant relationships were found for the dual dependent variables and single independent variables for the nine product categories. 260 The products with two significant relationships were dryers with recent purchases and length of stay at present address and refrigerators with recent purchases and house- hold size. The products with one significant finding were portable televisions with occupation, white goods with recent purchases, automatic washers with household size, and cooking ranges with recent purchases (Table D-188). The products with no significant findings included brown goods, console color televisions, and laundry durables. The hypotheses on the relationships between the dual dependent and dual independent variables were not confirmed for purchasers across products. The hypothesis on the relationship between total brand and store know- ledge and household size-occupation had three confirmations for buyers of brown goods, portable color televisions, and refrigerators. The hypothesis on the dual dependent variables and number of recent purchases-occupation had only two confirmations for purchasers of white goods and refrigerators. A number of hypotheses, predominately for white goods and refrigerators. A number of hypotheses, predominately for white goods, had one confirmation; the bivariate independent variables were: (1) age-household size, (2) age-recent purchases, (3) age-length of stay in the market area, (4) education-number of recent purchases, (5) education-length of stay in the market area, (6) household size-number of recent purchases, 261 (7) household size-length of stay in the market area, (8) household size-length of stay at present address, (9) number of recent purchases-length of stay in market area, and (10) number of recent purchases-length of stay at present address. The number of significant findings between the bivariate dependent and independent variables by product ranged from seven for white goods to zero for consOle color televisions, laundry durables, and cooking ranges. White goods with seven significant relationships were differentiated on recent purchases-occupation, age-number of recent purchases, education-number of recent purchases, education-length of stay in the market area, household size-number of recent purchases, number of recent pur- chases-length of stay in the market area, and number of recent purchases-length of stay at present address. .Automatic washers had one significant finding with household size—length of stay at present address; dryers had one significant relationship with household size- length of stay in the market area; and refrigerators had.three significant relationships with household size- <3ccupation, number of recent purchases-occupation, and .age-household size. Brown goods had only one significant finding between total brand and store knowledge and house- ]nold size-occupation; portable televisions had two sig- Iiificant findings from household size-occupation and 262 age-length of stay in the market area. In total fifteen significant relationships were found between total brand and store knowledge and the dual independent variables for purchasers across products (Table D-l88). From the discussion several general conclusions can be drawn concerning the bivariate dependent variables of total brand and store knowledge and the independent variables. First, none of the alternative hypothesis were confirmed according to the criterion of five or more confirmations for purchasers across product cate- gories. Second, the lack of confirmations relative to combining the dependent variables of brand and store shopping activity and of unused brand and store knowledge suggested that a cancelling effect might have resulted from purchasers who were high on one dual dependent variable set and low on the other dual dependent variable set. Third, the single independent variables of age, education, and income again did not result in any significant findings; in combination with other independent variables age, education, occupation did perform slightly better. Finally, the major independent variables for combinations with other independent variables appeared to be the number of recent purchases, occupation, age, and length of stay in the market area. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The primary objective of Chapter V is to discuSs the application of the findings from Chapter IV for the benefit of marketing practice, theory, and research. Chapter V is organized into four major sections to accom— plish this purpose. The four sections are sequentially (1) a review of the major findings presented in Chapter IV, (2) a description of purchasers by product, (3) a discussion on the empirical findings and marketing theory, and (4) suggestions for future research extending the present empirical data on purchaser shopping behaviors and knowledge. Review of Major Findings The review of the main findings is organized .according to the five major sections in Chapter IV. {these sections were (1) descriptions of shopping activity and knowledge, (2) specific hypothesis on demographic variables and the shopping behaviors and knowledge of pnirchasers, (3) findings on the general hypotheses on shopping activity, unused knowledge, and total knowledge 263 264 of brands and stores, (4) findings on shopping activity and knowledge, and (5) an evaluation of the demographic variables. Descriptions of ShoppingActivity and Knowledge Shopping activity for brands tended to be limited to three brands or less across product categories. Shop- ping activity for brands tended to vary between product categories with the purchasers of brown goods being rela— tively more active brand shoppers than buyers of white goods. Brand shopping activity also varied considerably among individual white goods but did not vary substantially between purchasers of individual brown goods. Shopping activity for stores tended to be limited to three stores or less across product categories. Shopping activity for stores tended to vary between product categories with the purchasers of brown goods being relatively more active store shoppers than the buyers of white goods. The pur— chasers of portable televisions, console televisions, and refrigerators exhibited similar store shopping behaviors; the buyers of washers, dryers, and cooking ranges exhibited similar behaviors. The combination of brand and store shopping emphasized the difference between purchasers of brown goods and white goods. The buyers of brown goods tended to be relatively more active shoppers than the purchasers of white goods. Individual products, brown goods or white goods, tended to exhibit similar brand and 265 Store shopping behaviors as for their generic product group of brown goods or white goods. Unused brand knowledge tended to be quite similar across product categories. Most purchasers identified two brands or less beyond the brands actively compared during shopping. Unused store knowledge tended to vary across product categories with purchasers of brown goods identifying more unused stores than the buyers of white goods. The purchasers of refrigerators tended to have less unused store knowledge than other purchasers, or in other words, tended to use up their knowledge of brands when shopping to a greater degree than other buyers. The combination of unused brand and store knowledge again emphasized the differences between buyers of brown goods and white goods with the buyers of brown goods being more knowledgeable of unused brands and stores than the buyers of white goods. Buyers of individual products reflected similar knowledge levels as the buyer groups for the respective product category of brown goods or white goods. Total brand knowledge varied across product cate- gories. The purchasers of white goods identified fewer total brands than the buyers of brown goods. Individual products also exhibited differences in total brand know- ledge with purchasers of console televisions identifying more brands than buyers of portable televisions and pur- chasers of refrigerators identifying more brands than buyers of the other white goods. Total store knowledge 266 tended to be similar across product categories; however, the buyers of brown goods tended to be slightly more knowledgeable of total store alternatives than the pur— chasers of white goods. The combination of total brand and store knowledge suggested that the buyers of brown goods were more knowledgeable than the purchasers of white goods. The purchasers of individual brown goods tended to be similar on total brand and store knowledge, but the buyers of refrigerators and automatic washers tended to be more knowledgeable than the purchasers of dryers or cooking ranges. Specific Hypotheses on Demographic Variables and Shopping Behavior and Knowledge of Purchasers The major independent variables differentiating active and inactive brand shoppers across products tended to be mobility and the size of the household. Immobiles were more active brand shoppers of white goods and refrigerators; mobiles were more active brand shoppers of brown goods and portable televisions. Smaller house- holds were more active brand shoppers of portable tele- visions and dryers.- Larger households were more active brand shoppers of console televisions. The major independent variables separating active and inactive store shoppers were the type of purchase (replacement or first-time) and length of time in the market area. First-time buyers were more active store shoppers than replacement purchasers for white goods, 267 laundry durables, and cooking ranges. People residing a shorter period of time in the market area were more active store shoppers than peOple living a longer period of time in the market for white goods and refrigerators. The main independent variables differentiating high and low knowers of unused brands were the length of time in the market area, home ownership, and number of products recently purchased. Purchasers residing a longer time in the market were high knowers of unused brands for brown goods and portable color televisions; purchasers living in a shorter time in the market were the high knowers of unused brands for white goods and refrigerators. Home owners were high knowers of unused brands for brown goods and portable televisions, but renters were high knowers for automatic washers. The multiple product buyers were the high knowers of unused brands for laundry durables, washers, and dryers. The main independent variables separating high and low knowers of unused stores were household size and type of housing. The larger households were the high knowers of unused stores for brown goods, portable teles visions, white goods, laundry durables, washers and dryers. People living in single-family housing were the high knowers of unused stores for brown goods and portable televisions; the people residing in multi-family housing were the high knowers for dryers. 268 The major independent variables separating high and low knowers of total brands were type of housing, age, and home ownership. Purchasers living in multi-family housing were high knowers of total brands of portable televisions, washers, and dryers. Older buyers were the high knowers of total brands for white goods and refrigerators. Renters, in contrast to home owners, were the high knowers for washers and dryers. The main independent variable differentiating high and low knowers of total stores was the type of purchase. Replacement purchasers were high knowers of total stores for brown goods and portable televisions. The first-time purchasers were the high knowers for white goods. General Hypotheses on the Demographic Variables and the Shopping Behavior and Knowledge of Brands and Stores Ef—Rurchasers The two major single independent variables related to brand and store shopping activity were type of purchase and the length of stay in the market area. For type of purchase the first-time buyers were more active brand and store shoppers for white goods, laundry durables, cooking ranges, and console televisions; the replacement buyers were less active brand and store shoppers for the same products. Persons residing in the market area six years or less were active shoppers for cooking ranges. People living over six years in the market were active shoppers for console televisions. PeOple living in the market over fifteen years were active brand and store shoppers for 269 automatic washers. Single independent variables with two significant relationships across product categories were (1) home ownership, (2) type of housing, (3) marital status, and (4) the number of household durables recently purchased. The main independent bivariate combination was age of the household head and family income. The active brand and store shoppers for white goods, automatic washers, and dryers were (1) younger household heads with less income and (2) older household heads with more income. The inactive brand and store shoppers for the same products were (1) older household heads with less income and (2) younger household heads with more income. The dual independent variables associated with brand and store shopping with two significant relation— ships were (1) age of household head and household size, (2) education of the household head and household size, and (3) education of the household head and home owner- ship. The active brand and store shoppers for white goods and refrigerators were (1) younger household heads with smaller households and (2) older household heads with larger households. The active brand and store shoppers for brown goods and portable televisions were (1) higher educated household heads with smaller households and (2) higher educated household heads Who were renting. For unused brand and store knowledge the main single independent variables were length of stay at current 270 address and length of stay in the market area. These two variables had three significant relationships across products. The high knowers of unused brands and stores were purchasers (1) living one year or less or more than fifteen years at their present address for portable tele- visions, (2) living one year or less and over three but under seven years at their current address for refrigera- tors, and (3) living under six years at their current address for cooking ranges. The low knowers of unused brands and stores were buyers (1) living over one year but no more than fifteen years at their current address for portable televisions, (2) living over one year but no .more than three years and living seven years or more at their current address for refrigerators, and (3) living six years or more at their address for cooking ranges. For the length of stay in the market area the high knowers of unused brands and stores for refrigerators lived in the Inarket area under seven years, and the low knowers lived in the market area seven years or longer. The high knowers of ‘unused brands and stores for brown goods and for portable televisions lived in the market area over fifteen years; the‘ IOW’knowers resided in the market area fifteen years or less. Single independent variables with two significant relationships were (1) household size, (2) occupation, (3) the number of household durables recently purchased, arui (4) the type of purchase. 271 The dual independent variables to describe unused brand and store knowledge of purchases resulted in three major differentiating aggregations. The combinations with three significant relationships were (1) education of the household head and length of stay in the market area, (2) the number of recent purchases and length of stay at present address, and (3) occupation and the length of stay in the market area. The less educated household heads living a shorter time in the market area were high knowers of unused brands and stores for white goods, laundry durables, and automatic washers. The less educated household heads residing a longer time in the market area were low knowers of unused brands and stores for white :goods, laundry durables, and automatic washers. The multi—product purchasers living a shorter time at their present address were the high knowers of unused brands and stores for white goods, refrigerators, and brown goods. The multi-product purchasers living a longer time at their current address were the low knowers for brown goods. The low knowers for white goods and refrigerators included the previous group coupled with the single product purchasers regardless of the length of time at their current address. The non—white collar buyers living over fifteen years in the market area were high knowers of unused brands and stores for brown goods and portable televisions; the white collar buyers residing a shorter time in the market area were the low knowers for both 272 product categories. The buyers living less than fifteen years in the market area regardless of occupation were the high knowers of unused brands and stores for auto— matic washers. The non—white collar buyers living a longer time in the market area were the main group of low knowers for washers. For total brand and store knowledge the main independent variable was the number of recent purchases of household durable goods. The high knowers of total brand and store alternatives were multiple product pure chasers for white goods, refrigerators, dryers, and cook— ing ranges; the low knowers for the same products were the single product buyers. The main dual independent variables for total brand and store knowledge were (1) occupation of house- hold head and household size and (2) occupation and the number of recent purchases. The high knowers of total brands and stores for brown goods and portable tele- visions were (1) white collar smaller households and (2) non-white collar larger households; the low knowers were white collar larger households for both products. The high knowers of total brands and stores for refrig— erators were white collar larger households; the low knowers were white collar smaller households. For the number of recent purchases and occupation the high knowers of total brands and stores for white goods were multiple product buyers regardless of occupation; the low knowers were single product buyers regardless of occupation. The 273 high knowers of total brands and stores for refrigerators were white collar multi—product buyers; the low knowers were non-white collar single product buyers. Combination of Knowledge Levels and ShoppingActivity The combination of brand knowledge, store know— ledge, brand shopping, and store shopping resulted in moderate success at best for market segmentation. The purchasing groups of brown goods and of white goods were significantly differentiated on several independent vari— ables. The main independent variables for purchasers of different white goods were the number of recent purchases, the type of purchase, and the length of stay at present address. The major independent variables for buyers of different brown goods were type of housing, home owner- ship, and the number of recent purchases. The independent variables with no significant relationships included the length of stay in the market area, marital status, house- hold size, age, occupation, education, and income. The major findings, among others, included for .specific product categories and products were: White Goods: 1. The largest proportion of the total buyers of white goods were low knowers of brands and stores and inactive brand and store shoppers. a. Based on proportions, single product pure chasers were three times as likely as multi-product buyers to be in the low knowers and inactive shoppers category. Laundry 1. 274 b. Based on proportions, about one-third of the firstvtime buyers and one-third of the replacement purchasers were low knowers and inactive shoppers. The smallest proportion of the total buyers of white goods were high knowers of brands and stores and active brand and store shoppers. a. Based on proportions, multivproduct pur— chasers were two times as likely as single product buyers to be in the high knowers and active shoppers category. b. Based on proportions, about two and a half times as many firstvtime buyers as replace— ment purchasers were high knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores. The two largest groups of single product buyers were ordinally (1) low knowers and inactive shoppers and (2) high knowers and inactive shoppers. The two largest groups of multi—product buyers were ordinally (1) high knowers and inactive shoppers and (2) low knowers and active shoppers. The two largest groups of firstvtime buyers were ordinally (1) low knowers and active shoppers and (2) low knowers and inactive shoppers. The two largest groups of replacement purchasers were ordinally (1) high knowers and inactive shoppers and (2) low knowers and inactive shoppers. Durables: The largest prOportion of total buyers of laundry durables were high knowers of brands and stores and inactive brand and store shoppers. a. Based on proportions, two times as many replacement buyers as firstetime purchasers were high knowers of brands and stores and inactive brand and store shoppers. 275 The smallest proportion of total buyers of laundry durables were high knowers of brands and stores and active shoppers of brands and stores. The two largest groups of firstetime buyers were ordinally (1) low knowers and active shoppers and (2) low knowers and inactive shoppers. The two largest groups of replacement buyers were ordinally (1) high knowers and inactive shoppers and (2) low knowers and inactive shoppers. Automatic Washers: 1. Dryerms: 1. The largest proportion of total purchasers of automatic washers were high knowers of brands and stores and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. a. About two—fifths of the mobiles and two— fifths of the immobiles were high knowers and inactive shoppers. The smallest proportion of total buyers of automatic washers were high knowers of brands and stores and active shOppers of brands and stores. a. Based on proportions, seven times as many mobiles as immobiles were high knowers and active shoppers of brands and stores. The two largest groups for mobiles were (1) high knowers and inactive shoppers and (2) low knowers and inactive shoppers. The two largest groups of immobiles were ordinally (1) the low knowers and active shOppers and (2) the high knowers and inactive shoppers. The largest proportion of total buyers of dryers were high knowers of brands and stores and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. 276 a. About two—fifths of the immobiles and one—third of the mobiles were high knowers and inactive shoppers. b. About one-third of the single product buyers and about one-third of the multi—product buyers were high knowers and inactive shop— pers. The smallest proportion of total buyers of dryers were high knowers of brands and stores and active shoppers of brands and stores. a. None of the immobiles and about one-fifth of the mobiles were high knowers and active shoppers. b. None of the single product buyers and only one—tenth of the multivproduct purchasers were high knowers and active shoppers. The two largest groups of mobiles were ordinally (1) low knowers and active shoppers and (2) high knowers and inactive shoppers. The two largest groups of immobiles were ordinally (1) high knowers and inactive shoppers and (2) low knowers and inactive shoppers. The two largest groups of single product buyers were ordinally (1) low knowers and inactive shoppers and (2) high knowers and inactive shoppers. The two largest groups of multiaproduct buyers were (1) high knowers and inactive shoppers and (2) low knowers and active shoppers. Brown Goods : 1. The largest proportion of total buyers of brown goods were high knowers of brands and stores and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. a. Based on proportions, about three times as many single family housing dwellers as multi-family housing dwellers were high knowers and inactive shoppers. The smallest proportion of total buyers of brown goods were low knowers of brands and stores and inactive brand and store shoppers. 277 a. Based on proportions, about one-seventh of the multi—family housing dwellers and of the single family housing dwellers were low knowers and inactive shoppers. The two largest groups of single family housing dwellers were ordinally (1) high knowers and inactive shoppers and (2) low knowers and active shoppers. The two largest groups of multi—family housing dwellers were (1) low knowers and active shOppers and (2) high knowers and active shoppers. Portable Color Televisions: 1. The largest proportion of total buyers of portable televisions were high knowers of brands and stores and inactive shOppers of brands and stores. a. Based on proportions, about three and a half times as many Single family housing dwellers as multi-family housing dwellers were high knowers and inactive shoppers. b. Based on proportions, about twice as many home owners as renters were high knowers and inactive shoppers. The smallest proportion of total buyers of portable televisions were low knowers of brands and stores and inactive shoppers of brands and stores. a. Based on proportions, twice as many single family housing dwellers as multi—family housing dwellers were low knowers and inactive shoppers. b. Based on proportions, about twice as many home owners as renters were low knowers and inactive shoppers. The two largest groups of purchasers living in single family housing were ordinally (1) high knowers and inactive shoppers and (2) low knowers and active shoppers. The two largest groups of purchasers living in multi-family housing were ordinally (1) low knowers and active shoppers and (2) high knowers and active shoppers. 278 5. The two largest groups of home owners were ordinally (1) high knowers and inactive shoppers and (2) (a) low knowers and active shoppers and (2) (b) low knowers and inactive shoppers. 6. The two largest groups of renters were ordinally (1) low knowers and active shoppers and (2) high knowers and active shoppers. Console Color Television: 1. The largest proportion of total buyers of console televisions were centered in two groups—-(l) the high knowers of brands and stores and active shoppers of brands and stores and (2) the low knowers of brands and stores and the active shoppers of brands and stores. a. Based on proportions, about three times as many single product buyers as multiv product buyers were high knowers and active shoppers. b. About three—tenths of the single product buyers and three-tenths of the multi- product buyers were low knowers and active shoppers. 2. The smallest proportion of total buyers of console televisions were the low knowers of brands and stores and the inactive shoppers of brands and stores. a. Based on proportions, almost three times as many single product buyers as multi~ product buyers were low knowers and inactive shoppers. 3. The two largest groups of single product buyers were ordinally (1) high knowers and active shoppers and (2) low knowers and active shoppers. 4. The two largest groups of multinproduct buyers were ordinally (1) high knowers and inactive shoppers and (2) low knowers and active shoppers. The combination of knowledge and shopping of brands and.stores demonstrated differences in purchasers and pnxrchaser characteristics. For white goods the major group 279 based on proportions of buyers were low knowers and inactive shoppers, and for brown goods the major group based on proportions of buyers were high knowers and inactive shop- pers. Individual products showed the same major segment of purchasers as their respective product category with the exception of console televisions. Summary and Conclusions To evaluate the general confirmations of the hypo— theses across products, the significant relationships for each product, dependent variable, and independent variable set were summed. The decision rule of five or more con— firmations across products was used. The only hypothesis confirmed across products was on the relationship between I unused store knowledge and household size. The best independent variable sets across products were determined by summing significant relationships for each single and dual dependent variable. The independent 'variables were: (1) mobility for brand shopping activity, (2) type of purchase for store shopping activity, (3)(a) home ownership and (b) number of recent purchases for unused.brand knowledge, (4) household size for unused :store knowledge, (5) type of housing for total brand know— ledge, (6) type of purchase for total store knowledge, (7) type of purchase for brand and store shopping activity, (8)(a) mobility, (b) length of stay in the market area, 0:) education of the household head and the length of stay 1J1 the market area, (d) length of stay at present address 280 and the number of recent purchases, and (e) occupation of the household head and the length of stay in the market area for unused brand and store knowledge, and (9) the number of recent purchases for total brand and store knowledge. The review of the findings demonstrated several major principles on knowledge and shopping activities by purchasers of household durables. First, the matrix approach is worthwhile to utilize for describing the purchaser distributions of knowledge and shopping behaviors by brands, by stores, and by brands and stores. Second, the matrix approach can be extended to two matrices on knowledge levels and shopping activities of brands and stores, and then the two matrices can be combined to determine the significance of four dependent variables. Third, differences in knowledge levels and shopping activ vities are apparent across products with many similar attributes. Fourth, definite differences exist between pnrrchasers of brown goods and buyers of white goods when the dependent variables are studied individually, in (numbinations, or in dual combinations. Fifth, the findings (n1 the relationships between the independent and dependent 'uariables are quite product specific, thus, the demographic descriptors should be frequently used for specific product categories instead of across product categories to obtain the most benefit with the least input. 281 Profiles of Purchasers of Household Durables This section presents the major attributes of the buyers of household durables based on the findings in Chapter IV. The purchasers are described by product according to the behavioral, knowledgeable, and demographic characteristics for the single and dual dependent variables. A portion of the attributes are interrelated. These profiles are contained in Figures 5—1 through 5-18. The purchaser profiles for the dependent variables need an explanation on their derivation. The dichotomies are relative, that is, they are based on the largest percentages, not absolute numbers, of purchasers. If one or more groups of purchasers were within 5 per cent of the group at one of the extremes, then these additional groups were also listed. An example will help clarify the dichotomies and the 5 per cent decision rule. If purchasers of white goods were separated into groups from the four-valued independent variables of active or inactive brand and store shoppers as follows: (1) younger and more affluent-- 0 per cent were active and 100 per cent were inactive; (2) younger and less affluent-~44.0 per cent were active and 56.0 per cent were inactive; (3) older and more affluent-~43.7 per cent were active and 56.3 per cent were inactive; and (4) older and less affluent—«21.7 per cent were active and 78.3 per cent were inactive; then the main active brand and store shopping group were 282 characterized as younger and less affluent (44.0 per cent) since this percentage of purchasers is relatively higher on active shopping than any of the other groups. However, a second group, the older and more affluent (43.7 per cent) would also be reported since its proportion on shoppers is within 5 per cent of the primary group. The inactive brand and store shopping group is characterized as being younger and more affluent because it is propor— tionately (100 per cent) the least active. The profiles also include the most important independent variable set for each dependent variable set by the application of the displacement process suggested by Belsonl and utilized by Stewart.2 This process involves ranking the independent variables on the number of people displaced which is found by subtracting the observed free quency of people from the expected frequency of people, using only the minuses or pluses. The top ranking inde- pendent variable set was selected plus any other indepen- dent variable set which was within two«tenths of the top ranking one. The tOp ranking independent variable set(s) for the dependent variable set is denoted in the profiles by the underlining of the listed attributes. Conclusions on Profiles The sets of consumer profiles demonstrated the rather large number of market segments to the business 283 .mocmcamsoo mo Hw>oH mH. was um unmoHMHsmHm mum3 mmsanHuum.mmmnB« .mHmemss mHanHm> usecswmmo 0Hmch can usmpcmmmpsH mHmsHm can scum mcoow esoum mp mummmnousm mo oHHmowmI|.Hlm stmHm mpoow ssoum mo memnousm msHB umHHm .m ucwsHmm¢ mac: .4 monoum Hmuoa mo mumsosx son «mHHnoz mmmq .m .uHcs mcHHHmza NHHsmm mHmaHm .« mUGGHm HMUOB m0 mhw30fiv~ 30H ycmaHmme muoz .m oHonmmsom anHmEm .o umxumz :H «EH9 umpuosm .o uHcs mcHHngo NHHsmmuHuHsz .m mmmmmm .m mmhoum UmmDCD MO mH030§ 30H .mHmch .m mmmmmm .H mesmum woman: no mumsocx 30H .uwumosom mmmq .m HMHHOU muH£3lsoz .Q wHflQOZ mmmH .U UHSD mcHHHm3o NHHEMM mHdem .m Hmszo meow .c muommonm psmum 0>HuomcH .>H .HHH .HH mpoow :30Hm mo Hmmmnousm usmEmUMHmcm .m usmsHmm< mmmH .« monoum Hmuoa mo whosoqx anm «mHHnoz one: .m .uHca mcHHHmsa sHHammuHuHsz .m museum Hapoe mo muosocM gmHm usmsHmmm mme . cHocmmsom ummumq . nexus: sH mEHB Hmmcoq . uHcs mcHHHmza NHHsmm mHmch . .mmmmmlmmmm . monoum pomssa mo muwzoqx anm «moon: *pwHuumz .m umsso mac: .m mpcmnm ponds: mo mumsosMIMMH .cwumonsm umgmHm .m coHummsooo HMHHOU muHSS .o mHHnoz mac: .0 uHcs.mcHHHmso NHHsmmuHuHsz .m Hmucmm .a muommmnm psmum 0>Huo¢ .>H .HHH .HH 284 one mHQMHHm> ucmpsmmmpsH Hmso paw onsHm was scum mpoow ssoum mo mummmnousm mo wHHmoumll.Nlm ousmHm HMHHOU pr33 can UHonmmsom Humumq .N monoum can museum Hmuoe mo mumsosu 304 umHHOO manz was wusmchmm um mEHB umuuonm .w HMHHOU mans can mmu< pushes cH msHe umuuonm .m mocprmmm um osHB Homcoq can “cannonsm nonpoumlHuHsz .m HMHHOU wUHss cam pHonwmsom HmHHmEm .Q umHHoo mans was ucosHmmm mac: .0 HmHHou muH£3 .m smug umxumz sH wmmg no mumm» cwwHMHm .4 monoum cam mpsmnm towns: mo mumsosu 304 mumcso 0803 new song umxnmz sH wEHB Hmuuonm .m woswchwm um mEHB Hmuuonm can Hmmmnousm nonpoumlHuHsz .0 Housmm cam topmospm mmmq .m cHonwmsom HmHHmEm cam pmumospm mqu .m muwmmnousm soapoumlHuHsz can momma HmpHo .o pmHHumz .o msHmsom.NflHsmm mHmch .m Hesse 6303 .d muwmmonm wuoum paw pcmum o>HuomsH .mHmaHmcd oHQMHHm> ucmpsmmwo Hmso HmHHoo manz can UHosmmsom HmHHmEm HMHHOU muHazlsoz new pHonmmsom meumq .N N .H.¢ .HHH HmHHOU manzlsoz was mosmchmm um msHa kuuosm HmHHoo manz :02 use some umxnmz cH oEHa Hmmcoq mosmpHmmm um msHu.HmuHosm cam Hmmmnonsm asapoumlHuHsz HmHHoo muHszlcoz was pHonwmsom Hmmumq HmHHoo wansacoz can ucmsHmmm mama HMHHoo muHszlsoz some umxumz cH mums» smmuMHm Hw>o mmHOHm use museum Hmuoe mo mumsosx gmHm .0 .h .m .m UQFIJ .HH mmHOpw can mpsmum pends: mo muwsosx SmHm mumuswm can scum umxumz sH weHe nmuuogm .m wosmchmm um msHa smuuonm can ummmnonsm poscoum mHmsHm .N.0 wosmpHmmm um mEHe season can memsossm uospoumuHUHsz .H.0 Housmm paw topmospm who: .m pHosomsom umHHmfim can pmumoscm macs .m 0mm mo mmchnmmwm nommnousm uospoum mech .N.Q uwmmnousm uospoumlHuHsz can puma ummssow .H.Q onch .o .memso: MHHEmmIHuHsz .m Hmucmm .e .H mnummonm muoum one pcmum w>Huo¢ 285 Inactive Brand Shoppers A. B. O'HIFJUO Home Owner Single Family Dwelling Unit Less Mobile Married Larger Household Non-White Collar* Less Educated* Inactive Store Shoppers A. Single Family DwellingyUnit Low Knowers of Unused Brands A. Renter B. More Mobile C. Single D. Smaller Household E. White Collar Occupations F. Replacement Purchaser of Portable Televisions Low Knowers of Unused Stores A. Renter B. Multi-Family Dwelling Unit C. More Mobile D. Shorter Time in Market E. Smaller Household F. Younger* G. More Affluent Low Knowers of Total Brands A. Renter* B. Sipgle Family Dwelling Unit Low Knowers of Total Stores A. Married B. WHite Collar Occupations C. More Affluent D. First-Time Purchaser of Portable Televisions 5-3.--Profile of Purchasers of Portable Televisions from the Single Independent and Single Dependent Variable Analysis. I. Active Brand Shoppers I. A. Renter B. Multi-Family Dwelling Unit C. More Mobile D. Single E. Smaller Household F. White Collar Occupations* G. Higher Educated* II. Active Store Shoppers II. A. Multi-Family Dwelli 9 Unit III. High Knowers of Unused Brands III. A. Home Owner B. Less Mobile C. Married D. Larger Household E. Non-White Collar F. First Time Purchaser of Portable Televisions IV. High Knowers of Unused Stores IV. A. Home Owner B. Single Family Dwelling Unit C. Less Mobile D. Longer Time in Market E. Larger Household F. Older* G. Less Affluent V. High Knowers of Total Brands V. A. Home Owner* B. Multi-Familytielling,Unit VI. High Knowers of Total Stores VI. A. Single B. Non-White Collar C. Less Affluent D. Replacement Purchaser of Portable Televisions Figure *These attributes were significant at the .15 level of confidence. 1286 .eoseuHmeu HHesu ue esHu Heuuosm e ass posses esp sH 08H» HemsOH e ue>HH osa mesa es» en uHsos msoum eHnemmuoHsosx umeeH esp .usesmem mHsu sH muemesouem mo amass: HHesm esp mo museums memomusm HeOHuoeum Hom« .mHmsHess eHseHHe> useusemeo Hess use oHseHHe> pseusemeusH Hess use eHmsHm use scum msOHmH>eHeB eHseuHom mo muemesonsm mo eHHmoumlu.¢lm eusmHm ueHHoo ouHsz use uHosemsom nausea .0 eeus segue: sH esHe Heuuosm use ueem HeuHo .m ueHHOU euHsz .4 meuoum use museum Hence no mumzosx 30H HeHHOU OUHs3 use emud uexuez sH msHa Heuuosm .m «moseuHmem ue esHa Hemsoq use eeum segues sH esHB Heuuosm .o ueHHou euHsB .0 eons segue: sH mmeH no whee» seeHMHm .m moseuHmem we enema me on mach .s meuoum use museum uewsso mo muesosu s1. Hesse esom use eoseuHmem ue esHe Hemsoq .z segue: sH esHB mo mmeHuHemem Hes3o meow .H HeHHoo euHsslsoz use uHosemsom Hemueq .M muesso esom use uHosemsom Hemueq .b eoseuHmmm ue esHe Heuuosm use uHosemsom smokes .N.H eNHm uHosemso: mo mmeHuHemem moseuHmem we esHe Housoq .H.H neusem use ueueosum mmeH .m sOHueosum mo mmeHunemem uHosemsom amused .0 Heszo 080m use ueem neuHo .m uHosemsos seamen .m ueHunez .o vogue: sH enema seOHMHm He>o .0 .msHmsom NsteMIeHmsHm .m Hesso meow .m muemmdsw enoum use useum 0>HuoesH .HHH .H ueHHoo euHszlsoz use uHosemsom Houses eeum umxuez sH esHe Henson use ueem Hemssow HeHHoo muHssucoz mesoum use museum Hence no muezosx.smHm .N.U HeHHo0 eUHss use uHoseesom HeHHesm .H.0 .m .fl HeHHou euHszlsoz use eeus Hesse: sH mEHe Hemsoq .m moseuHmem use eeus segue: sH esHe ummsoq .o ueHHoo oansucoz .o eeum ueMHez sH whee» seeumHm He>o .m moseuHmem ue mmeq so new» eso .s meuoum use museum uemssD mo mnesosM smHm Amusem use eoseuHmem ue msHB Houuosm .2 Houses use uexnez sH eEHB Hmmsoq .H HeHH00 euHsz use uHosemsom HeHHesm .M senses use uHosemsom HeHHesm .b esHe Heuuosm use uHosemsom HeHHesm .H senses use ueueosum who: .m uHosemsom HeHHesm use uepeosum who: .0 Heusem use uee: HeuHo .m uHosemsom HeHHeEm .m eHmsHm .o eens uexuez sH whee» sense on 039 .0 mch: m HHHsemuHuHsz .m houses .s muemmosm euoum use useum 0>Hpo¢ .HHH .HH 287 .eoseuHmsoo mo He>eH mH. es» ue useoHMHsmHm ewes mepsQHuuue .eHeNHesfl eHneHHe> useusemea eHmsHm wmmfifii use useusemeusH eHmsHm esp scum msonH>eHea eHoeso0 mo muemesonsm mo eHHmoumll.m|m eusmHm ueueosum emeH .0 h....HeHHo0 euHsSIsoz .m .eHosmmsom umHHesm .e meuoum Hence mo muesosM 30H h..eHHnHOE mmeH .m museum ueessD mo mue3osM 30H «HeHHou euHszlsoz .m uHosemsom HeHHeEm .e euemmosm euoum e>HuoesH HeHHo0 euHszusoz .m muHosemsom HeHHeEm .a euemmosm useum e>HpoesH .>H .HHH .HH emumosem umsmwm .o «soHuemsooo HeHH00 eUHsS .m «uHosemsom Hemneq .¢ meuoum Heuoe mo muezosx smHm *OHHQOZ 0H0: .¢ museum uemsso mo muesosM smHm «msoHuemsooo HeHH00 euHsz .m uHosemsom seamen .d muemmosm euoum e>Huos soHuemsooo ueHHo0 euHsz .m muHosemsom Hemueq .« mnemmdsm useum e>Huoe .>H .HHH .HH .muemesousm uosuoum eHmsHe HeHHoo euHsa mo ueusuHuesoo eH msonm 288 .mHthese eHseHue> useusemes Hess use eHseHue> useusemeusH Hess use eHmsHm esp scum msoHeH>eHee eHoesOU mo mueeesousm mo eHHmoumnl.0Im ehsmHm msHmsom hHHEem eHmHuHsz .d meuoum use museum uemssD mo muesosx 30H nemesousm uusuoumuHuHsz use ueHHou euHszusoz . Hemesousm useseoeHmem . mHuseoem ueeesousm euosuoum eHmHuHsz . eens uexuez sH mmeq Ho whee» me . fithD muemmosm euoum use useum e>HuoesH msHesom NHHsemueHmsHm .s .HH meuoum use museum uemssD mo muezosx smHm «muemesousm uosuoumlHuHsz use HeHHou euHsz .o Hemesousm esHelumuHm .0 mHuseoem ueeesousm uosuoum eHmsHm .m eeud uexuez sH eueew wa .4 use>eHeH eHoE esp memomssm UHuesmeHm Mom .euomeuesu amuseusomeeu mo sensss HHeEe e ues usesmee mHsea .HH .H mummmosm muoum use uaeum esmuo< .H 289 sseusemes eHasHm use useusemeusH eHasHm es» eooe muses .eoseuHmsoo esu mo semesossm useseoeHmem .m 8338 uHosemsom mo eeesossm eHasHm .o seuHo .0 eHasHm .m sexsez sH esHe season .m mesosm Hesoe mo usesosM 30H h..meHsesss uHoseesom mo emesossm eHasHm .m semssow .e musesm Hesoe mo msesosM 30H meHsesso uHosemsom mo emesossm eHasHm .0 uHosemsom seHHeEm .m eHmsHm .4 mesosm uemssD mo mse3osM sou himeHsesso uHoseesom mo emesossm eHasHm .m uexsez sH eEHB seasoq .< musesm uemssD mo msesosM 30H uoo0 esHss esp mo semesossm useseoeHmem .s «eeHnesso uHosemsom mo emesossm eHasHm .0 «HOUHO .m sexsez sH esHB season .m esemmosm esoum e>HuoesH eHHsoz esoz .e msemmosm usesm e>HsoesH mo He>eH mH. esp se useoHMHsaHm ese3 mesanssse emese¢ .eHemHese eHseHse> sass euoo0 esHsz mo mseeesossm mo eHHmosmll.blm essaHm .H> .HHH .HH uoo0 esHsz esp mo semesossm esHeluesHh .m meHnesss uHosemsom mo memesossmanHsz .s .mwmmmmM .0 ueHssez .m uexsez sH eEHB seusosm .m mesosm Hesoe mo usesosM saHm «meHnesso uHoseesom mo memesossmlHuHsz .m seuHo .< musesm Heuoe mo msesosM.mmH meHsesss uHosemsom mo memesossmleHsz .0 uHosemsom seaseH .m a .e mesosm uemssD mo mse3osM.mmwm «meHsesso uHosemsom mo memesossmanHsz .m sexsez sH eEHe sessosm .« musesm uemssD mo esezosM.mmHm uoo0 esHsz es» mo semesossm eEHBIumsHm .Q ameHsesso uHosemsom mo memesossmleHsz .0 «seassow .m sexsez.sH eEHB sessOSm .d msemmosm esosm e>Hsc< «HHnoz mama .e msemmosm usesm e>Huo< .H> .>H .HHH .HH 2530 .mHehHess eHneHse> useusemes Hess use meHseHse> useusemeusH Hess use eHasHm esu eosm muoo0 esHsz mo mseeesossm mo eHHwosmnl.wlm essaHm sOHsemsooo mo eeeHuseaem semesossm sesuosm eHasHm .m _mmmmmmmmm se esHs mo eeeHusemem use semesossm uosuosm eHmmwm .0 Hesse: sH esHB seasos use semesossm sosuosm eHasHm .m semesossm uosuosm eHammm use uHoseesom seHHesm .m sexsez sH esHB seasos use ueseosum wees .s soHueosun mo eeeHuseaem senesossm sosuoss eHasHm .0 ems mo eeeHuseaex semesesse uosuoss eHmmmm .m samenessm uoseosm oncsm .e nesouw use eusesm Heuos.mo esesosx 30A .3 a? use soaesossm 1.268738: .m umxsu:.:s «use saunas ecu sounausnm uoaeosmuHans .~.a ease passe: :H case no nuoHesuaes ecu somesusae soaeose «HaaHm .H.o gasses as mass senses use easeuues «nos .0 somasosnm uoneosm uHmaHm ecu essences use: .~.m ueeesossm esusuosm no sesssz mo mmeHuseaes ueseusufl sees .H.m semesosnm uoneosm onuse .s .mmsoam use musesm ueesss no uselosu hos eoseuHeem se QIHB sessosm use usesHuud use! .m Sofie-mom 8H3 e5 22.33 98s .o uHoseesom seHHesm use seuHo .0 usesHums esoz use seasso» .m semesossm useseoemmem .< esemmmsm esoum use usesm e>HuoesH .HHH .HH sOHsemsooo mo emeHuseaem semesossm uosuosmleHs: eoseuHeem se esHB sessosm use semesossm uosuosmleHsz sexsez sH esHB sessosm use semesossm uosuosmleHsz semesossm uosuosmnHuHsz use uHosemso: seHHeEm uexsez sH eEHe sessosm use ueseosum wees semesossm sosuosmleHsz use ueseosum esoz eas mo emeHuseaem semesosss sosuosmIHsHsz semesossm sosuosmIHsHsz .2 .0 .h .M .D .U .m .N mesosm use musesm Hesoe mo usesosM saHm eoseuHeem se eEHB sessosm use semesosss uosuosmleHsz ease umxse: sH eEHB sessosm use semesossm sosuosmuHuHsz eesd Hesse: sH esHe seusosm use ueueosum meeH semesossm sosuossleHsz use ueseosum esoz semesossm susuosmuHsHsz .m mesosm use musesm ueesss mo usesosM saHm eoseuHmem se esHB season use useusms esoz muHosemsom seaseq use usesHmms esoz euHoseesom seHHeEm use seasso» useusms esoz use seuHo usesHmws mmeH use seassow semesossm esHBIsmsHm .w .0 .U INOm .Hom .fl esemmmsm esosm use usesm e>Hso¢ .HHH .HH .H 291 .eoseuHmsoo mo HebeH mH. ess se sseOHMHsaHe eseB eessAHssue eeesee .eHeNHes4 eHseHse> useusemeo eHasHm use sseusemeusH eHasHm ess sosw eeHsesss hsusses mo mseeesossm mo eHHmosmln.mlm essaHh seUHO .m uHoseesom seHHeEm .4 mesoum Hence we esezosM 304 mmMNmm so mseSme3 mo semesossm eEHelsesHm .m muHosemsom seHHesm .4 mesoum uemssD mo msezosM 30H meHnessQ uHosemsom mo eeesossm eHasHm .4 musesm uemssD mo msesosx 304 HQNHQ so segues e no semesossm useEeoewmem .4 esemmosm esosm ebHsoesH seNms so sesees e no semesossm useseoeHmem .4 msemmosm usesm e>HsoesH .HHH .HH semssow .m uHosemsom seaseH .4 mesosm Hesoa mo esesosM saw: mmmxmm so esesmez mo semesossm useseoeHmem .m muHosemsom seaseq .4 mesoum uemssD mo msezosM saHm meHnessQ uHoseesom mo memesossmlHuHsz .4 musesm ueessD mo eseSOsM saHm seNss so sesmes e mo semesossm eEHBIsmsHm .4 msemmosm esosm e>Hso4 seNms so segues e no semesossm eEHeIsmsHm .4 esemmosm usesm e>Huo4 .HHH .HH 292 .mHmMHes4 eHseHse> useusemeo Hess use eHseHse> sseusemeusH Hess use eHaus esp sesm meHsessa msusseq mo esemesossm mo eHHmosmll.0Hlm essaHm ees4 sexsmm sH esHe seasos use ueueosum wees .m semesossm esHelsmsHm .4 mesosm use musesm uemssD mo msesosM SCH semesossm useseoeHmem .m seHHo0 esHszlsoz .4 esemmosm esosm use musesm e>HsoesH ees4 uexsez sH esHe seusosm use ueueosum mmeH .m semesossm useseoeHmem .4 .HH mmHoum mud” WCCMHQ ”QWHHGD MO MH03OGVH Sufim semesossm eEHeIumsHm .m seHH00 esHss .4 .H msemmmsm esosm use usesm e>Hso4 .HH 293 .eoseuHmsoo mo He>eH mH. esp se useoHMHsaHm ese3 mesanssse emes94 eHasHm use useusemeusH eHasHm esp Eosm seHH00 euHszlsoz .4 eesosm Hence no mse3osM 304 use: mcHHnga sHHsmm mHmch .m ses3o e804 .4 musesm Hence no mse3osM 304 .uamsHeee «so: .0 smeHo .m uHosemsom seHHesm .4 mesosm uemssD mo mse3osM 304 meHsessQ uHoseesom mo emesossm eHasHm .m “samsHeme msoz .o ueseosum mee4 .0 «uHosemsom seHHesm .m ses3o e504 .4 musesm ueessa mo mse30sx 304 eHHsoz esoz .4 msemmmsm usesm e>HuoesH .mHmees4 eHseHse> sseusemea msesmez oHueEoss4 mo msemesossm mo eHHmosmII.HHIm essaHm .HHH .HH sOHsemsooo seHH00 esHsz .4 mesosm Hesoa mo ese3osM.maHm uHcs mcHHHezs sHHseansHsz .m sessem .4 musesm Heuoe mo mse3osx 40H: essesHmm4 mme4 .0 Mmmmmmw .m uHoseesom sease4 .4 mesosm uemssD mo mse30sM saHm meHsesso uHosemsom mo memesossmuHsHsz .m «usesHmu4 mee4 .0 ueseosum sesaHm .0 «uHosemsom sease4 .m sessem .4 musesm uemssD wo mse30sM saHm eHHsoz mme4 .4 esemmosm usesm e>Hs04 .> .HHH .HH .sexses ess sH esHs sessose e asH>HH euHoseesos seaseH mo ueeomsoo es uHso3 msosa sHes esp eHmsem HHesm esu mo emseoes meeomssm HeoHsoesm song .eHeaHes4 eHneHse> useusemen Hess use eHseHse>23seusemeusH Hess use eHasHm ess sosm usesee3 UHsesoss4 mo eseeesossm mo eHHmosmII.NHLm essaHm eoseuHmem se eEHB seas04 use uHoseesom seame4 .N.0 .mmmmmmmmm eoseuHmem ue esHe seas04 use uHosemsom seHHesm .0 se esHe sessosm use uHosemsom seHHesm .H.0 sexsez «sexsez A. sH ease seas04 use uHosemsom seHHesw .m sH e549 sessosm use uHosemsom seHHeSm .m m“ uHosemsom seHHesm .4 uHoseesom sease4 .4 mesosm use musesm Hesoe mo ese30sM 304 .444 mesosm use musesm Hence no mse30sM saHm seHH00 sOHsemsooo mo esHs3Isoz use ees4 sexsez sH esHe seas04 .0 mmeHuseaem ees4 sexsez sH esHe sessosm .0 ees4 ees4 sexsez uexsez sH e549 seas04 use ueueosum mee4 .m sH esHe sessosm use ueseosum mme4 .m ses3o e802 .4 sease4 .4 eesosw use musesm uemssD mo msesosu 304 .HH eesosm use musesm ueessD mo ese30sM saHs seHH00 esHs3 use eoseuHmem se esHe seas04 .m seHH00 esHsz use eoseuHeem se eEHe sessosm .m seHH00 esHsBIsoz use ees4 sexsez sH eEHe sessosm .m seHH00 esHsz use ees4 sexsez sH esHe seusosm .m eoseuHmem se esHe seas04 use ueueosum esoz .s eoseuHmem se e549 sessosm use ueseosum esoz .o ees4 sexsez ees4 sexsez sH esHB seusosm use ueseosum mee4 .0 sH ease seas04 use ueueosum mee4 .0 usesHmm4 esoz use seassos .N.m usesHmm4 mme4 use seuHo .H.m usesHmm4 esoz use seuHo .m ees4 sexsez sH mme4 so eseew seeHMHm .4 ees4 sexsez sH msee» seesuHm se>o ..4 msemmosm esosm use usesm e>HsoesH .H esemmosm esosm use usesm e>Hso4 .HHH .HH .H 295 .eoseunsoo mo He>eH mH. esp se sseoHMHsaHm ese3 mesanssse emese« eHseHse> useusemea eHasHm use useusemeusH eHasHm ess sosm msemso mo msemesossm mo eHHmosmuu.MHlm uses mcHHHmss sHHsmm mHmaHm .m ses3o e80: .4 musesm Hesoa mo mse30sx 304 seuHo .m uHoseesom seHHeEm .o «sexsez sH eEHa seas04 .0 sHsD asHHHe3o hHHsem eHasHm .m «uses3o esom .4 mesosm uemssa mo ese30sM 304 msemss mo seeesossm useseoeHmem .m meHsesso uHoseesom mo emesossm eHasHm .o «uHoseesom seHHesm .0 «eHHnoz mme4 .m uHsD asHHHe3o NHHEem eHasHm .4 musesm ueessD mo mse30sM 304 .4 meHsesso uHoseesom mo emesossm eHmsHm msemmmsm esoum e>HsoesH meHnesso uHoseesom mo emesossm eHasHm uHosemsom sease4 .m .4 esemmosm usesm e>HsoesH .mHmmHes4 essaHm sHsD.msHHHe30 NHHsemlHuHsz .m sessem .4 .> musesm Hesoe mo ese3osM saHm .> se sec» .4 uHosemso: sease4 .o hguesses sH esHe seusosm .0 sHsa asHHHess sHHsemanHsz .m emsessem .4 .>H mesosm uemssD mo mse3osM saHm .>H sehsa mo semesossm esHelsmsHm .m meHsessa uHosemsom mo memesossmIHsHsz .o «uHoseesom sease4 .0 «eHHsoz esoz .m asHHHe3D MHHsethuHsz .4 .444 musesm uemsso mo mse3osM saHm .HHH meHsesso uHosemsom mo memesossmuHsHsz .4 .HH esemmosm esosm e>Hso4 .HH meHsesso uHoseesom so memesossmu.uHsz .m uHosemsom seHHeEm .4 .H msemmosm usesm e>Huo4 .4 296 use eHneHse> useusemeusH Hess use eHasHm esp semesossm sosuosm eHasHm .m eoseuHeem se esee» e>Hm se>o .4 mesosm use musesm Hesoa mo mse30sM 304 semesossm uosuosm esoz so eessa .m uHoseesom seHHeEm .4 mesoum use musesm uemssD mo mse3osM 304 usesHmm4 esoz use ueem seasso» .m >Huseoem ueeesosss sosuosm eHasHm .4 msemmosm esoum use usesm e>HsoesH .HHH .HH .eHthes4 eHAeHse> sseusemeo Hess sosm msehss mo msemesossm mo eHHmoss||.vHum essaHm semesossm uosuOsmleHsz .m eoseuHmem ue mme4 so mseew e>Hm .4 mesosm use musesm Hence no mse30sM.mmHm semesossm sosuosm 038 .m uHosemsom sease4 .4 mesosm use musesm ueessD Mo mse3osx saws usesHmm4 esoz use ueem seuHO .m WHUGQUOM EWMSUHHHW mUUHHmuOHnm 0H0: HO MORSE .AN msemmosm esosm use usesm e>Huo4 .HHH .HH .H 297 .eoseuHmsoo mo He>eH mH. esp se useOHMHsaHe ese3 eesssHssue emesey .mHehHes4 eHneHse> sseusemeo eHasHm use useusemeusH eHasHm esp sesm esoseseaHsmem mo mseeesossm mo eHHmosmII.mHum essaHm «esoseseaHsmem mo semesossm useseoeHmem .o eeHnesso uHoseesom mo eeesossm eHasHm .0 .oHaqsm .m sexsez sH esHB seas04 .4 eesosm Hesoe mo ese30sM 304 semssow .m uHoseesom seHHese .4 musesm Hence no esesosx 304 «seHH00 esHs3|soz .o «uHoseesos sHeHesm .0 .mmmmwm .m «sexsez sH esHa seas04 .4 eesosm ueesso mo mse30sM 304 «seassow .Q muHosemsom seHHesm .0 .onch .m sexsez sH esHe seas04 .4 usesm ueessD mo ese3osM 304 «Hesse .m sexsez sH eSHB seas04 .4 esemmosm esosm e>HsoesH ucmsHeme mama mHaasm eHHnoz esoz .U .m .4 msemmosm usesm e>HuoesH .H> .>H .HHH .HH «msoseseaHsmem mo semesossm esHelsmsHm .s eeHnessa uHoseesom mo memesossmleHsz .0 «ueHssez .m sexsez sH esHe sessosm .4 eesosm Hesoa mo ese3osM saHm seuHo .m uHoseesom sease4 .4 musesm Hesoa mo ese30sM saHs .coHuemmuoo seHHoo manz .n «uHosemsom seame4 .0 emHssmz .m «passes as mass sousosm .4 eesoum ueessD mo ese30sM saHm I «seuHo .s euHoseesom sease4 .0 «Oeflshez .m uexsez sH eEHB sessosm .4 musesm uemssD mo mse30sM saHm ueHssez .m sexsez sH esHa sessosm .4 esemmosm esosm e>Hso4 usesHmm4 esoz .0 ueHssez .m eHHsoz eee4 .4 msemmosm usesm e>Hso4 .H> .>H .HHH .HH 298 use eHneHse> sseusemeusH Hess use eHasHm esp sosm seHHoo esHszlsoz use semesossm sosuosm eHasHm .m seHH00 esHsz use uHosemsom seHHesm .s uHosemsom seHHeEm use ueem seuHo .0 semesossm sosuosm eHasHm .m uHosemsom seHHesm .4 mesosw use musesm Hesoe mo ese30sM 304 seHH00 eUHsz use eoseuHeem ue esHe seas04 .b eoseuHmem use ees4 sexsez sH eEHe seas04 .H uemesossm muosuosm mo senssz mo emeHusemem eoseuHmem we esHe seas04 .m ees4 sexsez sH esHa seas04 use semesosss sosuosm eHasHm .0 eoseuHeem se esHe seas04 use uHosemsom seHHeSm .m eoseuHmem se eEHa seas04 use ueseosum mee4 .m eoseuHmem se esHB seas04 use ueem seuHo .o uHosemsom seHHeSm .0 ees4 sexsez sH mseew me se>o .m eoseuHeem se msee» me se>o .4 mesosm use musesm uemssD no ese3osM 304 umosemsom seHHesm use uee: seuHo .4 esemmosm esosm use usesm e>HuoesH .eHewHes4 eHneHse> sseusemeo Hess seHH00 euHsz use semesossm uosuosmaHsHsz seHH00 euHs3 use uHosemsom sease4 uHoseesom sease4 use ueem seuHo semesossm sosuosmleHsz uHosemsom sease4 .HHH seHH00 esHszlsoz use eoseuHeem se eEHB seusosm eoseuHmem use ees4 sexsez sH esHe sessOSm eoseuHeem se esHB seusosm use semesossm sosuosmlHuHsz ees4 sexsez sH esHe sessosm use semesossm sosuosmleHsz eoseuHmem we eEHB sessosm use uHoseesom sease4 eoseuHmem ue eeHB sessosm use ueueosum mme4 ebseuHmem se esHB sessosm use ueem seuHo uHosemsom sease4 ees4 uexsez sH mme4 so eseew me eoseuHeem se eseew me ou ssom .m .D .U .m .4 mesosm use musesm Hence HQste3osM saHm .h .m .Q .0 .m .4 .HH mesosm use musesm ueessD mo ese3osx saHm .. 22...... 3% s as eels H 1.4.! esoseseaHsmem mo eseeesossm mo eHHmosm||.qum essaHh .HHH .HH mse one 935 use usesm e534 .H 299 .eoseuHmsoo mo HebeH mH. ess se useOHmHsaHm ese3 messAHssse eeeseg .mHmNHes4 eHseHse> sseusemeo eHasHm use sseusemeusH eHasHm esp sosm measem ast000 mo mseeesossm mo eHHmosmII.aHIm essaHm «measem astOOU mo semesossm useseoeHmem .4 mesosm Hence no ese30sM 304 «measem astooo mo semesossm sseEeoeHmem .m meHnessQ uHosemsom mo emesossm eHmmHm .4 musesm Heuoa mo ese3osM 304 «sexsez sH eEHB seas04 .4 mesoum uemssD mo wsesosm 304 measem astoo0 mo semesossm sseEeoeHmem .0 «meHnesso uHoseesom mo emesossm eHasHm .m seuHo .4 msemmdsm esosm ebHsoesH .HHH .HH «measem.mst000 mo semesosss eEHBIumsHm .4 eesosm Hence no ese3osM saHm «measem astooo mo semesossm esHensmsHm .m meHsesso uHoseesom mo memesosssuHsHsz .4 musesm Hence no ese30sM saHx *sexsez sH esHB sessOSm .4 eesosm uemssD mo mse30sM smHm measem astoo0 mo semesossm eEHBIsmsHm .0 h....weHsesss uHosemsom mo memesosssuHsHsz .m _mmmmmmm .4 msemmdsm esosm e>Huo4 .HHH .HH 300 .eHthes4 eHseHse> useusemes Hess use eHseHse> sseusemeusH Hess use eHasHm esu sosm measem astooo mo esemesossm mo eHHmosmII.mHlm essaHm semesosse sosuosm eHasHm .4 eesosm use musesm Hesoe mo msesosM 304 semesossm useseoeHmem .m eoseuHmem se msee» e>Hm se>o .4 mesoum use musesm uemssD mo ese3osM 304 semesossm useseoeHmem .m ees4 sexsez sH mseew me se>o .4 msemmosm esosm use usesm e>HsoesH .HHH .HH semesossm sosuosmleHsz .4 mesosm use musesm Hence no ese30sM saHm semesossm eEHBIsmsHm .m eoseuHeem se eme4 so msee» e>Hm .4 mesoum use musesm ueessD mo ese3osM saHm HOWMEOHE OEHBIHMHHW om MON“ UOXHMZ Gfl mmwfl HO mHMOH Kunm ofl msemmosm esosm use usesm e>Hs04 .HHH .HH 301 firm. The findings showed that consumer characteristics are related to those buyers who are more apt or less apt to shop for brands and/or stores and to know about brands and/or stores. The findings tended frequently to be product-specific which means that it is often a fruitless, misleading task to lump all household durables into one group and can be misleading even to combine products into brown goods or into white goods for analysis. The consumer profiles developed for the dependent variable and individual products can easily be adapted for application by the producer and reseller. The strength of the independent variables was the common availability of published data from the census, county planning centers, and other sources for individual markets. Once the firm were to know the number of people in the relevant geographa ical market(s) corresponding to the.independent variable, then the firm can begin by using the proportions from the original tables to find the probable number of potential buyers with the specific characteristic(s) and with the probable shopping behaviors and/or with the probable know- ledge levels. If the firm has the funds to conduct its own market research and has to know about its specific channel--product--market, then the business firm can begin with these independent variables which were more fruitful in this study. This research is ambase—line study to build upon by those producers and resellers attempting to reach potential buyers of major household durables. 302 Research Results and Marketing Theory This major section encompasses the relationship of empirical findings to marketing theory. In particular, this section relates empirical data to current consumer product classifications used in marketing, discusses the long-run market trends on brand and store shopping activi- ties, and relates the research to marking practice. The section is organized into (1) shopping activity and pro- duct classifications, (2) market trends: a comparison among researches on brand and store shopping behaviors over time, and (3) strategic marketing planning. Shopping Activity and Product Classifications The empirical research on shopping behaviors focused on the amount of brand and store shopping of purchasers of household durable goods. According to some product theories, household durable goods would be a priori classified as products which consumers would exert considerable amount of time and effort to conduct product and/or store compari- sons before purchasing. This conclusion would be evident according to Copeland's shopping goods,3 Aspinwall's yellow goods,4 and Miracle's Group III products.5 This conclusion could not be prOposed as easily from Holton's definitions of products because the definitions are centered on the consumer's evaluation of the value of extra shopping activity.6 Therefore, any specific product could be labeled as convenience goods or shopping goods depending upon the prospective buyer. This conclusion is also not warranted 303 according to Bucklin's definitions of types of products and of stores since the definitions are centered on the con— sumer's preference map and search predispositions7 which are ambiguous for classifying specific products unless research were undertaken, preferably before purchase, to delineate consumers' preference maps. Therefore, three f product theories offer the possibility of concluding a priori for specific products and two product theories do not offer this theoretical result without ambiguity. Given the findings presented previously, the theoretical frameworks presented by Copeland, Aspinwall, and Miracle appear not to be able to handle well household durable goods. Since approximately one—half of the pur— '3chasers for specific subsets of household durable goods were active brand and store shoppers and oneshalf of the buyers were inactive shoppers, the products overlap the categories presented by the authors. Copeland's threevway classification of products into convenience, shopping, and speciality goods is not too workable for household durables because the post—transaction results suggest that household durables do not fit closely into one of the classifications but fit several classifications. Aspinwall's yellow goods appeared to represent household durables rather well, except contradictory to the theory, many consumers find that is frequently not worthwhile to actively search for alternatives. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the number of active comparisons is positively related 304 to the amount of time and effort expended. Miracle's Group III products were supposed to include household appliances and television sets. In his framework one attribute was time and effort in shopping which for Group III products was "medium" relative to "very low" and "low" for Groups I and II respectively and to "high" and "very high" for Groups IV and V respectively. A good proportion of the shoppers in this study did not compare any alterna- tives—-brands or stores—~but purchased a brand from a store. This finding suggests the surrogate measure of time and effort, the number of alternatives compared, is "very low" because one can not get any lower than no comparisons of brands or stores. This description describes Group I products. Household durables are apparently not categoriz- able as a group based upon the above product attributes due to the wide range of behavior associated with purchas- ing these products. Either the theory needs to be modi— fied to include market segments or the marketing man needs to overlook major deviations in the theory while cone cluding that the theory is still helpful since the theories represent ideal attributes (i.e., attributes with clear, clean categories). Since Bucklin and Holton's definitions do not result in a priori predictions on the products, conclusions above can not be readily applied. However, if purchasers of specific products can not be categorized a priori for predictive purposes, then serious questions can be raised on the efficacy of the theory to the market— ing man. 305 The research findings, however, do shed additional insight into the goods—store matrix conceptualized by Bucklin.8 Bucklin suggested that certain cells could be distinguished by the preference maps of potential pur— chasers. The product-store matrix is adapted and presented in Figure.5-19. The matrix can be applied to these research data if the data after the purchase were indictative of the pre-purchase preference maps. The assumption of no difference between the start of the decision—making process and its problem resolution by purchasing can be challenged because of the conceivable changes from one theoretical cell to another cell by potential buyers prior to purchases because of inhibitors to the transaction. For example, a potential buyer originally in the specialty goods-— speciality stores cell (X4) might find that the preferred store, carrying the preferred brand, is out-of-stock of the chosen brand. Therefore, the potential buyer, assum- ing a transaction will take place, would usually revaluate the evoked sets of brands and stores and (l) delay pur- chase until the preferred brand arrives, (2) revaluate the evoked set of brands and select another brand, if the store carries other brands, from the preferred store, (3) revaluate the evoked set of stores and purchase the pre« ferred brand at another store, or (4) revaluate the evoked sets of brands and stores and select a new brand and a new store. From the example it is obvious that the model, as stated, is unable to handle changes over time prior to 306 .vmumm .sm .AmemH .ssmscmnc HH>xx esOeHsem300 esosm use usesm aHso esOmHsemsoo esosm NHsO msOmHsemsoo usesm mseeesossm asHmmosm oz sessms00 mo sOHseOHmHeeeH0 esp use haesessm HHesem= .sHonsm .m mHso4 .stuez mmsoumuumeooo ex asHsoseem oz N3 asHsoseem esoum «x asHsoseem oz N» asHsoseem usesm N asHSUseem esosm use usesm Hs asHsoseem usesm mx asHsoseem oz H3 asHsoseem esosm Hx asHsoseem oz theHoemm asHmmosm mesosm eoseHse>so0 .awHuexsez mo Hesssou =.euoo0 Boss ueQOHe>eu me3 stses ese: oneuu.mHum «spasm seHHeHoesm asHmmosm eoseHse>s00 esosuosm 307 purchase. The time dynamics are beyond the scope of this particular research but do offer research opportunities. Given the assumption of no difference, then the empirical data canbe categorized according to the degree of shopping activity hypothesized from the application of the model. The empirical data suggested that four of the nine cells contained relatively few household durable goods' buyers. Two of these cells are the shopping goods—— convenience stores cell (Y1) and the shopping goods—— speciality stores cell (Y2). These cells in combination accounted for 12 per cent of the brown goods buyers and 5 per cent of the white goods purchasers. The other two cells are the convenience goods'—shopping stores cell (W1) and the speciality goods-~shopping stores cell (W2); these two categories contained 4.5 per cent of the buyers of brown goods and 7 per cent of the purchasers of white goods. The four cells, signiinng convenience products-- convenience stores (X1), speciality goods——convenience stores (X2), convenience goods-—specialty stores (X3), and specialty goods--speciality stores (X4), accounted for 27 per cent of the buyers of brown goods and 51 per cent of the buyers of white goods. If the purchasers in the aggregate were equally distributed among these four cells, then the proportion per cell is not large for brown goods. The remaining cell describing shopping goods-~shopping stores (Z), accounted for 56 per cent of the purchasers of brown goods and 37 per cent of the buyers of white goods 308 (Table 5—1). For major household durables this latter category is the largest on relative size, but it may not be the most important based on potential market responses to a firm's marketing mix since the firm will need to first determine in which ce11(s) its target market should be placed according to the model. ‘1‘ Although the above figures were more examples than substantial proof on the power of the goods—vstores matrix, the proportions illustrated the differences between pure chasers of different product types. The relatively small proportions in the brand shopping only cells and in the store shopping only cells questioned the need in market research to pursue brand shoppers only or store shoppers only unless a company is predicting for large aggregations of consumers. The largest proportion for brand and store shopping might be unintentionally inflated because of the possibility of consumers moving into that cell after begin— ning the purchasing process. TABLE 5rl.--An Empirical Data for the Goods--Store Matrix. Cells Brown Goods White Goods‘ l. O , 2’“ 27.3% 50.6% 1=1 2 , 2"” 12.2 5.0 i=1 2 , 2‘” 4.5 7.0 1=l Z 56.0 37.4 Total 100.0% ' 100.0% (n=132) (n=99) 309 Market Trends: 'A ComparisopgAmongResearchers on Brand and Store Shopping Behaviors Over Time This section summarizes the results from several empirical researches on brand shopping activity and store shopping activity of buyers and household durables. The results from this study are compared on the same products to the published results reported by Coolsen,9 Dommera muth,lo and Bruce and Dommermuth.ll If variations in behaviors existed between this research and one or more of the above researches, then the differences were statis— tically tested with a test of difference between two pros portions. A difference was considered significant at plus or minus 1.96 standard errors or more which results in a .05 level or better of alpha confidence. The results are summarized by product for major household durables in Table 5’2 for brand shopping behaviors and Table 5-3 for store shopping behaviors. Brand Shopping Actiyity.nnThe extensiveness of brand shopping activity by purchasers varied considerably among the research studies on refrigerators, cooking ranges, all white goods, and televisions. Three studies were compared for refrigerators. In 1962 Coolsen found that 32 per cent of his sample considered and purchased only one brand and 68 per cent examined two or more brands prior to buying. In 1965 Dommermuth found that 41 per cent of his sample examined and purchased only one brand and 59 per cent examined two 311) TABLE 5- 2.--A Summary of Major Research Findings on Brand Shopping Activity for Major Household Appliances. Number of Brands Product Researcher n Single Brand % Totals Considered and Multi-Brands Purchased Considered Refri erators Coolsena'bd 98 31.60 68.40 100.0 9 Donmermuth 152 41.4 58.6 100. o Sibley 71 49.3 50.7 100.0 Washers Dommermuth 181 60.5 39.5 100.0 4‘ Sibley 79 64.6 35.4 100.0 E Dryers Sibley 63 57.1 42.9 100.0 Washers and/or Coolsen 1278 34.6 65.4 100.0 * Dryers Sibley 142 61.3 ' 38.7 100.0 Washers or W Dryers Sibley 58 63.8 36.2 100.0 Cooking Ranges Coolsen 35 42.8 57.2 100.0 Sibley 35 57.1 42.9 100.0 Refrigerators, f Washers, Coolsen 260e 34.6 65.4 100.0 Dryers, Sibley 248 57.3 42.7 100.0 and/or Ranges Refrigerator, washer, or Dryer Sibley 99 57.6 42.4 100.0 Dommermuth 204 49.4 50.6 100.0 Televisions Bruce and Dommermuthg 891 62 .o 38 .0 100.0 Sibleyh 132 27.0 73.0 100.0 aFrank G. Coolsen, The Consumer Market for Major Appliances in the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area (Washington, D.C.: The American University School of Business Administration Publication Series, Marketing Studies, 1962). b I I Coolsen combined refrigerators and freezer purchases. cRead: Of the total purchasers of refrigerators 31.6 per cent con- sidered and shopped one brand, including the purchased brand, and 68.4 per cent shopped for two or more brands, including the purchased brand. dWilliam P. Dommermuth, "The Shopping Matrix and Marketing Strategy," Journal of Marketing Research, II (May, 1965), pp. 129-130. eThe n in this case refers to the product purchases instead of different purchasers. fCoolsen's results on all white goods include freezers. gGrady D. Bruce and William P. Dommermuth, "Social Class Differ- ences in Shopping Activities," Marquette Business Review, XII (Spring, 1968), p. 6. h I I Purchasers of color telev1510ns only were researched. 311. TABLE 5— 3.--A Summary of Major Research Findings on Store Shopping Activity for Major Household Appliances. Number of Stores Product Resear her n Totals C Single-Store Multi-Stores % Consigered Consigered . a b b Refrigerators Dommermuth 152 42.4 57.6 100.0 Sibley 71 47.9 52.1 100.0 Washers Dommermuth 181 62.4 37.6 100.0 Sibley 79 63.3 36.7 100.0 Dryers Sibley 63 61.9 38.1 100.0 Washers and/or c Dryers Sibley 142 62.7 37.3 100.0 Washers or Dryers Sibley 58 63.8 36.2 100.0 Cooking Ranges Sibley 35 57.1 42.9 100.0 Refrigerators Washers, Dryers, d and/or Coolsen ’9 366 39.6 60 .4 100.0 Ranges Sibley 248C 57.7 42.3 100.0 Refrigerator, Washer, or Dryer Sibley 99 55.6 44.4 100.0 Televisions Dommermuth 204 58.3 41.7 100.0 Bruce & Dommermuthf 891 62 .0 38.0 100.0 Sibleyg 132 39.4 60.6 100.0 aWilliam P. Dommermuth, "The Shopping Matrix and Marketing Strategy," Journal of Marketinngesearch, II (May, 1965), pp. 199—130. bRead: Of the total purchasers of refrigerators 42.4 per cent considered one store, including the store purchased from, and 57.6 per cent considered two or more stores, including the store purchased from. c . . . In this case n refers to product purchases instead of different purchasers. d . Freezers and dishwashers were included in Coolsen's study. eFrank G. Coolsen, The Consumer Market for Major Appliances in the Washington, D. C. Metropolitan Area (Washington, D.C.: The American University School of Business Administration Publication Series, Marketing Studies, 1962). f . . . . Grady D. Bruce and William P. Dommermuth, "Soc1al Class Differ- ences in Shopping Activities," Marquette Business Review, XII (Spring, 1968), p. 6. gPurchasers of Color televisions only were studied. 312 or more brands before purchasing. The results from the current study suggested that 49 per cent of the sample examined and bought one brand and 51 per cent examined multi-brands before selecting a brand. The difference in percentages from the earliest study to the current one is 17 per cent for either the one brand examiner and buyer or the multi—brand consider and buyer. The difference between Coolsen's results and the current study’s findings was found to be statistically significant at < .02. Similar results can be also reported on brand shopping for purchasers of washers and dryers and of white goods. The difference of 26 per cent between Coolsen's study and the present one for washers and dryers was statistically significant at the < .001 level of confidence. The proportions of buyers for all white goods were also quite different between the studies. The 22 per cent difference between Coolsen's study and the present one on white goods was significant at better than < .001. Two products, washers and cooking ranges, had differences in purchaser brand shopping behaviors, but the differences could have happened by chance. From the significant differences found between the studies on refrigerators, laundry durables, and all white goods a number of possible explanations can be suggested. The major reasons for the behavioral variation could include: (1) regional differences in shopper brand behaviors, (2) consumer behavioral changes over time between 313 the earliest study (1962) and the latest one (1972), (3) the movement from one stage in the product life—cycle to a subsequent stage for each of the products, and (4) socioeconomic or demographic differences other than geographical location of residence. The differences in brand shopping behavior might contain a location bias. Coolsen conducted his research in Washington, D.C., this research was completed in Lansing, Michigan, but Dommermuth's location was not reported. No evidence exists to measure this potential bias. Dommermuth's study, which was conducted between 1962 and 1972 supports the contention that the differences in shopping behaviors are likely market trends without being dependent upon the geographical location of the market. However, at this time the only possible conclusion is that the variation could be because of the geographical locations of the samples but not very likely. The time differences and consumer differences could be the general reason for the variation. Shopping behavior in other research studies tend to show that the time variable is frequently an important factor. An example is the differences in behaviors of purchasers of product innovations according to the relative earliness or latev ness of adoption from the time the innovation is introduced.12 The reasons for less shopping in 1972 and 1962 could stem (1) from greater customer satisfaction from a previous purchase(s), (2) perceptions by purchasers of 314 better product quality and/or services for current brands of white goods, (3) greater use of consumer testing reports (e.g., Consumer Reports), (4) increasing affluence making the purchase of household white goods a less important purchase in the households' total purchases, (5) the greater availability of retail credit which could cause consumers needing financial retail assistance to forego brand alternatives at those retail sources of supply who did not offer this service or offered this service but were stringent in its use, (6) the belief that brands for these products are basically the same except for slight differences, and (7) other reasons based on the marketing mix variables of channel members. The changes in the stages in the product life“ cycle (e.g., from the growth stage to the market maturity stage) has particular appeal also for the explanation of differences. If the 1960's were characterized by rapidly increasing sales, increasing profits, and the emergence of new brand competitors, then these appliances were in the growth stage of the product life-cycle. Evidence cited in Applicance Manufacturer on sales results in units for these products from 1965-1969 suggested that the sales increased very slowly for three of the four products. The sales of refrigerators in 1965 were 4.7 million units and in 1969 were 5.3 million units; the sales for cooking ranges in 1965 were 4.3 million and in 1969 were 4.8 million units; the sales for automatic 315 washers in 1965 were 3.8 million units and in 1969 were 4.1 million units; and the sales of dryers were 2.0 million units in 1965 and were 3.0 million units in 1969.13 The only exception to the relatively small changes in annual unit sales was the dryer. Based upon limited statistics on unit sales, a reasonable conclusion is that three of the four products were in the late growth stage or the market maturity stage of the product life-cycle. An expected result of this stage is the lack of brand shopping activity by consumers because of the belief that the remaining brands in the market are basically the same with only minor differences. The final explanation which appeared plausible is demographic differences among purchasers composing the samples. Dommermuth stated that his sample was homogeneous on geographical location and to some degree on socioeconomic characteristics, but no description of his sample other than shopping behaviors was given. Coolsen's sample classified by the number of family members was quite similar to the family member distribution in this sample for recent and non—recent purchasers (see Table 5’4). The other variables, however, might not be as consistent between the two studies. Household applicance purchasing has definitely changed in the last ten years. The possible explanations all have some merit to explain why there were substantial variations mainly between Coolsen's study and the current 316 TABLE 5-4.-—The Number of Family Members of Two Samples on Appliance Purchasing. Number of Family Members 7 or 1 2 3 4 5 6 more Total Coolsen 12 107 73 82 44 17 24 359 3.4% 30.1% 20.3% 22.8% 12.3% 4.7% 6.7% 100.3%* Sibley 91 264 169 174 99 52 29 878 10.4% 30.1% 19.3% 19.8% 11.3% 5.9% 3.4% 100.2%* *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth. research. The changing consumer behaviors could result from one or more of the factors discussed previously. Televisions.~-The second major product area was brown goods. Significant differences were found between the reported brand shopping activity in the current study and the two studies by Dommermuth and Bruce and Dommermuth. The wide differences are probably attributed mainly to the Operational definitions of televisions. The other two researches studied purchasing of all televisions, mono“ chrome and color. The current study focused solely on color televisions. If compared to black and white tele- visions, color televisions are relatively a more recent product innovation with a relatively higher price which alone could account for the differences. In addition, color television purchasing is probably tempered (l) by the perceived changes in technology, (2) by the product 317 reliability and service cost problems associated with some television brands in the past, (3) by perceivable product differences in brands, (4) by the interest by some consumers in obtaining as much as possible for the dollar, and (5) perhaps by the belief all brands are alike but the stores are not. In this latter case, brand shopping is really store shopping in disguise. In the process the purchaser has likely surveyed a large range of brands but has engaged in little real comparison since the consumer in actuality was concerned more with the store than the brand. Once a store was selected, then the purchaser selected a brand sold by the store. These reasons and others would account for the greater brand shopping activity associated with buyers of color televisions only than with buyers of color or monochrome television. Store Shopping Activity.—«The results for refrigerators and for automatic washers concerning store shopping activity were quite similar in Dommermuth's study and this one. For example, Dommermuth found that 42 per cent of his sample were one store shoppers for refrigerators, and this researcher found that 48 per cent of the sample were in the same category. In addition, Dommermuth found that 62 per cent of his sample were one store shoppers for washing machines, and this researcher found that 63 per cent of the sample were also single store shoppers for automatic washing machines. Coolsen found that 40 per cent of his 318 sample were oneustore shoppers for white goods including freezers, and this researcher found that 58 per cent of the sample were single store shoppers for white goods excluding freezers. The difference in proportions was significant at better than the .001 level. The possible reasons for the differences are for the most part the same reasons given for the differences on brand shopping activity. An additional reason could be consumers deciding to purchase a particular brand first and then deciding upon the source of supply. Decisions on brand choice would appear to lead decisions on store choice for heterogeneous products, but whether there is a significant trend in the process over time is difficult to conclude without further research. In addition, the store decision could likely lead the brand decision for homogeneous products in the market maturity stage of the product lifercycle. The extent of store shopping activity was also, as brand shopping, significantly different at the .001 level or better between the current study and the studies by Dommermuth and Bruce and Dommermuth. Again the differences are probably the result of the operational definitions of televisions. These research results do emphasize that televisions need to be considered at a ndnimum as two categories and should likely be researched in multi-categories, for example, portable versus console 319 televisions, color versus monochrome, or combination enter- tainment centers versus freestanding televisions. Summagy.vaThe evidence among several studies suggest longwrun market trends on the shopping behaviors of white goods' purchasers. Consumers are today more brand inactive shoppers and more store inactive shoppers for these indie vidual products. The same trends might have been apparent for brown goods providing the same operational definitions had been used. The possible reasons for the behavioral differences over time for selected products were numerous. In addiv tion, the reasons for this difference reflect probably a longer run trend than 10 years as the products move through the product life-cycle and as many consumers move (1) from the extensive problem solving stage either to the limited problem solving stage or to the routinized response stage or (2) from the limited problem solving stage to the routinized response stage. In other words, for many household appliance purchasers the problem of selecting a brand or source of a supply is probably no longer a major problem and at best a minor problem. Strategic Marketing Planning The research has demonstrated the possibility of separating a heterogeneous market into more homogeneous submarkets resulting from the analysis of shopping 320 behaviors and knowledge levels associated with demographic and related independent variables. If the manufacturer and reseller adopted the market segmentation concept, then the research findings may be applicable for strategic and tactical planning by the firm's executives. The research findings appear to be useful when the firm is producing and/or selling household durables, when the objective is to penetrate existing markets, when the objective is to extend into new markets with existing products, and when the firm is monitoring current markets for future actions and reactions. The possible major strategies are geographical market extension and market penetration in current geOv graphical markets. The first strategic possibility involves mainly (1) domestic producers in foreign markets, (2) domestic producers aspiring to expand internationally, (3) foreign producers in the domestic market, or (4) companies desiring to enter the domestic market. The second strategic possibility involves, more so than the first one, domestic producers selling in the domestic market, but it also includes domestic producers in foreign markets and foreign producers in domestic markets. The manufacturer of brown goods or white goods should consider the possible major strategic alternatives for the marketing variables. However, not all of the marketing variables are equal for potential implementation. The product variable is a good example where very little 321 change, other than minor innovations and adaptions, can be expected for color television sets or for white goods. The other variables of promotion, distribution, and perhaps pricing are more apt to offer greater value as judged by the market segment's probable responses and to enhance more fully the successfulness of the firm concern— ing the two primary strategies for increased profits. The foundation for marketing planning has to be recognition of the demographic and behavioral differences among purchasers of white goods and brown goods and of the close association between brand shopping and store shopping by prospective customers across products. The first con- sideration was discussed in previous sections of this chapter. The second consideration implies the necessity of brand-store planning by producers and resellers for mutual beneficial actions in the market place. In fact, in only restricted situations can the business enterprise focus completely on brand planning or store planning. Although this conclusion is far from a revelation, it does support the apparent necessary but difficult tasks of planning, executing, and coordinating channel behaviors. Producers or resellers might already have a target market(s) which could be called the core market segment. The producers or resellers could still attempt to cater to the fringe market segments, namely these additional segment(s) which tends to be active or inactive shoppers. The level of unused knowledge has a direct bearing on the 322 fringe market segment(s) definition(s) since it would seem particularly useful to pursue the high knowers unless this group was composed of too few prospects. This conclusion ties in with other research on consumers who are most likely to be aware of a new product, and this same con— clusion may be warranted for older, more established products. For purposes of discussion the separation of prospective customers into active shoppers and inactive shoppers would be useful with the realization that these targets can be further defined by the demographic characP teristics. One strategic plan would be the attempt to attract the active shopper. Producers and resellers in the channel would need to emphasize personal selling at retail over producer or retail advertising since this potential customer is viewing the purchasing situation as extensive problem solving. These prospects must be persuaded either to return to the retail establishment after further brand and store comparisons or to discontinue the search process at this time by purchasing. The former persuasion problem for the salesman may be less difficult to accomplish than the latter persuasion problem. Both persuasion problems, however, will require competent salesmen who have excellent knowledge of competitive brands and stores, can present themselves as consumer problem solvers, and have empathetic 323 abilities. Advertising in this situation plays a suppor- tive but informative role so active shoppers can make comparisons of brands and stores. Advertising which emphasizes persuasive but weak informational points or reminders to active shoppers would appear to be less effective on the active buyer. The channel strategy in this situation would likely be exclusive or selective distribution since the active shopper would probably exert special efforts (distance traveled and time) to compare product--store offerings. If the channel leader were the manufacturer or the retailer, then this firm should probably seek a retailer in the former case or a manufacturer in the latter case whereby the retail . outlet would be the exclusive dealer or one of very few dealers in a geographical territory. In short, instead of widespread availability of the brand in the geographical market, the emphasis should be on the quality of the retail people and the reputation of the retail outlet in the market. If this shopper can be satisfied, then he might become an inactive shopper with brand and store loyalty for purchases of related products. The changing of the active shopper into an inactive loyal shopper should be the next goal of these firms seeking market stability. This conclusion implies prudent postvtransaction communie cations and product servicing to reinforce the previous purchasing decision. 324 Producers and resellers attempting to attract those prospects who are relatively inactive brand and store shoppers need to rely more on producer and reseller adver— tising and less on retail personal selling than the firms approaching the active shoppers. Advertising, playing a primary role, needs to be persuasive for the undecideds and reminder for the loyal customers. Although retail salesmen still play an important role in closing the transaction, these salesmen probably do not need to be as competent in general as the salesmen who are communicating to the active shoppers. If a producer were to center upon the non—loyal inactive shopper, then there should be an emphasis upon intensive distribution of the brands since many of these customer prospects probably will exert very little total shopping effort before deciding and purchasing. Future Research A number of potentially useful researchable areas are related to this study. These projects relate primary to utilizing key independent and intervening variables, to furthering the knowledge on the market segments, and to analyzing market responses resulting from changes in the marketing mix. One research possibility is a replication of this study with a larger sample size to be able to analyze the purchasing groups who were brand active and store inactive 325 shoppers or were brand inactive and store active shoppers. Too few respondents were categorized into these two groups for comparisons and contrasts with the brand and store inactive group and the brand and store active group. Another replicative study is longitudinal where either respondents used in this study are requestioned to check on consistency of results over time and the reasons for inconsistencies, if any, or new respondents are interviewed to determine what changes are taking place in the market place. One research approach which has not been attractive to most marketing researchers is experimentation. Four potentially useful general experiments include (1) implee menting selective changes in the marketing variables and studying the responses between active and inactive brand and/or store shoppers, (2) comparing the productivity (completed sales) between retail salesmen who attempt to select out active and inactive shoppers and to tailor their presentation to the specific type of shopper and salesmen who do not attempt to group customers into actives or inactives, and (3) comparing outputs to input between geographical areas where at least two situations are compared by implementing the planned marketing mix in one area and comparing the results in a matched area by dir— ecting the promotion to potentially profitable submarkets, such as first time buyers, intracity mobiles and/or inter- city mobiles, among others. 326 Additional research for different products than the ones analyzed in this study appears to be warranted for extending our knowledge on buyer behaviors and product attributes. Since many of the independent variables which distinguished purchasing groups were productvrelated, other products traditionally labeled within a broad product classification may need revaluation. Also, more research comparing lower and higher valued (priced) products with consumer behavior for the purpose of adding to the reported research in the literature could be helpful. In addition to the above possible researches, the influ« ence of environmentally related independent variables on purchasers' behavior and knowledge seems to be relevant ' for products related to the environment. Although low unit prices products such as soda pop, beer, and deter- gent products, or high unit priced products, such as automobiles, are frequently mentioned as environmental problem areas, among others one product—nthe washing machine—~could also fall into the environmentally charged category. Some intervening variables which could have utility for explaining shopping activity include (1) the degree and type of satisfaction with past purchases by the replacement buyer for the same product and for different products with the same family brand name, (2) the amount, type, and recall from information searches, and (3) types of stores visited and the number of visits to the same store. 327 A comprehensive research project includes the analysis of the triggering effect of specific inputs for specific responses by purchasers. For this latter pro- ject it seems that consumers might respond in a particular way on brand and/or store shopping because of a key input, such as a statement from a friend, a well received telev vision commercial or perhaps just the announcer on a television commercial. This concept, of course, does not reject the usual conclusion that behavior is a function of a number of a variety of stimuli but does accept the idea that stimuli can be ordered in importance and pro— bably one stimulus acts more than others to evoke the specific response. Mesa The research accomplished several major objectives for assisting the marketing theoretician and practitioner. 'The research demonstrated rather conclusively that demo- graphic variables can still be used for separating a heterogeneous market into more homogeneous markets. The research showed that purchasers of household durables can lbe separated into more homogeneous groups by analyzing -the size (1) of the shopping sets of brands, stores, and lorands and stores, (2) of the unused sets of brands, stores, auid brands and stores, and (3) of the total knowledge of sets of brands, stores, brands and stores. The research demonstrated the potential fruitfulness of separating kniyers based on the combination of shopping activity and 328 unused knowledge in association with selected independent variables for the application by the firm interested in product-channel behavioral systems. Additional findings reported in the study included the efficacy of the independent variables across products and within products. The relationship of the empirical findings to product typologies resulted in serious ques— tioning of the present product classifications. Long-run market trends of less consumer shopping for white goods were evident in the market place. FOOTNOTES—-CHAPTER 5 1W. A. Belson, "Techniques for Measuring the Effects of Exposure to the Mass Media," Business Review of the London School of Economics and Political Science TMay, l961)ffiand W. A. Belson, "Matching and Prediction on the Principle of Biological Classification," A lied Statistics, VIII (June, 1959), pp. 65—75, cited in John B. Stewart, Repetitive Advertising in Newspapers: A Study of Two New Products (Boston: Harvard University), p. 89. 21bid., pp. 89-93. 3Melvin T. Copeland, "Relation of Consumers' Buying Habits to Marketing Methods," Harvard Business Review, I (April, 1923), pp. 282-285. 4Leo Aspinwall, "The Characteristics of Goods and Parallel Systems Theories," in Eugene J. Kelley and 'William Lazer (ed.), Managerial Marketing: Perspgctives and VieWpoints (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1958), pp. 437—441. 5Gordon B. Miracle, "Product Characteristics and Marketing Strategy," Journal of Marketing, XXIX (January, 6Richard H. Holton, "The Distinction Between Convenience Goods, Shopping Goods, and Speciality Goods," Journal of Marketing, XXIII (July, 1958), pp. 53-54. 7 Classification of Consumer Goods, XXVII (January, 1963), pp. 53-54. 8 Louis P. Bucklin, "Retail Strategy and the " Journal of Marketing, Ibid. 9Frank G. Coolsen, The Consumer Market for Major Applicances in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area (Washington, D.C.: The American University School of Business Administration Publication Series--Marketing Studies, 1962). 329 330 10William P. Dommermuth, "The Shopping Matrix and Marketing Strategy," Journal of Marketing Research, II 11Grady D. Bruce and William P. Dommermuth, "Social Class Differences in Shopping Activities," Marquette Business Review, XII (Spring, 1968), pp. 1—7] - 12Note: For brand shopping activity similar con- clusions for innovations could emerge on the inactivity of brand shopping for the innovator and early adopter for innovations but for a vastly different reason. For example, the early purchaser of a product innovation could be classified as an inactive brand shopper but the reason could be the lack of brand alternatives in the market place which is certainly quite different than the situation where a relatively larger number of brand alternatives were in the market place but the purchaser decided for a one or a variety of reasons not to compare actively the brand alternatives. Thus, the degree of newness of a product and the number of alternatives certainly should be factors to take into consideration for certain products. 13"Econographics," Appliance Manufacturer, XVIII BI BLIOGRAPHY 331 BIBLIOGRAPHY Articles Akers, Fred C. "Negro and White Automobile--Buying Behavior: New Evidence," Journal of Marketing Research, V (August, 1968), pp. 283~290. Alpert, Lewis and Gatty, Ronald. "Product Positioning by Behavioral Life-Styles." Journal of Marketing, XXXIII (April, 1969): Pp. 35—39. Andreason, Alan R. "Geographic Mobility and Market Segmentation." Journal of Marketing Research, III (November, 1966), pp. 341—348. Appel, David L. "Market Segmentation—«A Response to Retail Innovation." Journal of Marketing, XXXIV (April, 1970), pp. 64-67. Aspinwall, Leo. "The Characteristics of Goods and Parallel Systems Theories." In Eugene J. Kelley and William Lazer (eds.), Managerial Marketing: Pers ectives and Viewpoints. Homewood, Illinois: RicEard D. Irw1n, Inc., 958, pp. 434—450. Assael, Henry. "Segmenting Markets by Group Purchasing Behavior: An Application of the AID Technique." Journal of Marketing Research, VII (May, 1970), pp. 153-158. Assael, Henry and Wilson, C. E. "Integrating Consumer and In-store Research to Evaluate Sales Results." Journal of Marketing, XXXVI (April, 1972), pp. 40—45. "The Awesome Potential of In-Home Selling." Sales Manage- ment, CVI (April 15, 1971), pp. 27-BOL Bauer, Raymond A.; Cunningham, Scott M.; and Wortzel, Lawrence H. "The Marketing Dilemma of Negroes." Journal of Marketing, XXIX (July, 1965), pp. 1-6. 332 333 Barnett, Norman L. "Beyond Market Segmentation." Harvard Business Review, XLVII (January—February, 1 , pp. i523166. Bass, Frank M.; Pessemier, Edgar A.; and Tigert, Douglas. "Complementary and Substitute Patterns of Pur- chasing and Use." Journal of Advertising Research, IX (June, 1969), pp. 19-27. Bass, Frank M.; Tigert, Douglas J.; and Lonsdale, Ronald T. "Market Segmentation: Group Versus Individual Behavior." Journal of Marketin Research, V (August, 1968), PP. 264-270. Beldo, Leslie A. "What Customer Profiles Don't Tell You About Who's Buying Your Product." In Lynn H. Stockman (ed.), Advancing Marketinngfficienc . Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1 59, pp. 132—134. Bell, James E., Jr. "Mobiles--A Neglected Market Segment." Journal of Marketing, XXXIII (April, 1969), pp. 37—44. Bell, William E. "Consumer Innovators: A Unique Market for Newness." In Stephen A. Greyser (ed.), Toward Scientific Marketing. Chicago: American Market- ing Association, 1963, pp. 85-95. Benson, Purnell H. "Psychometric Procedures in the Analysis of Market Segmentation." In Henry Gomez (ed.), Innovation--Key to Marketing Progress. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1963, pp. 63-83. Blankertz, D. F. "Shopping Habits and Income: A Phila— delphia Department Store Study." Journal of Marketing, XIV (January, 1950), pp. 572-578. Boone, Louis E. and Bonno, John A. "Food Buying Habits of the Urban Poor." Journal of Retailing, XLVII (Fall, 1971), pp. 79-84. Bowman, Burton F. and McCormick, Frederick E. "Market Segmentation and Marketing Mixes." Journal of Marketing, XXV (January, 1961), pp. 25- . Brandt, Steven C. "Dissecting the Segmentation Syndrome." Journal of Marketing, XXX (October, 1966), PP. 22-27. Breth, Robert D. "The Challenge of Charge Accounts to Discount Merchants." Journal ofigetailing, XL (Winter, 1964-1965), PP. 11-16, 58. 334 Brown, George H. "The Automobile Buying Decision Within the Family." In Nelson N. Foote (ed.), Household Decision-Making. New York: New York UniVersity Press, 1961, pp. 193-199. Bruce, Grady D. and Dommermuth, William P. "Social Class Differences in Shopping Activities." Marquette Business Review, XII (Spring, 1968), pp. 1-7. Bucklin, Louis P. "Retail Strategy and the Classification of Consumer Goods." Journal of Marketing, XXVII (January, 1963), pp. 50-55. . "Testing Propensities to Shop." Journal of Marketing, XXX (January, 1966), pp. 22— 7. Cahalan, Don. "Measuring Newspaper Readership by Telephone: Two Comparisons with Face—to—Face Interviews." Journal of Advertising Research, I (December, 1960), PP. 1—6. Coe, Barbara Davis.» "Private Versus National Preference Among Lower-—and Middle—'Income Consumers." Journal of Retailing, XLVII (Fall, 1971), pp. 6I—72. Cohen, Joel B. "An Interpersonal Orientation to the Study of Consumer Behavior." Journal of Marketin Research, IV (August, 1967), pp. 270v278. Cohen, Louis. "The Level of Consciousness: A Dynamic Approach to the Recall Technique." Journal of Marketinijesearch, III (May, 1966), pp. 142—148. Copeland, Melvin T. "Relation of Consumers' Buying Habits to Marketing Methods." Harvard Business Review, I (April, 1923), pp. 282-289. Cravens, David W. and Cotham, James C., III. "Characteris- tics and Purchase Preferences of Interstate High- way Travelers." Journal of Retailipg, XLVI (Winter, 1970—1971), PP. 58-68. (Cunningham, Ross M. ‘"Customer Loyalty to Store and Brand." Harvard Busipess Review, XXXIX (November-December, REIT. pp. 127-137. <2unningham, William H. and Crissy, William J. E. "Market Segmentation by Motivation and Attitude." Journal of Marketing Research, IX (February, 1972), pp. 100-102. 335 Day, George S. "A Two—Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty." Journal of Advertising Research, IX (September, 1969), pp. 29—31, 34-35. Day, George S. and Pratt, Robert W., Jr. "Stability of Appliance Brand Awareness." Journal of Marketing Research, VIII (February, 1971), pp. 85-89. Decker, Patricia M. "Color Choices of Older Women: Preferences or Necessities?" Journal of Retailing, XXXIX (Winter, 1963—1964), pp. 16—25. Dodge, H. Robert and Summer, Harry H. "Choosing Between Retail Stores." Journal of Retailing, XLV (Fall, 1969), pp. 11—21. Dommermuth, William P. "The Shopping Matrix and Marketing Strategy." Journal of Marketing Research, II (May, 1965), pp. 128-132. Dommermuth, William P. and Cundiff, Edward W. "Shopping Goods, Shopping Centers, and Selling Strategies." Journal of Marketing, XXXI (October, 1967), pp. 32.-:6 o Eastlack, J. 0., Jr. and Assael, Henry. "Better Telephone Surveys Through Centralized Interviewing." Journal of Advertising Research, VI (March, 1966), pp. 2—7. "Econographics." Appliance Manufacturer: XVIII (March, 1 70), p. I2; Enis, Ben M. and Cox, Keith K. "Demographic Analysis of Store Patronage Patterns: Uses and Pitfalls." In Robert L. King (ed.), Marketing and the New Science of Planning. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1969, pp. 366-370. jEnis, Ben M. and Paul, Gordon W. "'Store Loyalty' as a Basis for Market Segmentation." Journal of Retailing, XLVI (Fall, 1970), pp. 42-56. livans, Franklin B. "Correlates of Automobile Shopping Behavior." Journal of Marketing, XXVI (October, 1962), pp.. 71:77. g___ "Discussion of 'The Strategy of Market Segmentation.'" In Lynn H. Stockman (ed.), Advanc- ing Marketing Efficiency. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1959, pp. 159-165. Ewaldman, Laurence P. "Prediction of the Spatial Pattern of Shopping Behavior." Journal of Retailing, XLIII (Spring, 1967). pp. 25-30, 63. 336 Frank, Ronald E. "But the Heavy Half is Alread the Heavy Half!" In Keith Cox and Ben M. Enis (eds.) A New Measure of Responsibility for Marketing. Chicago: American MarkeEing AssociatiOn, 1968, pp. 172-176. . "Is Brand Loyalty a Useful Basis for Market Segmentation?" Journal of Advertising Research, VII (June, 1967), pp. 27-33. Frank, Ronald E. and Boyd, Harper W., Jr. "Are Private- Brand-Prone Grocery Customers Really Different?" Journal of Advertising Research, V (December, 1965?, pp. 27-35. Frank, Ronald E.; Douglas, Susan P.; and Polli, Rolando E. "Household Correlates of Package-Size Proneness for Grocery Products." Journal of Marketing Research, IV (November, 1967), pp. 381-384. Frank, Ronald E.; Massy, William F.; and Boyd, Harper W.. "Correlates of Grocery Product Consumption Rates." Journal of Marketing Research, IV (May, 1967), pp. 184-190. Frank, Ronald E.; Massy, William F.; and Lodahl, Thomas M. "Purchasing Behavior and Personal Attributes." Journal of Advertisinngesearch, IX (December, 1969), pp. 15-24. Gilkinson, Paul. "What Influences the Buying Decisions of Teen-Agers?" Journal of Retailing, XLI (Fall, 1965), pp. 33-41, 48. Gillett, Peter L. "A Profile of Urban In—Home Shoppers." Journal of Marketing, XXXIV (July, 1970), pp. 40—450 Goeldner, Charles R. and Munn, Henry L. "The Significance of the Retirement Market." Journal of Retailing, XL (Summer, 1964), pp. 43-52, 60. Goldstein, Sidney. "The Aged Segment of the Market, 1950 and 1960." Journal of Marketing, XXXII (April, 1968), pp. 62-68. Gould, John W.; Sigband, Norman E.; and Zoerner, Cyril E., Jr. "Black Consumer Reactions to 'Integrated' Advertising: An Exploratory Study." Journal of Marketing, XXXIV (July, 1970), pp. 20—26. Gottlieb, Morris J. "Segmentation by Personality Types." In Lynn H. Stockman (ed.), Advancing Marketipg Efficiency. Chicago: American Marketing Associa- tion, 1-59, pp. 148-158. 337 Haley, Russel I. and Gatty, Ronald. "Measuring Effective- ness of Television Exposure by Computer." Journal of Advertising Research, IX (September, 1969), pp. 9-12. Haskins, Jack B. "Factual Recall as a Measure of Advertis- ing Effectiveness." Journal of Advertising Research, IV (March, 1964), pp. 2-8. Holton, Richard H. "The Distinction Between Convenience Goods, Shopping Goods, and Specialty Goods."‘ Journal of Marketing, XXIII (July, 1958), pp. 53-56. Judd, Robert C. "Telephone Usage and Survey Research." Journal of Advertisinngesearch, VI (December, 1966). PP. 40-41. Jung, Allen F. "Buying Habits of College Students." Journal of Retailing, XXXVII (Summer, 1961), pp. 23—27, 48. Kildegaard, Ingrid C. "Moving Markets." Journal of Adver- tising Research, VII (March, 1967), pp. 48FS3. Kleimenhagen, Arno K. "Shopping, Specialty, or Convenience Goods?" Journal of Retailing, XLII (Winter, 1966, 1967). pp. 32—39, 63. Koponen, Arthur. "Personality Characteristics of Pur- chasers." Journal of Advertising Research, I (September, 1960), pp. 6-12. Lansing, John B. and Morgan, James N. "Consumer Finances Over the Life Cycle." In Lincoln H. Clark (ed.), Consumer Behavior, II. New York: New York Univer- sity Press, 1955, pp. 36-51. Lazer, William and Bell, William E. "The Communication Process and Innovation." Journal of Advertising Research, VI (September, 1966), pp. 2-7. .Mainer, Robert and Slater, Charles C. "Markets in Motion." Harvard Business Review, XLII (March-April, 1964), pp. 75-82. rdartin, Preston. "Savings and Loans in New Submarkets: Search for Predictive Factors." Journal of Market- ing Research, IV (May, 1967), pp._163-166. Idartineau, Pierre. "It's Time to Research the Consumer." Hagyard Business Review, XXXIII (July-August, 1955), PP. 45-54. 338 . "Social Classes and Spending Behavior." The Journal of Marketing, XXIII (October, 1958), pp. 212—230. Massy, William F. and Frank, Ronald E. "Short Term Price and Dealing Effects in Selected Market Segments." Journal of Marketing Research, II (May, 1965), pp. 171-185. Miracle, Gordon E. "Product Characteristics and Marketing f“‘ Strategy." Journal of Marketing, XXIX (January, 3 1965), pp. 18-24. 1 Moore, David H. "Life Styles in Mobile Surburbia." In Stephen A. Greyser (ed.), Toward Scientific Market— ipg. Chicago: American Marketing Association, x 1963, pp. 151-163. Myers, James H.; Stanton, Roger R.; and Haug, Arne F. "Correlates of Buying Behavior." Journal of Marketing, XXXV (October, 1971), pp. 8-15. Ness, Thomas E. "Innovation in the Building Industry: The Architectural Innovator." In Philip R. McDonald (ed.), Marketing Involvement in Sociepy and the Economy. Chicago: American Marketing ASSOCiation, l9 9, PP. 352-356. Newman, Joseph W. and Staelin, Richard. "Multivariate Analysis of Differences in Buyer Decision Time." Journal of Marketing Research, VIII (May, 1971), pp. 192-198. Ostheimer, Richard H. "The Life Study of Consumer Expendi- tures: Its Implications About Future Consumer Markets." In W. David Robbins (ed.), Successful Marketing at Home and Abroad. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1958, pp. 273—277. Paine, Stanley L. "Some Advantages of Telephone Surveys." Journal of Marketing, XX (January, 1956), pp. 278- 281. :Pessemier, Edgar A.; Burger, Philip C.; and Tigert, Douglas J. "Can New Product Buyers be Identified?" Journal of Marketing Research, IV (November, 1967), pp. 349-354: I?eters, William H. "Relative Occupational Class Income: A Significant Variable in the Marketing of Auto— mobiles." Journal of Marketing, XXXIV (April, 1970) I Pp. 74-77. 339 . "Using MCA to Segment New Car Markets." Journal of Marketing Research, VII (August, 1970), pp. 360-363. Peters, William H. and Ford, Neil M. "A Profile of Urban In-Home Shoppers: The Other Half." Journal of Marketing, XXXVI (January, 1972), pp. 62-64. Rachman, David J. and Kemp, Linda J. "Profile of the Boston Discount House Customer." Journal of Retailing, XXXIX (Summer, 1963), pp. 1—8. Reierson, Curtis C. and Barker, Donald G. "Factors in the Marketing of Ice Cream Products." Journal of Retailing, XLII (Spring, 1966), pp. 44—52, 62. Reinecke, John A. "The 'Older' Market—-Facts or Fiction?" Journal of Marketing, XXVIII (January, 1964), pp. 60-640 Reynolds, William H. and Myers, James H. "Marketing and the American Family." Business Topics, XIV (Spring, 1966), pp. 57-66. Riter, Charles B. "What Influences Purchases of Color Televisions?" Journal of Retailing, XLII (Winter, 1966—1967). pp. 25-31, 63-64. Roberts, Alan A. "Applying the Strategy of Market Segmen- tation." Business Horizons, IV (Fall, 1961), pp. 65—72. Robertson, Thomas S. and Myers, James H. "Personality Correlates of Opinion Leadership and Innovative Buying Behavior." Journal of Marketipg Research, VI (May, 1969), PP. 164-168. Rotzoll, Kim B. "The Effect of Social Stratification on Market Behavior." Journal of AdvertisinggResearch, VII (MarCh, 1967), pp. 22-27. :Schiffman, Leon G. "Perceived Risk in New Product Trial by Elderly Consumers." Journal of Marketing Research, IX (February, 1972), pp. 106-108. Skissors, Jack Z. "What is a Market?" Journal of Marketing, XXX (July, 1966), PP. 17-21. Skelton, Vincent C. "Patterns Behind 'Income Refusals.” Journal of Marketing, XXVII (July, 1963), pp. 38-41. 340 Slocum, John W., Jr.; and Mathews, H. Lee. "Social Class and Income as Indicators of Consumer Credit Behavior." Journal of Marketing, XXXIV (April, 1970), pp. 69-74. Smith, Paul E. "Merchandising for the Teen-Age Market." Journal of Retailing, XXXVII (Summer, 1961), pp. 9-14, 51-55. Smith, Wendell R. "Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies.‘ In Eugene J. Kelly and William Lazer (ed.), Mana- gerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints. Third edition. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1967, pp. 200-203. Stewart, John B. "The Use of Functional Features in Product Strategy." In W. David Robbins (ed.), Successful Marketinggat Home and Abroad. Chicago: AmeriCan Marketing Association, 1958, pp. 259-263. Stock, J. Stevens. "How to Improve Samples Based on Telephone Listings." Journal of Advertising Research, II (September, 1962), pp. 50—51. Thompson, Bryan. "An Analysis of Supermarket Shopping Habits in Worchester, Massachusetts." Journal of Retailing, XLIII (Fall, 1967), pp. l7-29} Thompson, John R. "Characteristics and Behavior of Out- Shopping Consumers." Journal of Retailing, XLVII (Spring, 1971), PP. 70-80. Tigert, Douglas J.; Lathrope, Richard; and Bleeg, Michael. "The Fast Food Franchise: Psychographic and Demographic Segmentation Analysis." Journal of Retailing, XLVII (Spring, 1971). pp. 81-90. Udell, Jon G. "Prepurchase Behavior of Buyers of Small Electrical Applicances." Journal of Marketing, XXX (October, 1966), pp. 50-52. Van Tassel, Charles E. "The Negro As a Consumer--What we Know and What we Need to Know." In M. S. Moyer and R. E. Vosburgh (eds.), Marketing for Tomorrow . . . Today. Chicago: AmeriEan Marketing Associa— tion, 1967, pp. 166-168. weidenbaum, Murray L. "The Military Market in the 1960's." Business Horizons, IV (Spring, 1961), pp. 61-68. 341 Wells, William D. "Segmentation by Attitude Types." In Robert L. King (ed.), Marketing and the New Science of Planning. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1969, pp. 124-126. Westfall, Ralph. "Psychological Factors in Predicting Product Choice." Journal of Marketing, XXVI Wind, Yoram. "Incongruency of Socioeconomic Variables and Buying Behavior." In Philip R. McDonald (ed.), Marketing Involvement in Society and the Economy. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1969, pp. 362-367. Wiseman, Frederick. "A Segmentation Analysis on Automobile - Buyers During the New Model Year Transition Period." Journal of Marketing, XXXV (April, 1971), pp. 42—49. Yankelovich, Daniel. "New Criteria for Market Segmentation." Harvard Business Review, XLII (March-April, 1964), pp. 83-90. Reports, Monographs, and Unpublished Papers Bell, James E., Jr. "An Analysis of the Decision Process Utilized by Long Distance Mobile Families in Selecting New Sources of Supply for Goods and Services." Unpublished D.B.A. thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1967. Bell, William E. "Consumer Innovation: An Investigation of Selected Characteristics of Innovators." Unpublished D.B.A. thesis, Michigan State Univer— sity, East Lansing, 1962. Brandt, William K. and Day, George S. "Decision Processes for Major Durables: An Empirical View." Paper read at the Fall Conference of the American Market- ing Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1971. (Mimeographed.) Coolsen, Frank G. The Consumer Market for Major Appliances in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area. Wash- ington, D.C.: The Amefican University School of Business Administration Publication Series-- Marketing Studies, 1962. Wfilemon, D. L. "An Analysis of the Age—Occupation Matrix as a Criterion for Vertical and Horizontal Market Delineation." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1967. 342 Books Engel, James P.; Kollat, David T.; and Blackwell, Roger D. Consumer Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968. Hotchkiss, George Burton and Franken, Richard B. The Measurement of Advertising Effects. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1927. Howard, John A. and Sheth, Jagdish.N. The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Son, Inc., 1969. Katona, George. The Mass Consumption SOciety. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1964. Katona, George and others. 1967 Survey of Consumer Finances. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Survey Research Center, 1967. Kotler, Philip. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1972. Luck, David J.; Wales, Hugh G.; and Taylor, Donald A. Marketing Research. Third edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. Shaw, Arch W. Some Problems in Marketing Distribution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1915. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics: For the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956. Stewart, John B. Repetitive Advertising in Newspapers. Boston: Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, 1964. Iflolff, Janet L. What Makes Women Buy. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc., 1958. Government Documents Ehireau of the Census. U. S. 1970 Census of Population and Housing. First Count Summary, Files A and B. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, 1971. (Magnetic Tape.) APPENDICES 343 APPENDIX A HANDBOOK FOR CONSUMER SURVEY 344 345 1.[u0u31no AND TENURE] See questionnaire. 2.[KPPLIANCE OWNERSHIP] Fill in table A. Col. l Do you own any of the following home appliances? .. a refrigerator? ... automatic washing machine? clothes dryer (gas or electric)? ... range (gas or electric)? ... color TV (portable or console)? IF NONE, SKIP T0 #5 8. Col. 2 (For those owned) Did you buy your (product) in new condition? IF NONE, SKIP T0 #5 Now ask the following questions for each product which has I'qualified" by being owned and purchased in new condition. These ques- tions should be asked one product at a time, moving horizontally across the ”Appliance Buying Experience" table. C. Col. 3 What is the brand or make of your (product)? D. Col. 4 What store did you buy it from? E. Col. 5 Can you tell me what year you bought it in? 1346 3.L5£PLACEHEHT vs. F T—TIHE PURCHASES] EECEHT PUNEHASIHG EXPERIENCE ] Fill in Table A.|Col. 6 I Did you purchase your (product) as a replacement for one you already had? L RECENT PURCHASES Check the "year purchased" (Col. 5) to determine whether purchase occurred in 1970 or l97l. If purchase is recent. \ continue below. If purchase is gp£_ recent, skip to the replacement ques- tion (Col. 6) and continue. Use Col. 7 to match (#) the awareness boxes with the recently purchased product. The "brand/store awareness" questions are asked for any or all recent pur— chases to a maximum of 3. For respon- dents having 3 or more recent purchases, it is up to the discretion of the interviewer to choose the products for which the awareness questions will be asked.(Always do TV if recent purchase.) B.- What other brands of (product) did you shop for before you bought a (brand)? C.lBrand awareness - lower right] Were you aware of any other brands of (product)? ... What were they? (Probe: Were there any others you were aware of?) 347 .---M_-—- D.[Eol. 9 I Can you recall what gthcr stglg§_you shopped in before you bought your (product)? E.lStore awareness - lower right] Were you aware of any other stores selling (product)? ... What were they? (Probe: Were there any others you were aware of?) F. Col. l0 See "buying influences" sheet for questions.. Place a check (/) in Col. l0 to indicate that these questions have been asked. DETAILED REPLACEMENT QUESTIONS If product is refrigerator or washing machine and was purchased as a replace- ment, continue below. If these conditions are 533 met, move to next qualified product until completed. Then skip to #5. 6. Col. ll What was the brand of your old (product)? H. Col. 12 Do you recall what store you bought it from? (Probe: If store name is not familiar, ask what type of store it is. See store types on the following page. If a chain store, ask at which branch the product was purchased.) 1. Col. 13 Do you remember what year you bought your old one? (Probe: About how old was it when you decided to buy a new one?) FOR REMAINDER OF INTERVIEW, SEE QUESTIONNAIRE. 3418 uouumccoum_a Lozmc< oz xuom p—mu on mE—h “mom upav< upswmcoamom oz xumm ppou on «EFF anon U 3 H S N V pomamum uuzuw>coucm conga; nous—neou zow>coucn 35:33 9:23.. B 5qu; D .33 D 2:8 D 32.8 D .835: D 56.232. D copuvsoz HHH mcpmccn .u HHH 3:3 D 9.3.3.. D "cou=~ V\ N loath .ouaov to» capauagum .Pao at.;h ppmu vacuum ppou unswu * acmvconmoz mm~m>m3m zmzamzou 3119 A uxmwumnmv cacao HH_ mmaocczo» flu taxman o: .3ocx u.=oo HHH mcmugmzo qaoco HHH xm—qao mHH mmmp so mcmw> mHuHHH mac; mp_aoz _Hu ucmsucua< flu mmao; >__Emw-m_mcwm _HU Nauru mc_m:o4 pocacom awn» :_ um>w— so» w>az mco_ :o: .o Nucmsucmaa ... ~mm=occzou ... ~xo—aau ... amass; a ... Nu_ m_ again to u=_x use: .m Lmzmco o: .3ocx u.coo _Hu 3mm: .23. D 55 U 33 .8 23» H «acme so» on ~mmmcuva Hammond each an um>_F so» o>mg mcop :o: .u to m>wF so» gown: :_ muo_a mcu czo so» on .< rumszmp az< uzlmzqma .P mmco_umm:a msom cmzmco ou mu:c_s owe» a m>mg so» on .mumm :o_m_>m_mp new .mmcvcuue m:_;mmx .mtouacmm_ccmc ox_P mmucawpaam u—ozmmao: mace, Lop aocm awn» mews: can so; ozone coca _~cm:mm mwzu cw mpaoma mc_xma mc.m: use m:_m:m4 cw sew» cucummmt a :u_z a.“ . mp use: >5 .oFPm: 350 .m .m D l .v .e D 25 oz .m .m D to D .N .N > no» .— .— Lou 282 D 952 D D 33w C 33.8 oz D w on Ni .e .m _U D m e no» uzm .m .m .~ .~ D oz D a .p . — D D m ocoz D ocoz D :3 ocean Amo 282D mcoz E .F 11 weepm luv oz<¢m .m % 72,33 Swims: . 3:55. N oz_:mo Aogoumv acwcouuca to» mcomomc Lao» mo meow one: «as: wfiocoumv um Auoaoocav one» has ou so» ooucmapmcw umos cog: .o:_s cw maroon to mococa cup:u_ucoa ace m>ag u.co_o »_—aoc L .Aogoumv an Aocmepxuuooogav a x32 ou umo_omo H mcommm .m .oco «swoon new Accoumv an oovtcou mocmca mg» as omxoo. ~ .Autoumv as aogm oa omo_umu a caue< .N wocaga was» m:_»ccmu coca m_zu =_ museum cacao co>o Accoumv mcwgomocn Low mcomooc sac» mo meow mum: ans: .ucacn gag» oowccau zo_;z mocoum to» negate uoxoop H .Aucatsv a sac a» cau_uac i gonna .F «Amcoumv no Auuaooca\ocmcnv a mmozucan o» co_mwooo Lao» mon_gommo “won some ou ocpoa s.~ mmucoucom mossy mg“ no zo_;3 .mmucm__aam use: zoo xmz» can: apnoea oucozF»:_ «mos mm:_;» “as: ccmop on m_ zosum m_;u we «magnum cones < .m _ mmozmssaz_ wz_>:m_ 3552 .mmocoHHooo oEoc to» oocw oHoooo 3oz to ooow coupon o m_;u soc» pom o» mcwoo; oc.o3 .stoHo; »co> coon o>.so> .so» xomzp an... oz D a, D cozmco oz HHH mo_Hoo:om Hostoo to mono» _HHHH ...ooo.mw coca woos u.— 3 vaocmmso; «5 no use; 0.3 >5 ooooHQEoo moocm Hoocom umoawH; Wlllllllllloz HM; on» m_ was: we HHou so» coo .o mo» HUB cosmos oz cozmcm oz D D wooo.oHo gasp ores pH mH ooo.mH» can» mums HHH "omeooom om ~o>og o_omomsom moo wo smog ago woos son to sc_x one: .s 2D cozmco oz mHH memo» flHHHH e; D HoHozomso; on» mo now; may to own cosmos oz .Hu on» so» goo H ow o:_s so» opsoz .o Hooo.o~» can» woos oH mH opoooo so Longsz .HHHH ooo.m_» cans are: Hug onocomsomlgso» cH seH>HH »—oooccso moo cosmoo o: .3ocx u.:on flH_ meoom »:os 3oz .onmsso» moHosHocH .o Nooo.mHH cogs mmoH to .ooo.m_» cog» ores MH oz HHH moHHHu osoocw »Hcoo» Hooou m.oHozomsoz Lso» ow we HHou so» coo uso .cozmco oo «so: so: oo so» cw sooomtoocs »~oHoucoo PHHx H .m Nsowstos so» oc< .o .moocoHHooo so» oocm mcso» oxHH moHogomso: cocoo so: snoop coo oz pogo om cHomoso» usooo mcoHHmoss osom so» xmo o» oxHH oHsoz oz _ «Has onoquonmzmMH.m APPENDIX B A COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE WITH THE 1970 CENSUS DATA ON DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 3S3 A COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE WITH THE 1970 CENSUS DATA ON DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS The total sample of households completing the interviews were compared on the same demographic charac« teristics used in the first count summary of 1970 Census of Pppulation and Housing.1 The comparisons were made on (1) marital status, (2) home ownership, (3) type of housing, and (4) number of persons in the households. To compare the sample data with the census data, several steps were necessary to insure that the compariv sons were made on the same geographical population since the Michigan Bell Telephone Company services only portions of certain townships. Systems Research Incorporated Processed the magnetic tapes from the census bureau to derive the correct geographical aggregations of the population. Once the population was delineated, then the tables containing the sample data and census data were constructed on the four demographic variables. Table B—1 contains the distribution of the sample and the census population on marital status. The sample data included 5.9 per cent more married households and 5.9 per cent less non-married households than the census. 354 355 TABLE B—l.--A Comparison Between the Sample and the 1970 Census on Marital Status. Married Non-Married Total Sample (n=887) 76.1% 23.9% 100.0% Census (n=79,569) 70.2 29.8 100.0 Difference 5.9 - 5.9 (sample-census) Table B-2 contains the distribution of the sample and the census on home ownership. The sample data included 4.7 per cent more home owners and 4.7 per cent less renters than the census. TABLE B-2.--Comparison Between the Sample and the 1970 Census on Home Ownership. Home Owners Renters Total Sample (n=895) 70.2% 29.8% 100.0% Census (n=79,564) 65.5 34.5 100.0 Difference 4.7 4.7 (samp le-census) 356 Table B-3 contains the distribution of the sample and the census on type of housing. The sample data included 5.5 per cent more single household building dwellers and 5.1 less multi-household building dwellers than the census. The sample data had .4 per cent fewer mobile home dwellers than the census. TABLE B-3.-- A Comparison Between the Sample and the 1970 Census on Type of Housing. One Unit Multi-Unit Mobile Building Building Home Dwellers Dwellers Dwellers Total Sample (n=896) 73.7% 24.2% 2.1% 100.0% Census (n=83,526) 68.1 29.3 2.6 100.0 Difference 5.5 - 5.1 — .4 (sample-Census) Table B-4 contains the distribution of the sample and the census on household size. The sample included 3.3 per cent more four-member households and 5.4 per cent less single member households. Other differences were under 2 per cent. 357 H.HI H.01 v.0 m.o m.m m.H m.o v.m Hmsmcmo IwHQEMmH mocmummmwm o.ooa o.m m.m m.m o.oa m.ma m.na v.om m.ma Hoom.mhuav msmcmo wa.ooa mm.o wv.m wm.m wm.HH wm.ma wm.ma ma.om wo.oa, Amnmucv mHmEmm HMDOB whoa h m m s m m H Ho m .ouwm oaonomsom so msmaoo coma on» com mamsmm on“ coozuom nomHHmmsou flan paonmmsom onv CH mGOmHmm mo Hmnasz ill .vlm mqmda 358 The comparative differences between the sample data and the census data suggest that the sample included more marrieds, more homeowners, more single household building dwellers, and more three to six member households than the census. The sample also contained fewer singles, fewer renters, fewer multi-household building dwellers, and fewer one, two, and seven or more member households. The differences between the two studies could be attributed to chance or to the people not interviewed because of unlisted households, households without telephones, or refusals for the sample data. These differences, however, between the total sample and the census may not be of the same magni— tude or direction as the subsample of recent purchasers. The noted differences between the data should not invalidate the findings on the individual segments, but the differences do limit the generalizations on the population in the Lansing, Michigan market area. FOOTNOTES -:-APPENDIX B 1U. S. 1970 Census of Population and Housing, First Count Summary, Files A and B (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, 1971). (Magnetic Tape.) 359 APPENDIX C MATRICES ON BEHAVIORS AND KNOWEDGE OF PURCHASERS OF HOUSEHOLD DURABLE GOODS 360 361 Stores 1 2 Sor 3 4 more Sums 5 or more .8 .8 .8 .8 1.5 4.5 4 1.5 3.0 4.5 3.0 2.3 14.3 m '2 3 2.3 8.3 9.8 3.0 3.8 27.2 m a 2 706 901 4.5 -- 08 22.0 1 27.3 3.0 1.5 -- -- 31.8 Sums 39.5 24.2 21.1 6.8 8.4 100.0%1 (n=132) Figure C-l.--The Product-Store Shopping Matrix for Purchasers of Brown Goods. Stores 1 4 5 or 2 3 more Sums 5 or more 105 --' -- 105 1.5 4.5 4 -- 6.2 4.6 3.1 1.5 15.4 .3} 3 1.5 7.7 10.8 6.2 3.1 29.3 5 a 2 10.8 6.2 7.7 -- 1.5 26.2 1 21.5 301 -- -- -- 24.6 .Sums 35.3 23.2* 23.1* 10.8 7.6 100.0% (n=65) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. IFigure C-2.--The Product-Store Shopping Matrix for Purchasers of Console Color Televisions. 3.62 Stores 1 2 3 4 30:: Sums 5 or . more -- 1.5 1.5 -- 1.5 4.5 4 3.0 -- 4.5 3.0 3.0 13.5 ,3 3 3.0” 9.0 9.0 -- 4.5 25.5* g 2 4.5 11.9 1.5 -- -- 17.9 1 32.8 3.0 3.0 -- -- 38.8 Sums 43.3 25.4* 19.5 3.0 9.0 100.0% (n=67) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure C-3.--The Product-Store Shopping Matrix for Purchasers of Portable Color Television. Stores 1 2 3 4 :03: Sums 5 or more -- -- -- -- 1.7 1.7 4 H- -- -- .. .. .. m 3 -- 8.6 5.24 1.7 -- 15.5 2% 2 3.4 12.1 1.7 -- 1.7 18.9 33 1 60.3 3.4 -- -- -- 53-7 Sums 63.7 24.1 6.9 1.7 3.4 99.8%* (n=§§) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure C-4.--The Product-Store Shopping Matrix for Purchasers of Laundry Durables. b ...h‘ 363 Stores 1 2 5 or 3 4 more Sums 5 or more -- -- 1.4 4.2 1.4 7.0 4 -- 1.4 9.9 1.4 1.4 14.1 ,3 3 2.8 1.4 7.0 7.0 -- 18.2 a 3 2 4.2 4.2 2.8 -- -- 11.2 m 1 40.8 4.2 2.8 -- 1.4 49.2 .Sums 47.8 11.2 23.9 12.6 4.2 99.7%* " (n=71) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure C-5.--The Product-Store Shopping Matrix for Purchasers of Refrigerators. Stores 1 2 4 5 or 3 more Sums 5 or more -u- -- -- 2.9 -- 2.9 4 .. .. .. .. -- -_ m .2 3 -- 2.9 2.9 2.9 -- 8.7 m ‘3 2 8.6 11.4 11.4 -- -- 31.4 1 48.6 -- 8.6 -- -- 57.2 Sums 57.2 14.3 22.9 5.8 -- 1oo.2s* (n=35) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure C-6.--The Product-Store Shopping Matrix for Purchasers of Cooking Ranges. 364 Stores 5 or 1 2 3 4 more Sums 5 or ”‘ more -- -- 1.3 1.3 2.5 5.1 4 1.3 1.3 205 -- -— 501 53 3 1.3‘ 6.3 5.1 1.3 -- 14.0 s g 2 2.5 5.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 11.5 m 1 58.2 5.1 1.3 -- -- 64.6 Sums 63.3 17.8 11.5 3.9* 3.8* 100.3%* (n=79) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure C-7.--The Product-Store Shopping Matrix for Purchasers of Automatic Washers. Stores . 5 or 1 2 3 4 more Sums 5 or more -- -- 106 106 1.6 408 4 -- -- 3.2 -- -- 3.2 g 3 3.2 3.2 4.8 -- -- 11.2 m .3 2 6.3 11.1 4.8 1.6 p -- 23.8 1 52.4 3.2 1.6 -- -- 57.2 Sums 61.9 17.5 16.0 3.2 1.6 100.2%* (n=63) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure C-8.—-The Product-Store ShOpping Matrix for Purchasers of Automatic Dryers. 365* Stores 4 or 0 1 2 3 more Sums 4 or more -- 1.0 3.1 1.0 5.1 10.2 3 2.0 1.0 3.1 6.1 4.1 16.3 m 2 8.2 5.1 7.1 6.1 2.0 28.5 v . S 1 6.1 8.2 7.1 4.1 1.0 26.5 H m 0 11.2 3.1 1.0 2.0 1.0 18.3 Sums 27.5 18.4 21.4 19.3 13.2 99.8%* (n=98) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure C-9.--The Product-Store Unused Knowledge Matrix for Purchsers of White Goods. Stores 4 or 0 l 2 3 more Sums 4 or more -- 3.6 3.6 -- 3.6 10.8 3 1.8 -- -— 5.4 8.9 16.1 i; 2 5.4 7.1 3.6 7.1 -- 23.2 S 1 7.1 1.8 10.7 5.4 1.8 26.8 a: 0 10.7 8.9 1.8 1.8 -- 23.2 Sums 25.0 21.4 19.7 19.7 14.3 100.1%* (n=56) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure C-10.--The Product-Store Unused Knowledge Matrix for Purchasers of Laundry Durables. 366 Stores 4 or 0 1 2 3 more Sums 4 or more 1.4 -- 403 2.9 4.3 1209 3 2.9 2.9 7.2 5.8 1.4 20.2 U) E 2 7.2 4.3 7.2 7.2 2.9 28.8 H . m 1 5.8 11.6 1.4 1.4 -- 20.2 0 13.0 1.4 -- 1.4 1.4 17.2 Sums 30.3 20.2* 20.1* 18.7 10.0 99.3%* ~ (n=69) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure C-11.--The Product-Store Unused Knowledge Matrix for Purchasers of Refrigerators. Stores 4 or 0 1 2' 3 more Sums 4 or more -- 3.1 -- -- ‘ 9.4 12.5 3 -- -- -- 9.4 3.1 12.5 012 -- 9.4 -- 6.3 -- 15.7 '8 341 3.1 18.8 6.3 -- -- 28.2 a: O 1205 1506 -- -- 301 31.2 Sums 15-6* 46.9 6.3 15.7* 15.6 100.1%* t(n=32). *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. [Figure C-12.--The Product-Store Unused Knowledge Matrix for Purchasers of Cooking Ranges. 367 Stores . 4 or 0 1‘ 2 3 more Sums 4 or more -— 5.4 2.7 -- 1.4 9.5 3 2.7 1.4 4.1 4.1 10.8 23.1* m 2 4.1 5.4 8.1 6.8 -- 24.4 'o E1 5.4 2.7 8.1 4.1 2.7 23.0* m 0 12.2 4.1 2.7 -- 1.4 20.4 Sums 24.4 19.0 25.7 15.0 16.3 100.4%* (n=74) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure C-l3.--The Product-Store Unused Knowledge Matrix for Purchasers of Automatic washers. Stores 4 or 0 1 2 3 more Sums 4 or more -- 1.9 3.7 -- 1.9 7.5_ '3 3 1.9 1.9 3.7 11.1 5.6 24.2* c 3 2 5.6 7.4 7.4 3.7 -- 24.1* a: l 3.7 5.6 9.3 3.7 1.9 24.2 0 13.0 . 3.7 -- 1.9 1.9 20.5 Sums 24.2 20.5* 24.1 20.4* 11.3 100.5%* (33.5.1)— *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure C-l4.--The Product-Store Unused Knowledge Matrix for Purchasers of Automatic Dryers. 368 Stores 4 or 0 1 2 3 more Sums 4 or more 3.1 3.1 1.5 4.6 6.2 18.5 3 . 1.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 3.1 18.4 m 2 4.6 9.2 4.6 6.2 4.6 29.2 G A g 1 1.5 7.7 9.2 6.2 1.5 26.1 H m 0 4.6 -- 1.5 1.5 -- 7.0 Sums 15.3 24.6 21.4 23.1 15.4 99.8%* (n=65) *Due to rounding to nearest one-tenth in each cell. Figure C-15.--The Product-Store Unused Knowledge Matrix for Purchasers of Console Color Televisions. Stores 4 or 0 1 2 3 more Sums 4 or . more -- 1.5 4.5 1.5 10.4 17.9* 3 3.0 4.5 4.5 1.5 4.5 18.0* m 'g 2 7.5 7.5 9.0 6.0 3.0 33.0 m ,3 1 3.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 21.0 0 6.0 3.0 -- 1.5 -- 10.5 Sums 19?5 22.5 21.0 13.5 23.9 100.4%* (n=67) fiv' *Due to rounding to nearest onestenth in each cell. Figure C916.—vThe Product—Store Unused Knowledge Matrix for Purchasers of Portable Color Televisions. .mmHQMHDQ mupcsmq mo mummmaonsm How xfluumz mmooa3ocm Hmuoa mnoumuuosuoum m:BI|.nHiU ousmwm .Hamo some aw succulmco unease: on mawpcsou 0p mama shmmmmw .. .. m.H o.m «o.oa 4m.m~ so.sa 4~.m~ m.oa meow m.~H .. I- u- u- u- m.H .. H.s o.m H «s.oH .. .. o.H u- o.m o.m H.s o.H m.H N o.m~ .. u- u- . u- l- a.m o.m H.~ o.m m a, «.HN .. u- u- I- m.m o.m u- m.H o.H a “m 4m.na .. -u u- m.H H.A m.H m.H a.m .. m o.m .. u- u- m.H I- m.H u- I- u- o u- u- -n u- I- u- u- -u u- -u A -u n- u- u- n- u- u- I- u- u- o II II II II II II II II II II OHOE no m meow woos no a o A o m a m N H monouw spueza mooou .mommucwoumm cw ssowm mo muommnousm mom xwuumz mmoma3osm Hmuoe onoumnuospowm mnaI|.mHnU onsmwm .Hamo some cw mucounoco ummnmmq ou mcflpcsou ou mane Hmmauas noo.ooH nm.~ n~.m «H.m a.m A.a~ m.a~ m.mH «.HH A.4 meow «a.m nn nn nn nn nn o. m. o. nn H H.o nn nn nn nn m.H m. nn o.m m. m H.ma nn nn nn m.H m.a o.m m.m nn m.~ m o.o~ nn nn m. m.m m.o H.m m.m m.H m. a m 8 3 «.mm nn m. m.~ m.~ m.m m.m H.o m.m o. mm D. m.~a m.H m. nn m. m.H m.m o.m m.H nn os m.o nn m. nn nn m.a o.m o. o. nn A m. nn m. nn nn nn nn nn In nn m o.H o. nn nn nn o. nn nn nn nn woos Ho m meow 6906 no a o A o m a m N H 371 .mGOAmH>mHoa manmuuom mo mummmnousm How xflmumz wmpmH3OCM amuoa muoumnuoswoum m£B||.mHIU musmflm .Hamo some cw nucounoco o» mafiwasou on use: HAGHGH nom.ooH o.m m.H nn m.oH 4.m~ «.mw o.mH o.mH m.a meow o.m nn nn nn nn nn m.H nn m.H nn H m.a nn nn nn nn m.H nn nn o.m nn H m.- nn nn nn m.H o.o m.a o.o nn m.4 m «.AH nn nn nn o.m o.m H.HH m.H nn nn 4 m.o~ nn m.H nn m.a a.oH m.H o.o o.o nn m m.oH m.H nn nn m.H o.m o.o m.H o.m nn o o.m nn nn nn nn m.H nn nn m.H nn A nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn H m.a m.a nn nn nn nn nn :1 nn nn duos Ho m meow once no a o A o m a m N H monoum spuexa 372 .mGOHmH>oHoB oaomcou wo mnommsousm How xHHumE mmpma3onx Hmuoa muoumnuospoum oHBII.omIo musmfim .HHoo some :« nucounoao on mcwpcson on once Hmouoo noo.mm m.H m.4 H.o H.o o.a~ H.HH m.H~ 4A.A m.a meow m.H nn nn nn nn nn nn m.H nn nn H o.A nn nn nn nn m.H m.H nn H.m m.H m no.A nn nn nn m.H H.m m.H m.H nn nn H m.mm nn nn m.H o.4 m.oH ~.o m.o H.m m.H a ~.o~ nn nn o.o nn ~.o ~.o ~.o m.H m.H m H.m m.H m.H nn nn nn m.H o.4 nn nn o A.oH nn m.H nn nn m.H ~.o m.H nn nn A m.H nn m.H nn nn nn nn nn nn nn o m.H nn nn nn nn m.H nn nn nn nn once no m meow 6005 no a o A o m a m m H monoum spusla 373 .mwoumnmmwnmmm mo muommnousm How xfluumz ompmazocm.amuoe ououmnuospowm o£B||.H~|U munuwm .HHOU £00m CH Sflflmfllwfio Cu. UGHUCSOH Cu. 059*. Hmmucv noo.oo nn no.~ n~.4 nm.a H.AH H.Am A.mH o.mH «m.m meow A.m nn nn nn nn nn a.H nn 4.H m.~ H no.m nn nn a.H nn nn nn nn m.m 4.H N o.m~ nn nn o.H nn 4.H A.o H.A m.m a.H m A.oH nn nn 4.H m.~ H.A m.4 o.~ m.m o.H a ~.o~ nn nn nn nn m.m H.oH m.~ nn a.H m o.oH nn nn nn nn m.4 4.H m.a nn nn o H.A nn m.~ nn nn a.H 4.H a.H nn nn A «m.m nn nn nn a.H 4.H nn nn nn nn o II II II II II II In In II II once no a meow whoa Ho m A w m s m N H monoum spuexg 374 .muonmmz nauseousd mo mummmnousm How xwuumz omvoazoam Hmuoe ououmnuospowm unaln.mmno ousmflm .HHoo comm cw nucmunoco ou mcflpcsou on once HaAuoH nwm.ooH nn nn a.H no.o o.AH A.H~ o.mm H.m~ no.o meow m.m nn nn nn nn nn nn nn H.o o.H H A.H~ nn nn 4.H nn H.a a.m a.m A.~ A.~ m A.H~ nn nn nn 4.H nn a.m m.o a.m nn H a.o~ nn nn nn nn m.oH H.a A.~ H.4 A.~ a o.mH nn nn nn a.H A.~ a.m A.~ o.o nn m m.o nn nn nn A.~ nn a.H A.m nn nn o 4.H nn nn nn 4.H nn nn nn nn nn A II II . II II II II II II II II m II II II ll II II II II II II OHOE Ho m meow once no a o A o m a m N H mououm spuexg 375 .muohuo owumsousfl mo mummmsonsm How xfluumz mmomazocm Hmuoa onoumnuosconm unanl.mmlo ousmflm -HHHoo Homo nH cocoonoao on moHoasow on moon vauav 48A.ooH nn nn nn A.m H.4H m.Hm H.HH no.mH m.HH meow A.m nn nn nn nn nn A.H nn m.H a.H H na.- nn nn nn nn m.H o.m H.A. o.m m.H N 4m.- nn nn nn o.H nn A.m 4.A A.m o.m m ~.a~ nn nn nn nn o.m H.HH A.m m.H m.H a na.aH nn nn nn nn 4.A o.m nn m.H nn m H.A nn nn nn m.H nn A.m A.m nn nn o m.H nn nn nn m.H nn nn nn nn nn A nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn H II In In In II II In II II In oHOE Ho m meow once no a m A o m a m m H mmuoum spuexa 376 .mmmcmm mafixoou mo mummmcousm How xflwumz omUmHBOGM Hmuoe muoumnuospoum onenn.smno musmflm .Hamo some CH sucounoco on mcflpcsou on moon Hmmnoo wo.o0H nn nn m.o H.A no.mH m.~H 4A.mH H.HH m.NH wasm A.mH nn nn nn nn nn nn nn m.o a.m H no.mm nn nn H.m nn nn nn m.o m.NH H.m N 4H.m~ nn nn nn H.m nn a.a m.o m.o nn H H.A nn nn nn H.m H.m nn H.m nn nn H H.HH nn nn H.m H.m H.A H.m nn H.m nn m H.m nn nn nn nn H.m nn nn nn nn o II II II II II II II II II II h I: In :1 II II II II II II I: m II II II II II II II II II II OHOE no m meow oHOE Ho m m A m m s m N H wmuoum spuexg APPENDIX D TABLES 377 378 TABLE D—1.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand Shopping Activity and Type of Housing for Brown Goods. Brand Single-Family Multi-Family Total ShOpping Housing Building Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 61 61.0 12 34.3 73 54.1 Actives 39 39.0 23 65.7 62 45.9 Total 100 100.0 35 100.0 135 100.0 * Significant at the .005 Level of Confidence. TABLE D-2.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand ShOpping Activity and Type of Housing for Portable Televisions. Brand Single-Family Multi-Family Total Shopping Housing Building .Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 31 68.9 7 30.4 38 55.9 .Actives 14 31.1 16 69.6 30 44.1 Total 45 100.0 23 100.0 68 100.0 * Significant at the .005 level of confidence. 379 TABLE D-3.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Store Shopping Activity and Type of Housing for Portable Televisions. Store Single-Family Multi-Family Total ShOpping Housing Building Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 36 76.6 13 56.5 49 70.0 Actives 11 23.4 10 43.5 21 30.0 Total 47 100.0 23 100.0 70 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE D-4.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand Shopping Activity and Mobility for Brown Goods. Brand Mobiles Immobiles Total Shopping .Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 20 43.5 53 59.6 73 54.1 Actives 26 56.5 36 40.4 62 45.9 Total 46 100.0 89 100.0 135 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 380 TABLE D-5.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand Shopping Activity and Mobility for Portable Televisions. Brand Mobiles Immobiles Total Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 11 42.3 27 64.3 38 55.9 Actives 15 57.7 15 35.7 30 44.1 Total 26 100.0 42 100.0 68 100.0 9: Significant at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE D-6.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand Shopping Activity and Mobility for White Goods. Brand Mobiles Immobiles Total Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 24 82.8 47 66.2 71 71.0 Actives 5 17.2 24 33.8 29 29.0 Total 29 100.0 71 100.0 90 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. 381 TABLE D-7.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand Shopping Activity and Mobility for Refrigerators. Brand Mobiles Immobiles Total Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 21 80.8 23 50.0 44 61.1 Actives 5 19.2 23 50.0 28 38.9 Total 26 100.0 46 100.0 72 100.0 * Significant at the .02 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. TABLE D-8.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Store Shopping Activity and Mobility For Washers. Store Mobiles Immobiles Total ShOpping .Activity* - - No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 24 96.0 41 74.5 65 81.3 Actives l 4.0 14 25.5 15 18.7 Total 25 100.0 55 100.0 80 100.0 * Significant at the .025 level of confidence. 382 TABLE D-9.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Store Shopping Activity and Length of Stay in the Market Area for White Goods. Store Few Years Many Years Total Shopping - Activity* ‘ No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 14 63.6 64 79.0 78 75.7 Actives 8 36.4 17 21.0 25 24.3 Total 22 100.0 81 100.0 103 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-10.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Store Shopping Activity and Length of Stay in the Market Area for Refrigerators. Store Few Years Many Years Total Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 9 45.0 37 66.1 46 60.5 Actives 11 55.0 19 33.9 30 39.5 Total 20 100.0 56 100.0 76 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 383 TABLE D-11.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand ShOpping Activity and Marital Status for Refrigerators. Brand Married Non—Married Total Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 35 56.5 8 100.0 43 61.4 Actives 27 43.5 0 0 27 38.6 Total 62 100.0 8 100.0 70 100.0 * Significant at the .01 level of confidence. TABLE D-l2.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand Shopping Activity and Marital Status for Portable Televisions. .Brand Married Non-Married Total Shopping Activity* . . No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 34 63. 0 4 30 . 8 38 56 . 7 Actives 20 37.0 9 69.2 29 43.3 Total 54 100.0 13 100.0 67 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence with a two-tai led test . 384 TABLE D-13.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Store ShOpping Activity and Marital Status for Refrigerator. Store Married Non-Married Total Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 37 56.9 8 88.9 45 60.8 Actives 28 43.1 1 11.1 29 39.2 Total 65 100.0 9 100.0 74 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE D-l4.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand Shopping Activity and Household Size for Console Televisions. Brand Smaller Larger Total Shopping Households Households Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 13 65.0 22 47.8 35 53.0 Actives 7 35.0 24 52.2 31 47.0 Total 20 100.0 46 100.0 66 100.0 1': Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 385 TABLE D—lS.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand Shopping Activity and Household Size for Portable Televisions. Brand Smaller Larger Total Shopping Households Households Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 13 44.8 25 65.8 38 56.7 Actives 16 55.2 13 34.2 29 43.3 Total 29 100.0 38 100.0 67 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. TABLE D-16.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand ShOpping Activity and Household Size for Dryers. Brand Smaller Larger Total Shopping Households ’ Households Activity* . No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 7 63.6 43 86.0 50 82.0 Actives 4 36.4 7 14.0 11 18.0 Total 11 100.0 50 100.0 61 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. 386 TABLE D-l7.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Store ShOpping Activity and Household Size for Console Televisions. Store Smaller Larger Total Shopping Households Households Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 13 72.2 25 54.3 38 59.4 Actives 5 27.8 21 45.7 26 40.6 Total 18 100.0 46 100.0 64 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-18.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Store Shopping Activity and Age of Household Head for Ranges. Store Younger Older Total Shopping .Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent ZInactives 6 42.9 19 79.2 25 65.8 Actives 8 57.1 5 20.8 13 34.2 Total 14 100.0 24 100.0 38 100.0 * Significant at the .025 level of confidence. 387 TABLE D-l9.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand Shopping Activity and Occupation of Household Head for Brown Goods. Brand White Collar Non-White Collar Total Shopping Activity* ' No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 20 41.7 40 61.5 60 53.1 Actives 28 58.3 25 38.5 53 46.9 Total 48 100.0 65 100.0 110 100.0 * Significant at the .025 level of confidence. TABLE D-20.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand ShOpping Activity and Occupation of Household Head for Console Televisions. Brand White Collar Non-White Collar Total Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 7 36.8 24 63.2 31 54.4 Actives 12 63.2 14 36.8 26 45.6 Total 19 100.0 38 100.0 57 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 388 TABLE D-21.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand ShOpping Activity and Annual Family Income for Refrigerators. Brand Less Affluent More Affluent Total Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 27 73.0 5 41.7 32 65.3 Actives 10 27.0 7 58.3 17 34.7 Total 37 100.0 12 100.0 49 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. TABLE D-22.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand Shopping Activity and Recent Purchase for Dryers. Brand. Single Product Multi-Product Total ShOpping' Purchaser Purchaser Activity* . . No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 16 94 . l 35 76 . l 51 81. 0 Actives l 5.9 11 23.9 12 19.0 Total 17 100.0 46 100.0 63 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 389 TABLE D-23.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Store Shopping Activity and Recent Purchase for Dryers. Store Single Product Multi-Product Total Shopping Purchaser Purchaser Activity* ' ' No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 18 100.0 33 70.2 51 78.5 Actives 0 0 14 29.8 14 21.5 Total 18 100.0 47 100.0 65 100.0 * Significant at the .005 level of confidence. TABLE D-24.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand Shopping Activity and Replacement Purchase for Laundry Durables. Brand. Replacement First-Time Total Shopping Purchaser Purchaser Activity* . 4 No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 38 84.4 10 66.7 48 80.0 Actives 7 15.6 5 33.3 12 20.0 Total 45 100.0 15 100.0 60 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 390 TABLE D-25.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Store Shopping Activity and Replacement Purchase for White Goods. Store Replacement First-Time Total Shopping Purchaser Purchaser Activity* ‘ ‘ No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 67 81.7 11 52.4 78 75.7 Actives 15 18.3 10 47.6 25 24.3 Total 82 100.0 21 100.0 103 100.0 * Significant at the .005 level of confidence. TABLE D-26.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Store ShOpping Activity and Replacement Purchase for Laundry Durables. Store Replacement First—Time Total Shopping Purchaser Purchaser Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 41 93.2 12 75.0 53 88.3 .Actives 3 6.8 4 25.0 7 11.7 Total 44 100.0 16 100.0 60 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 391 TABLE D-27.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Store Shopping Activity and Replacement Purchase for Ranges. _-==:--—-—-—~ Store Replacement First-Time Total Shopping Purchaser Purchaser Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. _ Per Cent Inactives 23 76.7 2 25.0 25 65.8 Actives 7 23.3 6 75.0 13 34.2 Total 30 100.0 8 100.0 38 100.0 * Significant at the .005 level of confidence. TABLE D-28.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Type of Housing for Dryers. Unused Single-Family Multi-Family Total Brand Housing Building Knowledge* _ . No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent LOW Knowers 24 51.1 2 22.2 26 46.4 High Knowers 23 48.9 7 77.8 30 53.6 Total. 47 100.0 9 100.0 56 100.0 L * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 392 TABLE D-29.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Type of Housing for Dryers. Unused Single-Family Multi-Family Total Store Housing Building Knowledge* - - No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 22 46.8 2 22.2 24 42.9 High Knowers 25 53.2 7 77.8 32 57.1 Total 47 100.0 9 100.0 56 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-30.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Type of Housing for Brown Goods. Unused Single-Family Multi-Family Total Store Housing Building Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 37 35.6 20 55.6 57 40.7 High Knowers 67 64.4 16 44.4 83 59.3 Total 104 100 . 0 36 100 . 0 140 100 . 0 —_k * Significant at the .05 level of confidence with a tWO--tai led test . 393 TABLE D-3l.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Type of Housing for Portable Televisions. Unused Single-Family Multi—Family Total Store Housing Building Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent low Knowers 17 34.0 14 ‘58.3 31 41.9 High Knowers 33 66.0 10 41.7 43 58.1 Total 50 100.0 24 100.0 74 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. TABLE D-32.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Mobility for Portable Television. Unused Mobi 1es Immobi 1es Total Brand Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent LOW' Knowers 12 44.4 11 23.4 23 31.1 High Knowers 15 55.6 36 76.6 51 68.9 Total 27 100.0 47 100.0 74 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence with a two-tai led test. 394 TABLE D-33.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Mobility for Portable Televisions. Unused Mobiles Immobiles Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent low Knowers 14 51.9 17 36.2 31 41.9 High Knowers 13 48.1 30 63.8 43 58.1 Total 27 100.0 47 100.0 74 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-34.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Length of Stay in the Market Area for White Goods. Unused Few Years Many Years Total Brand Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 7 31.8 40 49.4 47 45.6 High Knowers 15 68.2 41 50.6 56 54.4 Total, 22 100.0 81 100.0 103 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 395 TABLE D-35.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Length of Stay in the Market Area for Refrigerators. Unused Few Years Many Years Total Brand Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 4 19.0 24 44.4 28 37.3 High Knowers 17 81.0 30 55.6 47 62.7 Total 21 100.0 54 100.0 _ 75 100.0 * Significant at the .025 level of confidence. TABLE D-36.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Length of Stay in the Market Area for Brown Goods. Unused Few Years Many Years Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 21 53.8 35 35.0 56 40.3 High Knowers 18 46.2 65 65.0 83 59.7 Total 39 100 . 0 100 100 . 0 139 100 . 0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence with a two-tai led test. 396 TABLE D-37.—-Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Length of Stay in the Market Area for Portable Televisions. Unused Few Years Many Years Total Store Knowledge* ' No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 13 56.5 18 35.3 31 41.9 High Knowers 10 43.5 33 64.7 43 58.1 Total 23 100.0 51 100.0 74 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. TABLE D-38.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Marital Status for Portable Televisions. Unused Married Non-Married. 'Total Brand Knowledge* _ No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 16 26 . 7 7 53. 8 23 31.5 High Knowers 44 73.3 6 46.2 50 68.5 Total 60 100.0 13 100.0 73 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 397 TABLE D-39.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Marital Status for White Goods. Unused Married Non-Married Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 40 44.0 9 81.8 49 48.0 High Knowers 51 56.0 2 18.2 53 52.0 Total 91 100.0 11 100.0 102 100.0 * Significant at the .01 level of confidence. TABLE D-40.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Marital Status for Refrigerators. lJnused Married Non-Married Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent 113w Knowers 33 51.6 7 77.8 40 54.8 High Knowers 31 48.4 2 22.2 33 45.2 Ttytal 64 100.0 9 100.0 73 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 398 TABLE D-41.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Household Size for Portable Televisions. Unused Smaller Larger Total Brand Households Households Knowledge* - - No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low 5 Knowers 12 40.0 11 25.6 23 31.5 High Knowers 18 60.0 32 74.4 50 68.5 Total 30 100.0 43 100.0 73 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-42.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Household Size for Refrigerators. Unused Smaller Larger' Total Brand. Households Households Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Ixnv Knowers 14 56.0 14 29.8 28 38.9 High Knowers 11 44.0 33 70.2 44 61.1 Total 25 100.0 47 100.0 72 100.0 * Significant at the .025 level of confidence. 399 TABLE D-43.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Household Size for White Goods. Unused Smaller Larger Total Store Households Households Knowledge* - No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 17 60.7 32 43.8 49 48.5 High Knowers 11 39.3 41 56.2 52 51.5 Total 28 100.0 73 100.0 101 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-44.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Household Size for Laundry Durables. Lhaused Smaller Larger Total S tore Households Households Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Icwv Knowers 9 75.0 20 41.7 29 48.3 High iKnowers 3 25.0 28 58.3 31 51.7 Total 12 100.0 48 100.0 60 100.0 * Significant at the .025 level of confidence. 400 TABLE D-45.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Household Size for Washers. Unused Smaller Larger Total Store Households Households Knowledge* - No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 11 64.7 24 40.7 35 46.1 High Knowers 6 35.3 35 59.3 41 53.9 Total 17 100.0 59 100.0 76 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE D-46.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Household Size for Dryers. Unused Smaller Larger. Total 8 tore Households Households Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Irma JKnowers 8 72.7 16 37.2 24 44.4 High JKnowers 3 27.3 27 62.8 30 55.6 Tribal 11 100.0 43 100.0 54 100.0 * Significant at the .025 level of confidence. 401 TABLE D-47.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Household Size for Brown Goods. Unused Smaller Larger Total Store Households Households Knowledge* \ No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 24 49.0 32 36.0 56 40.6 High Knowers 25 51.0 57 64.0 82 59.4 Total 49 100.0 89 100.0 138 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-48.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Household Size for Portable Televisions. ‘Unused Smaller Larger Total Store Households Households Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent 1mm» .Knowers 17 56.6 14 32.6 31 42.5 High IKnowers 13 43.3 29 67.4 42 57.5 Total 30 100.0 43 100.0 73 100.0 * Significant at the .025 level of confidence. 402 TABLE D-49.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Age of Household Head for Washers. Unused Younger Older Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 11 28.2 23 62.2 34 44.7 High Knowers 28 71.8 14 37.8 42 55.3 Total 39 100.0 37 100.0 76 100.0 * Significant at the .01 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. TABLE D-50.—-Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Age of Household Head for Dryers. Unused Younger Older ’ Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low ~ Knowers 7 28.0 17 56.7 24 43.6 High Knowers 18 72.0 13 43.3 31 56.4 Total 25 100.0 30 100.0 55 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. 403 TABLE D-Sl.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Occupation of Household Head for Portable Televisions. Unused White Collar Non-White Collar Total Brand Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 14 42.4 6 21.4 20 32.8 High Knowers 19 57.6 22 78.6 41 67.2 Total 33 100.0 28 5100.0 . 61 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. TABLE D-52.—-Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Education of Household Head for Washers. [housed Less Educated More Educated Total Brand Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Imnfl lKnowers 20 54.1 13 35.1 33 44.6 High JKnowers 17 45.9 24 64.9 41 55.4 Ttrtal 37 100.0 37 100.0 74 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 404 TABLE D-53.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Annual Family Income for Brown Goods. Unused Less Affluent More Affluent Total Store Knowledge* - .1 - No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 15 27.3 21 48.8 36 36.7 High Knowers 40 72.7 22 51.2 62 63.3 Total 55 100.0 43 7100.0 98 100.0 * Significant at the .025 level of confidence. TABLE D-54.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Annual Family Income for Portable Televisions. [housed Less Affluent More Affluent Total Store Knowledge * v- No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Imnv anowers 6 20.7 12 60.0 18 36.7 High ZKnowers 23 79.3 8 40.0 31 63.3 Tkrtal 29 100.0 20 100.0 49 100.0 * Significant at the .005 level of confidence. 405 TABLE D-55.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Recent Purchase for Laundry Durables. Unused Single Product Multi-Product Total Brand Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* ~ No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 25 58.1 6 35.3 31 51.7 High Knowers 18 41.9 11 64.7 29 48.3 Total 43 100.0 17 100.0 60 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D—56.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Recent Purchase for Washers. Lhaused Single Product Multi-Product Total jBrand Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Irnd Knowers 14 56.0 21 39.6 35 44.9 High 1Knowers 11 44.0 32 60.4 43 55.1 Ttrtal 25 100.0 53 100.0 78 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 406 TABLE D—S7.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Recent Purchase for Dryers. Unused Single Product Multi-Product Total Brand Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* . No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 11 61.1 15 39.5 26 46.4 High Knowers 7 38.9 23 60.5 30 53.6 Total 18 100.0 38 .100.0 56 100.0 * Significant at the .01 level of confidence. TABLE D—58.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Recent Purchase for White Goods. [housed Single Product Multi-Product Total Store Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Ixnfl . IKnowers 42 52.5 7 30.4 49 47.6 High anowers 38 47.5 16 69.6 54 52.4 Tkytal 80 100.0 23 100.0 103 100.0 it Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 407 TABLE D-59.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Replacement Purchase for Portable Televisions. Unused Replacement First-Time Total Brand Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* ~ No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 9 47.4 13 24.1 22 30.1 High Knowers 10 52.6 41 75.9 51 69.9 Total 19 100.0 54 (100.0 73 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE D-60.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand Knowledge and Replacement Purchase for Dryers. Unused Replacement First-Time Total Brand Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent ZLow Knowers 18 60.0 8 30.8 26 46.4 High Knowers 12 40.0 18 69.2 30 53.6 Thatal 30 100.0 26 100.0 56 100.0 * Significant at the .025 level of confidence. 408 TABLE D—61.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Store Knowledge and Replacement Purchase for Laundry Durables. Unused Replacement First-Time Total Store Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 17 37.8 12 80.0 29 48.3 High Knowers 28 62.2 3 20.0 31 51.7 Total 45 100.0 3 100.0 60 100.0 * Significant at the .01 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. TABLE D-62.——Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand Knowledge and Type of Housing for Washers. Total Single Family Multi-Family Total Brand. Housing Building Knowledge * No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent .Low Knowers 47 77.0 8 57.1 55 73.3 High Knowers 14 23.0 6 42.9 20 26.7 Total 61 100.0 14 100.0 75 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 409 TABLE D-63.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand Knowledge and Type of Housing for Dryers. Total Single Family Multi-Family Total Brand Housing Building Knowledge* ’ ' No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 35 77.8 5 55.6 40 74.1 High Knowers 10 22.2 4 44.4 14 25.9 Total 45 100.0 9 ‘100.0 54 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D—64.——Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand Knowledge and Type of Housing for Portable Televisions. ._.-_- _‘... Total Single Family Multi-Family Total Brand Housing Building Knowledge* _ . No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 25 55.6 9 39.1 34 50.0 High Knowers 20 44.4 14 60.9 34 50.0 Total 45 100.0 23 100.0 68 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 410 TABLE D-65.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Length of Stay in the Market Area for White Goods. Total Few Years Many Years Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 13 61.9 62 76.5 75 73.5 High Knowers 8 38.1 19 23.5 27 26.5 Total 21 100.0 81 .100.0 102 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D—66.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Length of Stay in the Market Area for Refrigerators. Total Few Years Many Years Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent LOW’ , JKnowers 12 60.0 41 75.9 53 71.6 High Knowers 8 40.0 13 24.1 21 28.4 Total. 20 100.0 54 100.0 74 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 411 TABLE D-67.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Marital Status for White Goods. Total Married Non—Married Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 64 71.1 10 90.9 74 73.3 High Knowers 26 28.9 1 9.1 27 26.7 Total 90 100.0 11 _100.0 . 101 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-68.—-Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Marital Status for Portable Televisions. Total Married Non-Married Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low anowers 37 66.1 5 38.5 42 60.9 High JKnowers 19 33.9 8 61.5 27 39.1 Total. 56 100.0 13 100.0 69 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. 412 TABLE D-69.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand Knowledge and Household Size for Refrigerators. Total Smaller Larger Total Brand Households Households Knowledge* - No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 18 75.0 23 53.5 41 61.2 High Knowers 6 25.0 20 46.5 26 38.8 Total 24 100.0 43 100.0 67 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE D-70.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Households Size for Laundry Durables. Total Smaller Larger' Total Store Households Households Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 10 90.9 34 72.3 44 75.9 High Knowers 1 9.1 13 27.7 14 24.1 Total 11 100.0 47 100.0 58 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 413 TABLE D-7l.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand Knowledge and Age of Household Head for White Goods. Total Younger Older Total Brand Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 28 80.0 39 63.9 67 69.8 High Knowers 7 20.0 22 36.1 29 30.2 Total 35 100.0 61 100.0 96 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. TABLE D-72.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand Knowledge and Age of Household Head for Refrigerators. Total Younger Older ' Total Brand Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 17 77.3 23 52.3 40 60.6 High Knowers 5 22.7 21 47.7 26 39.4 'Total 22 100.0 44 100.0 66 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. 414 TABLE D-73.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Age of Household Head for White Goods. Total Younger Older Total Store Knowledge* - No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 22 59.5 51 81.0 73 73.0 High Knowers 15 40.5 12 19.0 27 27.0 Total 37 100.0 63 (100.0 g 100 100.0 * Significant at the .02 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. TABLE D-74.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Age of Household Head for Laundry Durables. Total Younger Older Total Store Knowledge* . . No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 15 60.0 28 87.5 43 75.4 High Knowers 10 40.0 4 12.5 14 24.6 Total 25 100.0 32 100.0 57 100.0 * Significant at the .02 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. 415 TABLE D-75.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Occupation of Household Head for Washers. Total White Collar Non-White Total Store Collar Knowledge* ' No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 18 64.3 33 84.6 51 76.1 High Knowers 10 35.7 6 15.4 16 23.9 Total 28 100.0 39 100.0 67 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE D-76.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Occupation of Household Head for Portable Televisions. Total White Collar Non-White Total Store Collar Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 21 70.0 13 46.4 34 58.6 High Knowers 9 30.0 15 53.6 24 41.4 Total 30 100.0 28 100.0 58 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. 416 TABLE D-77.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Education of Household Head for Console Televisions. Total Less Educated More Educated Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 25 62.5 10 45.5 35 56.5 High Knowers 15 37.5 12 54.5 27 43.5 Total 40 100.0 22 ‘100.0 62 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-78.—-Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Annual Family Income for Brown Goods. Total Less Affluent More Affluent Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 25 46.3 26 61.9 51 53.1 High Knowers 29 53.7 16 38.1 45 46.9 Total 54 100.0 42 100.0 96 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 417 TABLE D—79.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Annual Family Income for Portable Televisions. Total Less Affluent More Affluent Total Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 13 44.8 14 73.7 27 56.3 High Knowers 16 55.2 5 26.3 21 43.7 Total 29 100.0 19 100.0 48 100.0 * Significant at the .025 level of confidence. TABLE D-80.—-Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand Knowledge and Recent Purchase for Ranges. Total Single Product Multi-Product Total Brand Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 11 91.7 13 65.0 24 75.0 High Knowers 1 8.3 7 35.0 8 25.0 Total 12 100.0 20 100.0 32 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 418 TABLE D-81.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Recent Purchase for White Goods. Total Single Product Multi-Product Total Store Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* 1e , No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 63 79.7 12 52.2 75 73.5 High Knowers 16 20.3 11 47.8 27 26.5 Total 79 100.0 23 (100.0 102 100.0 * Significant at the .005 level of confidence. TABLE D-82.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Recent Purchase for Refrigerators. Total Single Product Multi-Product Total Store Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 31 83.8 22 59.5 53 71.6 High Knowers 6 16.2 15 40.5 21 78.4 Total 37 100.0 37 100.0 74 100.0 * Significant at the .025 level of confidence. 419 TABLE D-83.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Replacement Purchase for White Goods. Total Replacement First-Time Total Store Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* - No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 63 76.8 12 60.0 75 73.5 High Knowers 19 23.2 8 40.0 27 26.5 Total 82 100.0 20 _100.0 102 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-84.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Replacement Purchase for Brown Goods. Total Replacement First-Time Total Store Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* . No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 14 42.4 65 64.4 79 59.0 High Knowers 19 57.6 36 35.6 55 41.0 Total 33 100.0 101 100.0 134 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. 420 TABLE D-85.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Store Knowledge and Replacement Purchase for Portable Televisions. Total Replacement First-Time Total Store Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* , No. Per Cent No. ”Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 7 36.8 35 70.0 42 60.9 High Knowers 12 63.2 15 30.0 27 39.1 Total 19 100.0 50 100.0 69 100.0 * Significant at the .02 level of confidence with a two-tailed test. TABLE D-86.—-Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store Shopping Activity and Type of Housing for Brown Goods. Brand and Single Family Multi-Family Total Store Housing Building Shopping _ . . . . * ACt1V1tY No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 53 54.1 9 26.5 62 47.0 Actives 45 45.9 25 73.5 70 53.0 Total 98 100.0 34 100.0 132 100.0 * Significant at the .01 level of confidence. 421 TABLE D-87.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store Shopping Activity and Type of Housing for Portable Televisions. Brand and Single Family Multi-Family Total Store Housing Building Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 30 66.7 5 22.7 35 52.2 Actives 15 33.3 17 77.3 32 47.8 Total 45 100.0 22 100.0 67 100.0. * Significant at the .001 level of confidence. 1422 .oocopnmooo mo Ho>oa oH. may no ucmonmwomnm % o.ooa hm mnha Nm N.Nm mm onooH HH o.ooa NH o.ooH HH o.ooa ma o.ooH ma Hmuos N.mH N 0.0m o m.hN m 5.00 NH o.om m mo>wuo¢ mnHm m 0.0m m p.mh m m.mm o o.ov m mm>wuomcH ucoo non .02 undo now .02 noon nmm .oz usoo nom .oz uoo0 nom .oz ammo nom .oz Hnuoa «hud>wu0< mnmow manmmonm unuou ammumnh annoy mnmo» mmoq no mnonm soouwdh Hope on co>um xwm on nsom monne on 039 new» moo one ocmnm .mcowm«>udma mundanom now mmonooc Hammonm um mono mo nnmcoq one mufl>wau¢ venomonm «noun one wanna on mcwonoood mnommnonsm mo mommucoonom one mnonESZIl.mmlo mamas 423 TABLE D-89.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store Shopping Activity and Length of Stay in Market Area for Cooking Ranges. Brand and Six Years Over Six Total Store or Less Years Shopping . ACtiVitY* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives** 2 20.0 15 60.0 17 48.6 Actives 8 80.0 10 40.0 18 51.4 Total 10 100.0 25 100.0 35 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ** Inactives in this table are defined as no brands and stores considered other than the actual brand purchased at the preferred store. TABLE D-90.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store Shopping Activity and Length of Stay in Market Area for Console Televisions. Brand and Six Years Over Six Total Store or Less Years Shopping . . . . * ACthlty No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives** 6 37.5 8 16.7 14 21.9 Actives 10 62.5 40 83.3 50 78.1 Total 16 100.0 48 100.0 64 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. ** Inactives in this table are defined as no brands and stores considered other than the actual brand purchased at the preferred store. 424 TABLE D—9l.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store Shopping Activity and Length of Stay in Market Area for Automatic Washers. Brand and Fifteen Years Over Fifteen Total Store or Less Years Shopping ACtiVitY* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 26 83.9 18 64.3 44 74.6 Actives 5 16.1 10 35.7 15 25.4 Total 31 100.0 28 100.0 59 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-92.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store ShOpping Activity and Marital Status for Brown Goods. Brand and Married Non-Married Total Store Shopping _ . . . * Act1v1ty No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 57 50.9 5 26.3 62 47.3 Actives 55 49.1 14 73.7 69 52.7 Total 112 100.0 19 100.0 131 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 425 TABLE D-93.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store ShOpping Activity and Marital Status for Portable Televisions. Brand and Married Non—Married Total Store Shopping ' Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 31 58.5 4 30.8 35 53.0 Actives 22 41.5 9 69.2 31 47.0 Total 53 100.0 13 100.0 66 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-94.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store ShOpping Activity and Household Size for Portable Televisions. Brand and Smaller Larger Total Store Households Households Shopping . ACthltY* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 11 37.9 24 64.9 35 53.0 .Actives 18 62.1 13 35.1 31 47.0 Total 29 100.0 37 100.0 66 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 426 TABLE D-95.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store ShOpping Activity and Occupation for Laundry Durables. Brand and White Collar Non-White Total Store Collar Shopping ' ACtiVitY* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives** 13 46.4 20 71.4 33 58.9 Actives 15 53.6 8 28.6 23 41.1 Total 28 100.0 28 100.0 56 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. ** Inactives in this table are defined as no brands and stores considered other than the actual brand purchased at the preferred store. 427 .oocooncoo Ho Hm>mH 0H. esp no pCMOHmHamHm .1 o.o0H mo o.o0H om o.OOH mm o.OOH AH Houoe o.Am AH m.Am m m.HN A m.m H mm>Huod o.MA mv m.mm mH m.mm mH H.¢m mH mo>HuomcH ncmo nmm .oz homo nom .oz uoo0 nom .02 undo nom .oz «muH>Huo¢ mchmonm monoconom onoum Hmuoe onoz no ounce mommnonsm 038 omononsm moo pom ozonm .mnmhno now mommnonsm unmomm mo anEsz pom huH>Huo¢ mchmonm onoum pom ocmnm on oaHpnooom mnommnonsm mo mommuamonmm pom mnonfisz|l.omla mHmdB 428 TABLE D-97.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store Shopping Activity and Number of Recent Purchases for Console Televisions. Brand and Single Product Multi-Product Total Store Purchaser Purchaser ShOpping ACtiVitY* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives** 8 16.3 6 37.5 14 21.5 Actives 41 83.7 10 62.5 51 78.5 Total 49 100.0 16 100.0 65 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. ** Inactives in this table are defined as no brands and stores considered other than the actual brand purchased at the preferred store. TABLE D-98.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store ShOpping Activity and Replacement Purchase for White Goods. Brand and Replacement First-Time Total Store Purchaser Purchaser Shopping _ . . . * ACthlty No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 57 74.0 9 42.9 66 67.4 Actives 20 26.0 12 57.1 32 32.6 Total 77 100.0 21 100.0 98 100.0 * Significant at the .01 level of confidence. 429 TABLE D-99.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store Shopping Activity and Replacement Purchase for Laundry Durables. Brand and Replacement First-Time Total Store Purchaser Purchaser Shopping Activity* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 37 86.1 9 60.0 46 79.3 Actives 6 13.9 6 40.0 12 20.7 Total 43 100.0 15 100.0 58 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE D-lOO.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store Shopping Activity and Replacement Purchase for Cooking Ranges. Brand and Replacement First-Time Total Store Purchaser Purchaser Shopping _ . . . * Act1v1ty No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Inactives 22 81.5 1 14.3 23 67.7 Actives 5 18.5 6 85.7 11 32.3 Total 27 100.0 7 100.0 34 100.0 * Significant at the .001 level of confidence. 430 TABLE D-lOl.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Brand and Store Shopping Activity and Replacement Purchase for Console Televisions. Brand and Replacement First-Time Total Store Purchaser Purchaser Shopping - ACtiVitY* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent ‘No. Per Cent Inactives** 6 42.9 8 15.7 14 21.5 Actives 8 57.1 43 84.3 51 78.5 Total 14 100.0 51 100.0 65 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ** Inactives in this table are defined as no brands and store considered other than the actual brand purchased at the preferred store. 431 .oocoonooo wo Ho>oH mo. who no ncmoHMHcmHm .1 c.00H Am o.OOH mm o.OOH mH o.oOH AH o.OOH m Hmuoa m.ov Hm m.mm vH m.mm m m.Hv A 0.00H m mo>Huo¢ A.mm mm N.os NH A.MA oH m.mm OH o o mo>HnomcH ucmo now .02 uoo0 nmm .02 Menu new .02 ucmu nom .oz uoo0 nom .oz ewuH>Hu04 mcHamonm ononomoom moHonmmoom moHonmmoom moHozomoom onoum Hmuoe nomnmq noHHmEm nomnmq noHHmEm one one nooHo pom nooHo pom nomaso» pom nomcsow pcmnm .mnonmnomHnmmm now oNHm oHonmmsom pom mom .muH>Hnom mchmonm ononm pom ocmnm on mcHonooom mnmmmnonsm mo mommucoonom one mnmnEdz|n.moHno mqmge .oocmonaoo mo Ho>oH OH. man no pcooHMHcmHm k. o.ooH Am o.OOH mm o.QOH mm 0.00H Hm c.00H m Honoe o.mm mm m.mm sH A.Hm m o.mm a 0.0m a mo>Huo¢ o.Am mm «.mw am m.mA mH o.HA mm o.om H mm>HuoocH homo now .02 ucoo now .02 undo new .02 homo nom .oz ucmo new .02 HAHH>HH0< mcHQmonm Hmuoe moHocomsom moHocomsom moHonomsom moHonomsom onouw nomnma noHHmEm nmmHMH noHHmEm can one nmoHo can nmoHo can nomcsow cam nomcdow ocmnm .moooo oanz now oNHm oHocmmoom one was .muH>Huo¢ monomonm ononm can ocmnm on mcHon0004 mnmmmconsm wo wommpcmowow can mnonEsZnn.m0Hno mqmae .eoceonsoo mo He>eH mO. esp ue useOHMHCOHm k. o.o0H mo o.ooH. o o.ooH om o.ooH .oH o.ooH mH Hence A.Av Hm 0.00H O m.mm OH m.om O H.ov O me>Hno¢ m.~m an o o A.oo om o.ma A a.mm A no>HuoooH. uceo new .02 neeo new .02 uceo new .02 uceo new .02 useo new .02 «wuH>Huo« mewaosm nensew nesso eEom neueew necso eeom enoum Heuoe one one one one one neoHo neoHo nemqsow nemnsow. onenm .moonH>eHeB eHheunow now anmnecso eEom one emm .AuH>Huo< mcwaoom enoum one onenm on moHonooo< mnemesonow mo memeuoeonew one mneQEDZnI.mOHIo mHmwa 2 3 4 .enoum.oennemenw one we oemenonow ooenn Hesuoe on» menu nenno oeneonooo enoum one mooeno on me oeoneo ene eHneu mHSH GH me>HuoeoHne .eoceonooo mo He>eH OH. en» ue noeoHMHcmHmn 0.00H mNH . o.OOH NH o.OOH mm o.OOH m o.OOH mo Hence O.NA om A.HO m N.OA mo O.AA A m.mA om me>Hu04 H.Am mm m.mm A m.mm mH m.~m N v.om HH enme>HpoecH uceo new .02 paeo new .02 poem new .02 uceo new .02 uceo new .02 n»uH>Huo¢ mCwaonm nemenonsw nemesonow nemeconow nemenonow enoum Heuoe uoooonwnHuHoz nosoonw eHmon uoooonleuHSS uoooonw eHmon one one neoHO one neoHo ooe neocoow one nemooow ocenm .moooo GSOnm nOH memenonow uceoew mo nenfisz one emfi .m H>H o mcwaonm enonm one ocenm on mcHonooom mnemenonsw mo memenceonew u. .u w one onenesZnn.HOHno woman 433 .eooeoncoo mo He>eH mO. ecu He noeeHchmHm u». 0.00H NH 0.00H mO ON 0.00H OH 0.00H OH Henoe A.AO Hm 0.0m O O.AA «H m.mm a 0.0o a me>Huo< m.Nm am 0.00 OH N.NN v A.OO m 0.00 O me>HuoecH uceo new .02 uceo new .02 .uaeo new .02 uceo new .02 uceo new .02 nAoH>Hooa mcwaonm oHozemoom oHonemsom oHocemoom oHonemsom enoum Heuoe nemneH one neHHeEm one nemneH one neHHeEm one ooe oeneooom enoz oeueosom enoz oeueosom mmeH oeueooom mmeH osenm .mGOHmH>eHeB eHQeunow now eNHm oHonemoom one HOHneosom .AnH>Huow mcwaonm enoum one oeenm on msHonooom mnemenonsw mo memenoeonew one mnenEsznn.AOHno mqmwe .eooeoncoo mo He>eH OH. eon He uceonHomHm an 0.00H ANH 0.00H Ho 0.00H ON 0.00H ca 0.00H NN Hence O.Nm AO O.mv ON O.mA OH 0.0m ON 0.0v m me>Huow N.Av OO N.Hm HN O.mN O 0.0m ON H.Om mH me>HuoecH useo new .02 uceo new .02 uceo new .02 uceo new .02 nceo new .02 «AHH>Huo¢ mCwaonm oHonemoom oHonemsom oHonemsom oHosemoom enonm Heuoe nemneH one neHHeEm one nemneH one neHHeEm one ooe oeueosom enoz oepeosom enoz oepeooom mmeH oeneosom mmeH ocenm .moooo csonm nOO eNHm oHocemoom one COHueooom .AHH>Huo< ocwaonm enonm one ocenm on mcHonooo< mnemeconow mo memeuceonew one mnenfieznn .OOHIQ mHmHwoenH «« .eoneonnoo we He>eH OH. enw we wneUHanmHm« 0.00H HH 0.00H Oh 0.00H ON 0.00H OH 0.00H HN HewOB N.Ov NO H.O H N.vm OH v.¢v O O.hv OH me>Hw04 0.0m Nv 0.00 OH O.mv HH O.mm OH v.Nm HH ewme>HwoenH wneU new .02 wneo new .02 wneU new .02 wneo new .02 wneU new ..oz ewwH>Hwen mnnwwonm .onew we eEHB .onem we eEHB .onew we eEHB .onew He eEHB enowm HewOB nemnoq one newnonm one nemnoq one newnonm one one oeweonom enoz oeweonom enOE oeweenom mmeq oeweonom wmeq onenm .mnenmez eHweEownn new mmenoon wnemenw we wewm mo nwmneH one nOHweonom .me>Hwe¢ mnnwwonm enowm one onenm ow mnHonooon mnemenennw mo memewneonew one mnenEDZII.OOHIQ mwmne 4 3 4 .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OH. enw we wneonHanm um 0.00H vs 0.00H OH 0.00H OH 0.00H ON 0.00H OH Hewoe 0.0N NN m.ON v O.nN m O.vv OH O O me>Hwo< 0.0h Nm m.On OH N.Nn OH N.mm OH 0.00H OH me>HweenH wneo new .02 wneU new .02 wneo new .02 wneo new .02 wneu new .02 «wwH>Hwen mnwaonm wexnez nH eEHB wexnez nH eEHB wexnez nH eEHB wexnez nH eEHB enowm Hewoe nemnOH one newnonm one nemnoq one newnonm one one oeweonom enoz oeweenom enoz oeweenom mmeq oeweonom mmeq onenm .mnenmez onwefiownn now eenn wexnez nH mewm mo nwmneq on< .nOHweonom ~th>Hwe¢ mnnwwonm enowm one onenm ow mnnonooon mnemenonnw mo memewneunew one mnenESZIu .OOHIQ WHmHweenH.:F .eeneonwnoo no nm>en mo. may we wamonnncmnm* o.OOH OO o.OOH OH o.OOH ON o.OOH O o.OOH OH Hewoe 0.00 OO 0.00 OH 0.0m OH 0.0m N 0.00 HH me>nwon O.HO ON O.m H 0.00 HH 0.0m N O.mO O «Ome>HwoenH wneo new .02 wneo new .02 wneu new .02 wneo new .02 wneu new .02 «Own>nwon mnwaonm newnew nenso ence newnew nen3o ence enowm Hewoa one one one one one oeweonom enoz oeweonom enoz oeweonom ween oeweenom ween onenm 5 3 4 .mnonmn>eHeB eHnewnow new anmnenBO eEom one noneonom .OwH>Hwen Onwaonm enowm one onenm ow mnHonooe< mnemenonnw mo memewneonew one mnenEnz|a.HHHlo mqmne .enoww oennewenw enw we oemenennw onenw Henwee enw nenw nenwo oeneonnoo enowm one monenn on we oenHweo ene eHQew mHnw nH me>HweenH«« .eoneonnoo no nm>mn mo. may we wamonencmnm* o.OOH 0.00H ONH ON o.OOH HO o.OOH O 0.00H Nm Hewoe 0.00 OO O.mO ON O.mO ON 0.0m m H.OO OO me>Hwe¢ N.ON OO N.O H N.OO OH 0.00 O 0.0N OH *eme>HwoenH wneU new .02 wneu new .02 wneo new .02 wneo new .02 wneo new .02 «OwH>Hwon mnwaonm newnew nen3o eEom newnew nenso eEom enowm Hewoe one one one one one oeweenom enoz oeweosom enoz oeweenom mmeq oeweonom ween onenm .mooou n3onm now anmnen3o eEom one noneonom .wwH>Hwe< mnwaonm enowm one onenm ow mnnonoeen mnemenonnw mo meOewneenew one mnenEnz|l.OHHIQ mqmns .enowm oennewenw enw nenw nenwo oeneonnoo enoww one monenn on we oenHweo ene eHnew mnnw nH me>nwoenH«* .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OH. enw we wneenwnnmnmn .e oemenennw onenn Henwee enw o.OOH HO o.oon an o.oon mm o.OOH on o.oon mn Hence m.m¢ mm 0.0m O ~.mm On o.OO O O.om O me>nnoe O.om Om «.mO NH 0.00 mn o.ON N N.OO m ewme>nneean eceo new .02 ‘nceo new .02 eqeo new .02 naeu new .02 nceo new .02 Owen>nnee Onwaonm .onem we eEHB .onew we eEHB .onew we eEHB .onmew we eEHB enowm Hewoe nemnoq one newnonm one nemnOH one newnonm one one wcesnnne ween weesnnwe ween wnesnwwe enoz usesnnne ene: eaenm .mooow ewnnz now mmenoon wnemenw we mewm mo nwmneq one eEoonH .OwH>Hwon mnnwwonm enowm one onenm ow mnnonooon mnemenonnw mo memewneenew one mnenEnz||.OHHno mqmne .enowm oennewenw enw we oemenonnw onenn Henwoe enw nenw nenwo oeneonnoo enowm one monenw on me oenHweo ene eHQew mHnw nH me>HwoenH«« .eoneonwnoo mo He>eH NO. enw we wneonwnnmnme 436 o.OOH mm o.OOH HO o.OOH OH o.OOH OH o.OOH O Hewoe 0.00 mO O.NO OH m.HO O 0.00 NH O O me>Hwe< 0.0m OO H.Om ON m.OO m 0.0N m o.OOH O neme>HweenH wneu new .oz wneu new .02 wneo new .02 wneo new .02 wneu new .02 «me>Hwon mnwaQnm oHonemnom oHonemnom oHonemnom oHonemnom enowm Hewoe nemneH one neHHeEm one neOneH one neHHeEm one one wnenwan ween wnenmen mmeq wnenwan enoz wnenmen enoz onenm Onnwwonm enowm one onenm ow Onnonooon mnemenonnw we meOewneenew one mnenEOZIn .NHHIQ mqmws 437 .eeneonnoo mo He>eH OO. ene we wceenwnamnm .<. o.OOH mm o.OOH O o.OOH om o.OOH mH o.OOH OH HewOB 0.00 HO H.OO O o.OO O 0.00 HH O.mm O me>Hwo¢ O.Nm Om O.NO O o.OO HN 0.0N O N.OO O me>HernH wneo new .02 .wneu new .02 wneo new .02 wneU new .02 wneo new .02 eth>HwU< mnwaonm newnew nenBo eEom newnew nenBO efiom enowm Hewoe one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one nemneq neOneH neHHeEm neHHeEm onenm .mnOHmH>eHeB eHwewnow now anmnenzo eEom one eNHm oHonemnom .me>Hwen mnnwwonm enowm one onenm ow Onnonoeon mnemenonnw mo meOewneenew one mnewfinzn|.OHHlo mwmne .eeneonwnoe mo He>eH OO. enw we wneOHanOHm .4. o.OOH OO o.OOH OH 0.00H NN o.OOH O o.OOH ON HewOB 0.00 HO 0.00 O 0.00 O 0.00 O 0.00 OH me>Hwen 0.00 OO 0.00 OH 0.00 OH 0.00 O 0.0N O me>HweenH wneu new .02 wneu new .02 wneu new .02 wneo new .02 wneu new .02 ewwH>Hwen mnwaonm eoneonew we eeneonmew we eoneonmew we eoneonmew we enowm Hewoa eEHB neOQOA eEHB newnonm eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm one one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom onenm nemneq neOneH neHHeEm neHHeEm .enOHmH>eHeB eHwewnow now mmenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwOneH one eNHm oHonemnom .wwH>Hwo¢ mnHQQOQm whowm one Uflenm Ow mnflwnooofl mHmmeflonsm MO wmmmwchme Ucm wwmflfilel .OHHIQ mqmme 8 3 4 .eoneowwnoe mo He>eH OH. enw we wneonHnOHm k. 0.00H OO o.oon mmn o.oon On o.oon 0O neeon o.mm 0O O.NO m O.m~ O o.mq On O.HO mv me>nno< o.OO NO m.Om m O.HO on o.Om mm o.Om ON me>nnoecn wneU new .02 wneu new .02 ,wneU new .02 .wneo new .02 wneu new .02 ennn>nnoe mnnwwonm eoneonmew we eoneonew we eoneonew we eoneonew we .enowm Hewoe eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm eEHw nemnoq eEHB newnonm ne Cam HmmMQOHflm Huge memfioHflm USN HGmMfiUHDm mucm meMSOHDm UGWHm nonconwunnnsz woueonwunwnsz nonconw enmanm weseonw enmcnm .moooo n30nm now mmenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwmneq one memenennw wneoew we nenfinz ~wan/Hwen mnwaonm enowm one onenm ow mnHonooon mnemenonnw mo meOewneenew one mnewESZII.OHHIQ mqmna .eoneonwnoo wo He>eH OO. enw we wneeHanOHm ¥ o.OOH OO o.OOH OH o.OOH OH o.OOH HH o.OOH HH Hewoe 0.00 ON N.HO O N.HO O 0.00 O O.HO O me>Hwon H.OO ON 0.00 HH 0.00 OH 0.00 O N.OH N me>HwoenH ne ne .0 . . . . w u w z wcee new oz wceu new oz uceu new oz ncee new oz *Own>nwoO Onnwwonm neHHoo neHHoo .enowm Hewoe eanBInoz neHHOU eanB eanzlnoz neHHOU ean3 ne one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom nmn nemneq nemneq neHHeEm neHHeEm o m omgOflmHNVmHmn—m mHQMHHOQ HOW COHUQQDUUO MUCH mNHw UHOgmmsom OWHHNVHHU“ mnmeonm enowm one onenm 0w mnHon000< mnemenonfi w mo meOewneonew one mnewnnz|n.OHH IQ mqmdfi 3 4 .enowm oennewenw enw we oeeenennw onenw Henwoe enw nenw nenwo oeneonnoe enowm one monenw on me oenHweo ene eHwew mHnw nH me>HwoenH** .eeneonwnoe mo He>eH OH. enw we wneeHanOHm« o.OOH OOH o.OOH HH o.OOH HO o.OOH ON o.OOH OO HewOB H.OO OO O.HO O 0.00 OO 0.00 HN 0.00 ON me>Hwon 0.0N OO N.OH N N.ON OH O.NH O N.HO OH ««me>HweenH O O O O .0 wneo new oz wneU new oz wneo new oz wneo new oz wneu new 2 *wwH>Hwen mnwaonm newnew nenso enom newnem nenzo eEom enowm Hewoe one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one eEHB neOnOA eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm eEHB newnonm onenm .mooow n3onm now anmnenBO eEom one eenn wexnez nH wewm mo nwmneq .OwH>Hwe< 9 mnwaonm enowm one onenm ow mnHonooon mnemenonnw mo meOewneonew one mnewEDZII.OHHIQ mqmna .eoneonnoe wo He>eH OH. enw we wneoflanOHm an o.oon, nn o.OOH mm o.OOH N o.OOH mm o.OOH OH HowOB N.mm Nm m.ON m o.OOH N m.H© 0H h.mw HH mm>HUU¢ m.HO MN h.Nh m o o m.mm OH m.Hm m mm>Hw0mnH wceo new .oz naeu new .oz nceu new .oz noeo new .oz wceo new .oz Onwn>nwoe neHHOU neHHOU mnHmmwnm Hewoa ewnnznnoz neHHou eanB eanZInoz neHHoo ewnnz WM one nemenonnw one nemenonnw one nemenonnw one nemenonnw onwnm wenooanHanz noseonwunwnsz wenoonw eHOnHm wonoonw eHOnHm mnflmmonw mnowm .mnoflmH>eHeB eHOmnOU n0w nOHwewneUO one memenonnw wneoem mo neQEnz one onenm Ow mnHonooofi mnemenondw HO memewne .nwn>nwoO Ohwm UCM MHQQESZII .OHHIQ mqmme 440 .enowm oennewenw enw we oemenennw onenw Henwoe enw nenw nenwo oeneonnoo enowe one monenw on me oenHweo ene eHwew mHnw nH me>HweenH«« .eoneoflwnoo mo He>eH OO. enw we wneefianOHm* o.oon om o.OOH NO 0.00H OH o.OOH OH 0.00H OH Hewoe .O.HO OO 0.00 OH 0.0N O 0.0H N 0.00 O me>Hwon 0.00 NO 0.00 OH O.HO OH 0.00 NH 0.00 O *nme>HwoenH nceo new .oz wceo new .oz wceu new .oz wceo new .oz wceo new .oz Onwn>nnoO mnawwonm neHHOU neHHOU .enowm one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one wexnez nH onwnm eEHB neOnoq eEHw nemnOH eEHB newnonm eEHB newnonm .mnenmez oaweEownm new nOHwewnoeo one eenn wexnez nH mewm mo nwOneH .me>Hwon mnwaonm enowm one onenm ow mnHonooe< mnemenonnw we meOewneonew one mnewESZII.HNHIQ mamma .eeneonnoe mo He>eH OH. ezw we wceonnncmnm i o.OOH OO o.OOH ON o.OOH OH o.OOH OH Hewoa 0.00 NO 0.00 O 0.00 HH 0.00 HH 0.00 O me>Hwon O.HO OO 0.0H H H.NO OH 0.00 O 0.00 O me>HwoenH wneo new .02 wneU new .oz wneo new .oz wneu new .oz wneu new .oz «me>Owe¢ mnwaonm newnem nen3o eEom newnew nenBO e80: enowm Hewoe one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one eEHB nemnoq eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm eEHE newnonm onenm .mn0nmn>eHeB eHnewnow now OwH>Hwen mnHmmonm enowm one onenm 0w mnHonooom mnwmefionflw MO memownwunwm one mHmQEDZ .ONHIQ mwmée .enowm oennewenw enw we oemenonnw onenw Henwoe enw nenw nenwo oeneonnoo enme one monenw on we oenHweo ene eHwew mflnw nH me>Hwoean* .eoneonnoe mo He>eH OH. enw we wneeHanOHmn6 o.OOH. an ON o.OOH NO o.OOH O o.OOH o.OOH OH Hewoe O.HO OO H.NO O H.HH H o.OO O N.OO NH me>Hwoe 0.00 NO 0.00 HH 0.00 O 0.00 OH 0.00 O ««me>HweenH wneu new .02 wneu new .oz wneu new .oz wneo new .02 wneo new .oz «OwH>Hwen neHHOU neHHOU mnHmmwnm Hewoe ewnnzlnoz neHHoo ewnnz eanzlnoz nquou eanz WM one .onew we one ”.onmem we one ..onem we one .onew we onmnm ends neonoq eEHB neonOH eEHB newnonm eEHB newnonm M... mnwaonm .mnenmez onwenownn now . .nOHwewneoo one mmenoon wnemenw we mewm wo nwOneH .me>Hwo< MHOfim Ufio UGon On. OQHUHOUU4 memofloHflm MO mwmoflfimUHmm Ugo mH0§ZII.MN.—HIQ N.HmmNn—u 4 .eeneonnOU mo He>eH OH. enw we wneOHanmHm um o.OOH OO o.OOH O o.OOH ON o.OOH ON o.OOH ON HewOB 0.00 NO O O 0.00 O 0.00 OH 0.00 O me>flwon O.HO OO O O N.OO OH 0.00 O 0.00 NH me>HwoenH wneu new .02 wneu new .oz wneo new .02 wneu new .02 wneu new .oz «>wa>nwod Onwaonm .newnew nenBO enon newnew nen30,eEom enowm Hewoe one .owmew we one .oflmew we one .onew we Hxne.onem we one eEHB neonoq eEHB neOnOH eEHB newnonm eEHB newnonm onenm mnHmwonm enowm one onenm 0w mnHonOUU< mnemenonnw MO memewneonew one mneQESZII .mnOHmH>eHeB eHwewnow now anmnenBO enom one mmenoon wnemenw we wewm MO nwmneq .wwH>HwU¢ .NNHIQ mqmdfi 442 TABLE D-124.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Type of Housing for Console Televisions. Unused Single Family Multi-Family Total Brand and Housing Building Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 20 37.7 8 66.7 28 43.1 High Knowers 33 62.3 4 33.3 37 56.9 Total 53 100.0 12 100.0 65 100.0 a * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 443 .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OH. enw we wneonmwnmnm % o.oon Om o.oon nn o.oon «n o.OOH nn o.oon On o.oon On Hence N.OO Om o.OO O m.mm O N.OH N O.mm on m.mO nn mneeonn none 0.0q on 0.0m O O.HO m O.HO a 0.00 O 0.0~ O mnezoqn 30a wneu new .oz wneo new .02 wneU new .oz _wneu new .oz wneo new .oz wneu new .oz eOoeHsonM enowm one eneen onenO Hewoa uneen neewwflw eneen mnee» ween no oemsno neewmnw nebo ow ne>em xnm ow nnow eenna ow 039 neen eno .mnOHan>eHeF eHnewnow now emenood wnemenw we mewm mo nwmneq one emoeHzonM enowm one onenm oeunnb ow mnHonooon mnemenonsw mo memewneenew one mnennnznn.ONH|Q wands .eoneonnoo wo He>eH OH. enw we wneonmnnmnm i 444 o.OOH OO o.OOH HH o.OOH OH o.OOH HH o.OOH OH o.OOH OH Hence 0.00 mm m.ON m 0.0N O O.NO O o.OO O O.NO OH mnezonn none ~.~O Om O.NO O m.mO HH m.ON m o.OO O 0.0m O mnesonn 30a wneU new .03 flfleO new .oz uneO new .02 wneU new .02 wneU new .oz wneU new .oz emoeHzonM enowm one unflen onenm Hewoa mnee» nooaunh mneen mneew Omen no oemnno fleeamnw ne>0 OD ne’em Nwm ow nnow eennB ow 039 nee» eno .mnowenemnnmefl non eeenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwmneq one eOoeHsonx enowm one onenm oeennD ow mnHonooon mnemenonnw mo memewneonew one mnennnzul.ONHno mqmne 445 TABLE D-127.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Length of Stay Unused Brand at Present Address for Cooking Ranges. \ A if Five Years Over Five Total or Less Years and Store Knowledge No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 8 50.0 13 81.3 21 65.6 High Knowers 8 50.0 3 18.7 11 34.4 Total 16 100.0 16 100.0 32 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-128.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Length of Stay in Market Area for Refrigerators. Unused Six Years Over Six Total Brand or Less Years and Store . K 1 d now e ge No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 6 33.3 30 58.8 36 52.2 High Knowers 12 66.7 21 41.2 33 47.8 Total 18 100.0 51 100.0 69 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 446 TABLE D-129.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Length of Stay in Market Area for Brown Goods. Unused Fifteen Years Over Fifteen Total Brand or Less Years and Store . Knowledge bk» Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 29 50.0 12 27.3 41 40.2 High Knowers 29 50.0 32 72.7 61 59.8 Total 58 100.0 44 100.0 102 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE D—l30.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Length of Stay in Market Area for Portable Televisions. Unused Fifteen Years Over Fifteen Total Brand or Less Years and Store _ Knowledge No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 16 51.6 4 20.0 20 39.2 High Knowers 15 48.4 16 80.0 31 60.8 Total 31 100.0 20 100.0 51 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 447 TABLE D-131.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Household Size for Dryers. Unused Brand Smaller Larger Total and Store Households Households Knowledge* ' No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 9 81.8 21 51.2 30 57.7 High Knowers 2 18.2 20 48.8 22 42.3 Total 11 100.0 41 100.0 52 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-132.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Household Size for Refrigerators. Unused d Smaller Larger‘ Total Bran Households Households and Store Knowledge* ' ' No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 16 66.7 19 45.2 35 53.0 High Knowers 8 33.3 23 54.8 31 47.0 Total 24 100.0 42 100.0 66 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 448 TABLE D-133.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Occupation for Brown Goods. Unused White Collar Non-White Total Brand Collar and Store _ Kn 1 d * ow e ge No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 26 56.5 23 35.9 49 44.6 High Knowers 20 43.5 41 64.1 61 55.4 Total 46 100.0 64 100.0 110 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE D-134.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Occupation for Portable Televisions. Unused White Collar Non—White Total Brand Collar and Store - ‘ Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low 7 Knowers 16 57.1 8 29.6 24 43.6 High Knowers 12 42.9 19 70.4 31 56.4 Total 28 100.0 27 100.0 55 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 449 TABLE D-135.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Number of Recent Purchases for White Goods. Unused . Brand Single Product Multi-Product Total and Store Purchaser Purchaser Knowledge* ' ' No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 47 62.7 9 39.1 56 57.1 High Knowers 28 37.3 14 60.9 42 42.9 Total 75 100.0 23 .100.0 98 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 450 .eoneonnoo wo He>eH OO. enw we wneOHmHnOHm an o.OOH Om o.OOH OH o.OOH HN o.OOH PH HoHOB 0.00 ON o.mN O . N.OO OH m.mm O mHGBOnM none O.mm Om O.mh NH m.mm .h N.OO HH mHOBOCM 30H #QGU Hem .OZ “CmU HGQ .OZ pfimU Hem .OZ UC®U Hem .OZ ¥®®©®H302M enowm one memenonnw onenm Hewoe enoz no eenne memenonnw 039 emenonnw eno oemnnD Ill . .mnehna new memenonnw wneoew O0 newnnz one emoeHzonx enowm one onenm oemnn; ow mnHonooon mnemenonnw O0 memewneonew one mneQEDZII.OOHIQ OHOOH 451 TABLE D-137.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Replacement Purchase for Cooking Ranges. Unused Replacement First-Time Total Brand_ Purchaser Purchaser and Store Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 18 75.0 2 28.6 20 64.5 High Knowers 6 25.0 5 71.4 11 35.5 Total 24 100.0 7 100.0 31 100.0 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE D-138.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Unused Brand and Store Knowledge and Replacement Purchase for Laundry Durables. Unused . Replacement First-Time Total Brand Purchaser Purchaser and Store Knowledge* ‘ ’ No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 21 50.0 11 78.6 32 57.1 High Knowers 21 50.0 3 21.4 24 42.9 Total 42 100.0 14 100.0 56 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 452 .GOCwUHHCOO MO H®>wH OH. enw we wneOHanmHm k. o.OOH om o.OOH mm o.OOH ON o.OOH Om o.OOH OH Heeon 0.00 OO N.Nm NH 0.00 HH 0.0N OH o.OO O mnezonm OOHO 0.0m om 0.00 HH N.Nm NH 0.00 ON o.OO O mnOBOnM 30H wneU new .02 wneU new .oz wneu new .oz wneU new .oz wneU new .02 eemoeHBOnM wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH enoww o#OB GEHB HQGQOQ QEHB HmflHOSm ®EHB HQDfiOQ mEflB HmflHOSW GMH H one one one one owmnnm oeweonom enoz oeweonom enoz oeweonom mmeH oeweonom mmeH .moooo eanz n0m eenn wexnez nH Oewm mo nwmneH one nOHweonom .eOoeH3onM enowm one onenm oemnnD ow OnHonooon mnemenonnw wo meOewneonew one mnewnnzal.OOHso mwmne .eoneonnoo wo He>eH OH. enw we wneonHnOHm k. o.OOH OO o.OOH O o.OOH OO o.OOH NH o.OOH NO Hewoe 0.00 OO 0.00 O H.NO OH O.HO O 0.00 NH mnezonx none 0.00 OO O.NH H 0.00 NN 0.00 O O.NO ON mneaonx 30A wneu new .02 wneU new .02 wneo new .02 wneu new .oz wneo new .oz n.emooeHnsonM nemenonnw nemenonnw nemenonnw nemenonnw enoww Hewoa wonoonleanz wonoonw eHOnHm wonooanHanz wonoonw eHOnHm on one one one one owmmmm oeweonom enoz oeweonom enoz oeweonom mmeq oeweonom mmeH .moooo ewnnz nOO memenonnw wneoew wo nennnz one nOHweonom .eOoeHzonx enowm one onenm oemnno ow OnHonooon mnemenonnw mo meOewneonew one mnennnznl.OOHuo mwmwe 453 .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OO. enw we wneonHanm a. O.OOH OOe O.OOH OH O.OOH OH O.OOH -OO O.OOH O Heeon H.OO mm O.NO O 0.00 OH 0.0m O 0.00 O mnezocn nOHe O.NO Om H.OO O 0.00 O H.OO OH N.ON O mnezonn 30H wneo new .oz wneu new .oz wneu new .oz _wneu new .02 wneU new ..oz «emoeHzonM wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH enoww eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm nwn Hewoe one one one one owmnnm oeweonom enoz oeweonom enoz oeweonom ween oeweonom Omen .mnenme3.oneEown< now.een< wexnez nH Oewm mo nwmneH one nOHweonom .eOoeHBOnM enowm one onenm oemnnp ow OnHonooon mnemenonnw mo meOewneonew one mnewEnZII.NOHIQ eHwea .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OO. enw we wneOHanOHm .1 O.OOH OO O.OOH. HH O.OOH OH O.OOH ON O.OOH O Hence 0.00 ON 0.00 O O.NO O 0.00 O 0.00H O mne3onm none O.NO ON 0.00 O H.OO O 0.00 OH O O mne3onm 30H wneU new .oz wneo new .02 wneu new .02 wneu new .02 wneu new .oz «emoeH3onM wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH enoww Hewoe eEHa neOnOH eEHB newnonm eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm nwn one one one one onnnm oeweonom enoz oeweonom enoz oeweonom ween oeweonom mmeH .meHnean Ononneq now een< wexnez.nH Oewm mo nwOneH one noneonom .emoeH3onM enowm one onenm oemnnD ow OnHonooen mnemenonnw no memewneonew one mnennnzll.HOHIo eHnee 454 .eoneonnoo wo He>eH OH. enw we wneOHanOHm k. O.OOH OHH ‘ 0.00H HO O.OOH OO O.OOH ON 0.00H OH Henow 0.00 HO 0.00 ON O.OO OH 0.00 OH 0.00 O Onezocn OOH: 0.00 OO O.HO OH O.HO OH O.OO OH N.OO O Onezoen 30H wneU new .oz wneo new .02 wneo new .oz wneU new .02 wneo new .oz «eOoeHzonm neHHou neHHou enoww Hence ennezuaoz neHHoo eensz ewHOz-aoz neHHoo eons: mn one moHonemnom one moHonemnom one moHonemnom one moHonemnom on m neOnOH neOnOH neHHeEm neHHeEm oemnnD .moooo nBOnm now nOHwewnooo one eNHm oHonemnom .eOoeHzonM enowm one onenm oemnnD ow mnHonooon mnemenonnw mo meOewneonew one mnewnnzul.OOHIQ mqmwe .eoneonwnoo wo He>eH OO. enw we wneOHanOHm k. 0.00H OO O.OOH! OH O.OOH ON O.OOH OH O.OOH OH Hmeow 0.00 HO 0.00 O 0.00 OH 0.0H H 0.00 O mnezonn gene 0.00 OO 0.00 O 0.00 OH 0.00 O 0.00 O mnezonm 30H wneu new .oz wneo new .02 wneu new .oz wneu new .oz wneu new .oz «eOoeHzonx eoneonew we eoneonew we eoneonew we eoneonew we enoww Hewoa eEHB neOnOH eEHB newnonm eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm nmn one moHonemnom one moHonemnom one moHonemnom one moHonemnom Mennm nemneH nemneH neHHeEw neHHeEm o D .mnoweneOHnwew n0w mmenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwOneH one eNHm oHonewnom .eOoeHsonM enowm one onenm oemnnD ow OnHonooon mnewenonnw mo meOewneonew one mnewESZII.OOHIQ mwmne 455 .eoneonnoo wo He>eH OH. enw we wneOHanOHm Om 0.00H OO 0.00 mm N.NO OO wneo new .02 Hence o.OOH OH H.NO O 0.00 HH .wneU new .02 wexnez nH eEHB neOnOH one nemenonnw woseonwuansz 0.00H OH 0.00 NH 0.0N O wneo new .oz wexnez nH eEHB newnonm one nemenonnw wosoonwuansz o.OOH ON 0.00 O 0.00 OH .wneo new .oz wexnez nH eEHB nemnoq one nemenonnw wonoonw eHmnHm .mnoweneOHnwew now eenn wexnez nH Oewm mo nwOneH one memenonnw wneoew wo newEnz neOoeHBOnM enowm one onenm oemnnD ow OnHonooon mnemenonnw mo meOewneonew one mnennnz:|.OOHlo mqmne 0.00H OH O.NO O H.OO O wneo new .oz wexnez nH eEHB newnonm one nemenonnw wonoonw eHOnHm Hence mnesonm OOHO mnezonm 30H «emoeHzonM enowm one onenm oemnnD .eoneonnoo wo He>eH NO. enw we wneOHanOHm ¥ 0.00H OO O.NO NO H.OO OO wneu new .oz Henon 0.00H OH 0.00 O O.HO O wneU new .oz wexnez nH eEHB neOnOH one nemenonnw wosoonw-Hstz 0.00H OH o.OO O o.OH H wneo new .02 wexnez nH eEHB newnonm one nemenonnw noseonwuansz 0.00H OO 0.00 OH O.NO OO wneu new .oz wexnez nH eEHB neOnOH one nemenonnw .mooow eanz n0w eenn wexnez nH Oewm wo nwOneH one memenonnw wneoew mo newnnz .eOoeHzonM enowm one onenm UOOSCD ow mnHon0004 mnemenonnw mo memewneonew one Onewanzsl.OOHno mwmda 0.00H ON 0.00 OH 0.00 OH wneU new .oz wexnez nH eEHB newnonm one nemenonnw wonoonw eHOnHm wonoonw eHOnHm Henow mnezonm OOH: mneBOnM 30H OemoeHzonM enowm one onenm oemnnD 456 .eoneonnoo mo He>eH NO. ene we eneonHcOHO k. 0.00H OO 0.00H NH 0.00H ON 0.00H OH 0.00H ON Hewon 0.00 OO 0.0N O 0.00 OH 0.0N O 0.00 O mnezonn nOHm N.NO OO 0.00 O H.ON O O.HO OH 0.00 HH mnezonn 30H wneu new .oz wneo new .02 wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .02 OeOoeHBOnO eonmoflmmm “e monmoflmmm we eUanonmwm .....e mvnmoflmmm “we OHOWM Hewoe eEHB neOnOH eEHB newnonm eEHB nemnon eEHB newnonm nmn one Hemenonnm one Hemeflonnm one nemenonnw one Hemenonnm onnnM noseoanHstz noseoanHstz wonoonw eHOnHm wonoonw eHOnHm .mnoweneOHnwew now mmenoon wnemenw we Oewm wo nwOneH one memenonnw wneoew wo nennnz neOoeHzonM enowm one onenm oemnnD ow mnHonooon mnemenennw mo memewneonew one mnewnnzII.OOHIQ mwmne .eoneonnoo wo He>eH NO. enw we wneOHanmHm k. 0.00H OO 0.00H OH 0.00H OH 0.00H OO 0.00H HO Hewoe O.NO NO 0.00 O 0.00 HH 0.00 NH 0.00 OH mnezonm nOHO H.OO OO 0.00 O 0.0H N 0.00 NN O.HO ON mneBOnm 30H wneo new .02 wneu new .02 wneu new .02 wneu new .02 wneu new .oz OeOoeHzonM eoneonew we eoneonmew we eoneonew we eoneonew we enoww Hewoe eEHB neOnOH eEHB newnonm eEHB neOnOH eEHB newnonm an one nemenonnw one nemenonnw one nemenonnw one nemenonnw onnnm noseoanHanz wonooanHanz wonoonw eHOnHm wonoonw eHOnHm .mooou eanB nOO mmenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwOneH one memenonnw wneoew mo newnnz .eOoeH3onM enowm one onenm oemonO ow OnHonooo< mnemenonnw O0 OeOewneonew one mnennnZII.OOHuO mwmwe 457 .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OO. enw we wneOHanOHm an 0.00H OO 0.00H HN 0.0oH OH 0.00H O 0.00H ON Hewoa 0.00 OO 0.0N O 0.00 OH 0.00 N 0.00 OH mneBOnm nmwm N.NO OO N.OO OH 0.00 O 0.00 O 0.00 O mneBOnM 30H wneu new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz OemoeHzonM .eneew we enHO.eHOew we eeHn .eneew we enHw .eHmew we eeHO enoww Hewoe neOnOH one newnonm one neOnOH one newnonm one nwn wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH Wmnnm eEHB neOnOH eEHH neOnOH eEHB newnonm eEHB newnonm o D .mnoweneOHnwew now mmenoon wnemenw one eenw wexnez nH Oewm wo nwmneq .eOoeHBOnM QHODm one oneHm ommenD Cu. DnHoHOUOOHN mHGmMSOHHHOH MO mmmoflnmnuuumm one mHmwQEHHZII.NmHIQ mgmflflb .eoneonnoo wo He>eH OH. enw we wneOHanOHm an 0.00H NOH 0.00H O 0.00H OH 0.00H OO 0.00H OO Hewoe H.OO OO 0.0N N 0.00 HH O.NO ON O.HO OO mne3onm OOHO 0.00 OO 0.00 O O.HN O 0.00 OH 0.00 OO mneBOnM 30H ne ne .O ne . . . . w 0 w z w 0 new oz wneO new oz wneu new oz wneu new oz OeOoeHzonM eoneonew we eoneonew we eoneonew we eoneonew we enoww Hewoe eEHB neOnOH eEHB newnonm eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm nwn one nemenonnw one nemenonnw one nemenonnw one nemenonnw omennm woseonwuansz woseonwuanwz woeeonw eHOeHO woseonw eHOeHO wnemenw we Oewm mo nwOneH one memenOHnw wneoew mo newnnz .eOoeH3onM .mooow n3onm n0w mmenoon enowm one onenO oemnnO ow OnHonooo< mnemenonnw O0 meOewneonew one Onen822u1.HOHIO OHOOO 458 .eoneonnoo wo He>eH OH. enw we wneonHnOHm k. 0.00H OOH 0.00H OO 0.00H OH 0.00H ON 0.00H ON Hewoe 0.00 HO O.HO ON O.NO OH 0.00 OH 0.00 OH mnezonm nOHO 0.00 OO 0.0N HH 0.00 O 0.00 HH 0.00 OH mneBOnM 30H wneO new .oz wneu new .oz wneo new .oz _wneO new .oz wneo new .oz OemoeHzonM neHHou neHHou enmwm e o eanBInoz neHHou eanB eanBInoz neHHoo eanz onenw H w a one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one wexnez nH oemnno eEHB nemnoq eEHB nemnon eEHB newnonm eEHB newnonm .mooou nzonm nOO nOHwewnooo one een< wexnez nH mewm wo nwOneH .eOoeHaonM enowm one onenm oemnnD ow OnHonooon mnemenonnw mo meOewneonew one mnewEnZIl.OOHIQ mwmee .eoneonnoo wo He>eH OH. enw we wneonHnOHO k. 0.00H OO 0.00H ON 0.00H OH 0.00H O 0.00H ON Hewoe N.OO OO 0.00 OH 0.00 O O O 0.00 OH mnesonm nOHm 0.00 OO 0.00 O 0.00 O 0.00H O 0.00 NH mneBOnw 30H gm m .0 O O O 0 w o n w z wneo new oz wneo new oz wneo new oz wneo new oz «eOoeHzonn .onew we eEHB .onew we eEHB .onew we eEHB .onew we eEHB enoww Hewoe neOnOH one newnonm one neOnOH one newnonm one nwn wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH owmnnm eEHB neOnOH eEHB nemnon eEHB newnonm eEHB newnonm .mnonH>eHeB eHwewnow n0w mmenoon wnemenw one eenn wexnez nH Oewm wo nwmneq .emoeHBOnM enowm one onenm oemnnO ow OnHonooo< mnemenonnw we meOewneonew one Onenenz|u.OOHuo OHOOB 459 .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OH. enw we wneOHanOHm an 0.00H OO 0.00H ON 0.00H OH 0.00H NH 0.00H OH Hewoe 0.00 HO 0.0N O O.NO O 0.00 O 0.00 O mneBOnn nOHm 0.00 OO 0.00 OH H.OO O 0.00 O 0.00 O mneBOnM 30H wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneu new .oz wneo new .oz wneu new .oz OeOoeH30nM neHHou neHHOO enoww Hewon eanzInoz neHHoo ewnnz ewHOZInoz neHHoo ewnnz nmn one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one wexnez nH onnnm eEOB neOnOH eEOB nemnow eEHB newnonm eEHB newnonm .mnenmez onweEownn now nOHwewnooo one eenn wexnez nH Oewm wo nwOneH .eOoeHzonM enowm one onenm oemnnD ow OnHonooon mnemenonnw mo memewneonew one mnewnnz||.OOHlo mwmne .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OH. enw we wneOHanOHm k. 0.00H OO 0.00H OH 0.00H OH 0.00H OH 0.00H OH Hewow 0.00 HO O.NO OH 0.00 O 0.00 O 0.00 O mnezonn nOHe 0.00 ON 0.0H O 0.00 O 0.00 O H.HO HH mneaonn 30H wneu new .oz wneu new .oz wneu new .oz wneu new .oz wneo new .oz «emoeHBOnM neHHoo neHHoo enmwm Hewon ewHOZInoz neHHoo ewnnz eanz-noz neHHoo ewnnz nen one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one wexnez nH one wexnez nH onnnm eEHB nemnon eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm eEHB newnonm .mnonH>eHeB eHwewnow now nOHwewnooo one eenn wexnez nH wewm wo nwOneH .eOoeHzonM enowm one onenm oemnnD ow OnHonooon mnemenonnw mo memewneonew one mnewESZII.OOHIQ mqmde 460 .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OH. enw we wneonHnOHO k. 0.00H OO 0.00H OH 0.00H O 0.00H ON 0.00H OH Hewon 0.00 ON O.ON O 0.0H H 0.00 OH O.OO O mnesonn nOHm N.OO NO O.HO OH 0.00 O H.OO O 0.00 O enezonn 30H wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz OeOeeHzonn neHHoo neHHoo neHHoo neHHoo enoww e o ewHSZInoz one eanB one eanBInoz one eanz one nmn H w B one .onew we one .onew we one..onew we one .onew we onnnm eEHB neOnon eEHE neOnOH eEHB newnonm eEHE newnonm .mnoweneOHnwew now nOHwewnooo one mmenoow wnemenw we Oewm wo nwOneH .eOoeHzonm enowm one onenm oeennD ow mnHonooow mnemenonnw wo memewneonew one mnewEDZII.OOHIQ mwmne .eoneonnoo wo He>eH OO. enw we wneOHanOHm Om 0.00H OHH 0.00H ON 0.00H NH 0.00H OO 0.00H OO Hewoe 0.00 HO 0.00 OH 0.00 O N.NO ON N.OO OH mnezonn nOHO 0.00 OO 0.00 OH O.HO O 0.0N OH O.HO HN Onezonn 30H wneU new .02 wneU new .02 wneU new .02 wneU new .02 wneU new .02 nemoeHSOan neHHOU neHHOU neHHOU neHHou enmww Hewon eanzunoz one eanz ene ewnnz-noz one eanz ene nen one .onew we one .onew we one .onew we one .onew we ommnnm eEHB nemnow eEHB nemnow eEHO newnonm eEHB newnonm .moooo nBOnm noO nonewnooo one mmenoon wnemenw we wewm wo nwOneH weOoeHzonn enowm one onenm oemnnD ow OnHonooon mnemenonnw wo memewneonew one mnewnnzll.OmHIQ mamme 461 TABLE D—159.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand and Store Knowledge and Length of Stay at Present Address for Dryers. Total Five Years Over Five Total Brand or Less Years and Store _ Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 17 56.7 18 78.3 35 66.0 High Knowers 13 43.3 5 21.7 18 34.0 Total 30 100.0 23 100.0 53 100.0 *- Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D—l60.-—Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand and Store Knowledge and Household Size for Refrigerators. Total Smaller Larger Total Brand Households Households and Store Knowledge* F No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 15 62.5 17 40.5 32 48.5 High Knowers 9 37.5 25 59.5 34 51.5 Total 24 100.0 42 100.0 66 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 462 TABLE D-l6l.——Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand and Store Knowledge and Household Size for Automatic Washers. Total Smaller Larger Total Brand Households Households and Store O ~ Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 12 75.0 29 51.8 41 56.9 High Knowers 4 25.0 27 48.2 31 43.1 Total 16 100.0 56 .100.0 72 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-l62.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand and Store Knowledge and Occupation for Portable Televisions. Total White Collar Non-White Total Brand Collar and Store . Knowledge* ' No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 11 39.3 5 18.5 16 29.1 High Knowers 17 60.7 22 81.5 39 70.9 Total 28 100.0 27 100.0 55 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 463 TABLE D-l63.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand and Store Knowledge and Number of Recent Purchases for White Goods. Total Single Product Multi-Product Total Brand Purchaser Purchaser and Store ~ ~ Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 48 64.0 7 30.4 55 56.1 High Knowers 27 36.0 16 69.6 43 43.9 Total 75 100.0 23 100.0 98 100.0 * Significant at the .01 level of confidence. TABLE D-l64.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand and Store Knowledge and Number of Recent Purchases for Refrigerators. Total Single Product Multi-Product Total Brand Purchaser Purchaser and Store ‘ it Knowledge No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 20 58.8 13 37.1 33 47.8 High Knowers 14 41.2 22 62.9 36 52.2 Total 34 100.0 35 100.0 69 100.0 1‘: Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 464 TABLE D-l65.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand and Store Knowledge and Number of Recent Purchases for Dryers. Total Single Product Multi—Product Total Brand Purchaser Purchaser and Store - - Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent N0. Per Cent Low Knowers 14 82.4 21 56.8 35 64.8 High Knowers 3 17.6 16 43.2 19 35.2 Total 17 100.0 37 100.0 54 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. TABLE D-l66.--Numbers and Percentages of Purchasers According to Total Brand and Store Knowledge and Number of Recent Purchases for Cooking Ranges. Total Single Product Multi—Product Total Brand Purchaser Purchaser and Store ‘ Knowledge* No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Low Knowers 10 83.3 10 50.0 20 62.5 High Knowers 2 16.7 10 50.0 12 37.5 Total. 12 100.0 20 100.0 32 100.0 * Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 465 .eoneonwnoo wo He>eH OH. enw we wneonHnOHO .4. 0.00H OO 0.00H ON 0.00H HH 0.00H O 0.00H ON Hewoe H.OO OO 0.00 OH 0.00 O 0.00 O 0.00 OH mnezonn none 0.00 ON 0.00 O 0.00 O H.HH H 0.00 O mnezonn 30H wneo new .oz wneu new .oz wneu new .oz wneo new .oz wneu new .oz «eOoeH3onm enowm wexnez nH wewnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH one Hewoe eEHB neOnOH enHB newnonm eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm onenm one neoHo one neoHo one neOnnow one nemnnow Hewoe .mnOHmH>eHeB eHwewnow nOO eenn wexnez nH Oewm mo nwmneH one emm .emoeHzonM enowm one onenm Hewoa ow mnHonooon mnemenonnw wo meOewneonew one mnewESZII.OOHIQ mHmne .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OO. enw we wneonHnOHm .1 O.OOH OO O.OOH. OH O.OOH HO O.OOH HH O.OOH ON Hewon 0.00 NO 0.00 O 0.00 OH O.NO O 0.00 O mnezonm nOHm 0.00 OO 0.00 O 0.00 OO 0.0N O O.NO OH mnezonm 30H wneu new .oz wneu new .oz wneu new .oz wneo new .oz wneO new .oz OeOoeHzonM enowm newenonnw nemenonnw nemenonnw nemenonnw ne HewoB wonooanHanz wonoonw eHOnHm wonooanHanz wonoonw eHOnHm nwn one neoHo one neoHo one neOnnow one nemnno» wewom .mooow eanz n0w memenonnw wneoew mo nennnz one eOn .eOoeHBOnn enowm one onenm Hewoe ow mnHonooo< mneeenonnw wo memewneonew one mnewEDZII.OOHIQ mwmna 466 .mOnonMnOU MO HM>®H mo. enw we wneonHnOHO k. 0.00H OO 0.00H ON 0.00H ON 0.00H OO 0.00H OH Hewoe 0.00 HO 0.00 OH 0.00 OH 0.00 NH 0.00 O mne3onn none 0.00 OO 0.00 OH 0.00 OH 0.00 NN 0.0H H mneBOnM 30H wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneu new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz OemoeH3onM wennez nH wexnez nH wewnez nH wexnez nH enoww ewoe eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm eEHB neOnOH eEHB newnonm nmn H one one one one mewom oeweonom enoz oeweonom enoz oeweonom ween oeweonom emeH .moooo ewnnz n0w eenO wexnez nH wewm mo nwOneH one noneonom ~eOoeHzonM enowm one onenw Hewoe ow OnHonooon mnemenonnw wo memewneonew one mnewnnzuu.OOHln MHmnB .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OH. enw we wneonHnOHm ¥ 0.00H OO 0.00H O 0.00H OO 0.00H NH 0.00H NO Hewoe 0.00 HO 0.00 O 0.00 OH 0.00 O 0.00 OH mne3onn nOHm 0.00 OO 0.0N N N.OO ON 0.00 O 0.00 OH mnexonn 30H wneo new .oz wneu new .02 wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneU new .oz «emoeHSOnM enowm HemenOhnm Hemofluhnm HGMMSUHDQ HemonUhnm no Hewoe wonoonwnHstz wonoonw eHOnHO wonoonwunHsz woneonw eHOnHO nwnm one one one one wewoe oeweonom enoz oeweonom enoz oeweonom ween oeweonom ween .mooow ean3 now memenonnw wneoew wo nennnz one noneonom .eOoeHBOnM enoww one onenm Hewoe ow mnHonooo< mnemenonnw mo meOewneonew one mnewESZII.OOHIQ mqmne 467 .eoneeHwnoo no He>eH OH. enw we wneonHnOHO .4. 0.00H NO 0.00H OO 0.00H ON 0.00H HH 0.00H O Hewoe H.OO HO 0.00 OH N.NO NH H.O H 0.00 O mne3onn nOHm 0.00 HO 0.00 OH 0.00 HH 0.00 OH 0.00 N mne3onM 30H wneo new .oz ,wneu new .oz wneu new .oz wneo new .oz wneu new .oz OemoeHzonM wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH enoww ewoe eEHB neOnOH eEHB newnonm eEHB nemnow eEHB newnonm nmn H one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom oe ow nemneq neOneH neHHeEm neHHeEm H w a .mnenme3 onwenownn now eenn wexnez nH Oewm wo nwOneH one eNHO oHonemnom .eOoeHzonM enowm one onenm Hewoe ow mnHonooon mnemenonnw wo memewneonew one mnewnnzll.NOH|Q mamas .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OO. enw we wneOHanOHm Om O.OOH OO O.OOH. OH O.OOH OO O.OOH O O.OOH ON Hewon 0.00 NO N.OO O 0.00 NN 0.00 O 0.0N O mnezonn nOHn 0.00 OO 0.00 O 0.00 OO 0.0N N 0.00 OH mnezonn 30H wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz «emoeHeonn nemenonnw nemenonnw nemenonnw nemenonnw enoww Hewoe wonooanHanz wonoonw eHOnHm wonooanHanz wonoonw eHOnHm nmn one moHonemnom one moHonemnom one moHonemnom one moHonemnom oe om nemneq nemneH neHHeEm neHHeEm H w B .mooow eanz now memenonnw wneoew mo newnnz one eNHm oHonemnom .emoeHzonn enowm one onenm Hewoe ow OnHonoood mnemenonnw mo memewneonew one mnewESZII.HOHIQ mwmne 468 .eoneonnOO mo He>eH OO. enw we wneonHnOHO n5 O.OOH OHH O.OOHA HO O.OOH OO O.OOH ‘ON O.OOH OH Hewon O.NO OO 0.00 OO 0.00 OH N.OO OH 0.00 HH mne3onn none 0.0N OO 0.0H O O.NO OH 0.00 O 0.0H N mnezonn 30H wneU new .02 OwneU new .02 wneU new .02 wneu new .02 wneU new .02 nemoeHOwoan neHHOO neHHou enmww Hewoa eanBInoz neHHOO eanB ewnnzunoz neHHoo ewnnz onenm one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom e o neOneH nemneH neHHeEm neHHeEm H w B .mooow nsonm now nOHwewnooo one eNHm oHonemnom .eOoeHBOnM enowm one onenm Hewoa ow OnHonooon mnemenonnw mo memewneonew one mnewnnz|a.OOH|Q mqmnn .eeneonnoo wo He>eH OH. enw we wneOHanOHm .1 O.OOH NO O.OOH. OH O.OOH OO O.OOH HH O.OOH O Hewon H.OO HO N.OO O O.OO OH H.O H O.OO O enezonn none O.OO HO O.OO O O.OO NN O.OO OH O.OO N Onezonn 30H wneU new .oz wneo new .oz wneU new .02 wneo new .oz wneu new .oz «emoeH3onM eoneonew we eoneoHeew we eoneonew we eoneonew we enoww Hewoe eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm eEHB nemnon eEHB newnonm nwn one moHonewnom one moHonemnom one ononemnom one moHonemnom mewom nemneH nemneH neHHeEm neHHenm .mnenmez UHweEownw now mmenoow wnemenw we Oewm mo nwmneH one eNHm oHonemnom nemoeHzonM enowm one onenm Hewoe ow mnHonooon mnewenonnw wo memewneonew one mnennnz|n.OOHlo wwwne 469 .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OH. enw we wneonHnOHm an O.OOH OO O.OOH. ON O.OOH OH O.OOH VOH O.OOH O Hewon 0.00 ON N.NO NH 0.00 OH 0.00 O 0.0N N mne30nm nOHO 0.00 ON 0.00 HH H.ON O 0.00 O 0.00 O mneBOnM 30H wneu new .oz wneo new .oz wneu new .oz wneo new .oz wneu new .oz «emoeH3onn neHHOU neHHoo enmww Hewow ewnnzunoz neHHoo eanz eanzunoz neHHoo ewnnz enene one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom e o nemnew nemnen neHHeEm neHHeEm H w B .mnowenemnnwew now nonwewnooo one eNHO oHonemnom .eOoeHBOnM enowm one onenm Hewoa ow mnHonooon mnemenonnw wo meoewneonew one mnewnnzll.OOHlo mwmne .eoneonmnoo mo He>eH HO. enw we wneOHanOHO an 0.00H OO 0.0oH OH O.OOH OH ..OOH HH O.OOH HH Hewon O.OO OO O.OO OH N.HO O O.NO O O.OO OH enezonn OOHO H.ON OH O.NH N O.OO OH O.ON O H.O H enesonn 30H wneu new .oz wneU new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneU new .oz OemoeHBOnM neHHOU neHHOU enonm Hewon ewnnznnoz neHHoo ewnnz ewnnzunoz neHHoo eanz nwme one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom one oHonemnom mewom neoneH nemnen neHHeEm neHHeEm .mnonH>eHeB eHnewnow now nonewnooo one eNHm oHonemnom .eOoeHzonn enoww one onenm Hewoe ow onnonooon mnemenonnw mo memewneonew one mnewESZII.OOHIQ mwmne 470 III? .f .eoneonnoo mo He>eH NO. enw we wneoHOHnOHm Om 0.00H OO O.OOHA OH 0.00H OH 0.00H OO 0.00H HO ,Hewoe 0.00 OO 0.00 O 0.00 HH . N.OO OH H.OO OH mne3onn ‘ . nOHm H.OO mm 0.00 O 0.0H N O.HO HN 0.00 ON mnezonn 30H wneu new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneu new .oz «emoeH3onM eoneonew we eoneonew we eoneonew we eoneonew we enoww Hewos enna nemnoq enne newnonm eEHB nemnoq eEHB newnonm nwn one nemenonnw one nemenonnw one nemenonnw one nemenonnw mewom woweoanHwHez wonooanHanz wonoonw eHOnHm wonoonw eHOnHm .moooo eanz now mmenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwmneH one memenonnw wneoew mo newEnz .eOoeH3onM enowm one onenm Hewoa ow mnHonoooe mnemenonnw mo memewneonew one mnewESZII.OOHIQ mqmne .eoneonnoo wo He>eH HO. enw we wneOHanOHm k. O.OOH OO O.OOH. OH O.OOH OH O.OOH OO O.OOH ON Hewon 0.00 OO 0.00 O 0.00 O 0.00 OH 0.00 HH mneBOnn nOHn H.OO OO N.OO O 0.0H H 0.00 NO 0.00 OH mnezonn zen n0 .He .0 ne ne .0 . . . w o w z w o w z wneo new oz wneo new oz wneo new oz «eOoeH3onn wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH wexnez nH enoww Hewoe eEHB neOnOH enHB newnonm eEHB neOnOH eEHB newnonm wn one Hemenonnw one Hemenonnw one Hemeflonnw one Hemenunnw MMHOM wooeonwuwwsz woweonwuansz wonoonw eHmnHm wonoonw eHmnHm .moooo eanB now eend wexnez nH wewm m0 nwmneH one memenonnw wneoew MO neQEnZ .emoeH30nM enowO ene enene Hewow ow OnHenoooe mnemenonsw no meOewneonew one OneOEsznu.OOH-O enema 471 .eoneonnoo mo He>eH OH. enw we wneonHnOHm ¥ 0.00H OO 0.00H HN 0.00H O 0.00H OH 0.00H OH .Hewon 0.00 ON H.OO NH O.OO O N.HO O O.NO O enesonn nOHn 0.00 ON O.NO O 0.0H H 0.00 HH H.OO O One3onn 30H wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .oz wneo new .02 wneu new .oz «eOoeHsonM neHHou neHHoo enoww Hewon eanannoz neHHoo eanz ewwnzunoz neHHoo eanz own one HemeSUHnm one HemenUHnm one HemenUHnm one HemenDHnm weUOM woseonwunHsz woweoanHstz woseonw eHOnHO woseonw eHOnHO .mnoweneOHnwew n0w nonewnooo one memenonnw wneoew mo nennnz .eOoeHsonn enowm one onenm Hewoe ow OnHonooo< mnemenonnw mo meOewneonew one mnenEDZII.OOHun mnmne .eoneonnoo wo He>eH OH. enw we wneOHanOHO n 0.00H. OO O.OOH. OH O.OOH O O.OOH OO O.OOH OO Hewon O.HO OO O.OO O O.OO O 0.00 NH 0.00 NH mnezonn nOHO O.OO NO O.OO O O.OO O O.OO ON O.OO ON Onezonn 30H wneU new .oz wneu new .oz wneU new .oz wneo new .oz wneU new .02 «emoeHsonM neHHoo neHHou enoww Hewon eanzunoz neHHoo ewnnz eanzunoz neHHoo ewnnz own one nemenunnw one nemenUnnw one nemenvnnw one Hemenvnnw meHOM woseonw-HwHwn woweonwnansn wonoonw eHOnHm wonoonw eHOnHm .mooow eanz new nonewnooo one memenonnw wneuew mo nennnz .eOoeHzonm enowm one onenm Hewoe ow OnHonooon mnemenonnw mo memewneonew one mnewnnzna.OOHuo mwmwe 472 .meHweHne> enw no oeweHwnenemeo won ene3 mooom nsonn mo mnemenonnw enaN .oeonHoxe ene3 anmnOHweHen HnwmaneeE eno wmeeH we mnnzonm won meHweHne> wneoneweonHH HH N N H H H N H H mHewOB H H memenonnw wneoew H eme H eNHO eHonemson H mnwewm Heanez wwHHHnoz H mnnmnoz mo ewOB Nr-iv—lv-lr-lr-I ...; H H eene wexnen nH newm no nwOneH O H H H emenonnw wneEeeeHwew enowe weHnennn mooow mnonmn>eHea mnOHmH>eHeB mHewoa eemnew IneBHnmen enehnn nneneex OnonneH ewnnz eH0mnou eHnewnow HmeHneHne> waonoonw wneoneweonH .wonoonw Ow wwH>Hwon mnwaonm enowm one meHweHne> wneoneweonH enw nee3wem mwnnmnonweHew wneoHMHnOHm mo nennnz||.HOH|n manna 473 .mHmenwowOn enw mo nonoenHo emeowwo enw nH me3 anmnOHweHen ene Os .meHneHne> enw no oeweHwneneMMHo won ene3 memnen one mnOHmH>eHew eHomnoo mo mnemenennw ens N .oeonHoxe ene3 anmnOHweHen Hnwmnnneen eno wmeeH we onH3onm won meHneHne> wneoneweonHH OH N O O H H O H mHewOB H H nOHweonom H H nonwewnooo H H mnwewm Heanez H OH thHHQOZ H H OnHmnom mo ewwa N H H emenonnw wneneoeHwew N ... r-I eNHm oHonemnom N H H eene wexnez nH wewO no nwOneH O H H H memenonnw wneoew O H OH «H wwnmneeso enon meHwennn moooo mnonmn>eHee moooo mHewoe mnowenemnnmew mnemno mnenmez Ononnen ewnnz eHnewnow nzonm HmeHneHne> waonoonw wneoneweonH .wonoonw On emoeHzonM onenm oemnno one meHneHne> wneoneweonH enw neeBwem menmnonweHew wneoannOHm mo newEnZII.NOHnn manna 474 .mHmenwowOn enw mo nonwoenno emeowwo enw nH me3 anmnOHweHen ene .1 .meHweHne> emenw no oeweHwnenewwHo won enez memnen one mnOHmH>eHew eHomnoe no mnemenonnw ene N .oeonHoxe ene3 anmnonweHen Hnwmnnneen eno wmeeH we mnnsonm won meHweHne> wneoneweonHH NN H O N N O O O mHewoa H OH emenonnw wneEeoeHwew H H memenonnw wneoew H H wwHHHnoz N H H eEoonH N «H «H eon N H H mnwewm Heanez N «H «H een< wexnez nH newm no nwmnen N OH «H wnnmnenzo ence O H «H «H mnnmnom mo ewOB O H H H H H H ennm oHonemnon meHnennw moooo mnOHmH>eHeB moooo mHewoa mnoweneOHnmew mnewno mnenmez Ononnen eanz eHnewnow nzonm HmeHneHne> waonoonw wneoneweonH .wonoonw Om emoeH3onM enowm oemnno one meHweHne> wneoneweonn enw neezwem mwnnmnoneHew wneOHanOHw mo nenESZII.OOHIn mnmns 475 .meHneHne> wneoneweonH one wneoneweo enw no oewenwnenewwno won ene3 meHnenno OnonneH one .mnOHmH>eHew nOHoo eH0mnoo .mooom n3onn mo mnemenonnw ene N .oeonHoxe ene3 anmnOHweHen Hnmmnnneen eno wmeeH we mnnzonm won meHweHne> wneoneweonHH O H N N N H H mHewOB H H memenonnw wneoew H H eNHm oHonemnom N H H ewe N H H anmnen3o eEom O H H H OnHmnom mo ewwa wemnew , enowe. mnenmez mooow. mnOHmH>eHeB mHewoa monooo IneOHnwew mnewnn onwenownn eanz eHwewnow HmeHneHne> waonoonw wneoneweonH .wonoonw Ow eooeH3onM onenm Hewoa one eeHneHne> wneeneweenn enw neezwee menOnoneHew wneonHnOHO no nennoznu.OOHun enmen 476 .mHmenwowOn enw mo nOHwoenHo emeowwo enw nH me3 anmnOHweHen ene i .meHweHne> enw no oeweHwnenewwHo won ene3 wemnen one mnemno mo mnemenonnw ene N .oeonHoxe ene3 anmnOHweHen HSMOaneen eno wmeeH we mnnzonm won meHneHne> wneoneweonHH OH N H N O H O N mHewoa H H nOHweonom H H ennw oHonemnom N H H memenonnw wneoew N H H eEoonH N H «H nonwewnooo N H H ewe N H «H mnwewm Heanez N H H eenn wexnez nH Oewm mo nwoneH O H «H «H emenonnw wneneoeHwew mnenmen mednennw mooow mnOHmH>eHeB mnOHmH>eHeB moooo mHewos mnowenemHnwew UHweEown< Ononnen ean3 eH0mnou eHnewnow nBOnw 4 meHneHne> waonoonw wneoneweonn .wonoonw Ow emoeH3onn enowm Hewoa one meHweHne> wneoneweonH enw neezwem menmnoneHew wneonHnOHm mo nenEnZII.OOHIQ manna 477 OH H! MNNN H wexnez nH wewm no nwmnenunoneonom H anmnen3o eEomlemn H memenonsw wneoewuemn H H wnnmnenzo eEomneen< wexnez nH wewm no nwmnen H H anmnenso enonsnoneonom H H eNHm oHon lemnomlnoneunom H H eunm oHonemnomleO< H H H eEoonHIe04 meHneHne> Heno N a o N N H O O O mHewowndm H nonewnooo H eunm oHonemnom H mmenoon wnemenw we wewm Oo nwmnen H H memenonnw wneoew H H enwewm Heanez H H onnenom mo ewwa H H wnnmnen3o ence H H H eenc wexnez nH newO no nwmnen H H H H emenonnw wneEeoeHwew meHneHne> eHOnHm mnowe meHnennn moooo mnonH>eHea mnOHmH>eHeB moooo mHewos memnew unemnnwew mnewnn mnenmez OnonneH eanz eHomnoo eHnewnow nzonm meHneHne> mwonoonw wneoneweonw .wonoonw On OwH>Hwo< mnnwwonw enowm one onenm one meHneHne> wneoneweonH enw neezwem menmnoneHew wneonHnOnm no nenEnZn|.OOHIQ manna 4778 OO ON N H O mHewoe eneno O mHewownsO nonewsooo Immenoon wnemenw we newm no nwOneH anmnen3o eEomlemenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwOneH nOHwewnooo Iwexnez nH wewm mo nwonen nonwewnooo lemenonnw wneoew H emeneee wnemenw we wewm no nwmnen lemenonnw uneven nonewnooo neNHm oHonemnom anmnenso eEom IeNHm oHonemno: mmenoon wnemenw we wewm mo nwmneq IeNHm oHonemnoz mmenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwmneHIeEoonH eNHm oHonemnomneEoonH mmenoon wnemenw we wewm no nwOneHInoneonom mHewoa mnowe memnew InemHnwew mnewno mnenmez meHwenna Ononneq moooo ewnnz mnonH>eHeB mnOHmH>eHeB eHOOnOU eHnewnow moOOU n3onm mwonoonw meHneHne> wneoneweonH .oeanwnOUtr.OmHln mHmda 4479 N H H eenn wewnez nH Oewm no nwOneH amemenonnw wneeew O H H H eenn wexnez nH wewm mo nwmneH unonewnooo O H H H mmenoon wnemenw we wewm mo nwmneH leemenonnw wneoew O H H H eenn wexnez an newm no nwmnenunoneonom HmeHneHne> Henn OH N O N H H H H O N mHewownnm H H mnnmnom mo ewaa H H anmnen3o eEom N H H emenonnw wneneoeHwem N H H memenonnw wneoew N H H nonwewnooo N H H ennm oHoneenom O H H H eend wexnez nH wewm mo nwmneH O H H H mmenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwmneq HmeHweHne> eHmnHm mnowe meHnenno moooo mnOHmH>eHeB mnonH>eHee moooo eHewoa eemnew IneOHnmew mnewno enenmez Ononnen eanz eH0mnoo eHnewnow n3onm meHneHne> mwonoonw wneoneweonH .wonoonw an eOoeH3onM enowm one onenm oemnno one meHweHne> wneoneweonH enw nee3wem menmnonweHew wneonHnOHm mo nenEnZI|.OOHIQ manna 480 weHwew mHnw nH oeonHonH ene anmnOHweHen wneonHnOHm eno wmeeH we an3 meHneHne> wneoneweonH ene OO N HH N O N O HN O O O N H O mnowe meHnennn mooow mHewoe meOnew IneOHnwew mnewnn mnenmez Ononnen eanz mwonoonw .oewwHEo ene meHweHne> wneoneweonH nenwo HHe mnonH>eHeB eHomnou H O O mHewOB onenO N O mHewownsO nonwewnooo leNflm oHonemnom mmenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwmnen IeNHm oHonemnom H nonewnUUOIeEoonH mmenoon wnemenw we OewO no nwOneHInOHweonom memenonnw wneoewlnoneonom mmenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwOneHIeO< H mmenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwOneH leenn wexnez nH Oewm mo nwmneH H eenn wexnez nH Oeww mo nwoneq InOHwewnooo mnOHmH>eHee moooo eHnewnow n3onm meHweHne> wneoneweonH .oennHwnooll.OOHIo manna .II «I: ‘1‘": 481. memenonnw wneoewlnoneonom H wexnez nH wewm mo nwmneHueme memenunnw wneoewlemn euHm oHonemnomlemn nonewnooo Imemenonnw wneoew H H nonewnooo IeNHm oHonemnom HmeHweHne> Heno H O mHewownsm H nOHwewnooo mmenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwmnen eNHm oHoneenom memenonnw wneoew HmeHneHne> ewOnHm mHewoa mnowe memnew IneOHnmew mnemno mnenmeB eeHnennn meooo Onensen eanz mnonH>eHee eHOmnoo mnonH>eHeB moooo eHnewnow n3onm mwonoonw meHneHne> wneoneweonH .wonoonw Ow emoeH3onx enowm one onenm Hewoa one meHweHne> wneoneweonH enw neezwem menmnoneHew wneonnnOHm mo newEnZII.OOHIQ manna 482 weHwew mHnw nH oeonHonH ene anmnoneHen wneonHnOHm eno wmeeH we nwns meHneHne> wneoneweonH ene .oewwHEo ene meHneHne> wneoneweonH nenwo HHe H ON H O OH o O O H mHewon enene N H mHewownsO mmenoom wnemenw we mewm mo nwmneH Imemenonnw wneoew een< wexnez nH Oewm mo nwmneH Imemenonnw wneoew mmenoon wnemenw we Oewm mo nwmneH IeNHm oHonemnom eend wexnez nH mewm mo nwmnen IeNHm oHonemnom memenonnw wneoew IeNHm oHonemnom eene wexnez nH newm no nwOneHInoneonom mnowe mHewoe memnew IneOHnwew mnewnn mnenmez meHnean moooo OnonneH eanz mnOHmH>eHeB eHomnou mnOHmH>eHeB moooo eHnewnow n3onm mwonoonw meHQeHne> wneoneweonH .oennHwnooll.OOHIQ manna "I7'11lll‘fllllefllflWilla