Perceived Quality for Sports Drinks

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Theoretical Framework

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate how packaging might be utilized by a consumer to infer their perceived quality of a product. There are several components that are leading up to perceived quality, including consumption values. But since perceived quality is a central part in the theoretical framework, this chapter will begin by describing the nature of it. Thereafter, the components of the perception process, which is depicted in figure 1, will be elaborated on and an explanation will be provided that illustrates how perceived value, more particularly consumption values, have been integrated in the theory.

Perceived Quality

The word quality is a term that is frequently being used in describing objects in the surroundings and is a central concept to industries as well as in relation with competition among companies and their corresponding strategies (Steenkamp, 1990). Striving for increased quality in a firm’s offering is considered as a strong mean of differentiating from competition (Porter, 1998), and is likely to determine the success of an organization (Peters & Waterman, 2006). Steenkamp (1990) provided the notion that there might be a difference in how a company and a consumer perceive quality and that it therefore is important to bridge this gap by focusing on consumer perceived quality, since they ultimately determine what products gets sold.
Substantial research exists regarding consumer perceived quality judgements towards products (Zeithaml, 1988; Ophuis & Van Trijp, 1995; Steenkamp, 1990; Snoj et. al., 2004). According to Ophuis and Van Trijp (1995), perceived quality is defined to be situated somewhere in between two extremes of the concept of quality. As foundation for this argument, the authors on one hand provide the notion that quality is an inherent characteristic of excellence, which is not suitable for analysis but can rather be recognized through experience. According to Snoj et. al., (2004), quality is based on a number of bundles of attributes that combined represent benefits to the consumer, which are measured by a perceived level of quality. Additionally, there is the notion that perceived quality only can be defined in relation to other items. On the other hand, quality might also be defined by an opposite approach by portraying it objectively, which enable measurement and verifiability of superiority in relation to an established standard (Zeithaml, 1988), with the prerequisite that such standard can be technically measured (Ophuis & Van Trijp, 1995). The word “superiority” infers that an item or a product only can be labelled as such if it exists in a category and enables comparison between several ones. In a marketing context, perceived quality is therefore by this definition regarded as a judgement- based approach of an items quality, performed by a person, or more specifically a consumer. Zeithaml (1988) concluded that perceived quality as consumer judgement about the overall excellence or superiority of a product. The word “excellence” do on the other hand appear to be of a binary nature since it implies a yes or no answer regarding quality (Charters & Pettigrew, 2005).
Steenkamp (1990) criticized existing definitions and models of perceived quality for being different variations of “fitness for use” with regards to consumer needs, without considering the theoretical basis for how perception of quality is formed and how the theories may be applied to various situations. A more specific critique of other existing theories that the author presents is their absence of quality attributes in relation to quality cues and their importance when consumers form perceptions of quality (explained in section 2.3) (Steenkamp, 1990).
Steenkamp’s (1990) theory emphasized the fact that consumer perceived quality can be seen in the context of value, of which perceived quality is considered to be a part. Several other researchers have established a similar relationship, particularly regarding perceived value (Bonillo & Fernández, 2007). For instance, Zeithaml (1988) argued that consumer perceived value could be considered a trade- off between what is given and received when making a purchase and perceived quality is in that sense an important factor in the value perception. Value is defined, according to Steenkamp (1990), as a relative preference an individual experience when interacting with an object (a further elaboration and distinction of value is performed in section 2.2). Steenkamp (1990) derived three main dimensions of value that provided a conceptual framework for how to define perceived quality in the context of value. It is also within this framework that the link and distinction between quality cues and quality attributes is explained, concepts that have consequently been applied in several studies (Northen, 2000; Ophuis & Van Trijp, 1995). The three dimensions are perceived quality as an evaluative judgement, perceived quality as a subject- object interaction and perceived quality and the consumption experience.
Figure 1 shows an illustration of Steenkamp’s (1990) model and each part of it further explained. The various components in the model are marked by the numbered headings of concepts explained in this chapter, to facilitate comprehension of the theory.
Figure 1. Model of the quality perception process (Steenkamp, 1990). The various boxes in the model are accompanied by numbers referring to the sections that explains them.

 Perceived quality as an evaluative judgement

This dimension defines perceived quality as an overall evaluative judgement and how consumers arrive at those. Here lies the distinction between quality cues and quality attributes, which according to Steenkamp (1991) is a fundamental limitation of other theories. Quality cues are informational stimuli of a product that a consumer can observe prior to consumption and quality attributes are defined as the consequence of consuming a product. A more comprehensive description of the distinction between the two concepts is that quality cues are what the consumer observes and quality attributes are what consumers want in a product. For instance, the colour green on a packaging is usually by a consumer associated with attributes such as healthiness and environmental friendliness (Rokka & Uusitalo, 2008). Cues, or in this context quality cues, are essentially informational stimuli representing the full range of product features such as price, packaging, brand name etc., and functions as quality indicators of products (Obermiller, 1988). By such definition it constitutes a broad concept considering a product consist of multiple cues, for instance the previous examples price, packaging and brand, each of which are subject to evaluation and consequently results in a combined consumer judgement of a products quality as a whole (Ophuis & Van Trijp, 1995). According to Zeithaml (1988), cues are furthermore divided into two main categories, namely intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic cues are defined as integral parts of a product and cannot be altered with without changing the product itself. Examples of intrinsic cues are appearance, colour, shape and size. Extrinsic cues are features that are intimately linked with a product, such as price and brand name, although do not make up a physical part of it. Quality cues are comparable to search attributes of a product in the sense that they can be established prior to purchase (Northen, 2000). According to Ophuis & Van Trijp (1995), quality cues may provide a consumer with an expectation of product quality while attributes provide the actual experience. Quality attributes are unobservable prior to consumption, so consumers are forced to rely on quality cues as guidance in their purchase decisions. However, consumers can also infer quality attribute beliefs prior to consumption since consumers’ value cues in terms of their perceived relationship with attributes (this is elaborated further in section 2.2.4) (Steenkamp, 1991). This relationship can be exemplified using sports drinks. The packaging and its design serves as a quality cue, from which a consumer may draw conclusions regarding the quality attribute of the beverage, such as taste and effect on sports performance.
Furthermore, cues and attributes can each be divided into two separate components. Quality attributes are divided into experience and credence attributes. Experience attributes can be established from actual consumption experience with a product while credence attributes cannot (Steenkamp, 1990; Northen, 2000). A consumer can, for instance, establish the taste of a sports drink upon consumption (experience attribute) but not the nutritional value (credence attribute). Quality cues are separated as extrinsic and intrinsic cues, a notion that was described earlier. Previous studies have suggested that intrinsic cues are more suitable regarding the quality perception process for the majority of products (Steenkamp, 1990). However, according to Holbrook et al., (1986), extrinsic cues might be more significant compared to intrinsic for so-called image products. Bottled water has been listed as an example of such product and product packaging is thereby defined as an extrinsic cue. However, this definition is not an unanimously recognized fact among scholars (Steenkamp, 1990). In the case of beverages, depending on what is defined to be an extrinsic cue of the product, one could argue that the liquid content and container (packaging) are interrelated or inseparable and thereby may be viewed as having an intrinsic relationship, instead of being separated. This issue has been suggested by Zeithaml (1988), who argues that a product’s packaging belongs to the category of cues which are considered difficult to classify as either intrinsic or extrinsic. The author additionally claims that packaging can be classified as an intrinsic cue if it is considered to be physically integrated with the product itself. Since packaging most commonly is defined as an extrinsic cue, that is the definition that will be applied in this study.

 Perceived quality as a subject- object interaction

Since the consumer quality judgement occurs in relation to a product and in a contextual setting, the procedure is not entirely subjective or objective, but rather an interaction (Steenkamp, 1990). The author therefore identifies three factors that are involved in this interaction (Steenkamp, 1990), which are comparative factor, personal factors and situational factors.

 Comparative factors

This factor addresses the issue that the perceived quality of a brand or a product might be influenced if there are other products or brands present. This notion is congruent with what Ophuis and van Trijp (1995) proposed, more specifically that perceived quality is judged by its intended use and among alternatives. As there are several variations of sports drinks in terms of intended function, target group positioning and packaging design, a consumer might be affected in various ways when facing a purchase decision between several options. Schoormans and Robben (1997) found that depending on how a product appears, consumers will have a certain degree of attention directed towards as well as forming beliefs and perceptions about it. Examples of stimuli that attracts consumers’ attention are brand names and advertisement (Schoormans & Robben, 1997). Since product packaging is the first component that the consumer encounters when it comes to sports drink, a consumer is likely to be affected by his or her impressions of packaging design (Clement, 2007). We have therefore in our data collection included research participant’s assessments of several different packaging designs for sports drinks.

Personal Factors

This category consists of involvement, prior knowledge, level of education, perceived quality risk and quality consciousness.
Involvement: Involvement in a product is defined as high, low or somewhere in between (Steenkamp, 1990). It can be seen as an indication of a consumer’s motivation to process product information (Han et al., 2007). It can also be described as how invested a consumer is in taking an interest in a product, which originates from perception of a certain product being able to meet goals and values that the consumer holds (Lee & Mittal, 1989). High involvement require consumers to conduct more elaborate reasoning regarding products (Celsi & Olson, 1988) and consequently have a tendency to attach more importance to quality cues, specifically intrinsic ones, since those often represent the true characteristics of a product and generates stronger beliefs about quality attributes (Steenkamp, 1990). As previously concluded, sports drinks are defined as low- involvement products, indicating limited amount of information searching prior to purchase and consumers consequently might use cues such as packaging to form a quick impression of the products that lead to a decision of whether to purchase or not.
Prior knowledge: Prior knowledge is an important influencer in the consumer’s ability to process information about a product (Zaichkowsky, 1994). Consumers with already established knowledge about a product may use it to form more profound and abstract information processes (Maheswaran & Sternthal, 1990). Since prior knowledge may be seen as a framework for consumers to evaluate products (Monroe & Rao, 1988), they do so relatively quick compared to consumers that do not possess extensive prior knowledge.
Level of education: Level of education may be crucial in making informed decisions. Those that possesses a higher level of education tends to information more efficiently and to a wider extent in decision making processes compared to those that are lower educated (Klein, 1999). A similar pattern is also notable in the cue interaction, which higher educated consumers tend to rely on more extensively than lower educated consumers, mainly as a consequence of the fact that it requires more information processing to evaluate them (Steenkamp, 1990).
Perceived quality risk: If quality attributes are perceived as risky the overall quality judgement will be negatively affected (Snoj et. al., 2004) and consumers tend to base their judgement on merely a few cues when perceiving high risk (Steenkamp, 1990).
Quality consciousness: Quality consciousness was defined by Steenkamp (1990) as following; “A mental predisposition to respond in a consistent way to quality- related aspects which is organized through learning and influences behaviour”. This infers that an individual will give approximately similar responses to quality aspects regardless of the situations or products (Steenkamp, 1990).

 Situational factors

These variables have been found to affect consumer judgement for a broad range of products. According to Orth (2005), product’s and service’s attribute importance in the minds of the consumers varied depending on which situation they were in. According to Steenkamp (1990), the two variables that in previous studies have appeared to be of high significance are usage goals and time pressure.
Usage goals: According to Garbarino and Johnson (2001), personal goals of the consumption influences every stage of the purchasing process, including the product usage. Usage goals are a relevant factors to this study since consumers might have different reasons for consuming sport drinks (See further elaboration in section 2.3). Usage goals determines or at least influences which quality cues and attributes that are likely to matter regarding overall quality judgement (Steenkamp, 1990). In the case of sports beverages, intrinsic cues might be more important when a consumer is interested in the actual function of the beverage and thereby is more likely to ignore the external cues, such as price and store setting.
Time pressure: Time pressure is the amount of time available for the consumer to make quality judgements and process information about quality. Bettman et al., (1998) suggested that when individuals are under time pressure, they have a tendency to focus more intensively on negative information about quality and evaluate fewer quality cues than they would in normal situations. For a sports drink, this could imply that consumers’ focus on information about content or a colour that they do not prefer.

Perceived quality and the consumption experience

This dimension refers to perceived quality derived from the consumption experience (Steenkamp, 1990; Holbrook, 2005; Bredahl, 2004; Laverie et al., 1993). Consumers are believed to buy products for the experience they give. Steenkamp (1990) distinguished between two wants. A basic want is the consumption experience a consumer is searching for and derived wants are the means to achieve the desired consumption experience. Perceived quality do in this case function as a link between the two types of wants and it measures to what extent a product is fit to deliver the desired consumption experience (Steenkamp, 1990).
The behaviour a consumer intends to perform using a product can lead to different consumption experiences (Steenkamp, 1990). This is congruent with the notion presented by Mano and Oliver (1993) in the sense that consumers might purchase products or services for utilitarian and hedonic reasons, depending on what they search for. For instance, a consumer might use a product for the sake of its intended function such as drinking a sports drinks with the purpose of experiencing the effect of higher performance or a consumer might consume a sports drink because of a statement that individual want to display to the surroundings. In this regard, perceived quality with respect to the consumption experience depends on the reason for purchase that the consumer had. Additionally, Havlena and Holbrook (1986) emphasized the role of emotions in a consumer’s consumption experience and that it often guides behaviour. Steenkamp (1990) emphasizes the fact that different usage behaviour will result in different consumption experience and that it therefore is important to consider the goal of the consumer. The consumption experience and goal of the consumer is also the reason for why this study also aims at including perceived value (see section 2.2) in combination with perceived quality and purchase intention.
The purpose of the study does not include that the research subjects actually drink the sports drinks but rather what elements of the packaging design makes them more inclined to purchase. With this in mind, the subjects are not able to actually experience the consumption in terms of taste and perceived effect and consequently cannot evaluate the perceived quality based on quality attribute since those can only be experienced after consumption. However, consumers can according to Steenkamp (1990), infer quality attribute beliefs based on guidance by the quality cues. This notion has been examined by using price as a cue for consumers to infer quality (Natesan & Smith, 1999). Consumers can thereby arrive at an evaluative judgement regarding the perceived quality of the sports drinks, using cues. This conceptualization can be applied to the purpose of our study. Quality cues such as the packaging design may enable subjects to infer certain quality attributes about the products (sports drinks).

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Problem and Purpose
1.3 Research Questions
1.4 Delimitation
1.5 Key Terms
2 Theoretical Framework
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Perceived Quality
2.3 Perceived Value
2.4 The Role of Packaging
2.5 The Conceptual Model Used in the Study
3 Methodology
3.1 Thesis approach
3.1.1 Research Philosophy
3.1.2 Research Design
3.2 Data Collection
3.3 Assessing the Quality
3.4 Data Analysis
3.4.1 Data Assembly
3.4.2 Data Reduction
3.4.3 Data Display
3.5 Evaluation of the Method
4 Findings from the focus groups
4.1 Focus Group 1
4.2 Focus Group 2
4.3 Focus Group 3
4.4 Findings from the Semi- Structured Interviews
4.4.1 General Discussion
4.4.2 Three Different Brands
4.4.3 Purchase Intention
5 Analysis
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Perceived Quality for Sports Drinks
5.3 Consumption Values
5.4 Inferential Process
5.5 Packaging
5.5.1 Graphics
5.5.2 Size and Shape
5.5.3 Information
5.5.4 Technology
5.6 Purchase Intention
6 Conclusion
6.1 Perception of Packaging Design and Quality
6.2 Purchase Intention
7 Discussion
7.1 Overview
7.2 Relevance of the Study
7.3 Limitations
7.4 Suggestions for Further Research
References
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT