Analysis of Buyer Behaviour in Kitchen Appliance Purchases (MKF2111)

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of buyer behavior, focusing on the case study of George and Lucy's decision-making process when purchasing kitchen appliances. The report examines their motivation, ability, and opportunity levels, highlighting the influence of needs, wants, and various marketing implications. It applies the additive difference model to illustrate their decision-making process, including problem recognition, information gathering, alternative identification, evidence weighing, decision-making, and evaluation. The report also explores the heuristics used by George and Lucy, such as anchoring and representativeness, and suggests marketing strategies, including advertisement content, to influence consumer choices. Finally, the report presents an advertisement designed to target George and Lucy, emphasizing value offerings and features like no-cost EMIs, special offers, and home delivery, aiming to accelerate their decision-making process.

Running head: BUYER BEHAVIOUR
BUYER BEHAVIOUR
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUYER BEHAVIOUR
Response to Question 1:
George and Lucy were high on motivation and ability but low in opportunity. At first,
they did not have the drive of changing the old kitchen but with the problem with non-
functional kitchen equipment, the personal relevance, which includes the need of people,
enhanced the low level of motivation. George and Lucy both had the financial and cognition
for improving the current disastrous situation, but initially, they could not have a clear
decision about the specification of the requirements. However, with the domination of need,
they started researching the available options in the market. The opportunity level was high
after the option of shopping through an online platform as initially, they lacked time for
visiting physical stores for assessing options and features. The factors that influenced the
motivation level of George and Lucy were needs and wants. ‘Need’ was generated for
replacing the non-functional equipment. ‘Want’ involved the preferability of George and
Lucy. The need and want of George and Lucy can be categorized as Safety need as they had
to choose a safer and cost-effective option for everyday use (Murphy & Dweck, 2016). This
need can also be termed as fundamental needs. In regards with the ability level of George and
Lucy, they reflect required financial resources for selecting products from numerous options
(different price range), they also projected the cognition of replacing the kitchen, and the only
thing they lacked was the knowledge for buying fridge and cooker. Various marketing
implications influenced their level of buying ability. Wide-range of information on the
Internet with filters of the price range, offers and features enhanced their knowledge about
the products. Payment options also contributed to their ability level. The opportunity was
comparatively low, as they lacked time in the weekdays with distractions from a wide range
of products on the Internet, for which they started to feel overwhelmed.
Response to Question 2: Decision-making process of George and Lucy

2BUYER BEHAVIOUR
The high effort decision making model that would be applicable for the buying decision of
George and Lucy is Additive difference model as they have various options for comparing
product attributes for refrigerator and cooker. The decision making process of George and
Lucy can be presented below:
 Identifying the problem or need: Need or problem for George and Lucy was to repair
the old kitchen. They wanted products that are affordable, with decent features and
easy delivery (Lantos, 2015).
 Gathering information: This step of George and Lucy was initiated by searching in
physical stores on the weekends. Their effort of the search was not accompanied by
experience or prior knowledge. They just concentrated on figuring out their choice as
they started learning about the features through store information and word-of-mouth
(Yoon & Occeña, 2015).
 Identifying alternatives: In this step, George and Lucy have formed a base of
preference regarding the choice of fridge and cooker. Their searching criteria and the
process of finding an alternative was based entirely on their preferred attributes. After
searching from the physical store, the couple decided to search for choices in the
online shopping websites.
 Weighing evidence: For the refrigerator, George found a brand that was not popular
but was happy with the offers, payment option and features of the fridge. The choice
for the popular branded product was assessed with the unknown brand with a special
offer, interest-free credit option and free delivery (Ramya & Mohamed Ali, 2016). In
the case of the cooker, they had the choice of a traditional cooker and an induction
hob. One of the brands was highly recommended and had the best reviews, and other
brand demonstrated similar features with similar prices but with less positive
recommendations (Achar et al., 2016). Another set of alternatives included the option
of selecting from traditional and induction hob cooker.

3BUYER BEHAVIOUR
 Making a decision: After weighing the two options, George and Lucy concluded the
choice for the unknown refrigerator brand become of added attributes. Lucy finally
decided to buy the induction hob with definite star and recommendation due to the
added convenience of the product variant (Keller, 2016).
 Evaluation of decision: The decision of George and Lucy was evaluated after the
easy, convenient and free delivery from an online store. They had no complaint about
the products, except for a difference in colour.
Response to Question 3: Heuristics
The heuristic that was used by George in the selection of the refrigerator is anchoring
heuristic. The refrigerator was decided on the first valuable information of having a freezer
and fridge together, even though the brand was unknown, but the further decision making
process was stimulated from the first piece of information that he received (Haugtvedt, Herr
& Kardes, 2018). The heuristic that was used in the selection of the cooker or induction hob
was representative heuristic as she started comparing two brands with similar price and
features but was convinced with the reviews and recommendation of one brand than other
(Hafenbrädl et al., 2016).
If I were a marketer, I would demonstrate the core feature of the brand in its advertisement
and product display in both online and offline platform such as, ‘Free delivery’, ‘No cost
EMI’ and ‘Fridge plus Freezer’. I can also this bias to the advantage for sales by sharing an
actual high price and then sharing notification of price offer.
Response to Question 4: Advertisement a refrigerator for George and Lucy
The advertisement content will solely demonstrate the value offerings of the
refrigerator, which can influence their decision by connecting to one of the offerings
(Wästlund et al., 2015). The ad content will demonstrate context like, ‘no-cost EMI', ‘Special
offer for one week', ‘Fridge plus Freezer' and ‘free delivery'. These aspects will target

4BUYER BEHAVIOUR
customers like George and Lucy as the decision will be based on budget, credit option,
features, home delivery and size. The content will also demonstrate the price, which is being
ticked off for reflecting offers (Raue & Scholl, 2018). The offers of the product for a week
will make them feel lucky or valued and will accelerate their decision making time for the
refrigerator. The home delivery option will again save cost and time for them. The pictures
demonstrating the imagery content of the advertisement for the refrigerator are:

5BUYER BEHAVIOUR
References:
Lantos, G. P. (2015). Consumer behavior in action: Real-life applications for marketing
managers. Routledge.
Yoon, H. S., & Occeña, L. G. (2015). Influencing factors of trust in consumer-to-consumer
electronic commerce with gender and age. International Journal of Information
Management, 35(3), 352-363.
Ramya, N., & Mohamed Ali, S. A. (2016). Factors affecting consumer buying behavior.
International journal of applied research, 2(10), 76-80.
Murphy, M. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindsets shape consumer behavior. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 127-136.
Keller, K. L. (2016). Reflections on customer-based brand equity: perspectives, progress, and
priorities. AMS review, 6(1-2), 1-16.
Achar, C., So, J., Agrawal, N., & Duhachek, A. (2016). What we feel and why we buy: the
influence of emotions on consumer decision-making. Current Opinion in Psychology,
10, 166-170.
Haugtvedt, C. P., Herr, P. M., & Kardes, F. R. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of consumer
psychology. Routledge.
Hafenbrädl, S., Waeger, D., Marewski, J. N., & Gigerenzer, G. (2016). Applied decision
making with fast-and-frugal heuristics. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition, 5(2), 215-231.
Wästlund, E., Otterbring, T., Gustafsson, A., & Shams, P. (2015). Heuristics and resource
depletion: eye-tracking customers’ in situ gaze behavior in the field. Journal of
Business Research, 68(1), 95-101.

6BUYER BEHAVIOUR
Raue, M., & Scholl, S. G. (2018). The Use of Heuristics in Decision Making Under Risk and
Uncertainty. In Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis (pp. 153-179).
Springer, Cham.