Physical environment
Patronage intention: Willingness to revisit a store
Window display: Use holiday or local theme + warm color lighting
Land scaping: Plants create positive emotion in urban setting. More sales with land scaping. Plant increase quality environment
Cheap way to attract customers
Displays are interpretated differently by cultures (should use localization rather than pan global marketing)
Mini study: Mower
Whether land scaping and window displays increase pleasure arousal and liking
PPT read description of 1 out 4 jean stores, having either land scaping or windows display
Quantitative questionnaire measure arousal, liking and patronage intention
Presence of 2 following factors increase liking for store => patronage intention
Quantitative data
Lack ecological validity => ppt have to imagine the store
Layout: Stock arrangement + route customer take in the store
Grid: Rectangular arrangement, parallel aisles (supermarket)
Maximise space, easy to find product
Overwhelemed
Racetrack: Customer follow designated route through themed areas (department stores)
Entertaining, browse as many places as possible (encourage purchase)
Not suitable for customer in rush, congestion in busy times
Free form: Customer move freely among displays of different styles and shapes (IKEA)
Longer time spent in store => impulse purchase
Bad design = poor experience
Mini study: Vrechopoulos
Use different store layout online
120 ppt buy online in either grid, free form or race track + online questionnaire (rating scale)
Grid : easiest to use
Free form: Most entertaining and useful
Race track: hard to use but most time spent
Effect of layout in online website doesn’t match real life
Ppt order real things that are later delivered to them => ecological validity, act natural
Only qualitative data, doesn’t explain why customer think that way
Context: Classical music increase spending in wine chamber and school cafeteria
Aim: Investigate if classical music increase spending compared to pop
About methodology
UK luxury restaurant, Feb-March 2002
IV: Classical, pop, no music
DV: Mean spending of each customer on food category (starter, dessert,…)
Total spending
Time spent in restaurant
About ppt
393, same male and female
Did not know they are in a study (researchers are waitress)
Procedure (about music)
All famous songs
Each IV played 6 nights, order is counterbalanced (each day play different IV, but order of IV of each week is different)
Consistent volume, two 76-min CD with shuffle mode
Other variables are kept the same (temperature, menu, lighting)
Results:
Increase mean spending for starter + coffee => overall spending
e.g: 4,9 pound for starter, while pop is only 4 pounds for starter
Explanation
Customer like classical music => more happy and spend more (ppt variables are not controlled)
Classical music enhance surrounding (rejected by school cafeteria study, where surrounding not match with classical music)
Classical music associated with luxury => customer believe food is high quality => spend more
Controlled variables (validity and reliability, standardized procedure)
Natural setting of restaurant, ppt did not know they in study
Only rich ppt in UK
ppt variable, some ppt might like classical music beforehand
Ethics: British Psy society said no consent in public space is okay. PPT dinner was not interrupted
Too reductionist: Music has different effect during different time of meal + music also interact with other factors
Free will is stronger here, can’t control ppt with music
Gustation: Taste
Fake chewing sound make food crispier + White noise that outweigh chewing noise make pretzel less moist
Background noise increase linking for sweetness rather than saltiness
Why?
We use multiple senses to judge taste intensity. Taste less intense if sound is loud cause it distract us from taste
Background cause stress => we need sweet to stay alerted
Mini study: Woods
PPT wear blindfolder and listen to loud, quiet and no noise, and rate food on sweetness, saltiness, softness, hardness and liking
Loud noise lowered taste intensity, sweetness is affected more than saltiness
Liking highest in quiet condition
Hardness doesn’t affect liking
Standardized (portion of food sample), reliability
Ppt wear blindfolder, not realistic when eating
Pleasure: Liking (valance)
Low valance cause avoidance of entering store
Arousal: How alerted customer is
High arousal cause higher product engagement and spend more, but too high cause overwhelm
Low arousal = low product engagement, buy less
Dominance: How much customer feel in control
Low dominance cause high arousal and low valance => avoidance
Applicable => increase valance and dominance
Emotion alone doesn’t make customer purchase, a study found that store scent increase sales because it increase quality perception of products, not emotion.
Cultural differences: e.g: Asian find red lighting the worst valance compared to other nationalities
Scent marketing: signature scent increase sales/brand loyalty
Pleasant scent like orange create positive mood (pleasure and arousal). Make customer stay for longer
Dominance: Vanilla (warm scent) increase perceived crowding but also spending for luxury item, cause people want other to respect them if they buy expensive things to regain dominance
Mini study: Chebat and Michon
Shopper rated product quality, mall environment when exposed to citrus scent or no scent
Total spend on non-grocery products are tracked
=> Citrus scent increase product quality and mall environment (higher arousal and pleasure)
No shops used strong smell, researcher did not wear perfume => ensure only citrus scent affect ppt => validity and easy to replicate
No qualitative data, doesn’t explain why ppt feel that way
Social crowding: Volume of customer higher than need for personal space (too crowded)
Spatial crowding: Too limited space to move due to store design
Perceived crowding: A psychological state arisen from social/physical factor that cause scarcity of space
Perceived crowding reduce pleasure/dominance.
Increase arousal, which might increase product engagement and sales, but too much is bad
Mini study: Machleit
PPT do rating scale measure perceived crowding, tolerance, expectation, satisfaction
Perceived crowding reduce pleasure, but reduce arousal
Spatial crowding has more negative effect on pleasure (store design is important)
If ppt expect the store to be crowded, their satisfaction won’t be affected by crowding
PPT answer question about their last shopping experience => realistic
Cultural differences in crowding
Only university student = low generalizability
Patronage intention: Willingness to revisit a store
Window display: Use holiday or local theme + warm color lighting
Land scaping: Plants create positive emotion in urban setting. More sales with land scaping. Plant increase quality environment
Cheap way to attract customers
Displays are interpretated differently by cultures (should use localization rather than pan global marketing)
Mini study: Mower
Whether land scaping and window displays increase pleasure arousal and liking
PPT read description of 1 out 4 jean stores, having either land scaping or windows display
Quantitative questionnaire measure arousal, liking and patronage intention
Presence of 2 following factors increase liking for store => patronage intention
Quantitative data
Lack ecological validity => ppt have to imagine the store
Layout: Stock arrangement + route customer take in the store
Grid: Rectangular arrangement, parallel aisles (supermarket)
Maximise space, easy to find product
Overwhelemed
Racetrack: Customer follow designated route through themed areas (department stores)
Entertaining, browse as many places as possible (encourage purchase)
Not suitable for customer in rush, congestion in busy times
Free form: Customer move freely among displays of different styles and shapes (IKEA)
Longer time spent in store => impulse purchase
Bad design = poor experience
Mini study: Vrechopoulos
Use different store layout online
120 ppt buy online in either grid, free form or race track + online questionnaire (rating scale)
Grid : easiest to use
Free form: Most entertaining and useful
Race track: hard to use but most time spent
Effect of layout in online website doesn’t match real life
Ppt order real things that are later delivered to them => ecological validity, act natural
Only qualitative data, doesn’t explain why customer think that way
Context: Classical music increase spending in wine chamber and school cafeteria
Aim: Investigate if classical music increase spending compared to pop
About methodology
UK luxury restaurant, Feb-March 2002
IV: Classical, pop, no music
DV: Mean spending of each customer on food category (starter, dessert,…)
Total spending
Time spent in restaurant
About ppt
393, same male and female
Did not know they are in a study (researchers are waitress)
Procedure (about music)
All famous songs
Each IV played 6 nights, order is counterbalanced (each day play different IV, but order of IV of each week is different)
Consistent volume, two 76-min CD with shuffle mode
Other variables are kept the same (temperature, menu, lighting)
Results:
Increase mean spending for starter + coffee => overall spending
e.g: 4,9 pound for starter, while pop is only 4 pounds for starter
Explanation
Customer like classical music => more happy and spend more (ppt variables are not controlled)
Classical music enhance surrounding (rejected by school cafeteria study, where surrounding not match with classical music)
Classical music associated with luxury => customer believe food is high quality => spend more
Controlled variables (validity and reliability, standardized procedure)
Natural setting of restaurant, ppt did not know they in study
Only rich ppt in UK
ppt variable, some ppt might like classical music beforehand
Ethics: British Psy society said no consent in public space is okay. PPT dinner was not interrupted
Too reductionist: Music has different effect during different time of meal + music also interact with other factors
Free will is stronger here, can’t control ppt with music
Gustation: Taste
Fake chewing sound make food crispier + White noise that outweigh chewing noise make pretzel less moist
Background noise increase linking for sweetness rather than saltiness
Why?
We use multiple senses to judge taste intensity. Taste less intense if sound is loud cause it distract us from taste
Background cause stress => we need sweet to stay alerted
Mini study: Woods
PPT wear blindfolder and listen to loud, quiet and no noise, and rate food on sweetness, saltiness, softness, hardness and liking
Loud noise lowered taste intensity, sweetness is affected more than saltiness
Liking highest in quiet condition
Hardness doesn’t affect liking
Standardized (portion of food sample), reliability
Ppt wear blindfolder, not realistic when eating
Pleasure: Liking (valance)
Low valance cause avoidance of entering store
Arousal: How alerted customer is
High arousal cause higher product engagement and spend more, but too high cause overwhelm
Low arousal = low product engagement, buy less
Dominance: How much customer feel in control
Low dominance cause high arousal and low valance => avoidance
Applicable => increase valance and dominance
Emotion alone doesn’t make customer purchase, a study found that store scent increase sales because it increase quality perception of products, not emotion.
Cultural differences: e.g: Asian find red lighting the worst valance compared to other nationalities
Scent marketing: signature scent increase sales/brand loyalty
Pleasant scent like orange create positive mood (pleasure and arousal). Make customer stay for longer
Dominance: Vanilla (warm scent) increase perceived crowding but also spending for luxury item, cause people want other to respect them if they buy expensive things to regain dominance
Mini study: Chebat and Michon
Shopper rated product quality, mall environment when exposed to citrus scent or no scent
Total spend on non-grocery products are tracked
=> Citrus scent increase product quality and mall environment (higher arousal and pleasure)
No shops used strong smell, researcher did not wear perfume => ensure only citrus scent affect ppt => validity and easy to replicate
No qualitative data, doesn’t explain why ppt feel that way
Social crowding: Volume of customer higher than need for personal space (too crowded)
Spatial crowding: Too limited space to move due to store design
Perceived crowding: A psychological state arisen from social/physical factor that cause scarcity of space
Perceived crowding reduce pleasure/dominance.
Increase arousal, which might increase product engagement and sales, but too much is bad
Mini study: Machleit
PPT do rating scale measure perceived crowding, tolerance, expectation, satisfaction
Perceived crowding reduce pleasure, but reduce arousal
Spatial crowding has more negative effect on pleasure (store design is important)
If ppt expect the store to be crowded, their satisfaction won’t be affected by crowding
PPT answer question about their last shopping experience => realistic
Cultural differences in crowding
Only university student = low generalizability
