Willingness To Buy Privatebrands

The effect of framing on willingness to buy private brands Eyal Gamliel and Ram Herstein Ruppin Academic Center, Emek Hefer, Israel Abstract Purpose – This research seeks to demonstrate the effect of framing on consumers’ willingness to buy private brands. Design/methodology/approach – Using an experimental design, 500 participants answered a questionnaire addressed to examine their willingness to buy four private brand products framed either in positive (save) or negative (lose) terms. Findings – Consumers’ willingness to buy private brands was higher when the information was presented in negative (loss) framing relative to presenting the very same information in positive (save) framing. Research limitations/implications – This research examined the effect of framing on willingness to buy private brands. Future research is needed to examine the effect of framing on actual purchasing behavior and regarding other products retailers wish to promote, other than private brands. Practical implications – Retailers typically try and promote sales of private brands using messages suggesting that consumers will save money by buying their brand. The results of this study suggest that retailers could improve their marketing of private brands by framing their products negatively in terms of the loss consumers incur when not purchasing private brands. Originality/value – The paper suggests adopting Levin et al.’s typology that distinguished between various types of framing. The typology explains apparently contradictory results found in the literature. While goal framing more accurately describes the more effective messages discussed in this study, attribute framing would better describe the more effective messages mentioned in other contexts. Keywords Consumers, Brands, Individual behaviour, Retailing Paper type Research paper

positively framed and the alternative option “one-third of a chance that no one will die and two-thirds of a chance that 600 will die” when the problem was framed negatively. Although the same objective data were given in the two versions, framing caused preferences reversal that was explained in terms of the prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979): Positive framing of problems emphasizes the benefits while negative framing emphasizes risks. Whenever contemplating benefits, decision makers are prone to minimize risks (exhibiting “risk-aversion”) whereas when contemplating loses decision makers are prone to take risks (demonstrating “risk-seeking”) (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). Over the past two decades, the effect of framing on human judgment and decision-making has been documented in various domains (for a comprehensive review see Levin et al., 1998). Levin et al. (1998) proposed to differentiate between three types of framing effects that are distinguishable in terms of their operational definitions, their typical results, and their likely underlying processes (see also Levin et al., 2002). The three types are: 1 risky choice framing; 2 attribute framing; and 3 goal framing.

An executive summary for managers and executive readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction Framing effect The effect of framing was first introduced by Tversky and Kahneman (1981) who showed the systematic reversal of preferences that people exhibit in different framing of problems, contingencies, or outcomes. In their Asian disease problem, Tversky and Kahneman (1981) presented the same situation using either a positive or a negative frame. Participants were told that the USA was preparing for the outbreak of an Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. They were then presented with two options for combating the disease, and asked to choose between them. When framed in positive terms of saving lives, the two options consisted of: 200 people will be saved for certain, contrasted with a one-third chance that 600 people will be saved and two-thirds of a chance that no one will be saved. When framed in negative terms of lives lost, the two options consisted of: 400 people will die for certain, contrasted with a one-third chance that no one will die and two-thirds of a chance that 600 people will die. Participants tended to choose the option “200 saved for certain” when the problem was

Risky choice framing relates to problems such as the “Asian disease” (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). The second type, attribute framing, relates to situations in which an object or an event is evaluated more favorably when presented in a positive frame relative to presenting the very same object or event in a negative frame. Levin and Gaeth (1988) exemplified this type of framing by showing that participants evaluated the quality of a ground beef product presented as “75 percent lean” (positive frame) as higher than when presented with the same product

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm

Journal of Consumer Marketing 24/6 (2007) 334– 339 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] [DOI 10.1108/07363760710822918]

334

The effect of framing on willingness to buy private brands

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Eyal Gamliel and Ram Herstein

Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2007 · 334 –339

described as “25 percent fat” (negative frame). The third type, goal framing, describes the consequences of an action given in a positive frame that emphasizes gain following an action or in a negative frame that focuses attention on a negative consequence (loss) following inaction. Typically, people are more convinced to take an action when presented with the negative consequences of not taking it relative to the positive consequences of taking it. Thus, goal framing describes situations in which a negative frame better promotes a certain goal and has greater persuasive impact than positive framing of the same situation (Levin et al., 1998). Several studies exemplified this effect in which people are willing to waive the same objective value when it was presented as a gain but are unwilling to waive it when it is presented as a loss: Meyerowitz and Chaiken (1987) showed that a negative message containing the risks of not engaging in breast selfexamination was more persuasive than the same information presented in positive terms of the gains associated with it; Banks et al. (1995) found that women viewing negatively framed messages regarding mammography screening were more likely to undergo a mammogram relative to women viewing a positively framed message; Ganzach and Karsahi (1995) found that credit card customers were more receptive to messages stressing losses from not using card than messages stressing gains from using it. The effect described by the goal framing can be explained by the prospect theory, proposed by Kahneman and Tversky (1979): The subjective value of any given objective information is more extreme for losses than gains (“losses loom larger than gains”). As a result, a message framed negatively, highlighting the negative impact of not taking an action, would be more effective than the same objective message emphasizing the positive benefits of taking it. Thus, while the subjective value associated with a given gain might not be sufficient to justify an action, loss of the same objective value will be ascribed with a more extreme subjective value, which might justify the action. It would seem that goal framing could be used by retailers who wish to promote specific products over others using discounts to elevate the perceived attractiveness of certain products. Accordingly, retailers could use negative framing emphasizing the losses associated with not purchasing the promoted products rather than using the positive framing emphasizing the gains associated with purchasing them. This possibility actually contradicts the common practice of retailers that typically promote products using positive (gain/ save) terms. One specific group of products that retailers wish to promote extensively is private brands.

nature of the manufacturer-retailer interaction (Hoch, 1996; Hoch and Banerji, 1993; Raju et al., 1995), enabling retailers to strengthen their bargaining position with regard to national brand manufacturers (Narasimhan and Wilcox, 1998). Specifically, store brands may allow the retailer to negotiate lower wholesale prices on national brands (Mills, 1995; ScottMorton and Zettelmeyer, 2004). Finally, the store brand itself may generate profits because of its high unit margin and potentially high volume (Ailawadi and Harlam, 2001). How can retailers promote private brands? Most leading retailers that promote private brands market them on a well-devised private label program, covering product quality and merchandising (Miranda and Joshy, 2003). That is, retailers compete directly with national brands by blurring any perceived differences between these brands and private brands. The use of similar colors, logos, and packaging encourages consumer confidence in the private brands and thus reduces the risks entailed in buying these brands (Omar and Kent, 1996). An additional major strategy of retailers used to communicate the value of private brands and to promote their sales relates to their price (Baltas, 1999; Dickson and Sawyer, 1990): The prices of (non-premium) private brands are typically lower than the prices of the national brands by 15 to 40 percent in almost every sector (Ashley, 1998). Therefore, the price issue seems to be a critical one in assuring the success of private brands retail strategy. Framing and willingness to buy The effect of framing has been investigated in marketing research extensively. Previous research related willingness to pay to risky choice framing or attribute framing, or related goal framing to issues other than willingness to pay. For example, Grewal et al. (1994) and Mano (1994) examined the effect of framing on perceived risk and consumer’s willingness to buy a new product. Janiszewski et al. (2003) examined factors affecting the direction and magnitude of attribute framing effects on judgments of product attractiveness. Similarly, Zhang and Buda (1999) manipulated the percentage of consumers who are either satisfied or dissatisfied with a product using attribute framing. Other studies examined goal framing using dependant variables other than willingness to pay (e.g., Homer and Yoon, 1992). The aim of this research is to examine the effect of goal framing on willingness to buy private brands. The research hypothesis Retailers can present the typical lower prices of private brands relative to national brands either in a positive frame (“save” on purchasing) or in a negative frame (“loss” on not purchasing). In fact, retailers typically present the lower prices of private brands in the positive frame (“save”). This use is inconsistent with the theoretical rationale of goal framing, showing that the influence of positively framed messages (save) is relatively inferior to the negatively framing of the exact message (lose). Consistent with this rationale, this study predicts that people will show more willingness to buy private brands over national brands when presented with a negative frame that emphasizes the losses associated with not purchasing private brands (i.e. purchasing national brands) relative to the exact same information presented in a positive frame that emphasizes the gains associated with purchasing private brands.

Private brands Private brands or store brands are generally brands owned, controlled, and sold exclusively by retailers (Dhar and Hoch, 1997; Sethuraman, 1995). Why should a retailer promote sales of private brands? The introduction and development of private brands can be viewed as a strategy for improving store image and profitability. Store brand entry may increase category value and expand category sales (Hauser and Shugan, 1983; Mason, 1990), and they increase store image and store loyalty by improving store differentiation vis-a`-vis other retailers (Ailawadi et al., 2001; Corstjens and Lal, 2000; Hoch and Lodish, 1998). In addition, store brand entry changes the 335

The effect of framing on willingness to buy private brands

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Eyal Gamliel and Ram Herstein

Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2007 · 334 –339

Thus, while the subjective value associated with a given gain of $1, for example, might not be sufficient to make a consumer prefer a cheaper product over a more expensive one, the subjective value associated with the loss of the same $1 will be higher and might justify the preference of the cheaper product over the more expensive one.

would always prefer the NB”) through 9 (“I would always prefer the PB”). Answer 5 was labeled: “I have no preference between the two brands”. Procedure The students participating in this study were asked to fill out the questionnaires when approached on the campus while the non-student participants were approached when waiting in various lines (for public transportation or medical appointments). The framing conditions were randomly assigned within the two samples. The research was presented as a survey in marketing and the participants were told that the questionnaires were anonymous.

Method Participants The study used two samples. A sample of 250 undergraduate students sampled from three higher educational institutions (125 males and 123 females; two did not identify their gender) and a sample of 250 non-students (81 males and 157 females; 12 did not identify their gender) sampled at various locations (detailed in the procedure section). The average age of the students sample was 26 (SD¼3.5) while the average age of the non-students sample was 39 (SD¼8).

Results The research hypothesis was that the willingness to buy private brands would be higher in the negative framing condition relative to the positive framing condition. That is, the mean of the participants’ answers on the above nine-point scale is expected to be higher in the negative framing condition relative to the positive framing condition for all four products. Participants who did not mark their preferences for any of the four products were removed from the analysis. A two-way ANOVA was performed for framing (positive versus negative) X sample (students versus non-students) on each of the preferences of the four products: cream shower soap, floor shampoo, olive oil and pasta. The effects were statistically significant for the framing variable for all four products, F(1,478)¼5.60, 4.93, 5.41 and 11.61 (respectively), all p , 0:05; the effect was statistically significance for the sample variable only for the olive oil product, F(1,478)¼4.56, p , 0:05, and not for the other three products, F(1,478)¼1.41, 1.35, and 1.53 (respectively), all p . 0:05; the interactions between the framing and sample were not statistically significance for all four products, F(1,478)¼0.82, 1.29, 0.39 and 0.98 (respectively), all p . 0:05. The lack of an interaction effect indicates that the effect of framing was similar for both samples. This finding, along with the lack of significant difference between the two samples regarding three out of the four products, led to a decision to examine the framing effect for the two samples collapsed. Table I presents the descriptive statistics of the participants’

Materials Each participant was presented with short descriptions of four products: a private brand product and a corresponding national brand product. Two products belonged to the toiletry category (cream shower soap and floor shampoo) and two products were food (olive oil and pasta). These four groceries products (two foods and two non-foods) are typical ones for private brand products (Johansson and Burt, 2004). Each participant received either a positive frame or a negative frame version of the questionnaire regarding all four products. All products names and prices were real. The description of the first product – shower cream soap – was as follows (the real names of the private brand and national brand are replaced by PB and NB, respectively). A famous farm chain store offers consumers the option of buying two brands of cream shower soap: one is a private brand of the chain (named PB) and the other is a national brand (named NB). The quality of the NB soap is slightly better. The negative frame version Assuming that the price of the PB brand is $2.90 for a 1 liter package, would you be willing to lose $0.90 (30 percent) and pay $3.80 for a 1 liter package of the NB brand? The positive frame version Assuming that the price of the NB brand is $3.80 for a 1 liter package, would you be willing to gain $0.90 (30 percent) and pay $2.90 for a 1 liter package of the PB brand? The other three products were presented in similar manners that differed in the brands’ names, their prices and their gain/ loss percentage (the percentage difference was identical in each two respective versions and it was stated clearly in the descriptions): 1 The floor shampoo (4 liter package) prices were $2.66 for the private brand and $3.11 for the national brand (17 percent difference). 2 The olive oil (1 liter package) prices were $7.55 for the private brand and $8.66 for the national brand (15 percent difference). 3 The pasta (500 g package) prices were $1.07 for the private brand and $1.38 for the national brand (30 percent difference).

Table I Descriptive statistics of the preferences for all four products according to the framing conditions (positive and negative)

Product

Framinga

Mean

SD

Shower cream soap

Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative

4.53 5.07 4.17 4.68 3.28 3.81 3.49 4.28

2.55 2.48 2.52 2.54 2.33 2.73 2.40 2.71

Floor shampoo Olive oil Pasta

Mean difference (in pooled-within SD units) 0.22* 0.20* 0.21* 0.31*

Notes: an ¼ 240 for the positive condition and n ¼ 242 for the negative condition; *p , 0.05

All participants were asked to mark their relative willingness to buy the two brands on a nine-point scale ranging from 1 (“I 336

The effect of framing on willingness to buy private brands

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Eyal Gamliel and Ram Herstein

Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2007 · 334 –339

preferences for all four products according to the framing conditions (positive and negative). Table I shows that all four private brands were preferred more in the negative (lose) condition relative to the positive (gain/save) condition. The effect sizes (Cohen’s d; Cohen, 1988) of framing were about one-fifth for the first three products and about one-third for the fourth one. All effects were statistically significant, t(480)¼2.36, 2.22, 2.29, and 3.37, all p’s , 0:05. Additional examination found no consistent gender differences regarding the four products.

theoretical rationale predicts similar effects for any other product that the retailer, or any other advertiser, wishes to promote. Thus, when marketers present any two products and one is more expensive than the other, it is possible to enhance the effect of the price difference and promote the sales of the cheaper product using negative frame message (loss $X when buying the more expensive product). Alternatively, the same information can be presented in a positive frame (save $X when buying the cheaper product) if one is interested in promoting the sales of the more expensive product.

Discussion Limitations Although consistent with previous findings and with the theoretical expectation, the size of the goal framing effect found in this study could be characteristic of the products chosen as well as the samples used. Additional research using different private brands and other samples could establish whether the small to medium effect sizes found in this study could be generalized. Future research could also use other designs. For example, instead of comparing between two brands – private and national – participants could be asked to address only the private brand and report their willingness/ unwillingness to buy it.

As predicted, participants displayed stronger preferences for the private brand products when the situation was framed in a negative manner (i.e. lose money if they are not purchased), relative to the very same situation framed in a positive manner (gain or save money if they are purchased). This effect was found for all four products used in this study – two food products and two non-food products. These results are consistent with our prediction derived from implementing goal framing into the context of willingness to buy private brands. The theoretical explanation can be formulated in terms of the prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979): When given a choice to buy either a private brand product or a national brand, people contemplate the price difference differently when they are presented with the same prices in reversed approaches. When presented with the gain associated with the purchase of a private brand, the subjective value associated with it is lower than the one associated with the loss of the very same amount that corresponds to not buying it. The more persuasive effect of the negative message is consistent with previous findings of goal framing effect in other contexts, such as breast self-examination (Meyerowitz and Chaiken, 1987), mammography screening (Banks et al., 1995) and credit card use (Ganzach and Karsahi, 1995). In all these examples (as well as many others, see detailed review in Levin et al., 1998), the persuasive effect of the negative framing describing the negative consequences of not taking an action was higher than the positive framing presenting the very same objective situation in positive terms of the gain associated with taking the action.

References Ailawadi, K.L. and Harlam, B. (2001), “The effects of store brands on retailer profitability: an empirical analysis”, working paper, Tuck Business School, Dartmouth College, Hannover, NH. Ailawadi, K.L., Neslin, S. and Gedenk, K. (2001), “Pursuing the value conscious consumers: store brands versus national brand promotions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 71-89. Ashley, S.R. (1998), “How to effectively compete against private-label brands”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 75-82. Baltas, G. (1999), “Understanding and managing store brands”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 175-87. Banks, S.M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A.J., Moyer, A., Beauvais, J. and Epel, E. (1995), “The effects of message framing on mammography utilization”, Health Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 178-84. Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Corstjens, M. and Lal, R. (2000), “Building store loyalty through store brands”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 281-92. Dhar, S.K. and Hoch, S.J. (1997), “Why store brand penetration varies by retailer”, Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 208-27. Dickson, P.R. and Sawyer, A.G. (1990), “The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 42-53. Gamliel, E. and Peer, E. (2006), “Positive versus negative framing affects justice judgments”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 307-22. Ganzach, Y. and Karsahi, N. (1995), “Message framing and buying behavior: a field experiment”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 11-17.

Managerial implications Establishing the effect of goal framing on willingness to buy private brands has direct and immediate implication for retailers who wish to promote the marketing of their private brands. Instead of presenting consumers with the gain associated with purchasing private brands (save $X), they need to present the very same information in the negative frame (lose $X if you do not buy the private brand). The results of this study have important implications not only for researchers and retailers, but also for the consumers. The latter should bear in mind the possible effect that the mere presentation of gain or loss of the same amount can have on their purchasing decisions. In order to try and avoid this effect, consumers can try and translate these messages into both gain and loss terms, so as to avoid being influenced by the chosen frame of presentation (Gamliel and Peer, 2006). This research provides evidence concerning the effect of different modes of presenting gain or loss to consumers contemplating the purchase of private brands. Obviously, the 337

The effect of framing on willingness to buy private brands

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Eyal Gamliel and Ram Herstein

Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2007 · 334 –339

Grewal, D., Gotlieb, J. and Marmorstein, H. (1994), “The moderating effects of message framing and source credibility on the price perceived risk relationship”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 145-53. Hauser, J.R. and Shugan, S.M. (1983), “Defensive marketing strategies”, Marketing Science, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 319-60. Hoch, S.J. (1996), “How should national brands think about private labels?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 89-102. Hoch, S.J. and Banerji, S. (1993), “When do private labels succeed?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 57-67. Hoch, S.J. and Lodish, L.M. (1998), “Store brands and category management”, working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Homer, P.M. and Yoon, S.G. (1992), “Message framing and the interrelationships among ad-based feelings, affect, and cognition”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 19-33. Janiszewski, C., Silk, T. and Cooke, A.D.J. (2003), “Different scales for different frames: the role of subjective scales and experience in explaining attribute framing effects”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 311-25. Johansson, U. and Burt, S. (2004), “The buying of private brands and manufacturer brands in grocery retailing: a comparative study of buying process in the UK, Sweden and Italy”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 20 Nos 7-8, pp. 799-824. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk”, Econometrica, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 111-32. Levin, I.P. and Gaeth, G.J. (1988), “How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 374-8. Levin, I.P., Gaeth, G.J., Schreiber, J. and Lauriola, M. (2002), “A new look at framing effects: distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 411-29. Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L. and Gaeth, G.J. (1998), “All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 149-88. Mano, H. (1994), “Risk-taking, framing effects, and affect”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 38-58. Mason, C.H. (1990), “New product entries and product class demand”, Marketing Science, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 58-73. Meyerowitz, B.E. and Chaiken, S. (1987), “The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions and behavior”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 500-10. Mills, D.E. (1995), “Why retailers sell private labels”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 509-28. Miranda, M.J. and Joshy, M. (2003), “Australian retailers need to engage with private labels to achieve competitive difference”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 34-47. Narasimhan, C. and Wilcox, R.T. (1998), “Private-labels and the channel relationship: a cross-category analysis”, Journal of Business, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 573-600.

Omar, O. and Kent, A. (1996), “Manufacturers’ food brands: assessment of marketing opportunities in the UK supermarkets”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 327-36. Raju, J.S., Sethuraman, R. and Dhar, S.K. (1995), “The introduction and performance of store brands”, Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 957-78. Scott-Morton, F. and Zettelmeyer, F. (2004), “The strategic positioning of store brands in retailer-manufacturer negotiations”, Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 161-94. Sethuraman, R. (1995), “A meta-analysis of national brand and store brand cross-promotional price elasticities”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 275-86. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981), “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice”, Science, Vol. 211 No. 4481, pp. 453-8. Zhang, Y. and Buda, R. (1999), “Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 1-15.

Further reading Apanovitch, A.M., McCarthy, D. and Salovey, P. (2003), “Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low-income, ethnic minority women”, Health Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 60-7. Detweiler, J.B., Bedell, B.T., Salovey, P., Pronin, E. and Rothman, A.J. (1999), “Message framing and sunscreen use: gain-framed messages motivate beach goers”, Health Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 189-96. Frisch, D. (1993), “Reasons for framing effects”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 399-429. Green, D.P. and Blair, I.V. (1995), “Framing and the price elasticity of private and public goods”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-32. Shiv, B., Edell, J.A. and Payne, J.W. (1997), “Factors affecting the impact of negatively and positively framed ad messages”, Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 285-94.

Corresponding author Eyal Gamliel can be contacted at: [email protected]

Executive summary and implications for managers and executives This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the material present. How message framing influences response The effect of message framing first emerged in the early 1980s when studies demonstrated that how problems and events were framed helped shape individual response. A positivelyframed message emphasizes the benefit or gain of taking a specific action, while negative framing of the same situation 338

The effect of framing on willingness to buy private brands

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Eyal Gamliel and Ram Herstein

Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2007 · 334 –339

points out the risk or loss of choosing not to undertake the said action. Many studies have explored the effect of framing on human judgment and three types of framing have been identified: risky choice, attribute, and goal. One example of risky choice framing occurred when participants in a study were asked to respond to a scenario relating to an outbreak of a disease. The message was both positively and negatively framed, with participants able to choose from three preferred outcomes in each case. Attribute framing relates to a situation where an object or event is appraised more favorably when the information given is positively rather than negatively framed. This type of framing was aptly illustrated by one study into the quality of ground beef when it was found to be more effective to advertise the beef as being 75 percent lean (positive) rather than 25 percent fat (negative). In the present study, Gamliel and Herstein focus on goal framing, which refers to the potential gain or loss following action or inaction. The premise of goal framing is that accentuating risk is more potent than accentuating benefit and previous research supports this conviction. Studies involving women engaging in breast self-examination and women undergoing breast cancer screening indicated that framing the message negatively had the greater impact, as did an experiment with credit card users who responded better to warnings about potential losses through not using their card. Message framing is founded in prospect theory, a core assumption of which is that “the subjective value of any given objective information is more extreme for losses than gains”. It is acknowledged that gains do possess subjective value, though the level may not be enough to prompt action.

40 percent cheaper than competing national brands in virtually all sectors, price is accepted as being a key issue where the promotion of these products is concerned. In the study, 250 undergraduates and 250 non-students were presented with short description of four products: two food and two toiletries. The four products were chosen because of their status as typical own-brand lines. In each case, the information given related both to a private brand and a corresponding national brand. The product names and prices were real. Each participant received either a positively-framed or negatively-framed message regarding all four products. The positive message highlighted the financial gain of buying the private brand, while the negative message pointed out the financial loss of failing to take this action. In each case, the potential gain or loss percentage differed. Respondents indicated a significant preference for all four own-label products in the negatively-framed message condition. The undergraduate sample was almost equally divided by gender and the non-student sample contained almost twice as many females than males but there was no significant gender difference expressed in either result. Study findings were in line with expectations and previous research within other contexts. Implications and suggestions for further research The authors believe that this investigation has considerable implications for retailers intent on promoting their own-label brands. Instead of using the customary tactic of highlighting the financial gain associated with purchasing the products, a more effective approach is to present the same information within a negatively-framed message. On the evidence of current and past research, Gamliel and Herstein believe that there are sufficient grounds for expecting similar effects when a retailer presents two products and seeks to promote the least expensive of the pair. Conversely, it is suggested that it may prove an effective strategy to utilize a positively-framed message when the aim is to improve sales of the more expensive product in that situation. The products chosen for this experiment could account for the degree of impact of the goal framing. Consequently, performing additional research using other private brands may help determine whether generalizations are possible. The authors also suggest alternative versions of the model, such as focusing only on the private brand and measuring whether or not the consumer is favorable towards purchase.

Retailers and goal framing The authors speculate that a strategy incorporating negatively-framed messages may prove effective for retailers who traditionally promote products and brands by pointing out the potential savings or gains to the consumer. They see potential in using the strategy to promote own label brands because of the growing importance of these brands to the retailer. Among other things, private brands can increase sales within a product category, and raise store profile and help differentiate from competitors, both of which may impact on customer loyalty. Added to this, such brands offer potentially high profit levels and can also improve the retailer’s bargaining power in respect of national brand wholesale prices. Gamliel and Herstein’s study thus investigates the effective of goal framing on consumer willingness to purchase private brands. As own-label products are invariably between 15 and

(A pre´cis of the article “The effect of framing on willingness to buy private brands”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

339