The Analysis of Factors Affecting New Product Categorization (Case Study: Lactivia Drinking-Yogurt)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Prof., Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of Business Management-Marketing, Faculty of Management, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Objective
While introducing new products, the producers disregard the consumers’ point of view and only focus on their own ideas. Being new to the consumer occurs when they do not consider the product similar to any of the products they have ever seen and they give it a distinct identity. Drinking yogurt is a new product class that has recently been produced by Kaleh Company with a specific brand of Lactivia in the Iranian market. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the factors that cause consumer to consider Lactovia drinking yogurt as a new product class in a distinct product class and also to identify the importance of these factors in product classification.
 
Methodology
The present study is applied in terms of purpose and is qualitative in terms of data collection method. The statistical population of the study included all citizens of the two cities of Sari and Tehran who were exposed to Lactivia drinking yogurt advertisement or who have consumed it. Finally, 39 individuals were selected based on non-probabilistic purposeful sampling method and using theme analysis the signs and the source that consumers used to assign the product class were identified.
 
Findings
A total of 13 product classes and 9 signs were obtained. The findings showed that in the process of classification of a new product, customers’ experience of using similar products, advertising messages and their relatives’ comments about the product as well as the mixed uniqueness of the product are the leading factors. Sixty two percent of those who have only consumed lactivia, consider it in the "diluted yogurt" class and "the shape of the product" was the most common sign they used to classify the product.
 
 
Conclusion
Product classification differs among consumers based on the product benefits and characteristics and according to the importance of the brand sign. If the product is highly important, “the benefits and characteristics” of the product is the main factor in the classification; otherwise, the similarity with the existing products determines the product class. Increasing the perceived fit between the shape and the name of the product makes the consumers to assign the product into the category which is associated with its name. The incompatibility of the shape of the product with the existing classes can lead to the classification of that product as a new product. The creativity on how to consume a new product increases the likelihood that it will be considered as a new class. If product benefits are of high importance, the determining factor of the product class is the dominant characteristics of that product; otherwise, the shape of the product is decisive. The new product name is one of the most fundamental signs to classify that product as a new product. The difference in shape and color of the product packaging from similar existing products is one of the requirements for classifying that product as a new one. The inclusion of the parent brand on the product makes the consumer resist considering it as a new product.

Keywords

References

Acker, D. A. (2004). The Innovator's Prescription: The Relevance of Brand Relevance. Strategy + business magazine, (35). Available in: https://www.strategy-business.com/article /04207?gko=1e075.
Acker, D. A. (2011). Brand relevance: making competitors irrelevant. Translated by Ali Shah Hosseini and Kamal Rahmani (2012). Tehran: Publishing Negah Danesh. (in Persian)
 Azizi, Sh., & Ebrahimzadeh, Sh. (2016). Evaluation of New Product Development Capabilities in Food Packaging Industry. Journal of Research and Technology, (3), 120-141. 
(in Persian)
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
 Calantone, R. J., Chan, K., & Cui, A. S. (2006). Decomposing product innovativeness and its effects on new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(5), 408-421.
Creusen, M. E., & Schoormans, J. P. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of product innovation management, 22(1), 63-81.
 Dawar, N. & Parker, P. (1994). Marketing Universals: Consumers’ Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 81–95.
Dickson, P. R. (1994). Marketing Management. Orlando: The Dryden Press.
Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D. & Miniard, P. W. (1995). Consumer Behavior. Orlando: The Dryden Press.
Estes, W. K. (1986). Array models for category learning. Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 500-579.
Garber, L.L. (1995). The package appearance in choice. Advances In Consumer Research, 22, 653-660.
Goldman, E. J. (2005). Developing true product innovations: coming up with innovative food products affects all aspects of a business, and a new product initiative may need outside help to be successful. Prepared Foods.
Goode, M. R., Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2013). Innovation aesthetics: The relationship between category cues, categorization certainty, and newness perceptions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 192-208.
Gourville, J. T. (2006). Eager sellers stony buyers: Understanding the psychology of new product adoption. Harvard Business Review, 84 (6), 98–106.
Grodal, S., Gotsopoulos, A., & Suarez. F. (2015). The co-evolution of technologies and categories during industry emergence. Academy o Management Review 40 (3), 423–445.
 Harari, T. & Hornic, J. (2010). Factor influencing product involvement among young consumer. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27 (6), 499-506.
Hayes, B.K. & Newell, B.R. (2009). Induction with uncertain categories: When do people consider the category alternatives? Memory and Cognition, 37(6), 730–743.
John, D.R. & Sujan, M. (1990). Age differences in product categorization. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(4), 452-460.
Kuijken, B., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017). Categorization and Willingness to pay for New Products: The Role of Category Cues as Value Anchors. Journal of product Innovation Management, 34 (6), 757-771.
 Lackman, C. & Lanasa, J. M. (1993). Family Decision-Making Theory: An Overview and Assessment. Psychology & Marketing, 10(2), 81-93.
 Le Roux, A., Thébault, M., Roy, Y., & Bobrie, F. (2016). Brand typicality impact on brand imitations evaluation and categorization. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(6), 600-612.
 Lee, C. H., & Schluter, G. (2002). Why Do Food Manufacturers Introduce New Products?. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 33(1), 102-111.
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological review, 85(3), 207.
Medin, D. L., Ross, B. H. & Arthur B. Markman (2001), Cognitive Psychology, Harcourt Press.
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual review of psychology, 32(1), 89-115.
Moreau, C. P., Lehmann, D. R. & Markman, A. B. (2001). Entrenched knowledge structures and consumer response to new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 14–29.
Moreau, C. P., Markman, A. B., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). “What is it?” Categorization flexibility and consumers' responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 489-498.
Moskowitz, H. R., Straus, T., & Saguy, S. (2009). An integrated approach to new food product development. CRC Press.
Mugge, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2013). Seeking the ideal level of design newness: Consumer response to radical and incremental product design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(S1), 34-47.
Nosofsky, R.M. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 14 (4), 700-708.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.
Rajagopal, P. (2004). Consumer Categorization and evaluation of ambiguous products. PhD Dissertation. The Ohio State University.
Roedder J.D. & Sujan, M. (1990). Differences in Product Categorization. Journal of consumer reaserch, 16 (4), 452-460.
Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7 (4), 573-605.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. Cognition and categorization. ed. by Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd, 27-48.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M. & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic Objects in Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439.
Ross, B. H. & Murphy, G. L. (1996). Category-based predictions: Influence of uncertainty and feature associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 736–753.
Schmitt, B. & Simonson, A. (1997). Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity, and Image. Free Press.
Schoormans, J. P. L. & Robben, H. S. J. (1997). The effect of new package design on product attention, categorization and evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18 (2-3), 221-287.
Snelders, H. M. J. J., Hussein, G., Lea, S. E., & Webley, P. (1992). The polymorphous concept of money. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13(1), 71-92.
Sujan, M. & Bettman, J. (1989). The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on Consumers’ Brand and Category Perceptions: Some Insights from Schema Research. Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (November), 454–468.
Sujan, M. (1985). Consumer knowledge: Effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 31-46.
Talke, K., Salomo, S., Wieringa, J. E., & Lutz. A. (2009). What about design newness? Investigating the relevance of a neglected dimension of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26 (6), 601–615.
Ward, J., & Loken, B. (1988). The generality of typicality effects on preference and comparison: An exploratory test. ACR North American Advances.
Yamauchi, T., & Markman, A. B. (2000). Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 776.
Journal of Business Management
Volume 12, Issue 1
2020
Pages 243-259

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics