IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eco/journ3/2022-06-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Preferences of Consumers When Selecting Clothing Detergent Products

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew R. Kamwendo

    (Department of Marketing & Retail Management, Durban University of Technology, South Africa)

  • Mandusha Maharaj

    (Department of Marketing & Retail Management, Durban University of Technology, South Africa,)

Abstract

The retailing environment has shown that consumer purchases are dependent upon the consideration and subsequent evaluation of product attributes. Consumer’s selection of products are driven by their preferences for the attributes that the products possess. The aim of this study was to investigate product attribute preferences for cross-category shopping products in Durban. The quantitative study design based on a cross-sectional descriptive survey was conducted. The study population consisted of consumers within the city of Durban. The study sampled 213 students selected from three universities in Durban (University A, B and C). Research respondents were chosen using convenience sampling. Respondents were purposely selected based on their capacity to give meaningful information relevant to the study. The Cronbach alpha test was conducted to test for reliability of the first instrument. The results indicated acceptable, consistent scoring patterns for the sections of the research instrument. The study revealed that for clothing detergent products, product form is the most important attribute followed by product effectiveness. It is important to note that significant differences were found in the respondent's preferences for product attributes in terms of the respondent's demographics. For clothing detergents, significant differences were found in terms of respondents preferences for the price, scent, size and product form of clothing detergents. Subsequently, generalised product attribute preferences were obtained. The findings of the study are limited due to the low response rate among older respondents. Future studies may benefit from investigating sub-categories. Moreover, future studies should consider other consumer segmentation methods in order to better understand and classify retail behaviour when developing modelling approaches. Retail managers may benefit from communicating more value for money for their skincare product offerings. Brands that are synonymous with longer lasting products either through offering more volume or products that require less application to achieve desired results may provide a competitive advantage.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew R. Kamwendo & Mandusha Maharaj, 2022. "The Preferences of Consumers When Selecting Clothing Detergent Products," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 12(6), pages 23-36, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eco:journ3:2022-06-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/irmm/article/download/13274/7005
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/irmm/article/view/13274
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Piyush Sharma, 2011. "Country of origin effects in developed and emerging markets: Exploring the contrasting roles of materialism and value consciousness," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 42(2), pages 285-306, February.
    2. Ernest H. Forman & Saul I. Gass, 2001. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process---An Exposition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 469-486, August.
    3. Mark Crowder, 2015. "Public procurement: the role of cognitive heuristics," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 127-134, March.
    4. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1979. "Group Preference Aggregation Rules Based on Strength of Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(9), pages 822-832, September.
    5. Kardes, Frank R, et al, 1993. "Brand Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer Choice, and the Pioneering Advantage," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(1), pages 62-75, June.
    6. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, September.
    7. Eggers, Felix & Sattler, Henrik, 2009. "Hybrid individualized two-level choice-based conjoint (HIT-CBC): A new method for measuring preference structures with many attribute levels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 108-118.
    8. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    9. Parment, Anders, 2013. "Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications for retailing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 189-199.
    10. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    11. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    12. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
    13. Hauser, John R & Wernerfelt, Birger, 1990. "An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(4), pages 393-408, March.
    14. Oded Netzer & Olivier Toubia & Eric Bradlow & Ely Dahan & Theodoros Evgeniou & Fred Feinberg & Eleanor Feit & Sam Hui & Joseph Johnson & John Liechty & James Orlin & Vithala Rao, 2008. "Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 337-354, December.
    15. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    16. Joseph F. Hair & Christian M. Ringle & Siegfried P. Gudergan & Andreas Fischer & Christian Nitzl & Con Menictas, 2019. "Partial least squares structural equation modeling-based discrete choice modeling: an illustration in modeling retailer choice," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 115-142, April.
    17. Butler, John C. & Dyer, James S. & Jia, Jianmin & Tomak, Kerem, 2008. "Enabling e-transactions with multi-attribute preference models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 748-765, April.
    18. Scholl, Armin & Manthey, Laura & Helm, Roland & Steiner, Michael, 2005. "Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 760-777, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bremer, Lucas & Heitmann, Mark & Schreiner, Thomas F., 2017. "When and how to infer heuristic consideration set rules of consumers," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 516-535.
    2. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    3. Peter Stüttgen & Peter Boatwright & Robert T. Monroe, 2012. "A Satisficing Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 878-899, November.
    4. Christina Schamp & Mark Heitmann & Robin Katzenstein, 2019. "Consideration of ethical attributes along the consumer decision-making journey," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 328-348, March.
    5. Volker Kuppelwieser & Fouad Ben Abdelaziz & Olfa Meddeb, 2020. "Unstable interactions in customers’ decision making: an experimental proof," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 479-499, November.
    6. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Tomasz Gajderowicz & Marek Giergiczny & Gabriela Grotkowska & Urszula Sztandar-Sztanderska, 2020. "Choosing the Future: Economic Preferences for Higher Education Using Discrete Choice Experiment Method," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 61(4), pages 510-539, June.
    7. Butler, John C. & Dyer, James S. & Jia, Jianmin & Tomak, Kerem, 2008. "Enabling e-transactions with multi-attribute preference models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 748-765, April.
    8. Srikanth Jagabathula & Paat Rusmevichientong, 2017. "Nonparametric Joint Assortment and Price Choice Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(9), pages 3128-3145, September.
    9. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.
    10. Chen, Xuqi & Shen, Meng & Gao, Zhifeng, 2017. "Impact of Intra-respondent Variations in Attribute Attendance on Consumer Preference in Food Choice," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258509, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Pedro Longart & Eugenia Wickens & Ali Bakir, 2016. "Consumer Decision Process in Restaurant Selection: An Application of the Stylized EKB Model," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 28(2), pages 173-190.
    12. Vishal Narayan & Vithala R. Rao & Carolyne Saunders, 2011. "How Peer Influence Affects Attribute Preferences: A Bayesian Updating Mechanism," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 368-384, 03-04.
    13. Daniel R Clark & Dan Li & Dean A Shepherd, 2018. "Country familiarity in the initial stage of foreign market selection," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 49(4), pages 442-472, May.
    14. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    16. Xitong Li & Jörn Grahl & Oliver Hinz, 2022. "How Do Recommender Systems Lead to Consumer Purchases? A Causal Mediation Analysis of a Field Experiment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 620-637, June.
    17. Meixner, Oliver & Haas, Rainer & Pochtrager, Siegfried, 2007. "Importance and Relevance of Quality Labels in the Austrian Meat Supply Chain," 2007 1st Forum, February 15-17, 2007, Innsbruck, Austria 6598, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    18. S. Lipovetsky, 2009. "Global Priority Estimation in Multiperson Decision Making," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 77-91, January.
    19. Tammo H.A. Bijmolt & Michel Wedel & Wayne S. DeSarbo, 2021. "Adaptive Multidimensional Scaling: Brand Positioning Based on Decision Sets and Dissimilarity Judgments," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, June.
    20. Edenbrandt, Anna Kristina & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Lüken, Malte & Orquin, Jacob L., 2022. "Seen but not considered? Awareness and consideration in choice analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Attributes preferences; conjoint analysis; consideration set; clothing detergent; heuristics; product category;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M3 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising
    • M30 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - General
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eco:journ3:2022-06-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ilhan Ozturk (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.econjournals.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.