Research Questions

Discuss about the Theory Of Compensatory Decision Rule.

The response for the survey of the first, second and third research respondents have been considered for the assessment. There are total 13 research questions present in the questionnaire in which the first question is regarding the important aspect that a consumer considered while taking the decision of purchasing an automobile. The second question highlights the rating of the motor vehicle features that the consumer sees while making automobile purchasing decisions. This question comprised of seven ordinal questions. The third research question allows the consumer to rank all the six cars according to their preferences. Research question 4 to 12 are all nominal question and cam be answered in on word. The last research question is also an ordinal question which identifies the nature of the consumer.               

Gowrisankaran and Rysman (2012) stated that according to the compensatory decision rule, a person evaluates the products and the services alternatives for finding one with exceptional characteristics. Guajardo, Cohen and Netessine (2015) furthermore stated that in such cases, consumer sometimes agrees to pay more capital resources for the products or services that satisfy all their requirements and preferences.

The evaluation criteria for the research respondent 1 are focused more on number of seats available and smart start and entry system followed by choice of petrol/diesel/hybrid engine, multiple systems and storage inside the car. Moreover, when the respondent asked for rating each motor vehicle option against evaluative criteria, the rating was given as ‘very good’ to Toyota Camry Ascent Sport for the choice of petrol/diesel/hybrid engine. However, the preferable evaluation criteria for the respondent 1 is number of seats available, in which the respondent rate ‘very good’ to Kluger AWD GXL  and give a ‘good’ rating to Toyota Prius vi-Tech, Camry Ascent Sport, C-HR AWD and Yaris ZR. Moreover, for the feature of multiple systems to alert driver, the response is ‘very good’ for Toyota C-HR AWD only. Moreover, for the preferable evaluation criteria of smart start and entry system, the respondent gave ‘very good’ rating to Toyota Camry Ascent Sport and Kluger AWD GXL. Furthermore, for the Engine capacity and size of touch screen display, the respondent gave high rating to Toyota Hilux SR 4×2 Hi-Rider Extra-Cab Pick-Up and Camry Ascent Sport respectively. Lastly, for boot storage, the respondents gave high rating to Toyota C-HR AWD followed by Toyota Hilux SR 4×2 Hi-Rider Extra-Cab Pick-Up, Prius vi-Tech, Camry Ascent Sport and Kluger AWD GXL. Thus, the most of the feature that is liked by the respondent is for Toyota Camry Ascent Sport and thus it can be stated that the probability for the concerned person to buy Camry Ascent Sport is high. This likelihood is also proved through the next research question, where the respondent ranked this model as number-1. Moreover, the occupation of this respondent is ‘teacher’ and takes the decision on the own. Thus, the profession of the respondent allows the respondent to follow the logic behind their action. The annual pretax income of respondent 1 is $85,000 and thus the person can afford the amount of $33,588 for a car that fulfils all her criteria.

Evaluation Criteria and Respondent 1

The second respondents emphasizes more on the technical and safety features while making a purchasing decision for automobile and hence gives a score of 50 for the evaluation criteria of multiple systems to alert driver like lane departure alert, pre-collision safety system and automatic high beam. According to the response on the given research question, it can be found that for the choice of petrol/diesel/hybrid engine, number of seats available, smart start and entry system, engine capacity and storage inside the car, the respondent rated Toyota Camry Ascent Sport as good for two features and very good in three features out of the seven features. Thus, from this matrix, it can be easily drawn that respondent 2 is more likely to choose Toyota Camry Ascent Sport but when asked one option as her choice of motor vehicle, the respondent choose Toyota Yaris ZR. Thus, the likelihood of the response does not matched with the automobile of her choice. This difference occurred since she is a single person and working as a nurse, so financial stability is required to purchase a high end car. The family’s household pretax income last year and own pretax income last year is same that is $50,000, which shows that the respondent is only earning person in the family. Moreover, it can also be said that in this case compensatory decision rule is not followed.

The respondent 3 emphasizes on the evaluation criteria of petrol/diesel/hybrid engine, multiple systems of alert and storage inside the car mainly for choosing a car to buy. The response matrix also shows that this respondent give ‘very good’ rating for the choice of petrol/diesel/hybrid engine to both the Toyota Prius vi-Tech and Toyota Camry Ascent Sport. However, for the number of seats available the respondent Prius vi-Tech prefer more than Camry Ascent Sport and also chosen Toyota Kluger AWD GXL. Furthermore, when considered the main feature of multiple systems to alert driver that is preferable by the respondent, he gave ‘average’ rating to Prius vi-Tech and Camry Ascent Sport and gave ‘very good rating’ to Toyota C-HR AWD and Toyota Yaris ZR. The engine capacity of any of the car cannot impress this respondent rank ‘very good’ for Smart start and entry system to Camry Ascent Sport and Kluger AWD GXL and Size of touchscreen display to Hilux SR 4×2 Hi-Rider Extra-Cab Pick-Up and Camry Ascent Sport. Another feature that is preferred by the respondent for effective evaluation criteria is boot space in which he gave ‘very good’ rating to Camry Ascent Sport and ‘good’ to Prius vi-Tech and C-HR AWD. The matrix show that according the preference of the evaluation criteria of the car, he is more likely to purchase Camry Ascent Sport followed by Prius vi-Tech. However, when the respondent ask for the choosing an automobile that he want to purchase, he went for Prius vi-Tech followed by Camry Ascent Sport. Thus, the difference in this decision occurred due to the reason that the person is wealthy and focuses more on the technology. Toyota Prius vi-Tech has many new technologies like automatic high beam lights, SUNA traffic channel, panoramic roof, pre-collision safety system, heated front seats, intelligent park assist, active cruise control, reversing camera, lane departure alert, automatic air conditioning, smart start, driver’s knee airbag including 7 SRS airbags. Prius also offer 8 year/160,000km hybrid battery warranty and have sitting accommodation for 7 people. As the person is married a family person, he followed compensatory decision rule and make a purchase decision for a car that meets maximum of the technological aspects.

Evaluation Criteria and Respondent 2

The Toyota Automobile that is most preferred by all the considered respondents is Toyota Camry Ascent Sport and has effective.

Cost effective automobile version: In case of Respondent 2, the person like the model Camry Ascent Sport for all the evaluative criteria but chosen Yaris ZR just for the low cost. Thus, the marketer needs to formulate another version for Italian customers that focus more on the multiple systems to alert driver in an affordable cost.

Develop efficient EMI option: The marketer should attract their valuable customers through flexible EMI options so that single earning person can also afford their preferable automobile.

Inclusion of technological features: Toyota Camry Ascent Sport has effective features like availability of hybrid and petrol engine, Smart start and entry system, 7″ colour Multi-information display and storage inside the car but lacks many technological aspects. This is the reason that the third respondent did choose Prius vi-Tech over Camry Ascent Sport. Thus, in order to attract their Chinese customers, who are more focused towards technology, Toyota can include heated front seats, active cruise control, reversing camera and pre-collision safety system. This will help the Toyota marketer to develop the desired car model according to the preference of the customers depending on their geographic locations and economic condition.

Conclusion

Thus, it can be concluded that there are total 13 research questions present in the questionnaire. The survey of the first, second and third research respondents have been considered for the assessment. It is also found that the probability for the concerned person to buy Camry Ascent Sport is high; whereas, from the response matrix, it can be easily drawn that respondent 2 is more likely to choose Toyota Camry Ascent Sport. However, respondent 3 is more likely to purchase Camry Ascent Sport followed by Prius vi-Tech. In the first case, the likelihood of the preferred car is matched with the choice but the compensatory decision rule is not followed in case of second respondent. The reason is due to her financial stability and she is the only earning person in the family. The compensatory decision rule is followed in the third respondent’s case where the respondent likely to make a purchase decision with higher cost than expected if the cars features meets maximum of the preferred aspects. Lastly, the recommendations to the marketer made for Toyota Camry Ascent Sport are cost effective automobile version, develop efficient EMI option and inclusion of technological features.

Reference List

Cantallops, A. S., & Salvi, F. (2014). New consumer behavior: A review of research on eWOM and hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 41-51.

Gowrisankaran, G., & Rysman, M. (2012). Dynamics of consumer demand for new durable goods. Journal of political Economy, 120(6), 1173-1219.

Guajardo, J. A., Cohen, M. A., & Netessine, S. (2015). Service competition and product quality in the US automobile industry. Management Science, 62(7), 1860-1877.

Hashmi, A. R., & Biesebroeck, J. V. (2016). The relationship between market structure and innovation in industry equilibrium: a case study of the global automobile industry. Review of Economics and Statistics, 98(1), 192-208.

Hosany, S., & Martin, D. (2012). Self-image congruence in consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 685-691.

Kulkarni, G., Ratchford, B. T., & Kannan, P. K. (2012). The impact of online and offline information sources on automobile choice behavior. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(3), 167-175.

Kushwaha, G. S., & Sharma, N. K. (2016). Green initiatives: a step towards sustainable development and firm’s performance in the automobile industry. Journal of cleaner production, 121, 116-129.

Lantos, G. P. (2015). Consumer behavior in action: Real-life applications for marketing managers. Routledge.

Loureiro, S. M., Sardinha, I. M. D., & Reijnders, L. (2012). The effect of corporate social responsibility on consumer satisfaction and perceived value: the case of the automobile industry sector in Portugal. Journal of cleaner production, 37, 172-178.

Parment, A. (2013). Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications for retailing. Journal of retailing and consumer services, 20(2), 189-199.

Paul, J., & Rana, J. (2012). Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food. Journal of consumer Marketing, 29(6), 412-422.

Reed II, A., Forehand, M. R., Puntoni, S., & Warlop, L. (2012). Identity-based consumer behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 310-321.

Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Dubois, D. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352-368.

Shende, V. (2014). Analysis of research in consumer behavior of automobile passenger car customer. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4(2), 1.

Solomon, M. R., Dahl, D. W., White, K., Zaichkowsky, J. L., & Polegato, R. (2014). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being (Vol. 10). Pearson.