Laddering: A How to Do It Manual with a Note of Caution

By Abrafi Saaka Graduate Student-CIRP Program Chris Sidon Graduate Student-CIRP Program Brian F. Blake, Ph.D., Director-CIRP Program

Methodology Series

February 2004 Cleveland State University

Brian F. Blake, Ph.D. Senior Editor

Jillian M. Hughes Co-Editor

Entire Series available: http://academic.csuohio.edu:8080/cbrsch/home.html

RESEARCH REPORTS IN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

These analyses address issues of concern to marketing and advertising professionals and to academic researchers investigating consumer behavior. The reports present original research and cutting edge analyses conducted by faculty and graduate students in the Consumer-Industrial Research Program at Cleveland State University.

Subscribers to the series include those in advertising agencies, market research organizations, product manufacturing firms, health care institutions, financial institutions and other professional settings, as well as in university marketing and consumer psychology programs. To ensure quality and focus of the reports, only a handful of studies will be published each year.

Professional Series - Brief, bottom line oriented reports for those in marketing and advertising positions. Included are both B2B and B2C issues.

How To Series - For marketers who deal with research vendors, as well as for professionals in research positions. Data collection and analysis procedures.

Behavioral Science Series - Testing concepts of consumer behavior. Academically oriented.

AVAILABLE PUBLICATIONS: Professional Series Lyttle, B. & Weizenecker, M. Focus groups: A basic introduction, February, 2005. Arab, F., Blake, B.F., & Neuendorf, K.A. Attracting Internet shoppers in the Iranian market, February, 2003. Liu, C., Blake, B.F., & Neuendorf , K.A. Internet shopping in Taiwan and U.S., February, 2003. Jurik, R., Blake, B.F., & Neuendorf, K.A. Attracting Internet shoppers in the Austrian market, January, 2003. Blake, B.F., & Smith, L. Marketers, Get More Actionable Results for Your Research Dollar!, October, 2002.

How To Series Blake, B.F., Valdiserri, J., Neuendorf, K.A., & Nemeth, J. Validity of the SDS-17 measure of social desirability in the American context, November, 2005. Blake, B.F., Dostal, J., & Neuendorf, K.A. Identifying constellations of website features: Documentation of a proposed methodology, February, 2005. Saaka, A., Sidon , C., & Blake, B.F. Laddering: A How to do it manual with a note of caution, February, 2004. Blake, B.F., Schulze, S., & Hughes, J.M. Perceptual mapping by multidimensional scaling: A step by step primer, July, 2003.

Behavioral Science Series Shamatta, C., Blake, B.F., Neuendorf, K.A, Dostal, J., & Guo, F. Comparing website attribute preferences across nationalities: The case of China, Poland, and the USA, October, 2005. Blake, B.F., Dostal, J., & Neuendorf, K.A. Website feature preference constellations: Conceptualization and measurement, February, 2005. Blake, B.F., Dostal, J., Neuendorf, K.A., Salamon, C., & Cambria, N.A. Attribute preference nets: An approach to specifying desired characteristics of an innovation, February, 2005. Blake, B.F., Neuendorf, K.A., Valdiserri, C.M., & Valdiserri, J. The Online Shopping Profile in the cross-national context: The roles of innovativeness and perceived newness, February, 2005. Blake, B.F., & Neuendorf , K.A. Cross-national differences in website appeal: A framework for assessment, July, 2003. Blake, B.F., Neuendorf , K.A., & Valdiserri , C.M. Appealing to those most likely to shop new websites, June, 2003. Blake, B.F., Neuendorf , K.A., & Valdiserri , C.M. Innovativeness and variety of information shopping, April, 2003.

RESEARCH REPORTS IN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

EDITORIAL DIRECTOR: DR. BRIAN BLAKE
Dr. Brian Blake has a wide variety of academic and professional experiences.

His early career... academically, rising from Assistant Professor to tenured Professor at Purdue University, his extensive published research spanned the realms of psychology (especially consumer, social, and cross-cultural), marketing, regional science, sociology, community development, applied economics, and even forestry. Professionally, he was a consultant to the U.S. State Department and to the USDA, as well as to private firms.

Later on...on the professional front, he co-founded a marketing research firm, Tactical Decisions Group, and turned it into a million dollar organization. After merging it with another firm to form Triad Research Group, it was one of the largest market research organizations based in Ohio. His clients ranged from large national firms (e.g., Merck and Co., Dupont, Land o Lakes) to locally based organizations (e.g., MetroHealth System, American Greetings, Progressive Insurance, Liggett Stachower Advertising). On the academic side, he moved to Cleveland State University and co-founded the Consumer-Industrial Research Program (CIRP). Some of Clevelands best and brightest young marketing research professionals are CIRP graduates.

In the last few years...academically, he is actively focusing upon establishing CIRP as a center for cutting edge consumer research. Professionally, he is market research consultant for a variety of clients.

EDITOR (2003): JILLIAN HUGHES

Currently a CIRP graduate student, she graduated Magna Cum Laude from Mount Union College, where she majored in Psychology, with a focus on Consumer Behavior, and minored in Sociology. Among her many research interests; she focuses on the effects of Social Desirability Bias on Innovativeness Scales and differences between paper and pencil and Internet survey responses. She had the honor of presenting research concerning age differences in brand labeling at the Ohio Undergraduate Psychology Conference in April of 2002 at Kenyon College. She also presented original research at the annual Interdisciplinary Conference for the Behavioral Sciences hosted by Mount Union College in April, 2002 and 2003.

FOREWORD For over 15 years, researchers have turned to laddering as one of their qualitative tools. Although a watered down version of the technique is often employed, the systematic application of the procedure as initially developed by Reynolds and Gutman can be highly informative. But researchers and managers using the results of a laddering study must keep in mind the limitations of the procedure. If they do not do so, the technique can come back and bite them. This report presents a step by step approach to conducting a laddering study, and then outlines potential problems that may be encountered. The report is intended for professionals who do not have a long track record in the technique. It is for researchers who are considering using the technique and for managers/executives reviewing whether or not to commission a study based on this tool.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction An Example Basic Perspective Overview Laddering Methodology Eliciting Differences Among Brands The Interviewing Environment In-Depth Interviewing Techniques Analysis Step 1: Converting the Raw Interview Data into Ladders Step 2: Content Analysis Step 3: Generating the Implication Matrix Step 4: Constructing the Hierarchical Value Map Selecting Components of the HVM Determining Dominant Perceptual Pathways Applications Problems Expense and Sample Size Subjectivity Lost Data Respondent Lack of Self-Insight Framework for Action Conclusion 7 7 8 9 11 11 12 13 16 16 17 19 22 22 24 27 29 29 30 30 31 31 31 33

II.

III.

IV. V.

VI.

VII. Additional References

I. INTRODUCTION An effective marketing strategy for a product or service requires an understanding of consumers purchasing behaviors. If marketing researchers can identify the salient factors that consumers consider in evaluating alternatives and the personally relevant reasons why those factors are important to consumers, then successful marketing strategies can be developed to appeal to those consumers. Laddering is a technique that has been used, for example, to suggest communication themes that tug at a persons gut. It has been employed to identify emotional obstacles that face a political candidate running for elected office. It has revealed product features that can appeal to buyers at a very deep level. While some researchers have used the technique with great success, other researchers have been known to find themselves overwhelmed by the subtleties of the technique and to have felt it necessary to drop it.

An Example Consider a consumer purchasing a car. That car has various attributes or features, e.g. leather upholstery, a turbocharged V6 motor, two doors. Each attribute has particular consequences, as that consumer sees it. The motor lets him out accelerate many other cars on the highway (a positive consequence in his eyes), but also can cost more to operate (a negative consequence). These consequences are meaningful in light of that persons values. The turbocharged V6 helps him achieve his value of feeling strong and powerful, a master of his own fate. The higher cost of operation with this motor, though, interferes with his value of seeing himself as a responsible husband and father, a selfless provider for his family.

Basic Perspective Laddering is based on a means-end theory; it attempts to identify the product attributes that elicit preference within a particular product class category. The attributes of products and the consequences (both positive and negative) that are associated with usage are the means. The ends are the desired outcomes expressed in terms of the consumers personal values. These values are assumed to be reached through the consequences. (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988; Myers, 1996). Consumers assumedly choose actions that produce desired and/or minimize undesired consequences. Therefore, consumers (through their buying behavior) learn to associate specific consequences with specific product attributes and this knowledge drives them to choose products that have the relevant attributes to help them achieve their desired goals. A major assumption of the means-end theory is that consumers product knowledge is organized in a hierarchy with concrete thoughts linked to more abstract thoughts in a chain progressing from a means to an end. Thus, the more concrete features or characteristics of a product, the attributes (A), are connected to the more abstract ideas about psychological and social consequences of the attributes (C). These psychosocial consequences or benefits (derived from using the product) are in turn connected to the most abstract element of the three, the values (V).

personal values

consequences or benefits

attributes

The end state is purported to be the real reason why a consumer uses the product i.e., how it helps the individual achieve his/her desired goals. Laddering is an in-depth interviewing and qualitative analysis methodology based on the means-end theory. A laddering interview involves using a series of directed probes to uncover the full range of attributes (A), consequences (C), and values (V) associated with a selected product in a given product class.

Overview The in-depth interviewing technique prompts the respondent to think critically about the connections between the products attributes and his/her personal goals (the motive behind ones preference for that particular product) thereby revealing the A-C-Vs. In figure 1 below, the diagram on the left is a ladder from a single respondent in a diet soft drink study; the diagram on the right is a ladder from a luxury car study:

Figure 1: Ladder Examples Ladder from respondent in diet soft drink study (V) (C) (C) (A) (A) self esteem look good in clothes maintain my figure less calories not syrupy Ladder from respondent in luxury car study (V) (C) (C) (A) (A) self esteem prestige willing to pay a little more quality sleek look

The analysis of the laddering data across respondents begins with a summary of the major elements by content-analysis procedures. A summary table is then constructed to reflect the number of connections between the elements. From this table, the dominant connections are

10

then graphically represented in a tree diagram, termed the hierarchical value map (HVM). The HVM is structural in nature and is a representation of the linkages across levels of abstraction without reference to specific brands. The HVM is then used to recommend marketing and/or communication strategies.

11

II

LADDERING METHODOLOGY

The question that should be answered before a laddering study is launched is: who are the relevant people to be interviewed? For developing positioning strategies for products, the relevant people may be customers (brand users) whose beliefs are critical to fully understanding the competitive set of brands in the market. Since laddering involves detailed probing about consumers brand beliefs, respondents must be knowledgeable about the specific brands in the category. One way often found to be useful is to classify brand users by frequency of use and relative loyalty. As a general rule of thumb, it has been suggested that a minimum of 20 respondents should be included in any single subgroup. Because each respondent typically provides about 3 ladders, and ladders usually have an average of 5 elements, ladders from 20 respondents can produce a minimum of 225 data points (taking into account that one-fourth of respondents generally do not go beyond one ladder). Hence, a relatively small sample size can provide considerable detail about consumer choice and brand distinctions. The laddering procedure involves three stages. 1) Elicitation of differences among brands, 2) in-depth interviewing and 3) analysis of the data.

Eliciting Differences Among Brands In the first stage of the laddering methodology, respondents are asked to make comparisons between brands in a product class. There are three general methods of eliciting such distinctions between products: 1) Triadic sorting involves presenting the respondent with three products and asking them to explain how two of the products are the same and therefore different from the third product. In the case of a diet drinks study, for example, some of the distinctions could be:

12

cola versus uncola coke versus pepsi plastic bottle versus glass bottle

2) Preference differences is another useful device for eliciting distinctions. Here, respondents are asked to rank their preferences and explain why one is more desirable than the other. Queries about instances where less liked brands are used more frequently than more liked brands enables the respondent to think about other instances in which an attribute of a less preferred brand may appear attractive. This in turn helps respondents to make meaningful distinctions among the products. 3) Differences by occasion presents the respondent with a personally meaningful context within which to make the distinctions. Sometimes the distinctions elicited are such obvious characteristics of the product that they do not permit advancement to more personally meaningful areas from this starting point. Thus, helping the respondent think of some frequent usage occasions provides another way for the respondent to think about differences among the stimuli. Once a satisfactory number of distinctions has been elicited for a given product (typically 10 to 15 attributes), the interviewer can select which ones will serve as the basis for building ladders, or he/she could have the respondent rate the relative importance of each of the attributes and select those with the highest ratings.

The Interviewing Environment Naturally, the interviewer should try to build rapport with the respondent even before the first stage (elicitation of distinctions) of the interview, and one should do ones best to maintain good rapport throughout the rest of the interview. Letting the respondents know in advance that there are no right or wrong answers may go a long way in helping them become relaxed. Doing

13

so would also further reinforce the notion that the purpose of the interview is merely to understand the ways in which the respondent sees this particular set of products. Also, because of the personal nature of the later probing process, creating a slight sense of vulnerability on the part of the interviewer may help the respondent realize that the interviewer is merely a trained facilitator of this discovery process and not a judge or evaluator of the respondents ideas. This can be achieved by telling the respondents that many of the questions may seem somewhat obvious and possibly even stupid, thus, associating this predicament with the interviewing process, and creating the impression that the interviewer is a mere facilitator following certain guidelines. By continually asking, why is that important to you? the interviewer maintains control of the interview and creates the perception of being genuinely interested. Because it is critical that the interviewer is perceived as an interested but neutral recorder of the information, the interviewers reactions (both verbal and non verbal) should be as neutral as possible. It is essential that an interviewer has a thorough understanding of the means-end theory so that they are able to identify the A-C-Vs as they are brought forth by the respondents.

In Depth Interviewing Techniques Two basic problems have been known to arise during the laddering interviews: 1) the inability of respondents to articulate why a lower level (ie, more concrete) issue is important to them; 2) the tendency of respondents to try to avoid answering probes that are too personal or sensitive. In the first instance, asking the respondent to imagine what would happen if the consequence expected is not delivered may help uncover the nonconscious reasonthis is known as negative laddering. In the case of stalling or avoidance due to sensitive issues, the interviewer could try to move the conversation into a third person format, thereby creating a role playing exercise, or use self disclosure (a delicate procedure) to overcome this obstacle. Self-

14

disclosure should only be attempted by an experienced interviewer, though, since it involves the interviewer revealing a relevant personal fact about himself/herself to help the respondent feel less inhibited in comparison. A frequently more feasible option is for the interviewer to make note of the problem area and return to it when other relevant information is uncovered later in the interview. The following is an excerpt of a hypothetical interview done by Reynolds and Gutman (1988) in a wine cooler study. It illustrates the technique of unblocking respondents when they cannot advance beyond a certain level. Interviewer: You said you prefer a cooler when you get home after work because of the fullbodied taste. Whats so good about a full-bodied taste after work? Respondent: Interviewer: Respondent: Interviewer: Respondent: Interviewer: after work? Respondent: Well, if I start drinking beer, I have a hard time stopping. I just continue on into I just like it. I worked hard and it feels good to drink something satisfying. Why is a satisfying drink important to you after work? Because it is. I just enjoy it. What would you drink if you didnt have a cooler available to you Probably a light beer. Whats better about a wine cooler as opposed to a light beer when you get home

the night. But with coolers I get filled up and its easy to stop. Plus, I tend to not eat as much dinner. Interviewer: Respondent: So why is continuing to drink into the evening something you dont want to do? Well if I keep drinking I generally fall asleep pretty early and I dont get a chance

to talk to my wife after the kids go to bed. She works hard with the house and kids all dayand its really important that I talk to her so we can keep our good relationship, our family life, going.

15

Typically, two or three ladders can be obtained from approximately three-fourths of the respondents interviewed. This means that one-fourth of the respondents cannot go beyond one ladder. A typical laddering interview takes about 60 to 75 minutes to completefrom eliciting distinctions to completing an in depth interview that has solicited enough elements to complete a ladder.

16

III.

ANALYSIS

The basic analysis steps can be summarized as follows: Step 1: Reducing the raw interview data into the A, C, or Vs ladders. This process involves a thorough review of the verbatim notes of video/audio tapes of the interview. Step 2: Content analysis of the element selected in step 1 Step 3: Summation of relations in content codes, resulting in an implication matrix of all paired relationships. Step 4: Construction of a diagram to meaningfully represent the main implications of the study, the hierarchical value map (HVM). Now for more detail let us use the wine cooler study with its data and tables from Reynolds and Gutman (1988). Step 1: Converting the raw interview data into ladders. Below is a summary ladder from the interview from the wine cooler study (see Table 1 for the full set of ladders). (V) good family life

(C)

able to talk to my wife

(C)

dont fall asleep

(C)

consume less alcohol

(A)

filled up/easy to stop

(A)

full-bodied taste/less alcohol

17

Table 1: Set of Ladders for Hypothetical Wine Cooler Study LADDER 1 V C C A Sense of belonging (part of the group) Socialize Avoid getting drunk Less alcohol V C C C A A LADDER 4 V C C A A Like my coworkers (belonging) Sophisticated image More feminine Bottle shape Fancy label V C C C A LADDER 2 Good family life Able to talk to my wife Dont fall asleep Consume less alcohol Filled up/easy to stop Full bodied taste/less alcohol LADDER 5 Self-esteem Status symbol Impress others Quality expensive V C C A A V C C C C A LADDER 3 Responsibility to family Waste money Throw it away (dont drink all of it) Gets warm To much to drink Larger size LADDER 6 Completing a chore (accomplishment) Reward Thirst quenching Crisp Carbonation

18

Step 2: Content Analysis The first step in the analysis is to record the entire set of ladders on a separate form and appropriately label each item that is an A, C, or V. After inspecting them for completeness, a set of summary codes is developed that reflects all the elements (A-C-Vs) elicited. Table 2 provides the summary content codes for the Reynolds and Gutman (1988) hypothetical Wine Cooler study.

Table 2: Summary Content Codes for Wine Cooler Study Values (20) (21) (22) (23) Accomplishment Family Belonging Self-esteem Consequences (8) Quality (9) Filling (10) Refreshing (11) Consume less (12) Thirst quenching (13) More feminine (14) Avoid negatives (15) Avoid waste (16) Reward (17) Sophisticated (18) Impress others (19) Socialize (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Attributes Carbonation Crisp Expensive Label Bottle shape Less alcohol Smaller

At this level of the analysis, the focus of interest is the relationship between the elements and not the elements themselves. For example, avoids negatives of alcohol is a summary of several more detailed elements (e.g. not too drunk, dont say dumb things, etc.). Numbers are then assigned to the codes, and these numbers are used to label each element in each ladder producing the matrix in Table 3. The rows in the matrix represent an individual respondents ladder (a respondent can have multiple ladders, thus multiple rows). Columns represent the elements in each ladder.

19

Table 3: Raw Data from Hypothetical Wine Cooler Study Respondents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 1 1 1 3 4 2 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 10 10 10 6 17 10 12 8 12 10 8 10 12 12 10 16 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 10 6 6 8 18 16 8 8 17 13 13 13 Content codes 12 16 12 20 20 12 16 20 16 16 20 12 16 16 12 20 12 12 12 16 12 0 12 16 16 16 18 23 23 18 17 18 17 17 17 16 0 16 0 0 16 20 0 18 0 0 16 20 18 16 0 16 16 16 0 16 0 16 0 20 18 20 0 0 22 18 23 18 18 23 20 0 16 0 0 18 0 0 23 0 0 18 0 23 20 0 20 18 18 0 18 0 20 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 23 0 23 22 0 0 0 23 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 22 23 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Step 3: Generate the Implication Matrix The Implication Matrix (Table 4) is a square matrix that displays the number of times each element leads to every other element in the same row (operationally defined as those

20

elements in a row which precedes other elements in the same row). Two types of relations are represented, direct and indirect relations. Direct relations are those in which one element leads to another without any intervening element. For example, in the wine cooler study, less alcohol (in ladder 1) has a direct link with avoid getting drunk, and an indirect link with socialize. The numbers in the matrix are expressed in fractional form with direct relations to the left of the decimal and indirect relations to the right of the decimal. Thus, carbonation leads to thirst-quenching 4 times directly and 6 times indirectly.

21

Table 4: Implication Matrix 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Carbonation Crisp Expensive Label Bottle shape Less alcohol Smaller Quality Filling Refreshing Consume Less Thirst-quenching More feminine Avoid negative Avoid waste Reward Sophisticated Impress others Socialize Accomplishment Family Belonging Self-esteem 1.00 3.00 12.00 2.00 1.00 9 10 10.00 4.00 11 12 4.06 .04 2.02 2.02 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 10.00 1.00 5.00 14.00 7.00 .08 .02 1.00 11.00 4.00 .04 5.10 .01 .06 .04 .06 5.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.01 2.00 5.00 .01 .01 3.00 1.00 4.00 4.03 13 14 15 .01 16 .14 .04 2.04 17 .03 1.01 2.04 1.03 18 .04 .04 1.09 .02 .01 4.04 19 .01 1.06 .01 1.01 .01 .01 .04 .02 3.02 1.03 .04 .02 20 .06 .07 .05 .02 .02 .01 .01 .09 .03 .05 .03 .04 1.03 .04 .06 4.02 10.00 5.00 21 22 23 .04 .05 .03 .03

1.00 1.00

.04 .02 .02 .04 .04

1.00

1.05 5.03 9.00

22

Step 4: Construct the Hierarchical Value Map The Implication Matrix may be considered the blueprint for drawing up the hierarchical value map (HVM). The HVM provides a meaningful way of representing subjective data and acts as a tool to facilitate decision-making and problem solving. HVMs are created by reconstructing chains from aggregate data. Chains refer to sequences of elements that emerge from the aggregate Implication Matrix. Considerable ingenuity is needed for constructing the HVM, because the only guideline is that one should try at all costs to avoid crossing lines. A common approach in constructing an HVM is to set a cut off, i.e., a minimum number of links that must be present before one considers that item. Multiple cutoffs (usually from 3 to 5) should be used because they permit the researcher the freedom to choose the one that offers the most information and the most stable set of relations. Selecting Components of the HVM The most efficient way to construct the HVM is to start in the first row for which there is a value at or above the chosen arbitrary cutoff level. Since by this point the reader is familiar with it, we will use the Reynolds and Gutman hypothetical wine cooler data yet again. Starting with a cutoff of 4, the first noteworthy value is carbonation-refreshing (Row 1, Column 10) relationship with a value of 10 signifying 10 direct relations and no indirect relations between the two elements. Since carbonation is related to refreshing, the next row we look at is 10 refreshing. Thirst-quenching in column 12 appears to be the first significant value. Moving to row 12 we find the next value in our growing chain is reward in column 16. From row 16 we find our next value to be impress other in column 18, and following that we find our final value of belonging in column 22, producing a chain of 1-10-12-16-18-22. After a chain is completed, it is advisable to go back to the beginning and check to see if there are other important links in the rows of the matrix which were not picked up in the completed chain. For example, inspecting the rows reveals that accomplishment (20) and

23

self-esteem (23) are linked to carbonation. A similar pattern is observed when links with Thirst-quenching, reward and impress others are inspected, producing the chain like the one below: self-esteem (23)

Accomplishment (20) Impress others (18) Reward (16)

Thirst-quenching (12)

Refreshing (10)

Carbonation (1)

Moving to row 2, we find that the connections are almost identical to carbonation with one exception; Crisp has a link with Quality (8). We therefore plot it next to carbonation and then start a new chain with quality. Looking up quality reveals 12 direct relations with expensive (3), significant links with reward (16) and with sophisticated image (17). Scanning row 17 we find significant links with Impress others. This produces a 3-8-16-17-18 chain. Fancy label (4) and Bottle shape (5) both have 4 (2 direct and 2 indirect) relations with More Feminine (13) and More feminine has seven direct links with Sophisticated Image (17), yielding 4-5-13-17 chain. Row 6, Less Alcohol has links with Avoid Negatives of Alcohol, (14), which links up with Socialize (19) which in turns links up with Family Life (21), making a 6-14-19-21 chain. The next row, Filling (7) links up with Consume Less which connects with the rest of the Less Alcohol link; producing a 7-11-14-19-21 chain. The last attribute item Smaller Size (7) links up with Avoid Waste which has a weak link to Family Life (21). Going back to inspect to see if any important links were left out, we find

24

that Family Life links up several times with Belonging (22), which also links up several times with Self-esteem (23). Thus, it appears that it is only at the value level, Belonging, that the right side of the map is connected to the elements of the left side. The emergent HVM is shown in figure 2. Determining Dominant Perceptual Pathways: Having plotted all the elements, it is important to look at the elements in terms of the number of direct and indirect relations they have with other elements. Table 5 presents the sums of the direct and indirect relations for each element. Belonging (22), at the value level, appears to have the most elements leading from it. It may be the core value in terms of importance to the product class. Table 5: Summary of Direct (XX) and Indirect (YY) Relations for Each Element (XX.YY) Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 To 15.35 07.23 17.30 06.14 05.10 06.60 04.05 19.23 05.12 16.26 05.09 14.22 06.09 10.05 02.00 20.11 15.05 20.00 08.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 From 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 19.00 00.00 16.00 05.00 15.00 06.04 10.05 04.01 25.33 15.15 21.40 08.11 14.25 09.12 20.56 15.37

25

The other three noteworthy elements with a high frequency of elements leading from them are Impress Others (18), Reward (16), and Quality (8). In fact, the quality rewardimpress othersbelonging chain appears to have a high number of relations among its respective elements. Other dominant pathways with considerable direct and indirect links are the carbonation-self-esteem chain and carbonation-accomplishment chains. While these dominant pathways provide genuine insight into what consumers consider as important characteristics of a brand, all the pathways warrant our attention because the weaker pathways might represent an opportunity for a campaign to strengthen this tie.

Figure 2: Hierarchical Value Map of Wine Cooler Study. (Reynolds and Gutman) Self-esteem (23) Self worth Self image Better Life (22) Better family

26

Belonging (22) Security Camaraderie Friendship Socialize (19) Easier to talk Open up

Accomplishment (20) Get the most from life Reward (16) Satisfying Compensation

Impress Others (18) Successful image

Sophisticated Image (17) Personal status How others view

Thirst-quenching (12) Relieves thirst Not too sour Refreshing (10) Feel alert Alive

More Feminine (13) Socially

Avoid negatives of alcohol (14) Not too drunk Not too tired

Avoid waste (15) Doesnt get

Quality (8) Superior product Product quality

Consumer less (11)

Carbonati on (10)

Crisp (2)

Expensive (3)

Label (4) (fancy)

Bottle (5) (shape)

Less Alcohol (6)

Filling (9)

Smaller size (7)

27

IV. APPLICATIONS 1. Segmentation One form of market segmentation is to attempt to put people into groups that have common needs and will respond in similar ways to marketing initiatives. Information from the Hierarchical Value Map can be used to help segment populations. Groups of consumers who have similar personal values in can be identified and segmented. The resulting segments may be different from the ones that would result from using demographic or socio-economic variables or even from the ones developed in a benefit segmentation. The value based segmentation, though, may be particularly useful for specific applications. Advertising based on personal values may be particularly effective in engendering higher buyer involvement in the brand and long term loyalty. 2. Market Insight Laddering can provide a deeper basis for understanding how people make choices between competing products or brands, according to laddering enthusiast. It can identify positive and negative associations as well as perceived strengths and weaknesses of the product or brand in terms of consumer preferences. Unlike large scale surveys based on self-reported measures, the interviewer is there to help the person uncover the real or underlying motives behind ones product or brand preference. Enthusiasts of laddering often feel that people are not always aware enough of their own mental processes to do this by themselves. Suppose a person were taking a pencil and paper survey, and that persons answer to a question is, I dont know why I like it. There is no way to get past this answer. In an interview situation however, the interviewer is trained to help people explore why they like or dont like a product. 3. Advertising Advertising can also be evaluated at the different levels of abstraction uncovered during the laddering interview (that is attributes, consequences and values). After the initial laddering

28

interview is completed, the consumer is more aware of what attributes are more important to them, what benefits they receive from buying the product and what value they are trying to reinforce. At this point they are shown several ads and asked to rate them in terms of how well each ad communicates the attributes, benefits and values of interest to them. Consumers are also asked to comment on exactly what it is about the ad that does or does not facilitate the communication process. An ad might communicate just the benefits but not the main attributes or values or just the attributes but nothing else. A successful ad will communicate at all three levels according to Reynolds and his colleagues. The laddering approach can help marketers determine how well their ads do this. 4. Sales Support It has also been suggested that laddering can be helpful in sales contacts. A variation of the laddering technique could be used by salespeople to better understand how their customers make their decisions. The salesperson can then adapt his or her sales approach accordingly. 5. Devise Promotional Strategies There is interest in the laddering technique as a way to help develop marketing strategies. The ideas that are uncovered can be used to help reach the consumers in the target areas. For example, laddering can help position a product or brand by helping to determine its points of difference with competitors. Points of difference are extremely important because, obviously, they help determine whether or not a new product will be successful. Laddering taps into the meanings and associations that can help to determine these differences. Wansink (2003) gives an example of how laddering insights can be used to develop specific marketing actions; the illustration relates to Nike shoes and clothing. Some constructs that were found are: Gives me a sense of belonging to a certain group Makes me more a part of the soccer community

29

I wish I could live the lifestyle of a professional soccer player

Some marketing actions that were developed in response to these are: Put premier soccer players numbers on shoes Buy time on the score box shown on the T.V. during games Offer Nike Soccer newsletters and promotions at the point of purchase

6. Advertising Strategy Laddering can also be used to develop advertising strategies. The MECCAS Model (Means-End Conceptualization of the Components of Advertising Model), can help do this. In this approach the HVM is used to identify elements that would be used in advertising strategy: Message elements: the specific features of the product to be pictured. Consumer benefits: the positive consequences of using the product. Executional framework: the overall tone and style of the ad. Leverage point: the presentation of the message to that the linkage between ones values and the specific product attributes will be readily apparent to buyers. Driving force: the dominant end value on which the advertising will focus

The MECCAS model is beyond the scope of the present report. For an extended review of this issue consult the sources in the Additional References section of this paper. V. PROBLEMS 1. Expense and Sample Size One of the major problems in conducting laddering research (including gathering, analyzing, and summarizing the data) is that the method is extremely time consuming and expensive to conduct (Baker, 2002). In order to obtain the insight necessary for useable results the data must be collected manually through in-person interviews, while the analysis and summary of the data may typically require days of work by highly trained experts; all of which can add considerable expense. For this reason it may be of limited value when the research

30

involves collecting data from large sample of respondents, e.g. when segmenting large populations. On the other hand, it may be valuable when a fairly small sample is adequate. Laddering has been effective when used to analyze a specific population with a small representative sample. In this case the benefits can outweigh the costs. For example, Federal Express used the laddering technique to interview secretaries of companies they would like to have as clients. By finding out exactly what the secretaries wanted from a delivery service and why they wanted it, Federal Express was able to greatly increase its market share. 2. Subjectivity Another possible problem is the subjectivity involved in analyzing the data. The decisions about what to include and how to categorize and summarize the data are highly subjective. For example, it is not always easy to tell the difference between a consequence and a value. The categorization procedure which uses common meanings to form the categories is also subjective. Two people looking at the same group of attributes or consequences may not generate the exact same groupings or names for the groupings. Different people are also likely to consider different data to be relevant and/or important. 3. Lost Data Loss of data is also a concern with the laddering technique. When the data are transformed into a Hierarchical Value Map, it is inevitable that some data will be lost. Lost in this context means that the responses are not included in the final analysis; they are simply discarded or considered irrelevant. For example, Baker (2002) reports the loss of 55% of one data set and 74% of another. She also reports that researchers who lose more than 77% of their data frequently do not report the percentage in their research findings. This raises a question as to how well the Hierarchical Value Map truly represents that data. A major reason why a researcher may attempt to conduct a laddering study rather than to turn to other qualitative

31

techniques is the richness of the original data generated. Ironically, the richness of the data is sacrificed through the loss of data. 4. Respondents Lack of Self-Insight A potential problem with the interview process is that some respondents seem to genuinely have very little idea as to the reasons they purchase an item. The job of the interviewer then becomes one of trying to subtly evoke the desired responses. This effort to coax a person into responding can make the interview seem more like a test to some people, which in turn may engender an aversive reaction to the interview process. 5. Framework for Action Finally, even though professionals are familiar with the laddering technique, they still may experience problems going from a Hierarchical Value Map to execution and implementation of a marketing strategy. There is no commonly agreed upon framework for translating the strategies that are developed from the Hierarchical Value Map into creative, useable concepts for advertisements or other marketing tools. This lack of an action framework makes it more difficult for the creative staff to use the information from the study. VI. CONCLUSIONS In a global economy, consumers are inundated with numerous options from which to choose. In this consumer-oriented market, consumers can decide which products to buy, when to buy, in which packaging and of which quality. Thus, not paying attention to consumer motivations could increase the risk of a mismatch between the characteristics of a product and the aspects that are sought after by consumers. It is axiomatic that a marketers paying attention to consumer motivations increases the likelihood for designing products that consumers would desire improve the effectiveness of marketing strategies. Despite the problems in translating the laddering data into a coherent HVM, the means-end theory, as implemented in the laddering

32

technique, offers a useful tool to explore the consumers values in terms of product choice criteria. On the other hand, the researcher and the end user of a laddering study must be alert to the problems often encountered by this technique. These problems can turn out to be a fatal flaw for a laddering project. CAVEAT EMPTOR!

33

VII. Additional References Audenaert, A. & Steenkamp, J. E. M. (1997). Means-end chain theory and laddering in agricultural marketing research. In B. Wierenga, A. van Tilburg, K. Grunnert, M. Wedel and J.E. M. Steenkamp (Eds.), Agriculture marketing and consumer behavior in a changing world (pp. 217-232). Amsterdam: Kluwer. Bagozzi, R. P., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Priester, J. R. (2002). The social psychology of consumer behavior. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Baker, S. (2002). Laddering: Making sense of meaning. In D. Partington (Eds.), Essential skills for management research (pp. 226-253). London, UK: Thousand Oaks Sage. Gengler, C. E. & Reynolds, T. J. (2001). Consumer understanding and advertising strategy: analysis and strategic translation of laddering data. In T.J. Reynolds and J.C. Olson (Eds.), Understanding consumer decision making (pp. 119-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Myers, J.M. (1996). Segmentation and positioning for strategic marketing decisions, (pp. 263-282). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. Olson, J. C. & Reynolds, T. J. (2001). The means-end approach to understanding consumer decision making. In T.J. Reynolds and J.C. Olson (Eds.), Understanding consumer decision making (pp. 3-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc Reynolds, T.J., Dethloff, C., & Westberg, S.J. (2001). Advancements in laddering. In T.J. Reynolds and J.C. Olson (Eds.), Understanding consumer decision making (pp. 91-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

34

Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis and interpretation, Journal of Advertising Research, 28, 11-31. Solomon, M. R.. (2002). Consumer behavior: buying having, and being. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wansink, B. (2003). Using laddering to understand and leverage a brands equity. Quantitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6 (2), 111-118.