Consumer utilization of an advertising stimulus: the effect of the Peel 'n Taste[R] marketing system on customer attitudes, product feelings and likelihood of purchase.

Gerlich, R. Nicholas ; Browning, Leigh ; Westermann, Lori 等

INTRODUCTION

Scratch-and-sniff advertisements appeared in large number in the 1990s, relying on printing technology that made it possible for consumers to interact with a product and a salient attribute in an inexpensive (for the marketer) and non-threatening (for the consumer) manner. In so doing, marketers utilizing this method were effectively seeking to create a surrogate means of product trial. The literature supports the conclusion that a favorable evaluation of scent can result in a transfer to the evaluation of a particular product. Recently, Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System advertisements appeared in the media and in mailboxes, utilizing dissolvable flavor strips that purport to allow consumers to sample a product without ever physically interacting with it. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of these flavor strips in influencing consumer feelings toward the product as well as likelihood to purchase the product.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Product trial has been show n to influence the formation of belief and attitudes toward that product. Furthermore, direct experience with the product has been shown to be a much more reliable and powerful predictor of buyer behavior than mere exposure to product advertising alone (Smith & Swinyard 1982; Fazio & Zanna 1978; Smith 1993). Interaction with the physical product, thus, is of greater value than advertising alone; seeing and using are believing. Exposure to advertising alone yields belief strength, intentions to buy, confidence, and attitudes that are not as strong as those recorded when participants are allowed to actually try the product.

But what if the advertisement is the product trial? Research has shown that a pleasant scent in an advertisement and a participant's resulting mood state can positively influence attitudes toward the product (Ellen and Bone 1998) and can affect judgments of unrelated focal objects (Isen and Shalker 1982; Petty et al. 1993). While executional cues such as scent (olfactory), pictures (visual), and sound (aural) have been studied and shown to affect physical and emotional states, there is need to study whether taste, particularly in a surrogate form, can likewise influence consumer feelings toward products, and ultimately their likelihood of buying the product.

The majority of studies examining product trial have focused on simple easily consumed and functional products such as coffee, soft drinks, and snack foods (Olson and Dover 1979; Smith and Swinyard 1988; Smith 1993). Kempf (1999) and Kempf and Smith (1998) add the notion of trial diagnosticity, which is the perceived usefulness of the trial for forming one's evaluations of the product. This diagnosticity is a function of whether the product's salient attributes can be ascertained during the product trial. That product taste can be ascertained from a surrogate method is the assumption made by advertisers using the Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System flavor strip. Furthermore, it is assumed by these advertisers that this surrogate will serve sufficiently as a product trial, and influence consumer feelings toward the product and cause them to purchase the product in its natural form.

Prior studies involving scent show that experiencing a pleasant or unpleasant scent can be transferred to associated objects (Ehrlichman and Halpern 1988). Bone and Jantrania (1992) explored the relationship between scent cues and product quality. Thus, if a consumer encounters a pleasing scent, the related object is likely to also be perceived as pleasing and/or of high quality. This may also be true for consumers experiencing a pleasant taste.

Scents are often linked to specific objects, events, and persons in a consumer's memory. Great variability can occur, though, between consumers, with one scent evoking a positive memory for one person, and a negative memory for another (Engen 1972). The same may be true for taste. Thus, it is possible that a scent or taste stimulus could influence consumer attitudes, but as Kirk-Smith (1994) argues, the associations that consumers make to the stimulus could be very dependent on the context of prior exposure, as well as the circumstances of that exposure.

The contribution of this study is to examine the Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System phenomenon as a consumer-controlled method of taste and thus product trial, and to determine the resulting effects on consumer feelings toward the product and their likelihood to purchase it. By utilizing measures designed to assess pleasantness of a taste sample, along with measures that report consumer attitudes toward various aspects of the advertisement, brand, and the flavor strip method in particular, we calculated a predictive model of consumer Feelings Toward the Product. Then, by calculating the consumer's mood following their experience with the flavor strip advertisement, we calculated a predictive model of consumer Likelihood to Purchase.

METHODOLOGY AND MEASURES

A volunteer sample of adult female university students, faculty, and staff was recruited at a medium-sized regional state university. There were 151 usable responses collected over a two-week period. Authentic advertising samples including a two-page magazine ad for a grape juice drink, a card stock blow-in newspaper insert for an apple juice beverage, and a direct mail piece for a flavored vodka drink were provided by the corporate developer of the advertising medium. Thus, each participant was provided with three examples of Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System advertisements.

In all three cases the products were national brands with widespread distribution. The advertising pieces each contained a dissolvable flavor strip sealed in a foil pouch. It is intended for consumers to peel open the pouch and place the strip on their tongue. An artificially-rendered flavor transference then occurs. This artificial flavor is assumed to be a surrogate for actual product trial.

In all three products studied, the target market for the ad was women, as verified by the maker of the Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System. Thus, women were used exclusively in this study. That women possess overall superior sensory capabilities as compared to men is supported in the literature (Laird 1932; Myers-Levy 1989). Ellen and Bone (1998) similarly relied solely upon female participants in their study of scratch-and-sniff advertisements, supported by the findings of Cain (1982) and Doty, et al. (1985). The use of women only is thus consistent with the literature and prior work.

The study was conducted one-on-one with a participant and researcher in a conference room. Participants were not able to see what other participants were doing during the study; they were thus not affected by extraneous influences. Participants were held in a separate waiting area apart from those exiting the study in order to control for accidental feedback loops. In all cases, participants were recruited under the premise of evaluating a new method of advertising. They were not informed that only females were included in the study.

Participants were provided a portfolio with each of the three advertising samples. They were randomly assigned and told to focus on one of the three ads (for the purpose of answering follow-up questions). They were, however, told they were free to examine all three ads and to interact with them as they desired. Participants were provided up to five minutes to examine and interact with the ads. A researcher noted whether the participant actually opened and used the flavor strip of the product on which they were told to focus. They were then provided access to a computer to complete an online survey. All advertising materials were removed at this time.

The online portion of the study required participants to recall the specific product on which they were asked to focus, its flavor (if they had used the flavor strip), the type of advertising medium (e.g., magazine, newspaper insert, etc.), and the primary product claim made in the advertisement.

If the participant did use the flavor strip, they were asked to rate the pleasantness of the taste, using the sum of three 9-point semantic differential scales developed by Ellen and Bone (1998), agreeable/disagreeable, pleasant/unpleasant, and good/bad. Scores on this flavor variable could range from 3 to 27, with low sums being most positive and high scores being most negative.

Participants who did not use the flavor strip skipped this portion of the online survey, and thus did not have a reported value for this variable. Of the 151 participants, 124 sampled the flavor strip while 27 did not.

Various attitudes were then measured, including their attitude toward the advertisement, the brand, and the flavor strip method. These were measured with separate batteries of summed scores on semantic differential scales. A(ad) was measured with six 7-point items that covered the totality of the advertising piece on which they were told to focus: interesting/not interesting, good/bad, likable/not likable, not irritating/irritating, pleasant/unpleasant, and enjoyable/not enjoyable. Scores could range from 6 to 42, with low scores being most positive and high scores being most negative (Madden, et al. 1988, Ellen and Bone 1998).

A(brand) was measured by asking participants to evaluate the brand on which they were asked to focus, using four 7-point items (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Ellen and Bone 1998), including good/bad, wise/foolish, favorable/unfavorable, and beneficial/harmful). Scores could range from 4 to 28, along the same anchors used above.

A(peel) was measured by asking participants to consider the Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System method itself, using the identical set of semantic differential items used to measure A(brand). Given the newness of the flavor strip method, it was deemed important to include a separate measure for its impact on consumers. Scores once again could vary between 4 and 28.

A fifth variable, mood, was gathered via six 9-point semantic differential scales (Mehrabian and Russell 1974). Participants were asked to report their mood state after having experienced the advertisement. Mood thus captures the participant's general frame of mind following exposure to the advertisement. The presence of odors has been associated with mood states (Ehrilichman and Bastone 1992; Parasuraman 1984; Torri et al. 1988), and has been shown to affect judgments of stimuli (Isen and Shalker 1982; Petty et al. 1993). It is thus plausible that a favorable flavor could likewise affect judgments of a marketing stimulus.

Participants were then asked to rate on 5-point Likert scales the impact the Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System flavor strip had on their overall feelings about this product, and then the effect the test strip had on their likelihood to purchase the product. These two dependent variables serve as indicators of the effect of the peel-and-taste method, and can serve as predictors of ultimate purchase. Furthermore, favorable results would indicate that marketers may be able to sidestep the time and expense of promoting consumer product trial by instead using advertisements employing flavor strip methods.

HYPOTHESES AND RESULTS

Based on the literature cited above, and the fact that in all cases the present study participants had advertising materials with which to interact in addition to the attached Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System flavor strip, it was hypothesized there would be no significant differences observed between users and non-users among the six variables recorded. Specifically,

H1: There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of A(adv) between those who did and did not use the flavor strip.

H2: There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of A(brand) between those who did and did not use the flavor strip.

H3: There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of A(method) between those who did and did not use the flavor strip.

H4: There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of Mood between those who did and did not use the flavor strip.

H5: There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of FTP between those who did and did not use the flavor strip.

H6: There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of LTP between those who did and did not use the flavor strip.

Composite scores for the entire sample were calculated by summing the individual scores in the various subscales, resulting in these variables:

flavor: mean = 9.95 on a scale of 3 to 27, indicating the overall attitude toward flavor (*)

A(adv): overall mean = 13.49 on a scale of 6 to 42, indicating the overall attitude toward the advertisement (e.g., type of ad, message, claims, etc.)

A(brand): overall mean = 9.08 on a scale of 4 to 28, indicating the overall attitude toward the brand

A(method): overall mean = 10.64 on a scale of 4 to 28, indicating the overall attitude toward the Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System

Mood: overall mean = 14.73 on a scale of 6 to 54, indicating the participant's overall mood after exposure to the ad

(*) Only those who actually used the flavor strip completed the flavor scale.

In all cases, the scales reflect Most Positive scores being lowest, and Most Negative scores being highest. The first four variables were Independent Variables in Model 1 below, while the mood variable was included in Model 2.

The overall mean score of FTP was 2.45 on a scale of 1 (Strongly Favorable) to 5 (Strongly Unfavorable). The overall mean score of LTP was 2.93 on a scale of 1 (Strongly Favorable) to 5 (Strongly Unfavorable). Thus, in the aggregate, feelings toward the product were more favorable (modestly so) than the aggregate likelihood of purchase (indecisive).

Table 1 reports summary data for both groups (mean scores for the six variables, standard deviations), while Table 2 reports results from t-tests for independent means for these same variables. In all but one case (mood), significant differences were reported. Thus, H1-H3 and H5-H6 were rejected, while H4 is retained.

These findings indicate that usage of the strip resulted in more favorable attitudes toward the advertisement in general, the brand, and the Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System method in particular, along with more favorable Feelings Toward the Product and Likelihood To Purchase. That mood showed no difference indicates this variable is unaffected by the Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System method.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of the flavor strip method signals a new direction for product advertising in general, and product trial in particular. The collective results of this study indicate that Feelings Toward the Product are only modestly favorable, and that Likelihood to Purchase is indecisive at best. But in dissecting the data to compare those who did and did not use the flavor strip, significant differences were uncovered. In fact, those who used the strip reported very favorable FTP scores and favorable LTP scores.

As with tangible product samples, the goal is to convert would-be customers after they have actually sampled the product. But if these consumers will not sample the product, or place the flavor strip in their mouth, then the marketing effort is far from successful. The data indicate clearly that failure to use the flavor strip resulted in far lower evaluations of every aspect of the brand, the product itself, and the advertising. Tasting is believing; thus, the marketer must overcome resistance to the flavor strip in order to increase the likelihood of purchase as well as feelings toward the product.

Informal discussion with non-using participants revealed fears of putting anything into their mouth that came from packaging with which they were not familiar. For example, the three ads all used mass communication media; in the post-911 era, there are lingering fears of safety. Marketers must determine how to overcome these fears.

Another problem frequently reported was a general confusion over how to use the flavor strip. Some respondents could not figure out how to open the foil pouch; others thought the whole package was to be put in their mouth. Marketers who use the Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System method will thus have to take extra steps to ensure that consumers know how to interact with the medium itself, or risk wasting some of their advertising dollars.

While there is abundant research in the field of scents and their effect on consumer attitudes toward advertisements and brands, there is a paucity of research in the emerging medium of flavor strips. The results of this study may not be generalizable across all consumable products or product types. Furthermore, given the study's focus on female consumers, it is possible that male consumers may respond differently across the board.

Another concern is that an an out-of-context taste may not substitute for the real thing. In other words, is a flavor strip a viable surrogate for product trial? Furthermore, can a flavor strip sufficiently convey the product's true flavor? Finally, in the process of eating, there are four dimensions: sight, smell, texture, and taste. The Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System is trying to sidestep the first three steps, and use a surrogate for the latter. While scratch-and-sniff advertisements address only one sensory aspect, flavor strips are more multidimensional in scope. Although over 80% of participants did use the flavor strip, the generally favorable data recorded might be limited by this consideration.

While the collective findings suggest that the Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System may not produce favorable results for advertisers, its use as a surrogate method of product trial must be studied under more diverse scenarios and product categories. If 15-20% of consumers will not even use the strip because of fears or confusion, then communications must be improved. As for the remainder who did use the flavor strips, marketers need to be cognizant of the fact that taste alone on a dissolvable strip is not a perfect substitute for actual product sampling.

The success of the Peel 'n Taste[R] Marketing System, thus, hinges in large part on whether consumers actually use the flavor strip. The data are convincing that usage results in more favorable evaluations on all counts, and that the flavor strips are a viable alternative to traditional product sampling. But with a sizeable portion of the sample not using the strips, the real battle may be in gaining acceptance of the advertising medium itself.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bone, Paula Fitzgerald and Swati Jantrania (1992), Olfaction as a Cue for Product Quality," Marketing Letters, 3 (3), 289-296.

Cain, William S. (1982), Odor Identification by Males and Females: Predictions vs. Performance," Chemical Senses, 7 (2), 129-142.

Doty, Richard L., Steven Applebaum, Hiroyuki Zusho and R. Gregg Settle (1985), Sex Differences in Odor Identification Ability: A Cross-Cultural Analysis," Neuropsychologia, 23 (5), 667-672.

Ehrlichman, Howard and Linda Bastone (1992), "The Use of Odour in the Study of Emotion," in Fragrance: The Psychology and Biology of Perfume, S. Van Toller and G.H. Dodd, eds., London: Elsevier Applied Science, 143-159.

Ellen, Pam Scholder and Paula Fitzgerald Bone (1998), "Does It Matter If It Smells? Olfactory Stimuli As Advertising Excecutional Cues," Journal of Advertising, 27 (4), 29-39.

Engen, Trygg (1972), "The Effect of Expectation on Judgments of Odor," Acta Psychologica, 36, 450-458.

Fazio, R.H. And M.P. Zanna (1978), "On the Predictive Validity of Attitudes: The Roles of Direct Experience and Confidence," Journal of Personality, 46, 228-243.

Isen, Alice and Thomas Shalker (1982), "The Effect of Feeling State on Evaluation of Positive, Neutral and Negative Stimuli: When You 'Accentuate the Positive,' Do You 'Eliminate the Negative'?" Social Psychology Quarterly, 45 (1), 58-63.

Kempf, DeAnna S. and R.E. Smith (1998), "Consumer Processing of Product Trial and the Influence of Prior Advertising: A Structural Modeling Approach," Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 325-338.

Kempf, DeAnna S. (1999), "Attitude Formation from Product Trial: Distinct Roles of Cognition and Affect for Hedonic and Functional Products," Psychology & Marketing, 16 (1), 35-50.

Kirk-Smith, M.D. (1994), "Cultural and Olfactory Communication," in Ethological Roots of Culture, R. Allen Gardner et al., eds., Boston: Kluwer, 385-406.

Laird, Donald A. (1932), "How the Consumers Estimate Quality by Subconscious Sensory Impressions: With Special Reference to the Role of Smell," Journal of Applied Psychology, 16 (June), 241-246.

Madden, Thomas J., Chris T. Allen and Jacquelyn Twible (1988), "Attitude Toward the Ad: An Assessment of Diverse Measurement Indices Under Different Processing 'Sets',"Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (August), 242-252.

Mehrabian, A. and J.A. Russell (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Meyers-Levy, J. (1989), "Gender differences in Information Processing: A Selectivity Interpretation," in Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising, P. Cafferata and A. Tybout, eds., Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 219-260.

Olson, J.C. and P. A. Dover (1979), "Disconfirmation of Consumer Expectations Through Product Trial," Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 179-189.

Parasurman, Raja (1984), "The Psychobiology of Sustained Attention," in Sustained Attention in Human Performance, J.S. Warm, ed., Chichester, UK: Wiley, 61-101.

Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, New York: Springer-Verlag.

Smith, R. E. (1993), "Integrating Information From Advertising and Trial: Processes and Effects on Consumer Response to Product Information," Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 204-219.

Smith, R. E. and W. R. Swinyard (1982), "Information Response Models: An Integrated Approach," Journal of Marketing, 46, 81-93.

Smith, R. E. and W. R. Swinyard (1988), "Cognitive Response to Advertising and Trial: Belief Strength, Belief Confidence and Product Curiosity," Journal of Advertising, 17 (3), 3-14.

Torii, S., H. Fukuda, H. Kanemoto, R. Miyanchi, Y. Hamuzu and M. Kawasaki (1988), Contingent Negative Variation (CNV) and the Psychological Effects of Odour," in Perfumery: The Psychology and Biology of Fragrance, S. Van Toller and G. H. Don, eds., New York: Chapman and Hall, 107-120.

R. Nicholas Gerlich, West Texas A&M University

Leigh Browning, West Texas A&M University

Lori Westermann, West Texas A&M University Table 1: Group Statistics Variable Group N Mean Std. Dev. FTP 1 123 (*) 2.2358 1.09456 2 27 3.4074 1.15223 LTP 1 124 2.7500 1.32901 2 27 3.7778 1.15470 A(ad) 1 124 12.9113 6.44427 2 27 16.1481 8.82176 A(brand) 1 124 8.5323 4.55041 2 27 11.5926 6.17227 A(peel) 1 124 9.2339 5.41018 2 27 17.1111 7.56171 Mood 1 124 14.8306 6.33191 2 27 14.2963 6.21917 (*) one missing data point caused this discrepancy Table 2: T-Tests for Independent Means Variable t-stat df Sig. FTP -4.989 148 0.000 LTP -3.722 149 0.000 A(ad) -2.203 149 0.029 A(brand) -2.958 149 0.004 A(peel) -6.348 149 0.000 Mood 0.399 149 0.691