Signs of the times

Nearly every year I teach marketing, and I begin with the American Marketing Association’s (AMA) definition of marketing (bit.ly/kgqCq). In that definition, the AMA defines four key words: Creating, communicating and delivering value.

Both Dr. Charlie Hall and I have stressed that in tough economic times – really, at all times – every business should know their value proposition. Value is what you get for what you pay.

Hall and Madeline Dickson recently published the many economic, environmental and health/well-being benefits that customers receive when they buy horticultural products or have them installed and maintained in and around their homes (2011, Journal of Environmental Horticulture, Vol. 2, pages 96-103). Still, which message is communicated in large text on most horticultural product signs – price or benefits? The answer is price.

Since 2011, I’ve lead a team of colleagues¹ to conduct eye-tracking research² in retail garden centers. An eye-tracker is a device developed for the medical field, but has found its way into consumer research. Essentially, an infrared beam is harmlessly projected into study participants’ eyes and their gaze is triangulated using a special camera mounted on either glasses or below a computer monitor. Researchers pinpoint within a few millimeters (at a 1-meter distance) specifically what a study participant is looking at. We can measure how long a person looks at a specific spot – smaller than a postage stamp, viewed from approximately one yard away.
 

In one study conducted in March (Australia) and May (Michigan), we photographed 16 garden center displays. Each display had a sign, and we digitally manipulated the sign to either have a price or a plant fact. Every sign featured the plant name or identification, and the information appeared below it in the same size font. Half of the signs had price information for each display, and the other half had product information.

We showed the 32 displays (in random order) to 56 Australians and 50 Michigan residents and asked them – on a scale of 1 (not at all likely) to 10 (very likely) – how likely they would be to buy something from the display. It was a pretty simple task.

Study results
It should come as no surprise that not everyone looked at every slide in the survey. Nearly 40 percent looked at both the price sign and the information sign equally in terms of time viewing the area occupied by the sign (containing either price or plant information). Only 3 percent never looked at either sign. Nearly a quarter (20.8 percent) looked at the information sign more often, and one-third (37.7 percent) looked at the price sign more often.

The study’s most interesting finding was that consumers were 20 percent more likely to buy an item from the display when they saw the information only, compared to when they only saw the price.

No single study is definitive; though each adds to a comprehensive solution. We caution you to read these recommendations within the limits of how, when and where the study was conducted. That said, we are confident these findings can assist retailers with their value message and the fact that benefits must be the dominant message over price.

Price is a component of value, since the definition of value is you pay for what you get. However, the value equation should emphasize the benefits (what you get) over price (what you pay for). The more value we provide customers, the more likely they will respond positively to that value proposition.

The data suggests that point of purchase needs to contain a price message that is less conspicuous than the benefit message.

I would even go a step further and make the price a smaller size than the benefit. If the product is new, different, fragrant, edible, easier to grow, faster to harvest or more stunning than other cultivars, then that should be the dominant message – or the value proposition.

Price is an important consideration in the decision to buy, but let’s make sure it is the tagline and not the headline.

¹ The team consists of (alphabetically) Drs. Ben Campbell (University of Connecticut), Jennifer Dennis (Purdue University), Tom Fernandez (Michigan State), Charlie Hall (Texas A&M University), Pat Huddleston (Michigan State), Hayk Khachatryan (University of Florida), and Stella Minahan (Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia).

² This research would not have been possible without the funding from Metro-Detroit Flower Growers, Western Michigan Floriculture Growers, USDA Federal State Marketing Improvement Program and Michigan State University’s Project GREEEN.

Bridget Behe is a professor in the department of horticulture at Michigan State University. Have a Question? You can contact Bridget Behe at behe@msu.edu.

Photos courtesy of Bridget Behe