Marketers have long looked to understand consumer behaviour in order to grow the business by retaining existing customers and attracting new ones. The ideal customer is the one who returns to the business’ products or services without a second thought or need to decide on alternatives.
The two biggest innovations feeding the marketing beast are mobile devices and high speed mobile broadband. Marketers now have unbridled access to more and more consumer data than ever before. They also have the ability to influence consumers through products that are always within a hands reach. The challenge is to develop a product that consumers develop more than just loyalty to but become ingrained in the user psyche so that they are not even aware that they are no longer in control of their decisions.
The new ‘always on’ economy has seen organisations look for new tactics as part of their product design. Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products by Nir Eyal is a guide that describes how to implement a Trigger, Action, Variable Reward and Investment cycle in products which results in consumers developing habits.
Habit: something that you do often and regularly, sometimes without knowing that you are doing it: (Cambridge Dictionary)
A great product is one that the user takes for granted. One that is asked for as second nature and not queried. And if you don’t think you have one of these habits, how often have said one of these –
Been at a bar as asked for a scotch and ‘coke’. (brand specific, not just a cola)
Need to find a answer to a question and say just ‘Google’ it.
At the core of this model is psychologist B.F. Skinner’s Operant Conditioning which showed that a variable reward was the most powerful way of shaping behaviour. A Variable Reward is a more effective technique to maintain consumer’s interest. Adding variability to a reward increases our attention and drive to want to receive further rewards and not become mundane.
There was an industry before the online tech giants that started using this technique. The gambling industry has used this and other psychological techniques to create a booming industry.
A side effect of the effectiveness of using these techniques has resulted in consumers developing destructive addictions. It is not surprising that the same outcomes are being seen in the tech using community. A recent 60 Minute report explores the destructive power of Internet Addiction Disorder is having on adults, teens and toddlers alike.
When was the last time you spent hours using Facebook, Twitter or Pinterest? Or binged on online games?
”But I am not addicted” I hear you say. And yes the irony is not lost that you are now speaking with your device of choice. How would you feel if you were never able to use these products again? Is there a little itch in the back of your mind that tells you otherwise?
Maybe these addictive products should come with their own disclaimer just like gambling products have to. So where do we as marketers draw the line? Is it ok to target children? Where does your moral compass point?
Marketing Management Blog 
Really interesting read!
I recently purchased a PS4 (not the smartest thing to do in week 2 of T2, but I digress), I can see how this theory would apply to video games… (in fact someone has actually analysed the Hook Model on Destiny for PS4, see link below).
Basically boredom is the internal trigger that gets people to play games, the external trigger is the notifications that Sony sends you to tell you your Friends are online playing Destiny. You are compelled to play for fear of missing out!
The action is shooting the aliens, and the variable rewards are the items that they leave behind once you kill them.
Lastly the investment is ‘levelling up’ which brings you back to playing over and over. You don’t want to look shabby against your friends’ achievements.
Well played Sony/video game industry at large.
Here is a link to the blog – interesting read. http://www.dtelepathy.com/blog/products/destiny-a-product-design-teardown-of-the-biggest-video-game-in-history
LikeLike
When we get hooked…are we simply fulfilling our unmet needs? And is it these needs that marketers are now successfully targeting, rather than our more superficial wants?
Take your example of online gambling and, in the case of Asustralia, sports betting. Sports betting is all pervasive in our community and is now associated with anything even remotely related to sports. The language and images adopted in marketing campaigns link strongly with our social psyche – a sense of togetherness and belonging to something bigger than ourselves. Sports are almost tribal in nature. Does this not tap into something as simple as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and wants (belongingness)?
And at what cost? Over 80% of Australian adults have been estimated to engage in some form of gambling in their life and the Productivity Commission (2010) estimates that this is equivalent to an average of $1500 per participating adult annum. Big business. Repeat customers. Easy money.
But on the flip side, the social cost of problem gambling is estimated to be c.$4.7 billion per annum (ibid), so whilst lucrative in terms of marketing, as you pointed out, ethical questions abound.
My moral compass points to gambling off television screens especially when a game is playing. We are indoctrinating our children to believe that gambling is a socially accepted, even celebrated, behaviour. We are tapping into unmet needs of risk-taking and hedonism. Perhaps learning from Frued and his concept of ID, ego and super-ego isn’t so bad when setting our moral compass. Just because there are big bucks to be made and thousands of customers to be engaged (exploited) doesn’t make it right.
When marketing campaigns are off the mark, parodies abound. Have a look at The Chasers parody of Tom Waterhouse on YouTube to see what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P_53UUHhLw&sns=em
But hooked we are as online gambling continues to grow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is very interesting. Yes, we are just fulfilling our unmet needs. These are either surface or deep level.
There is an interesting book link below. I personally would not blame all on our parents or upbringing. An interesting argument against it’s all about how we are affected by brought up is to do with Locus of Control, which is the degree which we think we are in control of our destiny.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/870910.They_F_You_Up
LikeLike
An interesting article!
With regards to the questions posed at the end of the article, I think that marketing a product is always an activity undertaken to provide information about a specific product or service to consumers, with the intention to sell it, i.e. attract consumers attention and interest to make a purchase, it’s highly desirable if consumers repeat their purchases again and again.
Consumers make purchases in accordance with the rational choice theory, i.e. they rank their preferences over all goods and make consumption choices so that their utility is maximised. Once the purchase has been made, it’s the consumer’s own choice how to use it, which can be too excessive and therefore described as addiction to that product or service. However, this doesn’t apply to Facebook, Twitter and Online Games only, it also applies to many other products and services, such as fast food meals, cigarettes, soft drinks, etc., which individuals find it too hard to have control over their consumption despite their negative impact on their health.
For example, despite the fact that consumers are aware of the horrific consequences of smoking, and the advertising campaigns targeted at smokers to quit smoking, people still buy the cigarettes and smoke. In this case, I think it’s the consumers’ responsibility to work out what to buy, what not.
Marketing campaigns can promote a product or service, but they can’t force consumers to buy any of those products or services, the choice is always made by the consumers.
LikeLike
Another way to look at consumer behaviours is how the economy affects consumer behaviors as the money from cunsomers flows to different business sectors as the economy changes.
The real game here is WHAT CHANGE CONSUMERS’ BEHAVIOURS AND HOW THEIR DECISIONS ARE MADE.
In general the decision process in each stages;
During Recession stage- consumers stop purchasing non-essentials and focus on saving money and getting away from the debt; at this time, the business sectors favored are service providers such as banks and finance companies. Do you agree?
Early Recovery stage- As the increase of employment, consumers will have some money to spend– safely spend money on purchases such as new automobiles and clothes etc. The favored sectors are consumer cyclicals, technology and industrials. What do you think?
Strong Economy-consumers spend money freely on such as new homes, manufactured goods and housewares and more trips by car etc. During this time, one has to expect the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates soon to rein in the overheating economy.
Early Recession-economy starting to decline into recession, consumers focus on paying off their credit cards–paying necessary bills such as their mortgages.
Sources
More here http://smallbusiness.chron.com/consumer-behavior-economy-63128.html
LikeLike
Interesting article, Does the customer have a choice, if the campaign is constant and peers are also promoting by word-of-mouth?
Can marketing campaigns that knowingly target customers that cannot afford the product, be considered to be using unfair business practises and harassment or is this just another form of push and pull marketing methods?
A couple of links to possibly consider.
Push / Pull Marketing, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-push-pull-marketing-31806.html
Australian Consumer Law, http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/the_acl/downloads/sales_practices_guide_dec_2011.pdf
LikeLike
In light of spjones’ comments, I considered an advertisement a few years ago released by BMW (if I remember correctly). It displayed life’s advances in the reverse order. The main character was a young man, who commenced his career at a top management position of a company as apposed to commencing at the entry level. As his life advanced, he enjoyed less stress and the apparent pleasures of employment with less responsibility. The summary was that people enjoy higher priced luxury vehicles when they can afford to due to high paying jobs, when they’re much older in life. But the ad encouraged the following, “Why wait until your old to enjoy a high priced luxury vehicle”. “Do it while your young”. Obviously they were targeting a different segment and demographic than they usually would. It would be of interest to determine if this resulted in increased sales in this segment??? Was this manufacturer encouraging those who cannot afford a high priced vehicle to extend themselves? Ethical? Consequences?
LikeLike
I’m a fan of open and competitive markets but think it’s important to understand the purpose of the organisations in which we invest. For example, Lite ‘n’ Easy want us to ‘simply eat well’, Insurance Australia Group (IAG) want to ‘make our world a safer place’, and Telstra are ‘keeping us connected’. All of these organisations want to make a profit, yet all offer genuine value to consumers and the broader community. When we talk about ‘Sports Bet’ for example, what is their purpose, and how are they delivering real value for the community. How are they controlling against the adverse effects?
It’s a difficult market to manage, particularly in a culture that values independence and relatively loose social and purchasing regulations.
Then again, we’re all in control of our own decisions aren’t we?
LikeLike
A good thought provoking post. What stood out in my mind whilst reading this is what boundaries are in place to govern marketing ethics? This question really ties back to week one’s Elevated Marketing paper by Webster and Lusch. A section of this paper considers short term marketing thinking that produces long term societal consequences. For example, housing great products inside disposable plastic packaging has the potential to create environmental issues when the packaging is not disposed of correctly. Or the effects of chewing gum disposed of under seating or tables. But in light of this topic, the long term effects of causing addictions through effective marketing. Consider the application, “Second Life”. People are lured into this; the attraction being you can make your life to be whatever you want it to be. Of course this appeals to people, especially those who are experiencing difficulties in life. Very clever marketing really. But the consequences are that some people are spending exorbitant amounts of time on it, to the point where their “First Life” is suffering from neglect. I’m just raising the question; Marketing Ethics? “Hook?” Where do we sit with this?
LikeLike
Thanks for your post about marketers tapping into consumer addictions to encourage further purchases. I found another perspective on addiction and consumer behavior and this is the addiction to the activity of consumption itself. This paper sheds light on some of the many reasons why women might be/become addictive consumers. The paper is here: http://jrconsumers.com/academic_articles/issue_4/Eccles.pdf
The optimist in me hopes that this is not a segment of society that marketers would deliberately target.
LikeLike
Great post. I liked The Hook Canvas picture and I immediately thought about my morning coffee. I work in a large city with many different vendors for coffee. My morning walk to work involves getting a coffee before I start up my computer. Initially I’d wait until 10am before getting a coffee but the smell of fresh roasted coffee beans was a frequent trigger that resulted in a shift to getting a coffee before I arrived at the office. My choice of a coffee vendor was initially driven by the lowest price but I gravitated to a coffee shop that was offering variable rewards where each day was a new type of biscuit that came free with the coffee and every few weeks a random “toss the boss” event occurred where your coffee was free is you rolled a 6 on a dice. These variables rewards funnily enough are no longer used by the coffee shop (presumably because they now have a large enough customer base) but I keep going back because the owner now knows my order and is consistently friendly. So the variable reward was definitely the key item that resulted in me chosing this coffee shop. This is a fairly harmless habit I’ve formed.
Other habits though are not so harmless as I saw from an earlier post on gambling with major advertising campaigns from companies like Bet365 and TAB on mainstream television. The aim of the marketing is to increase profit leveraging motivations like online betting 24 hrs – 7 days access from devices like mobile phones but there is a social impact from problem gamblers. It is interesting to note that the “responsible gambling” fine print that is shown in many advertisements or places of gambling place an emphasis on the individual recognising they have a problem and then seeking out help. Does this then detract or excuse the company marketing the gambling from taking responsibility? There is always an element of consumer choice but the hook from the variable rewards and marketing to specific market segments could be considered unethical when the positioning of the advertising conflicts with social attitudes (eg advertising sports betting heavily during family sporting events).
LikeLike
Good evening, and thank you for such a thought provoking post. In running this through my mind across a variety of business and health related addiction processes, it struck a chord with me that I felt compelled to write further on how we as consumers can rationalise some of our decisions.
In todays readily available access to media, our moral compass is so saturated with content that we can rationalise even some of the poorest choices i.e. smoking, gambling as mentioned previously, if we as individuals can find a way to package it up within the image of how we want to be perceived by those around us (hard lining motivational theories here as I write)
One connection I have always found amazing is the perceptions and attitudes surrounding gambling, a practice I am sure that has been around since the dawn of mankind, given its strong connection to risk taking behaviour and subjective risk tolerance.
What strikes me as interesting is the varying “packages” this is available in throughout any given society, and how we can rationalise and institutionalise within these societies our ability to participate in this activity in order for it to be acceptable within our social circles. From the pokies, to poker games, the Casino, online betting to the humble Tattslotto ticket, we have a variety of influences coming at us each day in which to stimulate the inner risk taking beast within all of us! Every society on the planet, every human, has the natural capacity and need to participate within this, yet I find it amazing how the “hooks” can be dressed up so differently, depending on the “lake” you find yourself swimming in anywhere in the world.
For example ( and potentially to stimulate some discussion), how is it we can define someone who bets on horse races, reads the form guides and studies the horse racing business intently through a variety of information sources a “gambler”, yet someone participating in the stock market, undertaking the same attention to readily available information gets the pleasure ( and government / ATO sanctioned title) of being referred to as an “investor”?? This in itself has soooo much depth to unpack it, but in effect, have we not glamorised and marketed one “hook” from another purely to catch a different type of fish??
In sueannenicol’s post, there is some astonishing data there on the statistics surrounding Gambling which is quite breathtaking. And I am sure if I searched the internet for Gambling addiction help websites, I would have pages of options and availabilities all throughout the world in which to turn to for help. And yet, when I thought of getting a little more specialised, and searching for information on addiction to share market trading, the best i could find was one little article from an industry trade journal, well written by Nial Fuller:
http://www.learntotradethemarket.com/forex-articles/forex-psycology-trading-can-be-addictive
My question in all of this is similar to derjblog123: Where do we find any moral and ethical guidance in the world of marketing? When the societal norms and regulatory foundations built around us can have so much tolerance as in the gambling connection above, what hope does the marketing industry have to achieve in anything more than playing the hand they are dealt and executing their aim of the best outcomes for their clients?
Excellent post, very thought provoking stuff for me, thank you!
LikeLike
A really great post and some very interesting replies so far.
This post to me really touches on Marketing Ethics and what advertising guidelines and regulations should be in place. It is a real concern the effects Marketing has on consumers in regards to certain addictive products such as gambling.
In my opinion I believe that their needs to be more consideration to morals, over dollars, and perhaps more regulations put into place. It is proven that children have already been targeted in advertising and this link touches on the subject more, http://adstandards.com.au/products-issues/gambling-advertising.
Social media platforms are definitely an example of addictive products that should have a disclaimer as well.
I really enjoyed benmaw and derjblog123 views on the post and subject as well.
They both asked some very thought provoking questions. In response to benmaw’s closing questions, I think it is extremely hard for the marketing industry when the regulatory foundations do have so much tolerance and grey areas. As the ad standards bureau states in the link above, for gambling, the board can only look at the messages shown in the advertisements and not the frequency or placements of advertisements. Because of these factors it is harder to get this moral and ethical guidance. Some marketers may have the view that if they are within the regulations then the message they are outputting is justified, even if it may have some negative impact on consumers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The above article is extremely interesting piece on marketers and their somewhat exploitation of consumers being hooked on different goods or services.
Expanding on klowe215327012 point about marketers exploiting consumers with gambling addictions as they continually advertise companies such as sports bet and the tab during events, I believe that ethical considerations must be more tightly managed.
A previous example of this is the adoption of plain packaging on cigarettes, and retailers not displaying cigarette packets in direct eye line to potential buyers.
The quote about “the best products being the ones that we don’t even know where using” made me reflect on my own consumption experiences as im sure that many times Ive used the expression “just Facebook them” when wanting to know personal details about them.
Statistics reinforce the point of social media becoming the new “hooked” consumer good with the Social Times reporting that on average users spend 1.72 hours per day on social media, accounting for 28% of all internet traffic.
I will conclude by agreeing with a point made above by dbartle2015 that although we cant necessarily choose what we are exposed to, we ultimately have control over what we elect to pursue a relationship with. The 5 steps in the consumer decision making process (recognition, info search, evaluation, purchase and post purchase evaluation) portray the extent to which people must engage with a product to become hooked.
http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/time-spent-online/613474
LikeLike
A very interesting perspective CDJEWELL & blogging partner, Im sure all readers can resonate with this. The following article from Smart Company reveals how businesses benefit from this trend, which compliments the message quite well http://www.smartcompany.com.au/technology/34616-how-long-do-australians-spend-online-an-entire-day-a-week-and-businesses-get-the-benefit.html
I was particularly interested in your point toward the end of the post regarding the targeting of children. So often I see online applications and/or games which entice the user to further their usage by promoting a paid addition or functionality. This can be seen as similar to past controversy we have seen with McDonalds promoting their Happy Meal to children with the allure of a free and frequently updated toy. It took years, and several key events to see a shift in the options available to children we see today. (Influencing factors include documentaries such as SuperSize Me, transparency with nutritional values, development of health star rating groups.)
I believe it will take a similar shift in the industry of online gaming and applications targeted toward children and the morality factors associated. Perhaps we do need to see a classification developed which can help us categorise appropriate usage for potentially addictive products.
LikeLike
Just re-reading the original post, It sparked some thoughts around operant conditioning and the psychological behavioural influence that can be used used by marketers to benefit the product, The stages are positive and negative reinforcement, positive and negative punishment and extinction. It can be difficult to think of examples in marketing for each of these categories. We’ll ignore extinction for now.
When considering reward programs to encourage loyalty, a business is adding a loyalty product to increase the likelihood of a re-purchase – positive reinforcement.
If you receive a gift card, you will most likely also see a use by date on the back. If you forget to use the card before the used by date, the card becomes null and void. This is to cause the person to spend the card promptly. If the card is spent within the due date, you have made a purchase, most likely taking into consideration the threat of the card becoming useless – negative reinforcement – i.e. the threat of something being taken away to increase the likelihood of purchase.
If the card is used post the used by date, it will not be accepted. This is a form of negative punishment – taking away the privilege to decrease the behaviour of not using the card in the future. (Assumption: the company wants you to use the card to encourage loyalty)
If you are continually late paying a gas bill, the gas company will also charge you a late fee. So they add a late fee to decrease the behaviour of paying your bills late – positive punishment.
Marketers can use these aspects to encourage customers to behave in a positive light toward their brands.
So, can you think of other scenarios that fit the operant conditioning theory as real examples?
LikeLike
Talk about hooked, have you ever been dining out with friends and noticed other tables around you of groups of people not talking to each other but looking down on their phones with the Facebook glow reflecting off their faces (even at your table!!)
I would have to say that Facebook have got the hook canvas figured out down to a tee. But what is the trigger, what is the action, what is the reward and what is the investment?
As already commented you would have to look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to answer the questions. After a person has satisfied the first two levels of the hierarchy (physiological and safety needs) the next motivational factor is belongingness (refer to link below). So the trigger would be wanting to be part of your ‘social network’, the action is just pulling out your phone and logging on (no matter where you are), the reward being up to date on what your ‘friends’ are doing and finally the bit of work to keep the consumer coming back would be sending notifications that your network have made updates, you have new comments, friend request etc etc.
The end result is that user keep coming back day after day, hour after hour and even minute after minute. I have attached an article on how long the average Australia spend on Facebook a week with some interesting trends on some consumers looking to reduce some of their networking sites.
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/this-is-how-much-time-were-wasting-on-facebook-20150520-gh5lb4.html
http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
LikeLike
This is a great topic! Thanks for this.
Getting consumers hooked to a product or brand, is every marketing professional’s ultimate dream.
A healthy hook up is no harm to society in big.
Consider example of Apple Inc. No other company would have studied consumer behaviours like Apple did.
Apple has become not just one of the most profitable company but it is also a symbol of status, religion and culture.
Apple have been proficient in inventing and marketing products which are all inter related. For example- Apple watch works only with an IPhone. Airplay will work only with apple products. Buying one apple product leads you to many of its other products. So getting hooked to apple is not so harming, right?
A good read I came across on Liked in.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140625122622-88996067-apple-religion-company-phenomenon
Now being topic specific-
Facebook addiction or social network addiction(SN Addiction) is a common factor in today’s society.
Most of all the time , a person spend too much time online ,posting and being an online activist is because ,quite clearly they have too much time in their hand. Or they will be looking to lift their self-esteem, or they will be trying to get rid of their frustration by being virtually outspoken on current issues.
By incorporating a warning disclaimer may help someone to think twice before entering this SN world .Since this sort of addiction is seen amongst youngsters ,an appropriate parental guidance may reduce the risk of this sort of SN addiction significantly.
An interesting reading
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24001298
LikeLike
This is a post to get everyone talking! Picking up on where do marketers draw the line is moving into marketing ethics… a really interesting topic.
Coming back to consumer behaviour – the question I ask of all those engaged in this debate – is do you think there is a point of correction? Where the market equalises itself and the consumer rebels against the constant ‘reinforcement’?
Tom Waterhouse is an example that comes to mind – when he negotiated an advertising deal to provide NRL game commentary saturating the marketplace – the deal was subsequently negated due to public outrage.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/beteasy-boss-matthew-tripp-shifts-gaze-to-nrl-for-partnership-20141206-121tr7.html
Facebook also experienced rebellion when they changed how paid advertising feeds where appearing in your news feed.
I think marketers that cross the line negatively impact consumer behaviour and pay the price eventually.
LikeLike
Great blog ! Actually I just checked my Facebook before I replied to your blog !
I do agree with you that nowadays marketers have adopted B.F. Skinner’s Ope-rant Conditioning in their products in order to get customers keep using their product.
We can take some websites such Facebook as example; if you stay connect, you get a reward by receive information about the things you are interested in, immediately and faster than other people!
(it can be anything; people, your friend, news, events, celebrity activity etc. ) Twitter is a good example too. (but I seldom use Twitter so I cannot really say anything much about it)
However, In my opinion, these website give you more benefit with little trade-off ! (spend excessive time to check them, in order to stay inform), but for Gambling, the trade-off is significant, you might loose your time, assets, family and the trade-off go on and on !
So, I would say that the marketers have to draw a line whether what they are doing (thing that make consumer become addict to it !) will significantly has more negative impact on consumers or not ! if the trade-off of becoming addict to the product is too significant, the marketers should rethink about what they are doing !
(p.s I guess it is alright that in my previous post, I accidentally used my personal email ! )
LikeLike
We definitely live in a new era essentially still uncharted and unregulated pretty much like the real world was in much older decades prior to regulations getting in the way. Yet regulations of anything internet-related gradually get implemented. More barriers get erected in the name of social responsibility, economic impact etc. … There are still plenty of unregulated areas which are being taken advantage of by marketers and various companies. Apps based on the gambling addiction psychology are extremely profitable. Who hasn’t spotted even older ladies frantically tapping on their mobile device in the hope of getting to the next level? Social responsibility is still only a recommendation in corporate governance until new specific laws get implemented. The legal battles between one of the tobacco giants and the Australian government following the passing of new cigarette packing laws are often in the headlines. They have been in effect forced to display negative marketing in the form of dramatic health warnings on their own products. It appears, based on independent research that in particular customers responded in their increased attempt to seek to quit smoking. It is interesting to see that in this case, the behaviour of customers is no longer in the full control of the brand’s marketers. However the impact on younger new users has not yet been felt. It would be interesting to look into what is at play in the behaviour of these younger customers in this particularly controversial context.
LikeLike
I just realised that I am hooked for so many stuff. Some mobile games, social media platforms, apps. All of these are hooked and it is affecting our life step by step without even notices. As you mentioned in your blog post, with the developing technology, people are so rely on their mobile and pc in daily basics, business caught this opportunity and create “products” that make people more rely on them and become part of their daily life routine. I have to admit it, this kind of marketing strategy works and it is very effective, even you notices this but you can not escape from them because they are deeply linked to your daily life and you could not refuse them. However, i see this as a unavoidable trend due to that fact that technology such as smart phone and computers do make people’s life more easier and more convenient and looks like we can not live without them.
LikeLike
Excellent post. It’s very interesting that you have written about consumer behaviour with regard to social media. Personally I notice with my own twitter and linkedin accounts that the more activity you generate, the more likely your profile will be listed as a person others may wish to follow. This really is a form of operant conditioning – your reward for feeding the twitter beast is more follows etc etc…
LikeLike
Consumer behaviours are affected through their habits, and maybe these habits are addicted and could not change very easily. This is an irrational element influencing consumers’ mind. We may purchase the products only as our purchasing habits and the marketers can take advantage of this opportunity to release some new products which can maintain and attract more consumers. This could become a circular progress which can including the connections changing between the consumers and suppliers. This is not a single line controlling progress, however, this theory exert more influences to the loyal consumers deeply than the new potential consumers.
LikeLike