Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal Emerald Article: Framework for understanding misleading information in daily shopping Jesper Clement, Mette Skovgaard Andersen, Katherine O'Doherty Jensen

Article information: To cite this document: Jesper Clement, Mette Skovgaard Andersen, Katherine O'Doherty Jensen, (2012),"Framework for understanding misleading information in daily shopping", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 15 Iss: 2 pp. 110 - 127 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522751211215859 Downloaded on: 29-03-2012 References: This document contains references to 53 other documents To copy this document: [email protected] This document has been downloaded 5 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-2752.htm

QMRIJ 15,2

Framework for understanding misleading information in daily shopping

110

Jesper Clement Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

Mette Skovgaard Andersen Department of International Culture and Communication Studies, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark, and

Katherine O’Doherty Jensen Department of Human Nutrition, Sociology of Food Research Group, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of disagreement between companies and consumers with respect to misleading information and to make suggestions as to how the conflict might be resolved. Design/methodology/approach – Based on qualitative research methods, the authors discuss possible grounds for controversies with respect to product information and present a possible framework, inspired by the work of Boltanski and The´venot, for examining these controversies. Findings – An analysis of arguments shows that consumer representatives and companies, not surprisingly, agree on general moral principles as, for instance, the importance of not lying about the product; however they tend to disagree about where the boundaries between acceptable and misleading information should be drawn in practice. The findings point to the fact that the differences might partly be explained by Boltanski and The´venots’ “orders of worth” and that this classification would seem to provide a fruitful tool for identifying the character and basis of differences of opinions regarding whether or not product information is deemed to be misleading and hence form the basis for a new tool in the management toolbox for testing potentially misleading information. Research limitations/implications – The data behind the analysis are limited and retrieved in a Danish environment, for which reason more research should be carried out in order to broaden the perspectives of the research. Practical implications – To reduce controversies the paper proposes a reciprocal recognition of the particular order of worth from which an assessment is made. Originality/value – Qualitative methods, in this case the combination of qualitative interviews combined with an analysis of arguments, shed light on the core problem concerning misleading information. Keywords Denmark, Consumer behaviour, Product information, Advertising, Controversy, Misleading, Communication gap, Conventions theory Paper type Research paper Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal Vol. 15 No. 2, 2012 pp. 110-127 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1352-2752 DOI 10.1108/13522751211215859

Introduction Our everyday purchases of food and other short-term commodities rely on trust as well as on interpretations of information printed on products. Whether this trust

is strengthened or diminished depends upon factors in the retail situation as well as upon consumers’ previous and expected experiences (Jones, 1999). Much marketing literature emphasizes the importance of focussing on consumers’ positive in-store experiences and their impact on customer evaluations (Ba¨ckstro¨m and Johansson, 2006). Yet there are circumstances that disappoint and annoy people while shopping and which can give rise to feelings of being misled. Such experiences may arise in-store while standing in front of a shelf or at a later point in time, depending on consumers’ interpretation processes during and after a shopping trip. Negative evaluations can result in annoyance, complaint, or – in the worst case – loss of consumer trust and an end to product loyalty. Consumers do feel misled although companies try to avoid this, and grounds for distrusting a brand or brand owner have been explored from a number of perspectives. For instance: . product and brand imitations influence perceptions and may mislead consumers (Wilke and Zaichkowsky, 1999); . information overload causes misinformation and poor decisions (Schwartz, 2004); . consumers with low-level literacy and numeracy skills are more likely to abandon interpretation and understanding of food labels and consequently risk being misled (Rothman et al., 2006; Harper et al., 2007); and . vivid packaging design with graphic claims such as “fresh”, “pure” or “natural” attracts visual attention, thereby influencing decision-making processes (Bone and France, 2001). Last but not least, uncertainty about how to decode information has been identified as a feature of inappropriate decision-making processes (Weber and Johnson, 2009). The feeling of being misled stems from the gap between what a product told them in the supermarket compared with an actual experience of the product contents. E.g. seeing a spectacular illustration on a pizza package with delicious ham and olives, finding only two frozen olives and slightly no ham will probably lead to the consumer’s feeling of being misled. Similar feeling might arise when reading 0.4 per cent dried avocado powder on the backside of a product that presents itself as guacamole dip with at large illustration of an avocado, actually found in a large empirical data-file of food-products complains (Smith et al., 2009). The sample of 821 individual cases is likely to show only the tip of a larger iceberg because only few consumers having felt misled can are expected to bring in a formal complaint to the authorities. While many factors thus play a role in consumer interpretations of product information, the concept of misleading information relates to the consumer’s level of knowledge, expectations, and in the last instance to his/her reactions (Eden et al., 2008). For this reason, we emphasize here the advantage of recognizing different viewpoints regarding possible grounds for controversy with respect to product information and, inspired by the work of Boltanski and The´venot (1999), we present a framework for examining such controversies from the perspective of consumer expectations and reactions as well as those of companies. Our objectives are to throw light upon the character of information that is regarded by one or more parties as being misleading and to contribute to the understanding of how disagreements between companies

Understanding misleading information 111

QMRIJ 15,2

112

and consumers in regard to such information might contribute to the marketing process and finally to make suggestions as to how the conflict might be resolved. We take our point of departure in a brief account of the self-service buying process in-store and we present our analytical framework, before proceeding to a presentation of the data and methods on which our analysis is based. Purchase decisions in-store – a complex process Despite repeated and effortless routine purchases, food selection in-store can constitute a complex process for the consumer. Decisions are influenced by a variety of factors including household norms and market factors, public discourses with respect to health, animal welfare, environmental and other issues, as well as psychological and sensory input within the shopping environment. Research elucidates different consumer strategies, related for example to quality (Hansen, 2005), avoidance procedures (Holm and Kildevang, 1996), price (Oliveira-Castro, 2003), brand attributes (Underwood and Klein, 2002) or to a combination of several visual elements in the store. Whether the consumer adopts one strategy or another, and whether he/she relates to intrinsic or extrinsic attributes, food labels on packaging are considered to be the primary information channel for the in-store decision-making process (Schoormans and Robben, 1997). Packaging design and the information printed on packaging play a pivotal role in consumer perceptions of products and in decision-making in-store – processes that are also characterized by lack of time (Pieters and Warlop, 1999). Consumers spend only few seconds looking at food labels (Clement, 2007), and this time constraint entails a rushed process of searching for information, analyzing and weighing it, in order to reach a decision. In this way, time has an impact on the amount of information collected for the decision-making process (Iyer, 1989). The situation is further complicated by the availability of a large number of alternative products to choose between and the complexity of multiple information items on food labels (Fasolo et al., 2009), which furthermore are presented under scanty space constraints. In this decision-making process the consumer may overlook or misinterpret information and run the risk of being misled. Although research on consumer’s visual attention in the critical moment of a purchase decision is sparse (Pieters and Warlop, 1999), this information processing is known to be influenced by factors such as the vividness of graphic design (Taylor and Thompson, 1982). It is also assumed that people will distrust information, which they hear or see for the first time, but will tend to accept it when exposed to it repeatedly (Zajonc and Markus, 1982). This supports findings stating that increasing exposure to a particular product yields more positive reactions, and that this effect is strongest when the stimulus is simple and has little semantic content (Obermiller, 1985). It has also been shown, however, that people pay less attention to familiar objects (Willingham, 2003), explaining the in-store situation where consumers turn their visual attention towards new information such as a new product on the shelf (Schoormans and Robben, 1997). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis developed within cognitive research (Whittlesea and Williams, 2000) explains how people generate stronger feelings such as pleasure or anger if visual stimuli are unexpected. Seeing a well-known local product in a well-known local supermarket does not generate strong feelings of familiarity, but seeing the same product in a supermarket abroad while on vacation does. Consumers, it would seem, operate in an environment comprising well-known design elements as well as new, significant, and visually attractive elements.

In contrast to these approaches to explaining how in-store information is interpreted by consumers, much marketing theory is based on the assumption that consumers adopt a rational or an optimizing approach to product choice (Bettman et al., 1998). According to this view, consumer choices are explained by the ability to compare product attributes, to sort these out and then to choose the brand that fits most of the desired attributes (Bhargava et al., 2000). Price could be such a rational indicator of potential purchase, but seems to play a subordinate role in practice (Dickson and Sawyer, 1990), and consumers tend to automate this process with little awareness and limited use of data on price or price unit. It is our view that marketing models built on the assumption of rational consumer behaviour poorly describe consumers operating within the in-store market of today, seeking more simple indicators for their product evaluations (Dodds, 1995). The rational approach to marketing is linked to the economic paradigm of utility, which tends to overlook the need for an interpretive approach to understanding consumer experiences (Holbrook, 2007). According to Zuboff and Maxmin (2002) this lack of understanding of consumers’ interpretations in the moment of making a purchasing decision opens a communication gap between information given and managed by companies on the one hand and consumers on the other. They (Zuboff and Maxmin, 2002) argue for a changed view of consumer values by introducing the concept of “Relationship Value”, built on the latent subjective experiences of the individual consumer. Contrary to the more traditional value chain model in marketing literature, the point here is that companies are no longer seen as creating or owning a given value. They are rather seen as merely supporting an already existing value within the individual space of the consumer, or as sometimes giving birth to such a value. This approach challenges the older assumptions of the stimulus-response model. The idea that consumers passively respond to information and are in the end persuaded by repeated exposure we regard as being no longer fruitful. Dealing with resistant consumers, who are able to do without any given item, this newer approach emphasizes the need to focus more on the core characteristic of communication processes – the interchange of data between participants – and, not least, situations in which this process fails. A problem of communication arises, according to The´venot and colleagues (Boltanski and The´venot, 1999; Lamont and The´venot, 2000; The´venot, 2001), in so far as a given situation is assessed by criteria drawn from different “orders of worth”. This perspective on possible differences in the standpoints of companies and consumers has informed the research questions we explore, and is briefly outlined in the following section. “Orders of worth” – an analytical framework The perception that information is misleading, according to Boltanski and The´venot (1999), rests on the assumption that the parties involved in a communication process share similar views regarding right and wrong. They argue that the experience of a conflict always entails two basic assumptions; first, that participants have values shared in common and, second, that this field of common values is challenged by one of the parties. With regard to communication in an in-store situation, it can be said that a company is represented by the information given on the packaging of its product or in close proximity to this product category, while the consumer is the other participant. Given that self-service shopping is a do-it-yourself situation, the common values at issue


QMRIJ 15,2

114

can be said to concern the idea that in-store information should be accurate and fair. This is expressed in the more general and straight-forward marketing statement; WYSIWYG – what you see is what you get, suggesting that both parties are expected to benefit from such fairness. This consideration brings us to our first general research question: RQ1. Is there a common agreement on abstract values such as fairness between companies and consumers? Boltanski and The´venot (1999) describe the experience of a conflict or of a situation in which persons regard themselves as having been misled, as one in which a switch in the mental system triggers a bad experience. This critical moment plays an important role in social relationships, particularly in situations that threaten the stability of a relationship leading to controversy or crisis. The experience arises when for example the mental border between “fair” and “unfair” has been crossed, and the critical moment occurs when one of the parties to a communication process becomes aware of this. With regard to shopping experiences, a bad experience is likely to arise if and when the consumer understands the information and becomes aware that information is misleading. If, on the other hand, the consumer is unable to understand the information provided, it is unlikely that he or she will regard information as misleading or will notice that he or she have been misled. This underlines the process of decoding as constituting an implicit feature of any controversy that triggers the mental system. According to conventions theory developed by The´venot and colleagues, there are one or more “orders of worth” at issue in any controversy, each of which has its own criteria for distinguishing good from bad and right from wrong. The idea upon which this approach is based is that the “good” in everyday life is always contextually determined, is conceived and assessed from the standpoint of an “orders of worth”, and that a limited number of such orders can be identified as operative in Western cultures (Lamont and The´venot, 2000). Although the number of “orders of worth” included in their classification is not viewed as being definitive (Table I), their work does claim to offer a descriptive classification of the normative criteria according to which commodities, events, people or processes of any kind are commonly assessed. This classification presents a useful tool for distinguishing lines of argument among the parties to a dispute and for identifying the conditions of communication under which mutual understanding of normative issues breaks down. It also identifies some of the conditions that need to be fulfilled if understanding is to be re-established between two or more discussants in a normative debate. From this perspective, it is important to distinguish a “Market World” and its order of worth from an “Industrial” one. While the former is focussed on competition in markets for commodities or services and the prospect of profit in the shorter term, the latter in contrast is focussed on long-term planning and efficient means of obtaining returns on investment. The norms belonging to each of these worlds are frequently challenged by those of other worlds, sometimes giving rise to conflict or compromise, as well as ambiguity or adaptation. For instance, when the norms of the “Industrial World” are adapted to the tasks of developing health or educational policies in the “Civic World”, the impact of these policies upon citizens is likely to be challenged by those who seek to promote equality and solidarity. Likewise, planning in the “Industrial World” is currently challenged by criteria of assessment drawn from the “Environmental World”.

Efficiency Planning Measurable criteria Methods machinery Experts, professionals Long-term

Profit

Competitiveness

Monetary

Commodities

Industrial

Market

Anecdotal exemplary Local patrimony Families authority Customary/ local

Trust

Esteem

Domestic

Source: Adapted from Lamont and The´venot (2000) and The´venot (2001)

Human beings Producers, distributors, consumers Time/Space Short-term/global

Objects

Proof

Mode of evaluation Test

Orders of worth Welfare

Civic Innovation

Inspired

Citizens Perennial/ universal

Trend/ network

Habitats

Eco-system effects

Environmental friendliness Sustainability

Environmental

Performers, artists, Concerned citizens priests Revolution Future generations/ planet

Rules, policies Aesthetic objects

Signs, media Celebrities

Recognition Solidarity, Creativity, equality spirituality Semiotic Formal rights Emotional

Renown

Opinion


Table I. “Orders of worth” as identified in conventions theory

QMRIJ 15,2

116

Again, the recognition of an innovative event in the “Inspired World” can lead to changing conceptions of the relative status of brands in the world of “Opinion”, a factor that is likely to be monitored by the “Market World” in the pursuit of profit. Boltanski and The´venot (1999) emphasize the fact that situations in which the same objects are potentially assessed from the perspectives of different “orders of worth” are particularly ambiguous. The situation in which daily commodities are purchased is not one in which negotiation between parties is possible, and the extent to which producer and consumer criteria of assessment are similar may be far from clear. Situations in which consumers feel misled because a certain design element gives rise to an expectation that is not met can present the difficulty of ambiguity. Is the picture on the packaging an accurate representation of the product or is it merely intended to provide inspiration regarding the context of its usage? Can an illustration from a region of Italy be regarded as an indicator of origin or merely as an indicator of product characteristics and taste? Situations of this kind suggest that even if we are able to find positive response on our RQ1 to the effect that both parties agree upon which values are at stake in a controversy, the extent to which product information is regarded as acceptable is likely to differ between parties in some situations. This brings us to our second research question: RQ2. Is there a disagreement between companies and consumers as to when concrete product information goes beyond bounds of acceptability and is misleading? In general, people want to avoid controversies and most companies seek to assure that their information is not misleading, and does not contravene existing legislation. All the same, consumers are actually misled or are convinced that this is the case, and consumer complaints provide a strong indicator of discrepancies between company and consumer perceptions on this point. Reactions, we suggest, are likely to depend on the “orders of worth” by which commodities and product information are assessed. In a situation assessed by both parties in terms of the values related to a particular world, reactions to a controversy are likely to be fully understood and accepted by both parties. For instance, buying a cheap product that breaks down is not likely to give rise to the same intense feeling of having been cheated as would be the case if the product had been expensive. This experience builds on a common assumption that price and quality go together such that more can and should be expected from an expensive product than a cheap one. According to the framework developed by The´venot and colleagues, this particular consumer experience is assessed in terms of values belonging to “the Market World”, and similar criteria focussing on measurable values are likely to be employed by the company that provided the product. It would seem therefore that discrepancies between consumer and company perceptions of information are more likely to arise in situations in which there is no consensus between parties regarding the “orders of worth” or set of values in terms of which assessments are made. This brings us to our third research question: RQ3. Does disagreement between companies and consumers as whether or not product information is misleading reflect different “orders of worth”, which provide the relevant criteria for judging this information? These research questions are explored in our analysis of results.

Methods: data collection and analysis The data upon which our analysis is based stem from six semi-structured group interviews with representatives of four food companies and two consumer organisations in Denmark. We have not interviewed a representative sample of Danish consumers, but have merely sought the views of their representatives as expounded by employees of two respected consumer organisations. Seen in this light, the identification of clear qualitative differences between the views of company representatives on the one hand and consumer representatives on the other does offer relatively firm ground for drawing tentative conclusions and discussing their implications. Group size varied from two to four and the sessions were conducted by two interviewers, alternately putting the question and moderating the discussion in the group. Group members were selected by the companies to represent different product categories, brands and price levels, covering profession like quality managers, brand managers, art directors and innovation managers. Participants from the consumer organisations covered ordinary members, academic and political staff. The central theme of discussion in all six groups interviews was information on packaging that can give rise to allegations of being misleading. All interviews took their point of departure therefore in the same general questions posed by the interviewer: Can product information be misleading? What do you think gives rise to misleading situations? The transcript of each group interview was treated as constituting a single body of discourse as presented by a company or a consumer organization. Inspired by Wittgenstein’s assertion that the meaning of a word is its use (Wittgenstein, 2001), the first step of our analysis was to identify and categorize all assertions within each discourse in which reference had been made to misleading situations or in which the term “misleading” had occurred. From the perspective of discourse theory, as expounded by Laclau and Mouffe (1985, p. 112f), the term “misleading” was thus regarded as a “floating signifier” for the purpose of analysis. In order to identify the more abstract values underlying assertions in which the term had occurred, Toulmin’s model of argumentation was applied to these assertions in the next step of the analysis. The four elements of Toulmin’s model of argumentation are as follows (Toulmin, 1958/1999, p. 1): . The claim, that is the idea being established – “C”. . The data supporting this claim – “D”. . The warrant that authorises logical conclusions – “W”. . The backing lying behind this warrant – “B”. These elements are distinguished in the analysis of lines of argument presented in the following section. Here the attempt is also made to identify the “orders of worth” at issue in consumer and company assessments of misleading information, following the analytical framework proposed by The´venot and colleagues. Findings Since the objective of this analysis was to reveal how representatives of food companies and consumers conceptualise the floating signifier of “misleading information” or a “misleading situation”, and since our analysis exclusively concerned assertions regarding this topic, the claim (C) in each case refers to an assertion about a situation in which something was or was not conceived as being “misleading”. As expected,


QMRIJ 15,2

118

the data (D) and the warrants (W) at issue in these assertions differ widely. However, it transpired that the backings (B) underlying many of these warrants (W) are broadly similar, revealing little difference between the implicit assumptions of company representatives (Figure 1) and consumer organisations (Figure 2) with respect to the values at stake. In virtually every case, the backing (B) reflected moral values of a general kind, found in quotations as: “you should not lie” (consumer org.), “you should not cheat” (company.), “you should behave properly” (company), and “you should treat people fairly” (consumer org.). Findings with respect to our research questions are presented here by means of selected, typical examples. Consumer organisation representative: [. . .] our point of view, for instance, is that you should not be allowed to advertise a ‘low fat’ content if the sugar content [of the product] is very high. You should have some rules regarding the claims allowed on packaging so that they [consumers]) do not get confused.

Company representative: [. . .] it is exactly the same situation at the store shelves. People think it would be nice if they were given more information. No, it makes them more confused, if you overwhelm them with information.

On the basis of this and similar examples referring to lying, proper behaviour and fair treatment, we draw the conclusion that – as Boltanski and The´venot assumed – both consumers and companies do agree upon a range of similar abstract values,

D: If you advertise ‘low fat’ content, when the sugar content is high

C: It is misleading

W: If D then C because consumers get confused

Figure 1.

B: Producers should not confuse consumers. Confusing consumers = cheating

D:If you overwhelm somebody with information

C: It is misleading

W: If D then C because consumers get confused

Figure 2.

B: Producers should not confuse consumers. Confusing consumers = cheating

which are also generally accepted in western societies. On this basis, we therefore consider our first research question to be answered by a “yes”. Although consumers and companies share a range of similar basic values, such as not cheating, not lying and behaving properly, the fact that controversies do actually arise suggests that the understanding and application of these values might differ considerably between these parties. In order to find answer to our RQ2, we focussed on utterances explicitly referring to information or situations that were considered to be NOT misleading, following the same method of analysis outlined earlier. We found that almost all of the instances identified were drawn from the discourses of companies, while consumer organisations hardly ever referred to information or situations as being NOT misleading. It also transpired that several of these instances referred to actual controversies in which the company had been involved or to controversies encountered by other companies – “we are the nice boy in class”. In many cases, the data (D) used by the consumer organisations to support the claim (C) that information was misleading were exactly the same kind of data (D) used by companies to support the claim (C) that information was NOT misleading. Figures 3 and 4 show this pattern. As such the findings might not be surprising, but nevertheless informative revealing the disagreeing conceptions of acceptable vs misleading product information. This lack of consensus with respect to assessments of similar data gives answer to our RQ2, stating no clear agreement as to when product information does or does not go beyond the bounds of fairness. Though as mentioned not particularly surprising the finding does call for a closer examination of the backing (B) underlying the warrants (W) in arguments of this kind in order to understand the situations more thoroughly. Our analysis reveals differences between companies and consumer organizations regarding the backing (B) of these arguments. Moreover, the backings reflect differences in the “orders of worth” applied in each case, that is to say, the values related to a particular “world” (Boltanski and The´venot, 1999; Lamont and The´venot, 2000; The´venot, 2001). For example, in a controversy about macaroons, the manufacturing company supports the claim (C) that their product information is NOT misleading in the following way: “[. . .] Macaroons have been produced without almonds, using aroma, Company: D: When you go to the limit and show a picture of a minor ingredient Consumer organisation: D: When you show a picture of a minor ingredient


Company: C: It is NOT misleading Consumer organisation: C: It is misleading

If D then C because: Company: W: Even if it is only a small amount, it is actually there Consumer organisation: W: The amount is minute, but the picture gives rise to consumers’expectations of a larger amount

Figure 3.

QMRIJ 15,2

120

Company: D: If you embellish the picture a little when the real product is being used Consumer organisation: D: When you expect something which is not true

Company: C: It is NOT misleading Consumer organisation: C: It is misleading

If D then C because; Company: W: It is actually the real product, which is being used

Figure 4.

Consumer organisation: W: The picture gives rise to consumer expectations of a better product

since 1946! But of course they [macaroons with almond aroma] are sold at quite a different price”. The consumer organisation on the other side supports their claim (C) that the product label is misleading by saying: [. . .] [one can understand] why a company doesn’t spend extra money on macaroons with almonds, if all their competitors use aroma [. . .]. Since no one has intervened, consumers just have got used to macaroons without almonds in the end.

The company justifies their recipe for macaroons without almonds partly on the grounds that this change is far from new, but the backing (B) for this argument refers to the correspondingly low price. Consumers accept a lower quality if price is low, according to this view. The consumer organisation on the other hand recognises the market imperative – that a company should remain competitive – but rejects the impact of this market world upon the domestic world. They find their backing (B) in the market failure to meet consumers’ demand for good quality, in this instance to supply macaroons made with real almonds. The difference in backing (B) and underlying values relate either to a rational world (the “Market World”, in which measurable quality follows measurable price) or to other worlds of experience, in which norms of consumption are forced to comply with supply (the “Domestic World”), gastronomic delights are unobtainable (the “Inspired World”), or poor food quality lowers the quality of life available to many (the “Civic World”). For the sake of simplicity, we employ the term “rational” to refer to arguments drawn from the norms and values of the market or the industrial world of production and the term “experiential” to refer to arguments drawn from these other worlds of experience in everyday life. A different example of this divide between companies and consumer organisations with respect to the ways in which arguments are backed (B) concerns a controversy regarding brand strategy. A company describes how its brand strategy covers different product qualities: “[. . .] we have chosen one brand and try to associate all products in the category to this particular brand”. The company expresses their backing (B) in this way: “[. . .] in a marketing perspective, it is difficult to run many brands”. The underlying values (W þ B) in this argument appear to regard the challenges and costs of market communication.

A consumer organisation criticizes the brand strategy of this company on the grounds that it is potentially misleading. They argue: They try to make their brand-name so all-embracing and wide that consumers probably buy some of their cheap standard products without [realizing that these do not contain] the effective [functional] and more expensive ingredients.

Once again, the marketing strategy of the company is recognised by the consumer organisation, but is regarded as one that takes unfair advantage of consumers who seek to promote their right to health (the “Civic World”) on grounds that are likely to be mistaken. Controversies about product illustrations are likewise found in our data. Companies do not generally find that illustrations are potentially misleading. Illustrations of products or ingredients are rather seen as a convenient way to indicate taste and flavour. One company claims, for instance, is: At the bottom of all photos, we write ‘serving suggestion’ [. . .] No, not to mislead. It is more a matter of making pictures in the minds of people – and that is not misleading.

The support (D) for this view comes from statements such as: “[. . .] how can we otherwise tell the consumer about taste, if we are not allowed to put pictures on the packaging?” and “[. . .] taste is decoded through photos!” The argument finds backing (B) in the assumption that an illustration can be decoded unambiguously, which, once again, suggests values related to rationality and measurability. Against this view stand statements from consumer organisations indicating that opinions will vary on this issue, such as: “We can discuss whether it [an illustration] is accurate and whether the picture is reasonable”. According to this view, it may be difficult to achieve consensus regarding the accuracy and fairness of product illustrations. This analysis of empirical data reveals different values underlying the arguments of companies and consumers in controversies regarding whether or not packaging information is misleading. The two sides are related to a rational world of marketing considerations on the one hand and to one or more of the experiential worlds of consumers on the other. On this basis we find our RQ3 to be answered by a “yes”, stating disagreements to be based exactly in different “orders of worth”. Discussion, implication and further research We have seen that although companies and consumer representatives agree on general moral principles regarding product information, they tend to disagree about where the boundary between acceptable and misleading information should be drawn in practice. Moreover, these parties to potential controversy tend to apply different criteria when arguing the case for whether or not and when a particular kind of product information is misleading. In the light of an analytical framework that distinguishes worlds of meaning and their attendant “orders of worth”, our analysis indicates that companies find warrants (W) for their arguments to the effect that their product information is NOT misleading within the world of Marketing. In this world of calculable costs and benefits, there is a common acceptance of the relation between price and quality. Legitimate controversy is seen as concerning a potential gap between price and quality. Consumer organisations on the other hand find their warrants (W) in a considerably wider range of criteria drawn from “Domestic, Inspired and Civic Worlds” and tend


QMRIJ 15,2

122

to identify a wider range of instances of product information as being potentially or actually misleading. Our findings suggest two avenues of approaches to the understanding and resolution of controversies regarding misleading situations. Unless either of these conditions, or preferably both, is fulfilled, it would seem that food manufacturers, designers of packaging, retailers and complaints managers on the one hand and consumers on the other are doomed to communicate at cross-purposes. The first condition is that consumers would learn to recognise the legitimacy of assessment criteria based on marketing considerations, while the second is that marketing experts would learn to recognise the legitimacy of assessment criteria drawn from the experiential worlds of consumers in everyday life. In the first case, consumer knowledge would clearly be enhanced by initiatives designed to render pricing policies more transparent, in particular with regard to the costs of lowering and raising product quality. We have seen that food companies accord paramount importance to considerations regarding the relation between quality and price in their assessments of product information. We have also seen that representatives of consumer organizations do recognise the legitimacy of marketing imperatives in some instances. It remains far from certain, however, that consumers are enabled to assess the relation between quality and price. Consumer research suggests that this is not the case. For example, a recent study of Danish consumers documents widespread interest in consuming organic foods and an interest in avoiding products from particular production systems, such as eggs from battery systems or meat products from factory farms. At the same time, however, consumers are in possession of little or no information about the production costs of improving animal welfare, a factor that must be assumed to impact upon willingness to pay a premium price for products from alternative production systems (O’Doherty Jensen et al., 2008; Lund and O’Doherty Jensen, 2008). This is the perspective from which the assumption of a “knowledge deficit” among consumers would appear to be a legitimate consideration. In the second case, marketers would recognise the legitimacy of consumer concerns to secure a wide range of benefits by means of their food provisioning in everyday life. On the basis of the analysis presented here, it would seem that the feeling of being misled arises when consumers discern that values of this kind are not recognised as being legitimate or, more clearly, when these values are seen as being overridden by market demands of profitability. Consumers think they are tasting real almonds or authentic Italian cuisine, they are buying a product that will promote health or a complete meal in a single packet, but feel misled if and when it transpires that this is not the case. This realisation may result in no more than a shrug and a resolution to choose a different product next time. However, food companies can hardly be said to have an interest in further swelling the ranks of disloyal consumers (Ratner, 2006). Research in the fields of food technology, food safety, food scares and risk research more generally documents considerable differences between the views of experts on the one hand and those of consumers on the other – the latter sometimes being termed “citizens”, “lay-persons” or quite simply as “the public”, depending on the research context (Hansen et al., 2003). The term “experts” is used to refer to food producers, nutritionists, epidemiologists, risk analysts or spokesmen of regulatory bodies, among others, and can be taken as including the group we have referred to as representatives of food companies. Noted differences between the views of such experts and those of consumers

on controversial issues have been described as constituting an “expert-lay discrepancy”, a matter that has formerly been attributed exclusively to ignorance, unwarranted worry or irrationality on the part of consumers (Krystallis et al., 2007). Expert views are conceived as being based upon the technical knowledge, quantitative information needed to obtain an objective assessment of a given situation, while consumer views were seen as reflecting subjective, insufficient and distorted knowledge. However, what was earlier conceived as a “knowledge deficit” model of consumer behaviour has given way in recent decades to a recognition of the need to explore, understand and document consumer views in their own right (Wynne, 1996). Research undertaken on this basis has found that consumers typically incorporate a wider range of considerations in their assessments of food products, production, technology, safety and risks, than do experts (Hansen et al., 2003). For example, experts may report that the risk of a fatal outcome when riding a bicycle is higher than that of travelling by aeroplane, that mortality rates from salmonella infection are considerably higher than from other foodborne diseases such as vCJD (“mad cow” disease) or that it is perfectly safe to consume genetically modified food products (Costa-Font and Mossialos, 2007). Among other matters, however, consumers wish to know which risks are known beforehand and by whom, whether exposure is voluntary or involuntary, whether outcomes are controllable and by whom, how many people and which people are likely to be affected, whether benefits accrue to an innovation and, if so, who benefits, etc. (Slovic, 1999). These examples of consumer concern illustrate the more general finding that consumers tend to include a broader range of moral considerations in their assessments of such issues than do experts (Jensen et al., 2005). In this light, our finding that food companies assess product information on the basis of measurable criteria drawn from the world of marketing, while consumer representatives tend to draw upon a wider range of criteria in their assessments, is one that fully accords with the findings of more recent studies of differences between expert and lay opinions with reference to food controversies (Gianfranco and Vincent-Wayne, 2010). However, it is our view that an approach to consumer studies based on the assumption that consumers are irrational is no more fruitful than one based on the assumption that consumers are exclusively motivated by rational considerations. In contrast to these approaches, the classification of “orders of worth” developed by The´venot and colleagues would seem to provide a fruitful tool for identifying the character and basis of differences of opinion regarding whether or not and when product information is deemed to be misleading. Moreover, as noted earlier, this classification is not only useful for the purpose of characterising lines of argument among the parties to a particular dispute, it can also be employed for the purpose of identifying conditions that need to be fulfilled if mutual understanding is to be re-established. The basic condition of conflict resolution is the establishment of common ground for communication, which in practice entails reciprocal recognition of the particular order of worth from which an assessment is made. The data upon which this exploratory analysis is based are limited, reflecting no more than the views of Danish food companies and consumers organizations. We admit a possible problem with the external validity transferring findings to other countries due to the fact that the shared values might be culturally determined. A study by Krutulyte et al. (2009) found national differences and by that various assessments of which product information were considered to be most relevant.


QMRIJ 15,2

124

Clearly, research of that kind in combination with the framework initiated in this article is needed if the full range of criteria, according to which consumers discern product information as being misleading, is to be disclosed. Food manufacturers who care about their long-term reputation and their brand equity as well as managers taking care of corporate social responsibility (CSR) have to take effort to prevent negative experiences on the part of consumers. We have here contributed to one of the step stones acknowledged drawing a sharp line between fair product information, potentially misleading “sales talk” is not a trivial task. Seen in this light, the framework presented here, might become a new tool in the management toolbox for testing potential misleading information applicable and useful in other EU-countries and comparable countries.

References Ba¨ckstro¨m, K. and Johansson, U. (2006), “Creating and consuming experiences in retail store environments: comparing retailer and consumer perspectives”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 417-30. Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F. and Payne, J.W. (1998), “Constructive consumer choice processes”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 187-217. Bhargava, M., Kim, J. and Srivastava, R.K. (2000), “Explaining context effects on choice using a model of comparative judgement”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 167-77. Boltanski, L. and The´venot, L. (1999), “The sociology of critical capacity”, European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 359-77. Bone, P.F. and France, K.R. (2001), “Package graphics and consumer product beliefs”, Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 467-89. Clement, J. (2007), “Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: an eye-track experiment on the visual influence of packaging design”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 917-28. Costa-Font, J. and Mossialos, E. (2007), “Are perceptions of ‘risks’ and ‘benefits’ of genetically modified food (in) dependent?”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 173-82. Dickson, P.R. and Sawyer, A.G. (1990), “The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 42-53. Dodds, W.B. (1995), “Market cues affect on consumers product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 50-63. Eden, S., Bear, C. and Walker, G. (2008), “Understanding and (dis) trusting food assurance schemes: consumer confidence and the ‘knowledge fix’”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Fasolo, B., Carmeci, F.A. and Misuraca, R. (2009), “The effect of choice complexity on perception of time spent choosing: when choice takes longer but feels shorter”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 213-28. Gianfranco, W. and Vincent-Wayne, M. (2010), “The effect of consumer confusion proneness on word of mouth, trust, and customer satisfaction”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 838-59. Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P. and Sandøe, P. (2003), “Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks”, Appetite, Vol. 41, pp. 111-21.

Hansen, T. (2005), “Rethinking consumer perception of food quality”, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 75-93. Harper, L., Souta, P., Ince, J. and Mckenzie, J. (2007), Food Labelling Consumer Research, What Consumers Want, Food Standards Agency, London. Holbrook, M.B. (2007), “Building great customer experiences”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 86-90. Holm, L. and Kildevang, H. (1996), “Consumers’ views on food quality: a qualitative interview study”, Appetite, Vol. 27, pp. 1-14. Iyer, E.S. (1989), “Unplanned purchasing: knowledge of shopping environment and time pressure”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 40-57. Jensen, K.K., Lassen, J., Robinson, P. and Sandøe, P. (2005), “Lay and expert perceptions of zoonotic risks: understanding conflicting perspectives in the light of moral theory”, International Journal of Food Microbiology, Vol. 99, pp. 245-55. Jones, M.A. (1999), “Entertaining shopping experiences: an exploratory investigation”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 129-39. Krutulyte, R., Costa, A.I. and Grunert, K.G. (2009), “Cross-cultural study of cereal food quality perception”, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 304-23. Krystallis, A., Frewer, L., Rowe, G., Houghton, J., Kehagia, O. and Perrea, T. (2007), “A perceptual divide? Consumer and expert attitudes to food risk management in Europe”, Health, Risk & Society, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 407-24. Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy – Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, Verso, London. Lamont, M. and The´venot, L. (2000), Rethinking Comparative Critical Sociology. Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lund, T.B. and O’Doherty Jensen, K. (2008), Consumption of Organic Foods from a Life History Perspective: An Exploratory Study among Danish Consumers, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, available at: http://orgprints.org/15200 Obermiller, C. (1985), “Varieties of mere exposure: the effects of processing style and repetition on affective response”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 17-30. O’Doherty Jensen, K. et al. (2008), “Hvorfor Køber Forbrugerne Økologi?” (“Why consumers buy organic foods”), in Alrøe, H.J. and Halberg, N. (Eds), Udvikling, vækst og integritet i den danske økologisektor (Development, Growth and Integrity in the Organic Sector in Denmark), Chapter 2, International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, Foulum, pp. 91-129. Oliveira-Castro, J.M. (2003), “Effects of base price upon search behavior of consumers in a supermarket: an operant analysis”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 24, p. 637. Pieters, R. and Warlop, L. (1999), “Visual attention during brand choice: the impact of time pressure and task motivation”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-16. Ratner, R.K. (2006), “A variety of explanations for variety-seeking behaviors: physiological needs, memory processes, and primed rules”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 529-31. Rothman, R.L., Housam, R., Weiss, H., Davis, D., Gregory, R. and Gebretsadik, T. (2006), “Patient understanding of food labels: the role of literacy and numeracy”, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 391-8. Schoormans, J.P.L. and Robben, H.S.J. (1997), “The effect of new package design on product attention, categorization and evaluation”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 18 Nos 2/3, pp. 271-87.


QMRIJ 15,2

126

Schwartz, B. (2004), “The tyranny of choice”, Scientific American, Vol. 290 No. 4, pp. 70-5. Slovic, P. (1999), “Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield”, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 689-701. Smith, V., Ohm Søndergaard, M., Clement, J., Møgelvang-Hansen, P., Selsøe Sørensen, H. and Gabrielsen, G. (2009), Fair Speak: Scenarier for vildledning pa˚ det danske fødevaremarked, Ex Tuto, Copenhagen. Taylor, S.E. and Thompson, S.C. (1982), “Stalking the elusive ‘vividness’ effect”, Psychological Review, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 155-81. The´venot, L. (2001), “Justifying critical differences: which concepts of value are sustainable in an expanded coordination?”, in Siu-Tong, K. and Sin-Wai, C. (Eds), Culture and Humanity in the New Millennium: The Future of Human Values, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, pp. 45-65. Toulmin, S. (1958/1999), The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Underwood, R.L. and Klein, N.M. (2002), “Packaging as brand communication: effects of product pictures on consumer responses to the packaging and brand”, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 58-68. Weber, E.U. and Johnson, E.J. (2009), “Mindful judgment and decision making”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 53-85. Whittlesea, B.W.A. and Williams, L.D. (2000), “The source of feelings of familiarity: the discrepancy-attribution hypothesis”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 547-65. Wilke, R. and Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1999), “Brand imitation and its effects on innovation, competition, and brand equity”, Business Horizons, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 9-18. Willingham, D.T. (2003), Cognition, The Thinking Animal, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Wittgenstein, L. (2001), Philosophical Investigations, Blackwell, London. Wynne, B. (1996), “May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide”, in Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. and Wynne, B. (Eds), Risk, Environment and Modernity. Towards a New Ecology, Sage, London, pp. 44-83. Zajonc, R.B. and Markus, H. (1982), “Affective and cognitive factors in preferences”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 123-31. Zuboff, S. and Maxmin, J. (2002), The Support Economy. Why Corporations are Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Capitalism, 1st ed., Penguin Books, London.

Further reading Clement, J. (2008), “Visual influence of packaging design on in-store buying decisions”, PhD Series 1, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen. Firat, A. and Shultz, C.J. (1997), “From segmentation to fragmentation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 3/4, pp. 183-207. Iyengar, S.S. and Lepper, M.R. (2000), “When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 995-1006. Iyengar, S.S., Jiang, W. and Huberman, G. (2003), “How much choice is too much? Contributions to 401(k) retirement plans”, No. PRC WP 2003-10, Pension Research Council, Philadelphia, PA. Mitchell, V., Lennard, D. and McGoldrick, P. (2003), “Consumer awareness, understanding and usage of unit pricing”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 173-87.

Urbany, J.E., Dickson, P.R. and Kalapurakal, R. (1996), “Price search in the retail grocery market”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 91-104. About the authors Jesper Clement, PhD, is an Assistant Professor. He is affiliated with the Center for Strategic Design and Business Development. He has expertise in graphic design and its relation to visual stimuli and consumer behaviour. Jesper Clement is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Mette Skovgaard Andersen, PhD, is an Associate Professor with expertise in business and intercultural communication. Katherine O’Doherty Jensen, PhD, is an Associate Professor with expertise in consumers’ preferences for food products.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
