Priority Patterns and Consumer Behavior

Author(s): John McFall

Source: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, No. 4, Part 1 (Oct., 1969), pp. 50-55
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1248673
Accessed: 03-01-2019 15:09 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1248673?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marketing

This content downloaded from 111.68.111.135 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:09:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Priority Patterns and
Consumer Behavior
JOHN McFALL
Products acquired by con-
sumers over life-cycle periods
can be grouped into clusters in
accordance with set criteria.
This article shows how mar-
keting strategy can be made
more effective by adopting a
cluster approach to product
sets. A technique is outlined
for defining the characteristic
sets of consumer durables and
the consumer priority patterns
related to their acquisition.
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 (October,
1969), pp. 50-55.
This content downloaded from 111.68.111.135 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:09:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
IF A YOUNG married couple were to buy a color television set thi
month, would it be possible to predict which household durable
they are likely to purchase next? It is unlikely, unless the system
of priorities which consumers maintain relative to household for-
mation is known. A more important question from the point of
view of total sales strategy is whether any particular group of
homemakers would agree on any general acquisition pattern.
Marketing strategists are beginning to consider such problems.
Wells, Banks, and Tigert, for example, have pointed out that the
most pervasive and spontaneous of human activities is the group-
ing of items. A similar need for order seems to permeate at-
tempts by marketing strategists to define market segments for
products and media. Wells and his associates' showed that prod-
ucts, such as the "child-care" set, can be grouped into meaningful
clusters and that consumers who buy such product sets repeatedly
are prime targets for particular sets of promotional vehicles such
as television programs and magazines. These clusters then can
provide insights into marketing strategy from the viewpoint of
cross-couponing, allocation of advertising, joint promotions, and
the location of products in retail outlets. They concluded that
homemakers who are "heavy" purchasers of ready-to-eat cereal
appear also to purchase peanut butter, laundry detergent, tooth-
paste, hair shampoo, gelatin desserts, adhesive bandages, and other
such "nestling" products in large quantities.
The general implication of such studies is that if people think
and buy in sets of products, it would seem to be an appropriate
strategy to market them together, or at least to follow a mar-
keting program directed toward consumer priorities. The Wells
data were concerned with sets of nondurable goods. The research
on which this paper is based tried to examine the procedure fol-
lowed by consumers in acquiring the sets of durables which make
up their households.2 Do consumers wish to purchase sets of dur-
ables in a particular order over certain phases of their life-cycle?
It is not difficult to accept the intuitive idea that households are
formed somewhat in this manner. However, in order to formu-
late marketing strategies for durables on the basis of consumers'
priority patterns a clear understanding of these patterns is
required.
1 William D. Wells, Seymour Banks, and Douglas Tigert, "Order in
the Data" in Reed Moyer, ed., Changing Marketing Systems (Chicago:
American Marketing Association, 1968), pp. 263-266.
2 John McFall, "Priority Patterns and Consumer Behavior," unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Business Administra-
tion, University of California, Los Angeles, 1968.
50
Priority Patterns and Consumer Behavior
This discussion will try to show that consumers
do not only seem to think in terms of "character-
istic sets" of commodities in relation to their needs
and values, they also tend to arrange their pur-
chases of durables according to acquisition pri-
orities. Thus, in most household formations in
this country a stove would be purchased before a
T.V. set, and a sewing machine before a pool table.
The durables in any set establish a hierarchy of
acquisition which, following Pyatt,3 shall be called
priority pattern of acquisition. Acquisitions in
this context include all activities such as buying
for the first time, renewing, and, ideally, updating
through change of model. It will be shown that
a sample of upper-income San Diego county con-
sumers adhere to the following priority pattern
of acquisition for a set which could be called a "com-
fort" subset.
1. Electric blanket
2. Automatic washer
3. Room air conditioner
4. Automatic dishwasher
The Characteristic Set
One of the most difficult problems in priority
tern analysis is the definition of the set of products. Paroush's set of products also serves to highlight
How many products should be included in a set
to make it "characteristic" of a particular group
of consumers? If the electric blanket, air condi-
tioner, automatic washer group is defined as a
"comfort" subset, why is a dishwasher included in
such a group while a vacuum cleaner or wall-heater
is not? The same problem of set definition applies,
of course, to nondurable goods. Take Pessemier
and Tigert's "child-oriented" consumer, for exam-
ple.4 She is not only a "heavy" cereal purchaser
with many children, but she is also a peanut-butter
spreader, a jello maker, and a knee bandager.
Would this set be somehow less complete if the
products connected with the homemaker's role as
a stationwagon driver were excluded? The diffi-
culty of defining such sets is not merely one of
abstraction. Essentially the same problem is faced
by a retailer trying to determine the extent of
product set (scrambled merchandising) justifiable
in his location. Should his total set of products
stocked be a random mixture or a carefully thought
out selection based on the purchasing priorities of
his customers? If a retailer sells a customer an
expensive durable, it may be profitable for him
to follow up this sale with direct mail promotion.
It should be aimed specifically at a small group of
products which are likely to be next on the cus-
tomer's acquisition list. This could be accomplished
3F. G. Pyatt, Priority Patterns and the Demand for
Household Durable Goods (Cambridge, England: The
University Press, 1964).
4Same reference as footnote 1.
This content downloaded from 111.68.111.135 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:09:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
51
if the retailer had knowledge of the consumer's
priority pattern.
The main criterion with respect to nondurables
is consumption; for durables it will be acquisition
and ownership. It seems likely that durable sets
will be easier to define than nondurable sets. Thus,
consumers may be probed for their priority pat-
terns in relation to the various sets of all durables
which are available to them. Most of the estab-
lished sets will overlap since they will all be sub-
sets of the universal set-the total market offering
at a given place and time. Nevertheless, an effort
should be made to define the durables in the set
under study since failure to do so may result in
less meaningful priority patterns. Paroush, for
example, derived a priority pattern for Israeli
households as follows:5
1. Radio
2. Gas cooker (stove)
3. Refrigerator
4. Washing machine
It would seem that this pattern, though scalable,
comprises commodities which could more precisely
be allocated to other groups; for example the
pat- "clean," and "entertainment" subsets.
"cook,"
another problem which will certainly arise when
deriving patterns for affluent communities: certain
"built-in" durables may be automatically provided
in the dwelling, for example, stove, refrigerator,
and even washer/dryer.
Concept of Scale and Priority Patterns
However, in defining the durable set the task of
determining how consumers arrange their prefer-
ences still remains. Even a Maoist homemaker, pre-
sumedly limited to a short prescribed list of house-
hold durables, might be expected to have her own
rigorous ideas relative to the order of durable ac-
quisitions. The closest a free society comes to de-
mand dictatorship is that imposed by social con-
vention. If this kind of group consensus were
strong enough, all consumers would acquire their
household durables in the same order. Theory
5J. Paroush, "The Order of Acquisition of Consumer
Durables," Econometrica, Vol. 33 (January, 1965), pp.
225-235.
* ABOUT THE AUTHOR. John McFall
is assistant professor of marketing at
San Diego State College. He received
his MA from Glasgow University and
PhD from the University of California at
Los Angeles. His business associations
have been with Kodak Ltd., Procter and
Gamble, and J. Walter Thompson.
Dr. McFall is currently engaged in
research on models of consumer be-
havior.
5252 Journal of Marketing, Journal
October,of Marketing, October,
1969 1969

shows, however, that it is difficult or even impos- TABLE 1

sible to derive an aggregate commodity preference OWNERSHIP SCALE FOR UPPER INCOME
scale from the sum of individual choices.6 It is GROUP SAN DIEGO COUNTY

possible, however, to use the notion of scale as Auto- Air

developed in psychometric practice to define orders Scale matic Electric Dish- Con-
of acquisition to which consumer groups would Score Washer Blanket washer ditioner Families
subscribe, within tolerable limits of error. Mar- 4 1 1 1 1 40
keting theorists have not used scaling techniques 3 1 1 1 0 110
to any great extent, but it would seem that the 2 1 1 0 0 132
1 1 0 0 0 46
increasing emphasis placed on research into cus-
0 0 0 0 0 8
tormer preferences will result in their wider use.7
The binary ownership matrix in Figure 1 is an 2 1 0 1 0 36
example of the simplest form of alignment between 2 1 0 0 1 4
products and consumers. It should be noted that 3 0 1 1 1 23
399
this matrix is already developed in a language
which the computer can use. For example, if a cell (one minus number of er-
in the matrix contains a 1, the product in that col- Rep 1- 63 rors divided by number of
4 X 399 items X number of respon-
umn is owned by the consumer in the correspond- dents)
ing row; a 0 signifies it is not owned. It can be = 0.96

seen that consumer 1 owns durables 1 and 3, and

does not own durables 2 and 4, and so on.
Durables
1 2 3 4
1 1 0 1
2 0 0 1
Consumers
3 1 0 0
4 0 1 0
FIGURE 1. 4-Commodity ownership matrix.
There is limited evidence of uniformity or scale
pattern in such data. Each consumer scores two
ownership points, but the durables owned are dif-
ferent in each case. It would be impossible to
predict a consumer's ownership pattern from a
knowledge of her score. Only when the data fall
into scalar form is it clear that a scalable set and
priority pattern are likely to be present.
Consumers have sets of needs and values which
are satisfied by sets of products, or, more correctly,
by sets of product attributes. It may be useful to
think of each product as a long list or vector of
set was obtained from a sample of upper income
consumers in San Diego county. The binary own-
ership matrix is shown in Table 1. If only the
group of families in the upper part of the table
is considered the scale is perfect in the sense that,
by knowing the score of any household, its owner-
ship pattern can automatically be identified. A
scale score of 2 must inevitably mean that the
consumer owns an automatic washer and an electric
blanket. If a household of this group reports that
it owns a dishwasher, then it must own an electric
blanket and an automatic washer; if it reports an
electric blanket, then it must own an automatic
washer. It is also clear that any household in this
group, irrespective of its existing ownership pat-
tern, will subscribe to the following priority pat-
tern of acquisition:
1. Washer
2. Blanket
3. Dishwasher
4. Air conditioner

attributes. Each owes its existence not merely to In practice, however, acquisition priorities are
the physical nature of the product itself, but more not always found to be in perfect agreement. The
importantly to its ability to satisfy a consumer lower part of Table 1 shows that 63 families have
need. Thus, a group of consumer need/value vec- "non-scale" patterns of ownership which detract
tors would constitute a perfect scale against a set from the perfection of scale for the entire group.
of product attribute vectors if all consumers have For example, 36 households with a score of 2 re-
the same priority pattern. To visualize this in port they own a dishwasher but do not own an
practice, consider again the "comfort" subset pre- electric blanket, which runs counter to the priority
viously discussed. Actual ownership data for this pattern. The extent of deviation from perfect
scale is measured by the ratio of actual errors to
6 K. J. Arrow, Social Choice and Individual Values the total possible errors. The most widely used
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964), p. 62. measure is the Guttman Coefficient of Reproduci-
7 For an excellent introductory account of scaling tech-
niques see P. E. Green and R. E. Frank, A Manager's bility (Rep). A Rep value of 0.9 is generally con-
Guide to Marketing Research (New York: John Wiley sidered acceptable for ex post scaling.8
& Sons, Inc., 1967), pp. 41-58. A more extended treat-
ment will be found in W. S. Torgerson, Theory and 8 The reference in footnote 2 discusses several attempts
Methods of Scaling (New York: John Wiley & Sons, which have been made to formulate tests of signifi-
Inc., 1958). cance for scale criteria.

This content downloaded from 111.68.111.135 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:09:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Priority Patterns and Consumer Benavior 53

TABLE 2 TABLE 3

PRIORITY PATTERNS FOR URBAN AND RURAL CONSUMERS PRIORITY PATTERNS FOR SELECTED GROUPS
SARGENT MID-WEST DATA CLASSIFIED BY MONTHLY INCOME
SARGENT MID-WEST DATA
Urban Rural

1 Electric iron 1 Electric iron

$300-399 $700 & Over
2 Automobile 2 Automobile 1 Automobile 1 Electric iron
3 Electric toaster 3 Refrigerator 2 Electric toaster 2 Automobile
4 Radio 4 Radio 3 Vacuum cleaner 3 Radio
5 Vacuum cleaner 5 Vacuum cleaner 4 Radio 4 Electric toaster
6 Refrigerator 6 Electric toaster 5 Refrigerator 5 Refrigerator
7 Black-and-white T.V. 7 Black-and-white T.V. 6 Electric iron 6 Vacuum cleaner
8 Phonograph 8 Electric washer 7 Black-and-white T.V. 7 Black-and-white T.V.
9 Electric shaver 9 Phonograph 8 Electric washer 8 Electric shaver
10 Electric washer 10 Electric shaver 9 Phonograph 9 Phonograph
11 Electric Dryer 11 Food freezer 10 Electric shaver 10 Electric washer
12 Food freezer 12 Electric skillet 11 Electric dryer 11 Electric dryer
13 Electric skillet 13 Electric blanket 12 Electric blanket 12 Electric skillet
14 Electric blanket 14 Electric dryer 13 Electric skillet 13 Food freezer
15 Room air conditioner 15 Room air conditioner 14 Food freezer 14 Electric blanket
16 Outboard motor 16 Outboard motor 15 Air conditioner 15 Air conditioner
17 Broiler 17 Broiler 16 Outboard motor 16 Outboard motor
n = 520 n = 80 17 Broiler 17 Broiler
Rep = 0.906 Rep = 0.900 n = 109 n = 99
Rep = 0.887 Rep = 0.897

Ownership data are available from a variety of

sources. They lend themselves to priority patternon the priority patterns for upper and lower income
analysis provided one realizes that a set of dura- groups in Table 3. These are both "traditional"
bles assembled for a particular purpose may have products with high consumer loyalty but with dif-
to be rearranged for scaling purposes. To test ferent future prospects because of innovations in
certain hypotheses concerning acquisition priorities other areas-permanent press clothes, professional
in the United States, patterns were derived from laundry service and so on.
the ownership data for 17 durables for a sample
of 943 subscribers to Consumers Union in the Mid- Priority Patterns from Consumer Intentions
west.9 Table 2 shows the priorities for urban and The fact which emerged most prominently from
rural consumers. It is clear that, for this set at these preliminary studies was the unexpectedly
least, there is marked agreement between the two high degree of uniformity in general among the
groups. There is, however, evidence of individual patterns of different groups of consumers and the
differences. For example, refrigerators are higher high-scale values obtained. The use of ownership
on the priority patterns of rural than urban con- data from cross-sectional samples to provide pri-
sumers. This might be explained by a closer anal- ority patterns is a useful first step in describing
ysis of buying behavior. Rural consumers may past priorities which produce today's distribution
make larger meat purchases on fewer shopping of ownership. They do not provide, except by in-
trips than their urban counterparts. Similarly, ference, the current priority patterns which may
electric dryers may be lower on rural than urban govern tomorrow's buying decisions. Some prod-
patterns because of the greater availability of nat- ucts, such as black-and-white television sets, may
ural drying facilities in rural areas. These are rank high on ownership patterns while relatively
simple examples but may be sufficient to show that low on intention-to-buy patterns. It is not justifi-
priority patterns can signal the need for further
able, therefore, to make priority pattern inferences
research in buyer behavior. from cross-sectional data in a marketing environ-
A further hypothesis concerning priority pat-ment in which products are continually becoming
terns was that certain products may tend to escalate outmoded and replaced by new ones. Indeed, the
the pattern with increasing affluence, while others difference between a product's place on an owner-
may tend to de-escalate. It is interesting to note the ship and intention pattern may signal its success
positions of the vacuum cleaner and the electric iron
or failure in the market. This may perhaps pro-
vide a measure of the product's "basic diffusion po-
9 H. W. Sargent, Consumer Product Rating Publications tential" especially if patterns are derived at fairly
and Buying Behavior, Bureau of Economic and Busi-
ness Research Bulletin No. 85 (Urbana, Illinois: Bu- frequent intervals from a consumer panel.
reau of Economic and Business Research, University In order to provide priority patterns based on
of Illinois, 1959). consumer intentions, a simple "longitudinal" ex-

This content downloaded from 111.68.111.135 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:09:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
54
54 Journal of Marketing, Journal
October,of Marketing, October,
1969 1969

TABLE 4 hold durables, "characteristic" in the sense that

SAN DIEGO NEWLYWED STUDY, PRIORITY PATTERNS FOR all made use of electric power in the home. Two
ALL RESPONDENTS (FIRST INTERVIEW) OWNERSHIP additional durables, pool table and oil painting,
AND INTENTIONS PATTERNS COMPARED
were included to test for non-set errors. Priority
Priority Pattern patterns for this set were derived both from the
Priority Pattern Based on respondents' ownership frequencies and from their
Based on Ownership Intentions
stated intentions to buy.10
Electric iron Electric iron For such a group of consumers one would expect
Radio Radio
products with high basic diffusion potential, such
Electric toaster Electric toaster
Food mixer
as color T.V. sets, to rank lower on the priority pat-
Vacuum cleaner
Black-and-white T.V. tern based on ownership than on the pattern based
Refrigerator
Hair dryer Food mixer on intentions to buy. Table 4 provides evidence
Skillet Hi-fi for this belief in the upward gradients for such
Hi-fi Black-and-white T.V. durables as automatic washer and color T.V. It is
Vacuum cleaner Hair dryer also interesting to note the downward gradients in
Electric blanket Automatic washer the case of two relatively new products-electric
Refrigerator Skillet
toothbrush and electric carving knife, indicating
Sewing machine Garbage disposer different rates of innovation. Of course, these re-
Garbage disposer Electric blanket
Electric toothbrush
sults should be interpreted with caution until a
Sewing machine
Electric carver Clothes dryer frame of reference is supplied by priority patterns
Broiler Color T.V. derived from larger, national samples. Neverthe-
Oil painting Electric carver less, the preliminary results already show interest-
Automatic washer Electric toothbrush ing divergencies as well as consistencies among
Color T.V. Broiler groups in relation to their priority patterns. A
Floor polisher Oil painting pilot test for a larger study to explore possible dif-
Room air conditioner Dishwasher
ferences in priority patterns between black and
Clothes dryer Food freezer
Dishwasher
white groups has revealed no significant differences
Room air conditioner
Food freezer Floor polisher
between the groups for both ownership and inten-
Pool table Pool table tions patterns for "entertainment," "clean," and
n = 250 n = 237 "comfort" subsets. The results of a comparison
Rep = .85 Rep = .71 for the "cook" subset, where some differences are
beginning to be evident, are shown in Table 5.
periment was conducted in the San Diego area in- Conclusions
volving two interview periods separated by a five-
The priority pattern concept implies that consum-
month interval for the same sample of respondents.
ers tend to think of their household good purchases in
The respondents were chosen at the newlywed stage terms of sets to be acquired in a particular order over
in the life-cycle since it was felt that this was time. The acquiring of goods in accordance with a
the prime time for the formation of acquisition pat-
terns. The commodity set was a group of 23 house- 10 Same reference as footnote 2.

TABLE 5

COOK SUBSET, BLACK AND WHITE OWNERSHIP AND INTENTIONS PATTERNS

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Black White
Ownership Intentions Ownership Intentions
Toaster Refrigerator Toaster Toaster
Carver Toaster Food mixer Food mixer
Skillet Garbage Skillet Refrigerator
disposer
Dishwasher Food mixer Refrigerator Skillet
Garbage Skillet Garbage Garbage
disposer disposer disposer
Refrigerator Freezer Carver Carver
Broiler Carver Broiler Broiler
Food mixer Broiler Dishwasher Dishwasher
Freezer Dishwasher Freezer Freezer
n = 74 n = 80 n = 248 n = 235

This content downloaded from 111.68.111.135 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:09:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Priority
PriorityPatterns and Consumer Behavior
Patterns 55
and Consumer Behavior 55

priority pattern is not simply an individual process; it should be replaced with a picture of a calculating,
it is also a group phenomenon. There is growing forward-looking consumer who thinks in terms of
evidence to support the view that consumer groups whole sets of commodities and who actively plans
can be characterized by high levels of consensus to acquire them in a particular order. This means
associated with their order of acquisition of dura- that if households think in sets, then perhaps the
bles. In addition, it is true that pronounced dif- marketing strategist should match this outlook by
ferences in the nature of groups may be reflected adopting a set approach to the marketing of dura-
in the differences of their priority patterns. ble goods. Paroush, for example, has suggested
The set of commodities which define the priority that priority patterns may provide guidelines for
pattern must be carefully constructed in order to marketing men in the allocation of promotional
preserve the maximum of consistency within the activities. The implications are that if the prior-
set. A product should be included in a "character- ity pattern relates to commodities a, b, c, d, in that
istic set" when its attributes are similar to those order, then the owners of a should be exposed to
of the set in question. The more cohesive the additional promotional pressure in which b is em-
group, the more meaningful the priority pattern. phasized more strongly than c, c more strongly
Ownership frequencies of commodity sets pro- than d, and so on. Similarly, if a discount were
vide valuable clues on the developments of pasttopur- be offered to a prospective customer on commod-
chase priorities of consumers. Future purchases, ity a, it would be better to make it conditional
however, can be validly predicted only from priority (legally, of course) on the purchase of b than on
patterns derived from consumers' expressed buying the purchase of c. That is, market segmentation
intentions.
for durable goods should be conducted not only on
What does the priority pattern concept imply the basis of income, social class, and other socio-
for marketing strategy? Certainly, for the pur- economic variables, but also on the basis of the
chase of durables, it implies that the idea of an priority patterns of acquisition of the relevant con-
irrational consumer should be discarded. Further, sumer groups.

MARKETING MEMO

Where to Place Your Money in Advertising Research . . .

If marketing management asks, "Should we start a research program on copy,
media or advertising weight?," the likely answer is that the quickest and largest pay-
off is in exploring optimum levels of advertising expenditure. To advertise in the
same media with the same copy approaches, while refining expenditure levels, should
provide a quick payoff for management. Then to tune up the system further, it be-
comes necessary to find that combination of copy, level, and media which serves the
company best and achieves the marketing goals for the company-at that expenditure
level.

-Malcolm A. McNiven, "Introduction,"

How Much to Spend for Advertising?
Copyright, 1969 by Association of Na-
tional Advertisers, Inc., pp. 1-10 at p. 9.

This content downloaded from 111.68.111.135 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:09:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms