Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Product’

One of the more difficult and troublesome decisions in brand management arises when entering a product category that is new to the company: Whether to up-start a new brand for the product or to endow it with the identity of an existing brand — that is, extending a company’s established brand from an original product category to a product category of a different type. The first question that would probably pop-up is “how different is the new product?”, acting as a prime criterion to judge whether the parent-brand fits the new product.

Notwithstanding, the choice is not completely ‘black or white’ since intermediate solutions are possible through the intricate hierarchy of brand (naming) architecture. But focusing on the two more distinct strategic branding options above helps to see more clearly the different risk and cost implications of launching a new product brand versus using the name of an existing brand from an original product category. Notably, the manufacturers, retailers and consumers, all perceive risks, albeit from the different perspective of each party given its role.

  • Note: Brand extensions represent the transfer of a brand from one type of product to a different type, to be distinguished from line extensions that pertain to the introduction of variants within the same product category (e.g., flavours, colours).

This is a puzzling marketing and branding problem also from an academic perspective. Multiple studies have attempted in different ways to identify the factors that best explain or account for successful brand extensions. While the stream of research on this topic helpfully points out to major factors, some more commonly agreed upon, a gap remains between the sorts of extensions predicted to succeed according to the studies and the extensions performed by companies that happen to succeed or fail in the markets in reality. A plausible reason for missing the outcomes of actual extensions, as argued by the researchers Milberg, Sinn, and Goodstein (2010), is neglecting the competitive settings in categories that are the target of brand extension (1).

Perhaps one of the most famous examples of a presumptuous brand extension has been the case of Virgin (UK), from music to cola (drink), airline, train transport, and mobile communication (ironically, the origin of the brand as Virgin Music has since been abolished). The success of Virgin’s distant extensions is commonly attributed to the personal character of Richard Branson, the entrepreneur behind the brand: his boldness, initiative, willingness to take risks, and adventurism. These traits seem to have transferred to his business activities and helped to make the extensions more credible and acceptable to consumers.

Another good example relates to Philips (originated in The Netherlands). Starting from lighting (bulbs, now more in LED), the brand extended over the years to personal care (e.g., face shavers for men, hair removal for women), sound and vision (e.g., televisions, DVD and Blue-Ray players, originally in radio sets), PC products, tablets and phones, and more. Still, when looking overall at the different products, systems and devices sharing the Philips brand, they can mostly be linked as members in a broad category of ‘electrics and electronics’, a primary competence of the company. As the company grew with time, launched more types of products whilst advancing with technology, and its Philips brand was perceived as having greater experience and good record in brand extensions, this could facilitate the market acceptance of further extensions to additional products.

  • In the early days of the 1930s to 1950s radio and TV sets relied for operation on vacuum tubes, later moving to electronic circuits with transistors or digital components. Hence, historically there was an apparent physical-technological connection between those products and the brand’s origin in light bulbs, a connection much harder to find now between category extensions, except for the broad category linkage suggested above.

Academic research has examined a range of ‘success factors’ of brand extensions, such as: perceived quality of the parent-brand; fit between the parent-brand and the extension category; degree of difficulty in making an extension (challenge undertaken); parent-brand conviction; parent-brand experience; marketing support; retailer acceptance; perceived risk (for consumers) in adopting the brand extension; consumer innovativeness; consumer knowledge of the parent-brand and category extension; the stage of entry into another category (i.e., as an early or a late entrant). The degree of fit of the parent-brand (and original product) with the extension category is revealed as the most prominent factor contributing to better acceptance and evaluation (e.g., favourability) of the extension in consumer studies.

Aaker and Keller specified in a pioneer article (1990) two requirements for fit: (a) the extension product category is a direct complement or a substitute of the original category; (b) the company, with its people and facilities, is perceived as having the knowledge and capability of manufacturing the product in the extension category. These requirements reflect a similarity between the original and extension product categories that is necessary for successful transfer of a favourable attitude towards the brand to the extension product type (2). A successful transfer of attitude may occur, however, also if the parent-brand has values, purpose or image that seem relevant to the extension product category, even when the technological linkage is less tight or apparent (as the case of Virgin suggests).

  • Aaker and Keller found that fit, based especially on competence, stands out as a contributing factor to higher consumer evaluation (level of difficulty is a secondary factor while perceived quality plays more of a ‘mediating’ role).

Volckner and Sattler (2006) worked to sort out the contributions of ten factors, as retrieved from academic literature, to the success of brand extensions; relations were refined with the aid of expert advice from brand managers and researchers (3). Contribution was assessed in their model in terms of (statistical) significance and relative importance. The researchers found  fit to be the most important factor driving (perceived) brand extension success in their study, followed by marketing support, parent-brand conviction, retail acceptance, and parent-brand experience. The complete model tested for more complex structural relationships represented through mediating and moderating (interacting) factors (e.g., the effect of marketing support on extension success ‘passes’ through fit and retailer acceptance).

For brand extensions to be accepted by consumers and garner a positive attitude, consumers should recognise a connectedness or linkage between the parent-brand and the category extension. The fit between them can be based on attributes of the original and extension types of product or a symbolic association. Keller and Lehmann (2006) conclude in this respect that “consumers need to see the proposed extension as making sense” (emphasis added). They identify product development, applied via brand (and line) extensions, as a primary driver of brand growth, and thereby adding to parent-brand equity. Parent-brands do not tend to be damaged by unsuccessful brand extensions, yet the authors point to circumstances where greater fit may result in a negative effect on the parent-brand, and inversely where joining a new brand name with the parent-brand (as its endorser) may protect the parent-brand from adverse outcomes of extension failure (4).

When assessing the chances of success of a brand extension, it is nevertheless important to consider what brands are already present in the extension category that a company is about to enter. Milberg, Sinn, and Goodstein claim that this factor has not received enough attention in research on brand extensions. In particular, one has to take into account the strength of the parent-brand relative to competing brands incumbent in the target category. As a starting point for entering the extension category, they chose to focus on how well consumers are familiar with the competitor brands vis-à-vis the extending brand.  Milberg and her colleagues proposed that a brand extension can succeed despite a worse fit with the category extension due to an advantage in brand familiarity, and vice versa. Consumer response to brand extensions was tested on two aspects: evaluation (attitude) and perceived risk (5).

First, it should be noted, the researchers confirm the positive effect of better fit on consumer evaluation of the brand extension when no competitors are considered. The better fitting extension is also perceived as significantly less risky than a worse fitting extension. However, Milberg et al. obtain supportive evidence that in a competitive setting, facing less familiar brands can improve the fortune of a worse fitting extension, compared with being introduced in a noncompetitive setting: When the incumbent brands are less familiar relative to the parent-brand, the evaluation of the brand extension is significantly higher (more favourable) and purchasing its product is perceived less risky than if no competition is referred to.

  • A reverse outcome is found in the case of better fit where the competitor brands are more highly familiar: A disadvantage in brand familiarity can dampen the brand extension evaluation and increase the sense of risk in purchasing from the extended brand, compared with a noncompetitive setting.

Two studies performed show how considering differences in brand familiarity can change the picture about the effect of brand extension fit from that often found without accounting for competing brands in the extension category.

When comparing different competitive settings, the research findings provide a more constrained support, but in the direction expected by Milberg and colleagues. The conditions tested entailed a trade-off between (a) a worse fitting brand extension competing with less familiar brands; and (b) a better fitting brand extension competing with more familiar brands. In regard to competitive settings:

The first study showed that the evaluation of a worse fitting extension competing with relatively unfamiliar brands is significantly more favourable than a better fitting extension facing more familiar brands. Furthermore, the product of a worse fitting brand extension is preferred more frequently over its competition than the better fitting extension product is (chosen by 72% vs. 6%, respectively). Also, purchasing a product from the worse fitting brand extension is perceived significantly less risky compared with the better fitting brand. These results indicate that the relative familiarity of the incumbent brands that an extension faces would be more detrimental to its odds of success than how well its fit is.

The second study aimed to generalise the findings to different parent-brands and product extensions. It challenged the brand extensions with somewhat more difficult conditions: it included categories that are all relevant to respondents (students), and so competitor brands in extension categories are also relatively more familiar to them than in the first study. The researchers acknowledge that the findings are less robust with respect to comparisons of the contrasting competitive settings. Evaluation and perceived risk related to the worse fitting brand competing with less familiar brands are equivalent to the better fitting brand extension facing more familiar brands. The gap in choice shares is reduced though in this case it is still statistically significant (45% vs. 15%, respectively). Facing less familiar brands may not improve the response of consumers to the worse fitting brand extension (i.e., not overcoming the effect of fit) but at least it is in a position as good as of the better fitting brand extension competing in a more demanding setting.

  • Perceived risk intervenes in a more complicated relationship as a mediator of the effect of fit on brand extension evaluation, and also in mediating the effect of relative familiarity in competitive settings. Mediation implies, for example, that a worse fitting extension evokes greater risk which is responsible for lowering the brand extension evaluation; consumers may seek more familiar brands to alleviate that risk.

A parent-brand can assume an advantage in an extension category even though it encounters brands that are familiar within that category, and may even be considered experts in the field: if the extending brand is leading within its original category and is better known beyond it, this can give it a leverage on the incumbents if those brands are more ‘local’ or specific to the extension category. For example, it would be easier for Nikon leading brand of cameras to extend to binoculars (better fit) where it meets brands like Bushnell and Tasco than extending to scanners (also better fit) where it has to face brands like HP and Epson. In the case of worse fitting extensions, it could be significant for Nikon whether it extends to CD players and competes with Sony and Pioneer or extends to laser pointers and faces Acme and Apollo — in the latter case it may enjoy the kind of leverage that can overcome a worse fit. (Product and brand examples are borrowed from Study 1). Further research may enquire if this would work better for novice consumers than experts. Milberg, Sinn and Goodstein recommend to consider additional characteristics that brands may differ on (e.g., attitude, image, country of origin), suggesting more potential bases of strength.

Entering a new product category for a company is often a difficult challenge, and choosing the more appropriate branding strategy for launching the product can be furthermore delicate and consequential. If the management chooses to make a brand extension, it should consider aspects of relative strength of its parent-brand, such as familiarity, against the incumbent brands of the category it plans to enter in addition to a variety of other characteristics of product types and its brand identity. However, the managers can take advantage as well of intermediate solutions in brand architecture to combine a new brand name with an endorsement of an established brand (e.g., higher-level brand for a product range). Choosing the better branding strategy may be helped by better understanding of the differences and relations (e.g., hierarchy) between product categories as perceived by consumers.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

1. Consumer Reactions to Brand Extensions in a Competitive Context: Does Fit Still Matter?; Sandra J. Milberg, Francisca Sinn, & Ronald C. Goodstein, 2010; Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (October), pp. 543-553.

2.  Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions; David A. Aaker and Kevin L. Keller, 1990; Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), pp. 27-41.

3.  Drivers of Brand Extension Success; Franziska Volckner and Henrik Sattler, 2006; Journal of Marketing, 70 (April), pp. 18-34.

4. Brands and Branding: Research Finding and Future Priorities; Kevin L. Keller and Donald R. Lehmann, 2006; Marketing Science, 25 (6), pp. 740-759.

5. Ibid. 1.

Read Full Post »

It is usually not a pleasant feeling to be alone in a scary place or event — think of being stuck in a dark elevator or being involved in a car accident. People commonly seek to be with someone for comfort and company. But the companion does not always have to be another person. A research by Dunn and Hoegg (2014) provides corroboration that the need to share fear matters to humans while the identity of the companion, whether a person or an object, is less critical.  More specifically, sharing fear with a product from an unfamiliar brand may facilitate a quick emotional attachment with that brand without requiring to build a relationship over a lengthy period of time (1).

Fear is evoked by the presence or anticipation of a danger or threat. Feeling fear may be triggered by an unfamiliar event to which one is unsure how to respond (uncertainty) or an unexpected event at a specific moment (surprise); experiencing fear is furthermore likely when the event encountered is both unfamiliar and unexpected. It is important to note, nonetheless, that not every encounter with an unfamiliar or unexpected event necessarily leads to  fear. The Amygdala in the temporal lobe of the brain is the “centre” where fear arises. However, the amygdala like other brain structures is responsible for multiple functions. The amygdala is activated in response to unfamiliarity, unpredictability or ambiguity, but not every instance necessarily means the evocation of fear. For example, tension from facing an unfamiliar problem that one is at loss how to solve may not result in fear. Additionally, fear as well as other states of emotion are the outcome of appraisal of physical feelings (e.g., faster heartbeats, startle, warmth), considering the conditions in which they were triggered; it is a cognitive interpretation of their meaning (“why do I feel that way?”). Activation of other brain structures together with the amygdala may influence whether similar feelings triggered by an unexpected event are interpreted, for instance, as fear, anger, or surprise. The context in which an event occurs can matter a lot for the appraisal of emotions (2).

Dunn and Hoegg emphasise the emotional charge of consumer attachment with a brand versus cognitive underpinnings. Brand attachment has often been conceptualised as the product of a relationship between consumers and the target brand built over time. It should take a longer time to achieve a more solid brand attachment because of cognitive processes for establishing brand connections in memory and stronger favourable brand attitudes. However, this explanation is subject to criticism of missing the important role of emotions in bonding between consumers and a brand which does not necessarily require a long time. By focusing their studies on unfamiliar brands, Dunn and Hoegg intended to show that emotional attachment can emerge much more quickly when the consumers are distressed and are looking for a partner to share their fear with, and that partner or companion can be a brand of a given product.

On the same grounds, the researchers chose a scale of emotional attachment (Thomson, MacInnis and Park, 2005 [3]) as more appropriate over a scale that combines emotional and cognitive aspects of attachment and gives greater weight to cognitive constructs (Park, MacInnis et al., 2010 [4]). The emotional scale comprises three dimensions: (a) Affection (affectionate, friendly, loved, peaceful); (b) Passion (passionate, delighted, captivated); (c) Connection (connected, bonded, attached). Nevertheless, in the later research Park and MacInnis with colleagues offer a broader perspective that accounts for two bases of brand attachment: (i) a connection between self-concept and a brand; and (ii) brand prominence in memory.

While ‘brand prominence’ can be regarded as more cognitive-oriented (accessibility of thoughts and feelings in memory), a ‘brand-self connection’ entails the expansion of one’s concept of self to incorporate others, such as brands, within it — and that involves an emotional element. Park and MacInnis et al. emphasise the brand-self connection as the emotional core of their definition of brand attachment, while brand prominence is a facilitator in actualizing the attachment (analyses substantiate that brand attachment is a better predictor than attitudes of intentions to perform more difficult types of behavior reflecting commitment, and the brand-self connection is more essential for driving this behaviour). The three-dimension scale of emotional brand attachment seems very relevant for the research goals of Dunn and Hoegg, even though it is more restricted from a stand-point of the theoretical roots of brand attachment.

The desire to affiliate with others in scaring and upsetting situations is recognised as a mechanism for coping with negative emotions in those situations. Episodes of armed conflict, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters make people get closer to each other, unite and show solidarity. However, the researchers note that the act of affiliation is essential for coping rather than the affiliation target. That is, the literature on affiliation or attachment relates to interpersonal connections as well as attachment to objects (although objects are viewed as substitutes in absence of other persons [pet animals should also be considered]). We can find support for possible attachment to products and their brands in the human tendency to animate or anthropomorphise objects by assigning them traits of living beings, whether animals or humans. Brands may be animated in order to help consumers relate with them more comfortably, making them appear more vivid to them. It is one of the processes that facilitates the development of consumers’ relationships with their brands in use; consumers connect with brands also through the role brands fulfilled in their personal history, heritage and family traditions, and how brands integrate in their preferred lifestyles (5).

Dunn and Hoegg investigate how consumers connect with a brand on occasions of incidental fear. They make a clear distinction between events that may trigger fear (or other emotions) and fear appeals strategically planned in advertising (e.g., in order to induce a particular desired behaviour). Events that incidentally cause fear would be independent and uncontrolled. Additionally, the intensity and range of emotions felt is expected to differ when consumers actively participate in an event and hence experience it directly in contrast to watching TV ads — in direct consumer experiences, emotional feelings are likely to be more intensive and specific.  In a model for measuring consumption emotions developed and tested by Richins, fear is characterised as a negative and more active (as opposed to receptive) emotion, next to other emotions such as anger, worry, discontent, sadness and shame (6).

  • In their experiments, the researchers try to emulate incidental fear by displaying to participants clips from cinema films or TV series’ episodes, and present evidence that manipulations successfully elicited the intended emotions as dominant in response to each video clip. Yet, it remains somewhat ambiguous how real and direct the experience of watching scenes in a film or a TV programme is perceived and felt with regard to the emotions evoked.

The following are more concrete findings from the studies and their insights:

Emotional brand attachment is generated through perception that the brand shares the fear with the consumer — Study 1 confirms that emotional attachment with an unfamiliar brand is generated when a product (juice) by that brand is present and can be consumed during the fear-inducing experience (more than for emotions of sadness, excitement and happiness). But moreover, it is shown that the emotional attachment is mediated (conditioned) by perception of the consumer that the brand shared the fear with him or her.

Humans precede product brands —  Sharing fear with a brand contributes to stronger emotional brand attachment, but only if they still have a desire generated by fear to affiliate with others. If conversely that desire is satiated by a perception of the consumers that they are already socially affiliated with other people, the effect on brand attachment is muted.

  • Note: Participants in Study 2 were asked to perform a search with words related to feelings of affiliation and social connectedness (e.g., included, accepted, involved) to prime affiliation. Given the statements used to measure (non-)affiliation (e.g., “I feel disconnected from the world around me”), it is a little questionable how effective such a priming condition could be (though the authors show it was sufficient). It might have been more tangible to ask participants to think of people dear to them, family and close friends, and write about them.

Balancing negative and positive emotional effects on attitudes — Based on analyses in Study 2 the researchers also suggest that increased positive effect of emotional brand attachment may counterbalance and override a negative influence of ‘affect transfer’ on attitudes due to fear.

Presence of the brand and attention to it are required yet sufficient — Study 3 demonstrates that neither consumption of the product (juice) nor even touching it (the bottle), both forms of physical interaction, are really needed for feeling affiliated and forming emotional attachment — forced consumption in particular does not contribute to stronger perceived sharing or emotional attachment than merely seeing the product when feeling fear, that is making an eye contact and visually attending to the product in search for a companion. (Unexpectedly, in the case of action and excitement, consuming the drink increases emotional attachment.) Study 4 stresses, nevertheless, that the brand must be present during the emotional event for generating increased emotional attachment — having the brand nearby while experiencing the fear is essential for consumers to feel connected with the brand as their sharing partner (tested with a different product, potato chips).

The research paper suffers from a deficit in practice. That is, marketing managers and professionals might be disappointed to discover that it could be most difficult to have any control of those situations of incidental fear and to act on them to their advantage. In order to have any influence on the consumer a company would be required to anticipate an individual event in advance and to find a way to intervene (i.e., make their product present) without being perceived too intrusive or self-interested — two non-negligible challenges. An additional restriction is posed by the relation of the ‘fear effect’ to brands not previously familiar to the consumers.

Let us consider some potential scenarios where brands might benefit and the difficulties that are likely to arise in implementing it:

Undertaking medical treatments or tests — Some treatments can be alarming and frightening on occasion to different patients. A sense of fear is likely to enter already, and perhaps especially, while waiting. It is a opportunity for introducing the brand-companion in the waiting hall; even more so given that patients are usually not allowed to or prevented from using artifacts during the treatment (mostly no food and drinks). First, a company may have a difficulty to obtain access to places where patients wait for treatment. Second, consumers-patients are likely to bring products with them from home to entertain them (of brands they know). Third, patients often arrive with a family or friend companion, thus satisfying their need for affiliation with another person which dominates affiliation with an object. Still, there is room for ingenuity how to locate the brand close enough to the treatment episode (e.g., shops offering books or toys, especially for children, in the premises of a clinic or hospital).

Trekking or hiking in nature — Some routes, particularly in mountainous areas, can be quite adventurous, not to say dangerous. If a brand could find a way to introduce its product just before the consumer starts the hiking trip, it may benefit from being with him or her if fear arises. One problem is that hikers are advised and even required not to embark alone on more dangerous routes. Another problem is that those trekking or hiking sites often offer local brands, that while not being familiar to the consumers they also are not likely to be available to them at home, and thus the opportunity to develop a relationship based on the early emotional attachment is lost.

Offering legal, financial, insurance, and technical services in events of crisis — In various occasions of accidents, malfunctions, and disasters, people need help to cope with the crisis and the negative emotions it may evoke, particularly fear. A service provider would be expected to counsel the customer in his or her distress, and of course propose a solution (e.g. how to fix one’s home after a fire or an earthquake). Unfortunately,  one cannot make an eye contact with an intangible service. The company has to find creative and practical ways to make itself readily visible and accessible to the consumer when needed by offering instruments and cues for making contact (e.g., an alarm and communication device for the elderly and people with more risky medical conditions).

  • Dunn and Hoegg are aware of the limitation of the findings to unfamiliar brands. They reasonably propose that “because fear leads to a general motivation to affiliate, emotional brand attachment would be enhanced regardless of the familiarity with the brand” (p. 165). It should take further research, however, to substantiate this proposition.

Despite the possible difficulties companies will likely need to deal with, the doors are not completely shut to them to benefit from this phenomenon. But they must come up with creative and non-intursive solutions to make their brands and products present in the right place at the right time. At the very least, marketers should be aware of the potential effect of sharing fear with the consumer and understand how it can work in the brand’s benefit. It is worth remembering, after all, the saying “a friend in need is a friend indeed” whereby in some incidents the friend can be a brand.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

(1) “The Effect of Fear on Emotional Brand Attachment”; Lea Dunn and JoAndrea Hoegg, 2014; Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (June), pp. 152-168.

(2) “What Is Emotion?: History, Measures and Meanings”; Jerome Kagan, 2007; New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Also see: “The Experience of Emotion”; Lisa Feldman Barrett, Bejta Mesquita, Kevin N. Ochsner, & James J. Gross, 2007; Annual Review of Psychology, 58, pp. 373-403.

(3) “The Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands”; Mathew Thomson, Deborah J. MacInnis, & C. Whan Park, 2005; Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), pp. 77-91.

(4) “Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers”; C. Whan Park, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B. Eisengerich, & Dawn Iacobucci, 2010; Journal of Marketing, 74 (November), 1-17.

(5) “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research”; Susan Fournier, 1998; Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), pp. 343-373.

(6) “Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience”; Marsha L. Richins, 1997; Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September), pp. 127-146.

Read Full Post »

Department stores are competing hard for more than thirty years to overcome the challenges posed to them by shopping centres and malls. They keep refreshing their interior designs, merchandising and marketing methods to remain relevant, up-to-date, and especially reinvigorated for the younger generations of shoppers. Department stores and shopping centres are two different models in retailing for offering a wide array of product categories, and accompanying services, within enclosed built environments — different in requirements and responsibilities of managing them, in their structures, and most importantly with respect to the shopping experiences they create. There is enough room in consumers’ lives for shopping both ways.

Shopping centres may be found in the central areas of cities and on their outskirts, on main roads at city-gates and in suburban neighbourhoods. A shopping mall, according to the American genuine model, is a shopping centre characterised by location outside the city centre, housed in a single- or two-floor building spread over a large area and a large-space parking lot, free of charge. But shopping centres or malls exhibit nowadays such a variety of architectural structures and styles of interior design, at different sizes and locations, that the distinction in terms has become quite vague and less important.

Department stores belong traditionally in city centres. They also are typically housed inPartial back closed windows allows a glimpse into the Coop store their dedicated buildings (e.g., 5 to 7 floors, including one or two underground floors). Each floor in a contemporary store is hosting one or more departments (e.g., cosmetics, accessories, menswear, furniture, electric goods and electronics/digital) or amenities (e.g., restaurants). That was not the case in the early days (1850s-1920s) when the retail space open to the public included only up to three floors and the rest of the building was used for production, staff accommodation, and other administrative functions; the range of products was much smaller. So the department store as we better know it today follows the format redeveloped in the 1930s and further progressed soon after World War II. The styles of interior design and visual merchandising, nevertheless, have certainly changed several times over the years.

There is however another recent format of a department store which resides within a shopping centre. It is a reduced and condensed exemplar of the ‘classic’ department store, probably not how consumers more often perceive and think of such stores. But having a reduced store version is perhaps not a problem inasmuch as its location. Shopping centres invite retail chains of department stores to open a branch as an anchor store in their premises, and it seems as a necessary action by the retailers to maintain visibility and presence amid the threat of the shopping centres posed to them. This venture also allows the retailer to extend and reach shoppers away from city centres. Yet, one may question if it helps and serves the interests of the department store retailer as much as of the proprietor of the shopping centre. Being more limited in space and scope of products, while surrounded by a few hundred other shops and stores under the same roof, the department store could get more easily lost and vanish from shopper attention in the crowded space. It should be much more difficult for the store to remain conspicuous in this kind of environment, especially when shoppers can refer to a selection of specialist shops in any category they are interested almost next door.

When a shopper enters a respectable department store he or she tends to get absorbed within it. The variety of products on display, lights and colours, brand signs, and furnishing and fixtures in different shapes and styles pull you in, making you forget of the outer world. The shopper may find almost anything one needs and seeks, whether it is for wearing, decorating the living room, or working in the kitchen, enough to forget there is a street and other shops and stores out there. Think of stores — just for illustration — such as  KaDeWe in Berlin, Selfridges in London, La Rinascente in Milano, or Printemps in Paris: that is the magic of a department store. Of course there are many other stores of this type from different chains, in different styles and atmospherics (which may vary between departments within the same store), and in some of the main cities in each country. For instance, Marks & Spencer opened its modern flag store in a glass building at the turn of the century in Manchester, not in London. Not long afterwards Selfridges also opened a store in Manchester, and then in Birmingham. Printemps and Galeries Lafayette sit next to each other on Boulevard Hausmann in Paris — both are very elegant though the latter  looks more glittering and artistic,  appearing even more upscale and luxurious than the former. Now Galeries Lafayette is planning its yet most modern concept of a department store to open on Champs Élysées.

That is not the impression and feeling one gets in a shopping centre. Although a centre can be absorbing and entertaining in its own way, usually it would be the centre’s environment that is absorbing as a whole and much less any single shop or store. Even in larger stores the shopper is never too far from being exposed again to other retail outlets that can be quickly accessed. In the shopping centre or mall, a shopper moves around between shops and stores, reviews and compares their brand and product selections, and at any point in time he or she can easily return to “feel free” walking in the public pathways of the centre, eye-scanning other stores. It is a different manner and form of shopping experience for a consumer than visiting a department store.

The rise of branding and consumer brands since the 1980s has also had an important impact on trade, organisation and visual merchandising in department stores, as in other types of stores in general. There is a much stronger emphasis in the layout of floors on organisation by brand, particularly in fashion (clothing and accessories) departments. The course of the shopping trip is affected as a result. Shoppers are driven to search first by brand rather than by attribute of the product type they seek. That is, a shopper would search and examine a variety of articles (e.g., shirts, trousers, sweaters, jackets) displayed in a section dedicated to a particular brand before seeing similar articles from other brands. It can make the trip more tiresome if one is looking for a type of clothing by fabric, cut or fit, colour and visual pattern. But not everything on a floor is always sorted in brand sections, like a shop-in-shop; often a shopper may find concentrated displays of items like shirts or rain coats of different models from several brands. Furthermore, there is still continuity on a floor so that one can move around, take along articles from different brands to compare and fit together, and then pay for everything at the same cashier.

In some cases, especially for more renowned and luxury brands, the shop-in-shop arrangement is formal where a brand is given more autonomy to run its dedicated “shop” (known as a concession), making their own merchandising decisions and employing their own personnel for serving and selling to customers. The flexibility of shoppers may be somewhat more restricted when buying from brand concessions. However, even when some “brand shops” are more formal, much of the merchandising is already segregated into brand sections, and shoppers frequently cannot easily tell between formal and less formal business arrangements for brand displays. The sections assigned toView over terraces in a multi-storey department store specific brands are usually not physically fully enclosed and separated from other areas: some look more like “booths”, others are more widely open at the front facing a pathway. Significantly, shoppers can still feel they are walking in the same space of a department or floor, and then move smoothly to another type of department (e.g., from men or women fashion to home goods). That kind of continuity and flexibility while shopping is not affordable when wandering between individual shops and stores in a shopping centre or mall. The segregation of floor layout into dominant brand sections or “shops” within a department store (and some architectural elements) can blur the lines and make the department store seem more similar to a shopping centre, but not quite. The shopping experiences remain distinct in nature and flavour.

  • “With so many counters rented out to other retailers, it is as though the modern department store has returned to the format of the early nineteenth-century bazaar.” (English Shops and Shopping, Kathryn A. Morrison, 2003, Yale University Press/English Heritage.)

Department stores have gone through salient changes, even transformations, over the years. In as early as the 1930s stores started a transition to an open space layout, removing partitions between old-time rooms to allow for larger halls on each floor. Other changes were more pronounced after World War II and into the 1950s, such as  permitting self-service while reducing the need of shoppers to rely on sellers, and accordingly displaying merchandise more openly visible and accessible to the shoppers at arm’s reach. These developments have altered the dynamics of shopping and paved the way for creative advances in visual merchandising.

Department stores have also introduced more supporting services (e.g., repairs of various kinds, photo processing, orders & deliveries,  gift lists, cafeterias and restaurants). In the new millennium department stores joined the digital scene, added online shopping and expanded other services and interactions with consumers through the online and mobile channels. In more recent years we also witness a resurgence of emphasis on food, particularly high quality food or delicatessen. Department stores have opened food halls that include merchandise for sale (fresh and packaged) and bars where shoppers can eat from freshly made dishes of different types of food and cuisines (e.g., KaDeWe, La Rinascente, Jelmoli in Zürich).

Department stores in Israel have always been in a smaller scale than their counterparts  overseas, a modest version. But they suffered greatly with the emergence of shopping centres. The only chain that still exists today (“HaMashbir”) was originally established in 1947 by the largest labour union organisation in the country. Since the first American-style mall was opened near Tel-Aviv in 1985 the chain has started to decline; as more shopping centres opened their gates the stores became outdated and lost the interest of consumers. By the end of the 1990s the chain had come near collapse until it was salvaged in 2003 by a private businessman (Shavit) who took upon himself to rebuild and revive it.

The chain now has 39 branches across the country, but they are mostly far from the scale of those abroad and about a half are located in shopping centres. Yet in 2011 HaMashbir opened its first large multi-category store in the centre of Jerusalem, occupying 5000sqm in seven floors. It seems the stores have gone through a few rounds of remodelling until settling upon their current look and style. They are overall elegant but not fancy, less luxurious and brand-laden, intended to better accommodate consumers of the middle class and to attract families.

It is rather surprising that Tel-Aviv is still awaiting a full-scale department store. The chain has stores in two shopping centres in Tel-Aviv but none left on main streets. At least in two leading shopping centres the stores have shrunk over the years, and one of them is gone. The latter in particular, located once in a lucrative and most popular shopping mall in a northern suburb, was reduced from two floors to a single floor and gave up its fashion department amid the plentiful of competing fashion stores in the mall, until eventually it closed down. Another store remains near Tel-Aviv in “Ayalon Mall”, the first mall of Israel.

Tel-Aviv has the population size (400,000) and flow of visitors on weekdays (more than a million) to justify a world-class store on a main street. Such a store has also the potential of increasing the city’s attraction to tourists. The detriments for the retail chain are likely to be the high real estate prices, difficulty to find a building suitable for housing the store, and the competition from existing shopping centres as well as from stores in high-street shopping districts. Yet especially in a city like Tel-Aviv a properly designed and planned department store is most likely to be a shopping and leisure institution and centre of activity to many who live, work or tour the city.

Shopping centres and department stores can exist side by side because they are essentially different models and concepts of an enriched retail complex in enclosed environments. Unlike the shopping centre, the department store is a world in itself of retail and not an assortment of individual retail establishments. The department store engages shoppers through  its structure, design and function given the powers the retailer has to plan and manage the large store as an integrated retailing space. Consequently, a department store engenders customer experiences that are different from a shopping centre regarding the customers’ shopping trips or journeys and how they spend their time for leisure in the store. One just has to look at the flows of people who flock through the doors of department stores in major cities, most of all as weekends get nearer.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Read Full Post »

The decision of the British people in a referendum on 23 June (2016) to leave the European Union (EU) — known as ‘Brexit’ — promises to emerge as a most profound event in the nation’s recent history. The result of the referendum in favour of Brexit, by a majority of 52% against 48%, was decisive yet not by a large margin; moreover, the striking differences in voting patterns between England and Scotland, and even within England, between London and other parts of the country, invoke deep tensions (In Scotland and London the Remain camp had a clear majority).

The effects of Brexit are still very early to call and are hard to predict because a departure of a member country, let alone the United Kingdom, from the EU has never been experienced so far. The effects also are expected to impact multiple areas, including politics, economics, business, social welfare and standard-of-living. This article focuses on the area of retailing; it reviews and contemplates early assessments of the plausible effects that leaving the EU can have on retailers and consumers in Britain. However, due to the early stage of the process, the ambiguity that surrounds the implications of leaving the EU, and the fact that the new British government is not enacting yet an exit from the EU (i.e., Article 50 of the EU Lisbon Treaty), one should be cautious in taking these assessments as concrete predictions about the (probable) outcomes of Brexit.

Uncertainty mixed with pessimism has claimed an immediate toll on the value of the pound sterling (particularly its exchange rate against the US dollar); stock prices have also moderately declined in London Stock Exchange, but further declines are foreseen as the process unfolds. The devaluation of the British pound is a critical factor whose effect is expected to roll for several more years. Retailers are concerned that rising prices of imported goods (e.g., food, clothing) will deter consumers. In addition, increased cost of imported raw materials and components used in production is likely to contribute to rising prices of local goods, further exerting an inflationary pressure. Positive effects that may arise from this devaluation on exports will be discussed later. The sense of “bad news” is not escaping consumers either, manifested in a quick and rather sharp decline in consumer confidence as reported by GfK marketing research firm. This could mean that consumers become hesitant and more inclined to “wait and see”, thus postponing their more costly purchases, particularly of discretionary and leisure products and services.

The Centre for Retail Research (CRR) considers multiple aspects wherein retailers and consumers are likely to be affected while entering a post-Brexit era. It is suggested that a decline of 5% in the value of the pound against the euro would be enough to compensate for new tariff barriers imposed by the EU, and the steeper decline that already occurred is a very good thing — it would help exports (e.g., e-commerce), transitioning from imports to local production, and tourism. The CRR argues that the pound was already over-priced and needed correction (note that  right after the referendum the pound declined 8% against the dollar and euro, but a slide down occurred earlier, at the beginning of this year, so against values of late 2015 the pound declined by as much as 15%). But there are additional important factors with structural implications that are noteworthy: need to fulfill changing jobs and a drive for automation; need for new worker and consumer protection laws and regulations; re-settling (digital) data protection regulation and mechanisms.

There is broad agreement that in order for Britain to retain relations with the European Single Market, it will have to continue and abide to product and data protection standards of the EU. Britain will also not be able to completely restrict worker migration from the EU. The difference will be, however, that Britain will have to work by those rules but will not have a say about them — a warning the Remain campaigners continue to critically voice. Different models are contemplated for the relations of Britain with the EU in the post-Brexit era, notably by joining Norway in the European Economic Area (EEA) or replicating the special relations of Switzerland with the EU. But the EU council nervously hurried to warn Britain, or any other country that contemplates to follow, that it should not allude itself of receiving an advantageous status as of Switzerland’s.

  • Another avenue for resolution may consider the trade arrangements of Israel as a non-member country with the EU, and its participation in Horizon 2020, a programme for science and technology research and development.

References made in the media to changes in retail sales in June seem too soon and hardly indicative of a real effect of the Brexit decision, primarily given that only ten days remained to the end of the month after the referendum (some sources suggest waiting for July’s figures). Figures also vary, depending on the basis of comparison (e.g., volume or value, last month or same month last year, all or like-for-like [same stores]). For example, sales by volume decreased 0.9% in June compared with May (2016), yet compared with June of last year (2015) they increased 4.3% (by value, sales increased just 1.5% [Britain’s Office for National Statistics (ONS): Retail Industry-Sales Index]). Different figures were published by KPMG consulting firm together with the British Retail Consortium (BRC): Their Retail Sales Monitor shows that sales grew just 0.2% in June year-on-year, but when compared on a like-for-like basis they dropped 0.5%. The BRC-KPMG monitor furthermore indicates that non-food sectors, especially fashion, were hit harder than the food or grocery sector.

Recent observed changes may be attributed at most to so-called ‘Brexit-sentiment’ . If we were to look already for a more reliable indication of an immediate post-referendum shock, the KPMG’s press release reports that sales fell particularly in the last week of June. The Financial Times (13 July ’16) indicates that according to its Brexit Barometer, day-to-day spending “may have bounced back to just slightly below what it was immediately before the June 23 referendum”. The number of visits to stores (‘footfall’) declined in the week immediately after the referendum (10% year-on-year for weekdays – especially on High Street), recovered a little in early July, followed by another a drop in visits. The fluctuations are not consistent and it is hard to conclude a trend at this time. The picture for Saturdays is even less bright: “high-street footfall on Saturdays, the most important shopping day, has now fallen year-on-year for three consecutive weeks”.

The Economist Intelligence Unit published just before the referendum a special, rather negative, report on Brexit (“Out and Down: Mapping the Impact of Brexit”). It relates to key implications of Brexit in regard to retailing: a fall of the pound, inflation in line with rise of import prices, consumer purchasing hesitation, and more complex supply chains for retailers. According to their projection, the year 2017 will be the worst for retailing; recovery will be felt during 2018-2020 as growth of retail sales volume resumes, but it will happen intermittently and sales will not return to the pre-Brexit level.

In order to better grasp how Brexit may change the direction for British economy, and for the well-being of consumers and retailers in particular, it would help to take a little longer look backwards (i.e., as far as 2007) at retail sales and some additional  indicators.

The ONS Retail Sales Index by volume (seasonally adjusted, excluding fuel): After a long period, from 2006 (shortly before the financial crisis) until late 2013, when sales volume (index) was almost stagnant at just about 100, it started lifting since early 2014 and until June this year (2016) to a level of 112.5. It has been a positive sign for return to the expansion years of a previous decade (~1996-2006). But the implementation of Brexit (i.e., at least while negotiating new trade agreements) threatens to halt the climb and impede a continued recovery of the sector from the lingering effects of the financial and economic crisis of 2007-2008 (including a ‘second spell’ in 2011-2013).

Growth in pay compared with inflation (ONS: UK Perspectives 2016 Personal & Househod Finances [Section 4]): This is an indicator of the cost of living (or the purchasing power of income from work). We may notice three distinct periods: (a) A ‘shock’ response to the financial crisis ~2008-2009 included a steep rise in consumer prices while growth in regular pay dissipated, and then a ‘correction’ of slowing price increases; (b) Inflation rate higher than growth in pay ~2010-2013 — during this period of the hardest burden on consumers, growth in pay remained at a bottom level of 1-2% while inflation climbed as high as 5% (2011) and subsequently “cooled” to 2-3%; (c) Renewal of real rise in pay ~2014-2016 as inflation starts to subdue, falling to near 0%, and pay growth reaches 2-3%. Worsening market conditions due to Brexit could lead to erosion once again of  regular (weekly) pay and suppressed consumer spending.

Household spending (ONS: UK Perspectives 2016 as above [Section 5]): The average household expenditure, inflation-adjusted, decreased from 2006 through 2012 from ~£550 to about £510 per week; then spending started to recuperate in 2013 and 2014, reaching £530. Improvement may have continued up to this year: On the one hand, regular pay increased in real terms in the past two years; on the other hand, the real disposable household income in Britain has been hovering just above £17,000 since 2006 (after a climb in previous years), though lifting its head a little in 2015. Now there is higher risk that such improvement in spending will not be possible to continue.

Consumer Confidence Index (GfK): The research firm GfK conducted a one-off special survey in the week following the referendum to measure its Consumer Confidence Barometer (CCB) (normally updated on a monthly basis). It provides a sharp demonstration of the impact of ‘Brexit-sentiment’: The (net) index value dropped from -1 in the previous survey to -9 after learning of the referendum result. The last time a similar decline (8 points) in a single month was measured occurred in 2011, and only in 1994 had a larger single drop been measured. Those belonging in the Remain camp are more negative (-13) than those in the Leave camp (-5). Respondents to the barometer are asked about the current state of the economy and their expectations over the next twelve (12) months — 60% expect the economic situation to worsen (an increase of 14% from pre-referendum). Also, 33% expect prices to rise sharply.

The Financial Times presents in its Brexit follow-up a chart of the history of GfK’s Confidence Index from 2007 to 2016: The chart shows how CCB dropped from just below 0 to -40 during the 2007-2008 crisis, recovered to -20, declined again to around -30 during the ‘second-spell’ of the economic crisis in 2011-2013, and then climbed back to a little above 0 before the referendum. A decline of CCB actually already started earlier this year, and then came the steep single drop following the Brexit referendum. Consumer confidence was already at lower (net) levels and has experienced continuous descents in the past ten years; it may likewise continue to deteriorate below -20 again after the recent drop in CCB.

A map by GfK shows variation across regions and demographic segments. Interestingly, the strongest ‘demoralising’ effect was found among the young group of ages 18-29 (decline of 13 points) compared with older groups (6-8 points off), yet the younger remain overall more positive and optimistic about the economy (index +6), especially compared with those of 50-64 of age (index -21).

  • After three years of decline in the number of retail companies in the UK running into financial difficulties, since the last peak of 2012 (54), it seems to be rising again in the first half of 2016, according to data gathered and reviewed by the Centre for Retail Research (note that not all companies going into legal administration necessarily go bankrupt and cease to operate). Growing pressure on retailers during the process of leaving the EU may put even more medium and large retailers (in number and size of stores) at risk of failure.

After a significant drop last year, number of retailers in trouble looks to be rising again in 2016

The depriciation of the British pound is expected to facilitate selling and increase exports to foreign consumers in other countries through e-commerce (i.e., retailing or shopping websites) by retailers residing in the UK. Especially during the period that existing trade agreements are still valid, it would be the best time for British retailers operating online to fill their coffers with cash. They will need to refrain from updating pound-nominated prices upwards as long as possible. When new trade agreements are reached, the terms for purchasing abroad online from British retailers may also change and new adjustments will be required.

  • Ido Ariel of Econsultancy recommends three supporting marketing methods for encouraging international customers to purchase online at the interim period on UK retail websites: inducing a sense of urgency and initiating pro-active targeted prompting messages; offering targeted promotions to increase personalization (e.g., geo-targeting); and enacting limited-time discounts.

However, the condition in which the British Economy arrives to this historic junction is concerning, having reduced its manufacturing sector too much over the years and relying too heavily on a services economy. This situation may mitigate the country’s ability to exploit its currency advantage in the short- to medium-term by increasing exports of goods, and may also put it in a less advantageous position as a strong producing economy in negotiations for future trade deals. The condition of the British economy could become even weaker if, as projected by the Economist Intelligence Unit, service companies — financial and banking of most — will lose their “passport” to act from the UK in the other EU member-countries (e.g., France, Germany), and thus they will choose to cut their operations in the country or leave altogether.

  • The contribution of the production sector to the economic output (Generated Value Added [GVA]) decreased in the UK from 41% in 1948, through 25% in 1990, and down to 14% in 2013 (‘production’ includes manufacturing, oil and gas extraction, and water and energy utilities);
  • The relative contribution of the services sector grew during that period from 46% to 79% (67% in 1990);
  • The growth of the sub-sector of business and financial services is most noticeable, expanding from 13% in 1978, through 22% in 1990, and reaching 32% in 2013.
  • A World Bank comparison referring specifically to manufacturing shows that its contribution to output in Britain is 10% versus 22% in Germany (UK’s is the lowest [with France] and Germany’s the highest among all G7 countries, 2012).
  • (Source: ONS review, April 2014: “International Perspective on the UK — Gross Domestic Product”. For main points see The Guardian’s Economics blog.)

In the long-term Britain may well succeed in re-establishing a strong position in business and trade. But it will come at a high cost in the short- and medium-term (next three to five years) for the economy overall, businesses and consumers, and this process is not free of risks. Is it that much necessary? Another contentious question is: How much has the EU really held the UK back? Answers to these questions remain in deep dispute. Having stayed in the EU, the UK might have been able to help stabilise the European economy while resolving its existing failures, and then grow faster with the EU. But too many Britons stopped believing this will ever be possible, or simply lost their patience. The EU leadership in Brussels bears much responsibility for arriving to this predicament. But that matters little now.

It is now a time for taking an opportunity to resolve weaknesses in the British economy — industry and trade. It will have to prove itself as an independent viable economy, less reliant directly on the EU but more like many other countries trading with the EU. Retailers may have to make changes to their mixtures between imported and locally manufactured products; to form trading ties with different and additional countries; and more vigorously refresh and update their trading, merchandising and pricing techniques and tactics to be competitive on the local stage, and where relevant on an international stage. The Centre for Retail Research has expressed most pointedly what is expected of retailers: “Retail post-Brexit will have to be more agile, more digital, capital-intensive and more responsive to change”. Retailers and consumers will have to adjust to new market conditions and adapt to new game rules.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Read Full Post »

Consumers evoke from the visual appearance of a product their impressions of its beauty or aesthetics. They may also interpret physical features embedded in the product form (e.g., handles, switches, curvature) as cues for a proper use of the product. But there is an additional hidden layer of the design that may influence the judgement of consumers, that is the intention of the product designer(s). The intention could be an idea or a motive behind the design, as to what a designer wanted to achieve. However, intentions, only implicit in product appearance, may not be clear or easy to infer.

The intention of a designer may correspond to the artistic creativity of the product’s visual design (i.e., aesthetic appeal), its purpose and mode of use, and furthermore, extending symbolic meanings (e.g., social values, self-image of the target users). For a consumer, judgement could be a question of what one infers and understands from the product’s appearance, and how close one understands it to be the intention of the designer. For example, a consumer can make inferences from cues in the product form  (e.g., an espresso machine) about its appropriate function (e.g., how to insert a coffee capsule in order to make a drink) — but a consumer may ask herself, is that the way the designer intended the product to be used?  These inferences are interrelated and complementary in determining the ‘correct’ purpose, function or meaning of a product. There are original and innovative products for which the answers are more difficult to produce than for others based only on a product’s appearance.

  • Note: Colours and signs on the surface of a product may be informative in regard to function as well as symbolic associations of a product.

The researchers da Silva, Crilly and Hekkert (2015) investigated if and how consumers’ knowledge of the designers’ intentions can influence their appreciation of the respective products. Yet, in acknowledgement that consumers are likely to derive varied inferences on intention (some of them mistaken) from visual images of products, the researchers present verbal statements on intentions in addition to images. Moreover, their studies show that there is important significance to the contribution of the verbal statements, explicitly informing consumers-respondents of designers’ intentions, in influencing (improving) consumers’ appreciation of products (1).

To  begin with, consumers usually have different conceptions and understanding of design than professionals in the field. Thereby, most consumers are not familiar with terminology in the domain of design (e.g., typicality/novelty, complexity, unity, harmony) and may use their own vocabulary to describe attributes of appearance; if the same terms are used, they may not have the same meaning or interpretation among designers and common consumers (2). Nevertheless, consumers have innate tastes for design (e.g., based on principles of Gestalt), and with time they may develop better comprehension, appraisal skills, and refined preferences for design of artefacts (as well as buildings, paintings, photographs etc.). The preferences of individuals may progress as they develop greater design acumen and accumulate more experience in reacting to designed objects while preferences may also be affected by one’s personality traits. Design acumen, in particular, pertains to the aptitude or approach of people to visual design, which may be characterised by quicker sensory connections, greater sophistication of preferences, and stronger propensity for processing visual versus verbal information (3). The gaps prevailing between consumers and designers in domain knowledge and experience may cause diversions when making inferences directly about a product as well as when ‘reading’ the designer’s intention from the product’s appearance.

The starting point of da Silva, Crilly and Hekkert posits that “the designer’s intention can intuitively be regarded as the essence of a product and that knowledge of this intention can therefore affect how that product is appreciated” (p. 22). The ‘essence’ describes how a product is supposed to behave or perform as foreseen by the designer; thinking about it by consumers can give them pleasure as much as perceiving the product’s features.

Appreciation in Study 1 is measured as a composite of five scale items — liking, beauty, attractiveness, pleasingness, and niceness; it is a form of ‘valence judgement’ but with a strong “flavour” of aesthetics, a seeming remainder of its origin as a scale of aesthetic appreciation adapted by the researchers to represent general product appreciation.

  • Note: The degree to which the researchers succeeded in expanding the meaning of ‘appreciation’ may have some bearing on the findings where respondents make judgements beyond aesthetics (e.g., the scale lacks an item on ‘usefulness’).

At first it is established that knowledge of explicit intentions of designers, relating to 15 products in Study 1, influenced the appreciation of the designed products for good or bad (i.e., in absolute values) vis-à-vis the appreciation based on pictures alone. Subsequently, the researchers found support for overall increase in appreciation (i.e., positive effect) following the exposure to explicit statements of the designers’ intentions.

A deeper examination of the results revealed, however, that for three products there was a more substantial improvement; for ten products a moderate or minor increase was found due to intention knowledge; and two products suffered a decrement in appreciation. Furthermore, the less a product was appreciated based only on its image, the more it could gain in appreciation after consumers were informed of the designer’s intention. Products do not receive higher post-appreciation merely because they were appreciated better in the first place. More conspicuously, for products that were more difficult to interpret and judge based on their visual image, knowledge of the designer’s intention could help consumers-respondents realise and appreciate much better their purpose and why they were designed in that particular way, considering both their visual appeal and function (but there is a qualification to that, later explained).

The second study examined reasons for changes in appreciation following to being informed of designers’ intentions. Study 2 aimed to distinguish between appreciation that is due to appraisal of the intention per se and appreciation attributed to how well a product fulfills a designer’s intention, independent of whether a consumer approves or not of the intention itself. This study concentrated on three of the products used in Study 1, described briefly with their stated intentions (images included in the article):

  • A cross-cultural memory game (Product B) — The game “was designed with the aim of making the inhabitants of The Netherlands aware of their similarities instead of their differences” (i.e., comparing elements of Dutch and Middle Eastern cultures). [Product B gained the most in post-appreciation in Study 1.]
  • A partially transparent bag (Product C) — Things that are no longer in need, but are still in good condition, can be left in this bag on the street for anyone interested: “It was designed with the aim of enabling people to be generous towards strangers.” [Moderate gain.]
  • A “fitted-form” kitchen cupboard (Product G) — In this cupboard everyday products can be stored in fitted compartments according to their exact shapes. The designer’s intention said the product “was designed with the aim of helping people appreciate the comfortable predictability of daily household task”. [Product G gained the least in post-appreciation in Study 1.]

Consistent with Study 1, these three products were appreciated similarly and to a high degree based on images alone, and their appreciation increased to large, medium and small degrees after being informed of intentions. It is noted, however, that overall just half of respondents reported that knowing an intention changed how much they liked the respective product (about two-thirds for B, half for C, and a third for G). Subsequently respondents were probed about their reasons for changes in appreciation (liking) and specifically about their assessment of the product as means to achieve the stated intention. Three themes emerged as underlying the influence of intention knowledge on product appreciation: (a) perception of the product; (b) evaluation of the intention; and (c) evaluation of the product as a means to fulfill its intention (as explicitly queried).

Knowledge of the designer’s intention can change the way consumers perceive the product, its form and features. Firstly, it can make the product appear more interesting, such as by adding an element of surprise, an unexpected insight about its form (found especially for product B). In some cases it simply helps to comprehend the product’s form. The insight gained from knowing the designer’s intention may be expressed in revealing a new meaning of the product that improves appreciation (e.g., a more positive social ‘giving’ meaning of product C). But here is a snag — if the intention consumers are told of contradicts the meaning they assigned to the product when initially perceiving its image, it may inversely decrease one’s appreciation. For example, the ‘form-fitted’ cupboard (G) may seem nicely chaotic, but the way a consumer-participant interpreted it does not agree with the intention given by the designer (it ‘steals’ something from its attraction), and therefore the consumer becomes disappointed.

Upon being informed of the designer’s intention, a consumer may appreciate an idea or cause expressed in the intention itself (e.g., on merit of being morally virtuous, products B and C). The positive attitude towards the intention would then be transferred to the product (e.g., ‘helping people is a very beautiful thing’ in reference to C). On the downside, knowing an intention may push consumers away from a product (e.g., disliking the ‘predictability’ of one’s behaviour underlying product G). A product may thus gain or lose consumers’ favour in so far as the intention reflects on its essence.

But relying on a (declared) intention for the idea, cause or aim it conveys is not a sufficient criterion for driving appreciation upper or lower. Consumers also consider, as expected of them, whether the product is an able means to implement an idea or fulfill its aim. It is not just about what the designer intended to achieve but also how well a product was designed to achieve the designer’s goal. Participants in Study 2 were found to hold a product in favour for its capacity to fulfill its intended aim, even though they did not judge it as virtuous or worthy. There were also opposite cases where appreciation decreased but participants pointed out that the fault was not in the intention, rather in its implementation (e.g., “I think it’s a good idea [intention] but this [product C] won’t really work”). The authors suggest that participants use references in their judgements, including alternative known or imagined products which they believe to be more successful for fulfilling a similar aim or alternative aims or causes they could think of as appropriate for the same product.

The researchers find evidence in participants’ explanations suggesting they see how efficiency can be beautiful (e.g., how materials are used optimally and aesthetically). They relate this notion to a design principle of obtaining ‘maximum-effect-from-minimum-means’. Participants also endorsed novel or unusual means to realise the intention behind a product. Hekkert defined the principle above as one of the goals to pursue for a pleasing design.  It means conveying more information through fewer and simpler features, creating more meanings through a single construct, and applying metaphors. Hekkert also recommended a sensible balance between typicality and novelty (‘most advanced, yet acceptable’) that will inspire consumers but not intimidate them (4).

  • This research was carried out as part of the Project UMA: “Unified Model of Aesthetics” for designed artefacts at the Department of Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. (See how the model depicts a balance in meeting safety needs versus accomplishment needs for aesthetic pleasure: connectedness-autonomy, unity-variety, typicality-novelty).

Knowledge of the intentions of designers can elucidate for consumers why a product was designed to appear and to be used in a particular way. It contributes motivation or cause (e.g., social solidarity, energy-saving) for obtaining and using the designed product. But the intention should be reasonable and agreeable to consumers, and the product design in practice has to convince consumers it is fit and capable to fulfill the intention. It is nevertheless desirable that the product is visually pleasing, as an object of aesthetic appeal and as a communicator of functional and symbolic meanings.

When marketers assess that consumers are likely to have greater difficulty to interpret a product visual design and infer the intention behind it, they may wisely accompany a presentation of the product with a statement by the designer. This would apply, for instance, to innovative products, early products of their type, or original concepts for known products. The designer may introduce the design concept, his or her intention or aim, and perhaps how it was derived; this introduction may be delivered in text as well as video in assorted media as suitable (print, online, mobile). On the part of consumers, exposure to the designer’s viewpoint would  enrich their shopping and purchasing experience, helping them to develop better-tuned visual impressions and judgements of products.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

(1) How People’s Appreciation of Products Is Affected by Their Knowledge of the Designers’ Intentions; Odette da Silva, Nathan Crilly, & Paul Hekkert, 2015; International Journal of Design, 9 (2), pp. 21-33.

(2) How Consumers Perceive Product Appearance: The Identification of Three Product Appearance Attributes; Janneke Blijlevens, Marielle E.H. Creusen, & Jan P.L. Schoorman, 2009; International Journal of Design, 3 (3), pp. 27-35.

(3) Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response; Peter H. Bloch, 1995; Journal of Marketing, 59 (3), pp. 16-29.

(4) Design Aesthetics: Principles of Pleasure in Design; Paul Hekkert, 2006; Psychology Science, 48 (2), pp. 157-172.

Read Full Post »

The World Health Organization (WHO) created a storm of confusion and panic when it published on 26 October (2015) its warning on cancer risks from processed meat as well as red meat. The warning arose as the outcome of a year-long effort by a committee of 22 experts, led by WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who reviewed and analysed findings from 800 studies carried out in past years across the globe. The warning itself, alarming enough, is not disputed; the problem concerned here is with the way the IARC made its warning announcement to the public.

Before referring to the content of the cancer warning, it should be emphasised that this research project did not bring any new data as evidence but analysed collectively results from previous studies at various research institutions (i.e., it was a meta-analyis type of research; originally published in the medical journal Lancent Oncology). Thus, warnings about the risks of cancer in consuming larger amounts of processed meat and red meat, and findings that support them, are not new. The IARC added an important authoritative backing with the intention that its voice will receive greater public attention and better succeed in persuading consumers to modify their behaviour. However, the announcement was not made cleverly, and without corrective measures may end in failure of the IARC’s initiative.

The warning of the IARC is actually composed of two warnings, at two different levels of risk. The IARC distinguished in its press release (no. 240) between two categories of risk to which it assigned processed meat and red meat as follows:

Category 1: “Carcinogenic to humans”. Processed meat is classified in this category together with asbestos, tobacco (smoking), alcohol and arsenic. It is causally linked to bowel cancer, particularly colorectal cancer — IARC states that the classification relies on sufficient evidence in humans that consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer (i.e., colon and rectal). Processed meat relates to meat products that have gone through processes of curing, salting, smoking and fermentation to improve their preservation. They include popular products like sausage, hot dog, bacon, ham, and salami.

Categroy 2A: ” Probably carcinogenic”. The classification of red meat in this category is based on limited evidence of its causal link to cancer in humans but strong mechanistic evidence of a carcinogenic effect. Red meat includes beef & veal, lamb & sheep, and pork (e.g., in fresh cuts or mixes).  It has been identified as a probable cause of colorectal cancer but also associated with pancreatic and prostate cancers.

  • Unexplained in the press release, a mechanistic effect relates to the effect of chemical substances or processes at the individual level (i.e., on a single organism). It is enough to suggest here that stating ‘strong mechanistic evidence’ is ambiguous to most people since they cannot understand the significance (even after definition).

There can be little wonder that the announcement of IARC alarmed and puzzled consumers, plausibly holding their heads in their hands and saying: “What should we do now about those meat products that we eat?” Because so many meat products or food items seem to be covered in those warnings, consumers are justified in feeling lost about the drastic reduction in menu that is looming, especially for the more carnivore ones, vis-à-vis a fear of cancer. The news media has tried to fill some of the void with the help of health, food and diet experts, but with little help directly from WHO, in answering questions such as what food made of meat can one continue to consume and how much. Some experts, nonetheless, contributed positive recommendations that go beyond meat consumption.

With regard to the level of risk, the IARC did indicate the estimate of its experts that eating daily 50 grams (1.8 ounce) more of processed meat increases the risk of contracting colorectal cancer by 18%. In a separate comment to Reuters, Dr. Kurt Strife of IARC clarified that the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer in an individual from eating processed meat remains low but this risk increases when a greater amount of meat is consumed. The issue of quantity consumed is material as reflected also in recommendations from other sources. However, the IARC apparently did not see it as its responsibility to explain and recommend to the public how to act following its warning. In the official announcement to the press, Dr. Christopher Wild, director of IARC, called on governments and international regulatory agencies to “conduct risk assessments, in order to balance the risks and benefits of red meat and processed meat and to provide the best dietary recommendations”. The call on other agencies to act is commendable but the self-exemption by IARC is flawed.

The choice of IARC to couple its warning on processed meat as a cause of cancer with the warning on red meat as probable cause raises another problem. First, it produced an excessive warning with an overwhelming effect, asking the public to face a health limitation on a broad range of meat products at once. Consumers were likely to confront the joint-group heading “processed meat and red meat” before they could grasp the difference in level of risk; next they might assess more deeply the specific classes of meat and its products included. Second, adding at this time the warning on red meat could distract consumers from attending to and heeding the more serious cancer warning on processed meat, that is based on more conclusive evidence. It seems most acceptable from academic and clinical perspectives to publish the two warnings together, and it is understandable in regard to public health that the IARC would not want the risk associated with red meat to be neglected. Yet, when it comes to informing the public in the general media, the joint-warning could be superfluous and less effective in persuading consumers about the need to change their diet in view of cancer risks of either processed meat or red meat.

In advertising, brands are often cautioned that over-reaching product claims or promises might be received by consumers with disbelief and suspicion and thereafter be discarded. Conversely, excessive or too harsh warnings might induce disbelief and paralysing fear followed by resentment and rejection. On either side, messages that are perceived as excessive do not invoke trust in consumers, and in this case, not gaining their trust could be detrimental.

Another flaw in the press release that raised particular rage is the insinuated equivalence between eating processed meat and smoking tobacco. Associations in the meat industry attacked this equivalence and the research as a whole (e.g., UK, US, Canada, Australia), and government officials and other experts expressed their respective reservation in the media. It has been noted that there are grades in level of risk among causes of cancer in the first category, and that smoking remains the most dangerous single cause of cancer, much riskier than eating processed meat; excessive drinking of alcohol also bears a higher risk than the latter. But the mere listing of all those causes of cancer together, flatly as members in the same category, makes them equal and non-distinguishable to consumers. The IARC managed to grab attention alarmingly but probably not in the way they desired.

Different interpretations were suggested in the media, mostly in attempt to explain the meaning and implications of the warnings and to calm some of the public scare that was giving signs. Special attention was dedicated to differentiating between the cases of processed meat and red meat. The British Guardian told its readers that it was not advised to stop eating any processed meat or red meat. However, they clarified, consumption of processed meat should be cut considerably, particularly for those who are in habit of eating these food items daily (e.g., in breakfast). In addition, consumers are recommended to sanction their consumption of red meat, eating more moderately (“Processed Meats are Ranked Alongside Smoking as Cancer Causes – WHO”, The Guardian Online, 26 October 2015).

  • It is noted that in its press release the IARC stressed that their findings support previous recommendations to limit the intake of those types of meat, and in a later clarification to the media they iterated that IARC did not recommend to stop eating those meat products. In the press release Dr. Wild also acknowledges the nutritional value of red meat, confirming that there are benefits to consuming it.

The Guardian brings specific recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund that people should not eat more than 500 grams of red meat (beef, sheep and pork) a week, and to reduce as much as possible their consumption of processed products (e.g., ham, bacon, salami). Dr. Elizabeth Lund, an independent consultant in nutrition and gastrointestinal health, offers yet a more balanced approach in face of IARC’s warnings with helpful practical recommendations to consumers: “A much bigger risk factor is obesity and lack of exercise. Overall, I feel that eating meat once a day combined with plenty of fruit, vegetables and cereal fibre, plus exercise and weight control, will allow for a low risk of colorectal cancer and a more balanced diet.” 

Beef products attract great attention in their defence. Advocates emphasise the importance of how beef items are prepared and the method of heating. The problem is argued to be mostly with products prepared and packaged in advance by mass food manufacturers, but that is only a partial factor in the generation of cancer risk. Beef is often recommended for its content of iron [as well as proteins and other nutritional components.] However, scientists suggested that iron may lead to release of nitrates that act as a carcinogenic agent. This process may happen during preparation, grilling or frying, but also during digestion. According to this assertion, the main cause for alarm is attributed not to the ingredients added to meat but to compounds created during the heating of meat (e.g., quick, high temperature) or digestion. Beef items like hamburgers and kebab prepared at home or in small private-business premises from fresh mixes could be safer, but it does not eliminate the risk completely. This issue appears as a sensitive subject of controversy and friction between large manufacturers, small butcher enterprises, and restaurants (competing among themselves) and health agencies and experts.

Raising fear in consumers can move them to take necessary action to reduce the risk (e.g., not driving after drinking alcohol) — research has provided support for a positive effect of fear inducement. Scaring people, such as by an excessive demonstration of a threat (e.g., car accidents) or its scope, may cause a paralysing effect but even that may not be the main problem. Goldstein, Martin and Cialdini suggest that a greater problem occurs when inducing fear without guiding people how they can reduce the danger. If the producer of the risk warning does not accompany it with recommendations for action in order to reduce it, a consumer is left with the fear with no way out. He or she is more likely in this situation to deal with the fear by “blocking-out” the message, dissociating oneself from the threat, and indeed be paralysed into taking no action (1). This is where IARC failed — they introduced the fear by itself. It was IARC’s responsibility as issuer of the warning to recommend actions to consumers like how to change their diet and taking other supportive measures.

Another viewpoint concerns the way consumers approach the risk and respond to it. Pennings, Wansink and Meulenberg propose decoupling the risk perception (i.e., how consumers assess the level of uncertainty) from the risk attitude (e.g., the extent to which consumers are risk-aversive) in anticipating consumer response to a risk (e.g., decreased food safety) and confronting it. What counts first is the chance a consumer perceives that he or she will be personally affected and then how to deal with it (e.g., stop or reduce consuming the risky food). Furthermore, the researchers suggest that segments which differ in their risk perception and attitude, and how they weigh them, should be distinguished; they may require each a different treatment (2).

The case here is different from the crisis case studied by Pennings et al. (‘mad cow disease’) because it did not arise due to an epidemic outbreak or a company’s malpractice (e.g., crisis of Remedia’s milk formulae for babies in Israel) — it is not a particular event but a more ongoing condition. Yet, at this point in time it is a crisis for consumers evoked by a new warning about a health threat. Health authorities and agencies will have to decide, for example, if the more appropriate strategy in any market or segment is to provide clearer information about the level of risk (reducing uncertainty) or tighten controls and supervision of food production of meat (i.e., because consumers do not tolerate cancer risk at almost any level of probability).

  • Special consideration may also be needed to persuade segments like young consumers in their 20s who do not care how their behaviour will impact their health thirty years away, partly because they simply cannot imagine what bad impact it could have — they are concentrated on enjoying their lives today; or consumers in lower socio-economic decile who eat those types of meat products (e.g., hamburgers, hot dogs) out of necessity, because these are cheaper food items for their meals.

The researchers and officials at IARC and WHO are clearly concerned about the possibility that consumers will become ill with cancer due to the amounts of processed meat and red meat that they eat, aiming at causing consumers to change their diet habits and reduce the threat and suffering. But they left a void by launching an incomplete persuasion effort — it was taken as over-threatening on one hand and lacking guidance on the other hand through practical recommendations to consumers how to act to improve their health prospects. In order to increase the chance that consumers will heed the risk and act as desired the IARC will be required to provide guidance and support to the public on its own and through collaboration with other agencies for a quicker response to consumer confusion and fear.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

(1) Yes! 50 Secrets from the Science of Persuasion; Noah J. Goldstein, Steve J. Martin, & Robert B. Cialdini, 2013; Profile Books.

(2) A Note on Modeling a Consumer Reaction to a Crisis: The Case of the Mad Cow Disease; Joost M.E. Pennings, Brian Wansink, & Matthew T.G. Meulenberg, 2002; International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, pp. 91-100.

Read Full Post »

The EXPO 2015 exhibition in Milano, that is coming to a close at the end of October, has concentrated on the future of agriculture and food on our planet. The urgency of these topics is elevated by adverse conditions of climate change (warming) and shortage in water, predicted to worsen further. The EXPO is generally a prime opportunity for countries to promote their nation-brands. This time countries were invited to showcase their advanced scientific and technological capabilities by offering programmes and solutions to overcome environmental and economic challenges of agriculture and food provision.

The supermarket retailer Coop of Italy has yet taken a different direction, within the realm of its business specialisation: Coop Italia proposes at EXPO 2015 its vision of how shopping will be conducted in future supermarkets. They have put on stage a functioning model of a supermarket store (Future Food District / il supermercato del futuro) where detailed product information is displayed on large digital screens and check-out and payment are performed on computer-automated terminals. Almost obviously, such a supermarket will require even fewer human service personnel than met today in the store.

  • Coop Italia covers online (in Italian) a range of aspects such as food retailing, shopping, technology, and the future of food itself.

Coop Italia: Future Food District at EXPO 2015 (3)

It should be emphasised that the experimental supermarket of Coop at EXPO Milano is not just for demonstration but visitors of the site can practically collect food products into their shopping baskets and purchase them at the end of their trip. In the store’s front and on the upper level a visitor/shopper may find fresh produce and packaged food products displayed on shelves. From there he or she may descend to the lower level to find mostly refrigerated and frozen products. If products were actually selected from the display area, the shopper may go to the self-service scan-and-pay terminals and finalise the purchase (payment can be made by credit and debit cards or in cash).

The prospective format offers, according to Coop Italia, new interactions between consumers, products and producers. Mainly, consumers can observe and read from digital display screens much more information on products and their producers than has been traditionally possible in supermarkets. The screens are hanging usually above shelf cabinets or refrigerators at about head level. When the shopperCoop Italia: Future Food District at EXPO 2015 (4) points to a particular product’s title and image on the nearest screen, a variety of details in text and graphics, and a larger pictorial image of the product, will appear on screen. Besides the essentials of product name, size measures and price, additional information may be presented on product components and nutritional values (e.g., calories, sugar, salt, fat, protein, fibres), and on its source (e.g., producer company and country of origin). This facility should save shoppers the effort of tearing their eyes while reading small print on product packages, where packaging is relevant at all. The information is also displayed in a more friendly and comprehensible form (e.g., using understandable terms, illustrated visually in graphic charts). These enhancements of the future shopping experience are much about advanced display technology and data visualization.

Occasionally the visitor/shopper may also see some sales statistics and more background on growing and production of the product of interest with emphasis on nutritional and health implications. Coop Italia suggests that presenting more of these kinds of information will give better direction to consumers on preferred or recommended food products in future times (e.g., given new constraints on food provision). Thus Coop connects to the general issue of the future of food at the focus of EXPO 2015.

Coop Italia: Future Food District at EXPO 2015 (1)

Being on site, the space of the supermarket looked elegant and modern. The large black screens hanging over, positioned in an angle as “\”, definitely signalled a change in the visual scene of the store. It was the first cue to be noticed as to how the future supermarket could be different. The screens were easily discernible but their arrangement was not in any way disturbing to the eye — one could quickly get used to them. Activating the display and viewing information for any chosen product was intriguing and to some extent even entertaining. On one hand it felt like “playing” while shopping, on the other hand it increased interest in products considered, if only for curiosity and not for purchase. The information presented was usually helpful and of practical value for decision-making. Overall, the future supermarket model appeared to enrich the shopping experience.

There were some impediments, however, in practice. Making the screen to display information related to a desired product was not always smooth and easy. It was not clear, for instance, if one should raise a chosen product item up to the screen above or just point towards the image of the relevant product (visitors could be seen trying both). Whatever sensors were supposed to identify the gesture of the shopper’s hand or the product itself, they occasionally were not satisfactorily responsive. Most screens were located on-top so that shoppers could not touch them, and therefore the question was: How do I cause the system to recognize my choice of product. But perhaps it was also a matter of some more training by the shopper to get it right (gamers should have better success with such a system).

Screens on-top and as panels on the door-side of refrigerators

Screens on-top and as panels on the door-side of refrigerators

Additionally, sometimes it felt the information displayed changed too quickly, not giving enough time to review parts of the data provided. Information on each product was usually screened in two or three “shots” (i.e., display of first portion of product information replaced by display of the next portion). Since the shopper has no control of the duration of display, it could be sometimes irritating when, as a shopper, I could not review a data figure of interest in time. But one should remember that usually a shopper is not alone and the same screen may have to serve multiple customers within a few minutes, so a single shopper may be allowed just a brief time to inspect the most needed information. The stress on shoppers might be felt particularly during peak hours of shopping.  Hence, shoppers may benefit from the convenience of viewing information on large screens, but when necessary they should be able to toggle to the private screens on their mobile devices to continue their review of product information.

  • It is noted that Coop Italia provides QR codes for products that shoppers can scan and access the product information on their own devices (and possibly conduct the purchase online).

Regardless of the technology employed, the Coop deserves congratulating for their visually appealing layout and arrangement of product display, and its orderliness and cleanliness. It was evident that great care was invested in setting-up and housekeeping the supermarket. Since this is indeed an experimental stage for the future supermarket, it is reasonable and expected  that work to improve the performance and usability of the technology installed will continue. When it arrives, the younger generations will most likely be prepared for this concept. In summary, the shopping experience ‘nel supermercato del futuro’ was positive and encouraging.

 


How is Coop Italia perceived following its initiative? Naturally, the Coop would expect its Future Food District initiative to have a positive effect on the company’s image. Feedback they received from consumers following their visit of the future supermarket included (most frequent responses, cited from video clip):

  • The Coop demonstrates that it is modern and up-to-date (48%)
  • The Coop demonstrates that it has at heart the future of the planet and its inhabitants (29%)
  • The Coop demonstrates that it keeps in line with the new requirements of consumers (27%)
  • The Coop anticipates the future (19%)
  • The Coop is looking to generate curiosity and interest (13%)

But 16.5% also indicated that the Coop has gone too much ahead of its time, that consumers are not ready yet for all this technology, and 15% argued that the Coop may risk distancing those who are not familiar with the technology. Hence, the technological advances may be welcome, yet it could be too early to implement at this time.

 


The EXPO exhibition in Milano this year was enormous in scope and fascinating; it was well-organised and instructive. All countries presented products and other artefacts, images and models standing for some of their national and cultural assets and symbols,   emphasising, as much as possible for each country, environmental considerations and priorities. The differences in scale between exhibits of countries, however, were striking. There was also large diversity in level of sophistication of presentation, in the technologies used and other display aids applied. In particular, some countries focused more on high-tech techniques while others relied mainly on low-tech features.

Country exhibits hosted in shared-pavilions by theme (e.g., Cacao and chocolate, coffee, rice, bio-Mediterranean, arid zone) were modest; those countries also related  moderately to projects or developments to resolve agricultural and food challenges. But even among smaller exhibits it is unfair to talk of homogeneity because some countries were enlightening exceptions who managed to put up impressive and interesting exhibits.

Countries exhibiting in their own pavilions blended more expansively between their traditional assets and their programmes and technological solutions dedicated specifically to the challenges of future agriculture and food. It must be noted that some pavilions were impressive in their architecture per se. But the country pavilions also proved that size is not everything — diversity in level of effort invested, ingenuity and richness was discernible among those pavilion exhibitions. Furthermore, it also did not seem that variation in quality, originality and interest of exhibits was accounted for merely by differences in economic power or resources.

Israel Pavilion at EXPO 2015: A Vertical Field

Israel Pavilion at EXPO 2015: A Vertical Field

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »