La mercadotecnia y las mamás en eua
* Ir al primer resultado Headnote This study demonstrates links between mothers’ interactions with children and general attitudes, values, and behaviors. It combines consumer socialization theory with psychographic and behavioral syndicated data and segments moms into SIX distinguishable and actionable clusters that explain information exchange, influence, and decision-making dynamics between mother and child in the marketplace. Examples are given of how knowledge of these cluster similarities and differences can be used by companies in their product and promotion strategies.
Consumer socialization is generally considered to be «the rocess by which Young people acquire skills, knowledge, and attitudes relevant to their functionin as consumers in the marketplace» (Ward 1 by observing person 0! ‘ purchasing situations v m in others, and as reci instruction. be to be consumers n-making and lors they observe socialization Interest in mothers as consumer socialization agents grew in the late 1970s and 1980s (Carlson and Grossbart 1988; Crosby and Grossbart 1984).
Although family dynamics appear to be changing, mothers are Still thought to be stronger consumer socialization agents because they are traditionally involved more irectly and more regularly with their children in caretaking, supervision, disciplinar,’ interactions, and consumer situations. As a result, mothers are more likely to mediate their
Swlpe to vlew next page Mothers influence their children’s consumer socialization through direct instruction in consumer skills, indirect influence through modeling behavior, and providing consumer opportunities. Mothers influence and maintain control over children’s consumer activities by serving as gatekeepers to information and influence nd by controlling money available to the child (McNeal 1987, MOSChiS 1985; Reece 1982; ward, wackrnan, and wartella 1977), often creating a «‘four-eyed, four-leggedl’ consumer dynamic.
Moore, Wilkie, and Cutz suggest that intergenerational influence is «an important source of brand equity for some, but not all brands, in today’s marketplace that is deserving of further attention by the marketing community» (2002, p. 35). ThlS study examines the consumer interactions between U. S. mothers and their kids, linking these interactions to mothers’ more general attitudes, values, and behaviors. It combines yndicated data in order to segment the U.
S. mom market into distinguishable and actionable clusters. The specific goal of this clustering is to provide added information to marketing professionals in understanding the complexities of information selection and exchange, power, and decision-making dynamics when a mother and chlld interact in the marketplace. An algorithm is presented that can be used by companies in targeting, product development, and promotion strategies.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Examination of the consumer socialization of children has most often taken the form of exploring differences in family ommunication Styles and how these differences manifest in socialization interactions be 2 3 in family communication Styles and how these differences manifest in socialization interactions between parent and child. The Role of Parenting Style in Children’s Consumer Socialization «The family context of interpersonal communication is believed to have the greatest influence in consumer socialization» (Moschis 1985, p. 98). Family communication patterns help children learn how to cope with situations they may encounter outside the home and away from parent intervention by establishing norms nd expectations of values, attitudes, influences, and behaviors. Parents and children engage in communications with each other based on two relatively uncorrelated dimensions-socio and concept orientations (McLeod and Chaffee 1972).
Sociooriented communicatlon «produces deference, and fosters harmonious and pleasant social relationships at home,» while concept- oriented communications i’focus on positive constraints that help the child develop his or her own views about the world» (Moschis 1985, p. 899). These communication dynamic orientations have been used as explanatory variables in studies of children’s socialization.
Socio orientation is related to motivations for television watching, which is related to materialism (Moore and Moschis 1981). Limiting a child’s exposure to television and refuslng their requests (Carlson, Grossbart, and Walsh 1990) are associated with socio orientation as well. Fujioka and Austin (2002) found that while socio-oriented parents typically use positive mediation and coviewing they do not necessarily engage in discussion of television messages with their children (Fujioka and Austin 2002).
Mothers’ concept orientations are related to the number 33 Mothers’ concept orientations are related to the number of onsumer goals she sets for her children, discussing advertising, coviewing of media, coshoppng with her children, allowing her children to have an influence on purchases, yielding to her childrenis requests, and granting her children consumer independence (Carlson, Grossbart, and Walsh 1990). Concept- oriented mothers alsa tend to engage in both positive (endorsing W messages) and negative (counter-reinforcing of messages) mediation of television messages (Fujioka and Austin 2002).
Parents and children from concept-oriented family structures tend to agree more on the amount of influence the child has ver purchase decisions (Foxman, Tansuhaj, and Ekstrom 1989). In a family structure characterized by warm communication/ interaction Styles, reverse socialization (i. e. , parents learning skills and behaviors from their children) can also occur (Grossbart et al. 2002). The examination of family communication Style has been extended to an international context to study the influence of family communication Styles on children’s consumer socialization in a cross-national sampling. In a comparison study, U. S. others were found to be more concept-oriented than Japanese mothers (Rose, Bush, and Kahle, 1998), and therefore more encouraging f their children developing an independent perspective. Cross- nationally, concept orientation is related to earlier expectations of consumer skills and knowledge, coshopping, and controlling viewing (Rose, Dalakas, and Kropp 2002). Socio orientation in mothers is related to later developmental timetables (Rose 1999), more consumption depen 4 33 in mothers is related to later developmental timetables (Rose 1999), more consumption dependence, and less child Influence (Rose, Boush, and Shoham 2002).
Carlson and Grossbart (1988) propose an alternate, but similar, parental-style classification based on Baumrind’s (1968) research n the structural components of socialization and how parent- child power and communication dynamics differ between families. Placement along the two dimensions proposed by Carlson and Grossbart (1988) allow categorization into a matrix of restrictiveness/permissiveness and warmth/hostility. These categories are often used as explanatory variables in child socialization research (Carlson, Laczniak, and Walsh 2001; Walsh, Laczniak, and carlson 1998). Authoritative (high restrictiveness/high warmth): These parents View rights and responsibilities of adults and children as complementary and changing as the child develops. They ncourage self-expression and value self-will and autonomy. They expect disciplined conformity and use firm control to confront disobedience, but only when it is needed. They are warm, conscientious, and supportive. They explain rules, Offer choices, and solicit the child’s opinion (Carlson and Grossbart 1988, p. 79).
They take an active role In the child’s television viewing and they discuss n. » advertising with their children. ‘k Authoritarian (high restrictiveness/low warmth): These parents seek high levels of control over their children. hey View children as egotistical and impulsive. They judge children•s conduct by eligious or other standards endorsed by authority figures, and they support government regulation of children’s television. They expect unquestioned obe s 3 figures, and they support government regulation of children’s television.
They expect unquestioned obedience (Carlson and Grossbart 1988, p. 78). permissive/indulgent (high permissiveness/high warmth): These parents allow their children to have substantial freedom. They regard children as having adult rights, but few responsibilities, and tend to respect their children’s impulsiveness. They tend to View themselves as resources, not active shapers of children. They support nonfamilial restrictions on children’s television. They obtain compliance by reasoning, rather than overt control (Carlson and Grossbart 1988, p. 79). Neglecting (high permissiveness/low warmth): These parents maintain distant relatlons with their children. They neither seek nor exercise control over children. They are often self-involved and deny or wish to avoid parental obligations (Carlson and Researchers have been interested in understanding how parent communication Styles influence mediation of children’s television viewing. Two recent studies suggest that parents’ interactions ith their children about advertising can have a significant impact on how children are affected by advertising.
One study found that coviewing, restrictive mediatlon (restrictions on content or time of viewing), and instructive mediation (parent-child discussion of content) were explained by parents’ concerns about television and also by their involvement with their children. Parents who spent more time with their children (accessibility) and were directly engaged in activities with their children (engagement) were more likely to mediate their children’s television viewing (Warren, Gerke, a 6 3 engagement) were more likely to mediate their children’s television viewng (Warren, Gerke, and Kelly 2002).
Moreover, Buijzen and Valkenburg (2003) found that parent-child communicatlon about advertising and consumption moderated the effects of advertising on children’s materialism and purchase requests. The influence that parents have on a child’s consumer socialization appears to exist long term (Viswanathan, Childers, and Moore 2000), as studies with adults have found that communication between parents and children about advertising and consumption is related to more positive attitudes about dvertising as an adult (Bush, Smith, and Martin 1999).
Intergeneratlonal influence has also been shown to be an important determinant of brand preference (Childers and Rao 1992), and intergenerational brand and product preferences that exist into adulthood are strongly related to a child’s belief that his or her personal desires were considered in household purchases (Moore, Wilkie, and Cutz 2002).
Although numerous studies have demonstrated the influence of family communication Styles on parents’ consumer socialization of children, these studies have most often examined communicatlon Style as a predictor of parent behavior by sing parent participants’ scores on the various scales as an independent variable in the examination. What is missing, however, is a more comprehensive understanding of how these parent communication Styles exist within a larger population and how these Styles are related to other values, opinions, and beliefs.
STUDY This study was inspired by previous studies of parental Style and consumer socialization (Carlson and Grossbart 1988; Moschis 1985) parental Style and consumer socialization (Carlson and Grossbart 1988; Moschis 1985). Its purpose was to explore mothers’ communication patterns with their children in a larger context, in rder to bulld a segmentation model representative of the entire United States, which could be used by practitioners. It sought to link communication tendencies with mothers’ more holistic values, attitudes, opinions, and marketplace behaviors.
Past studies traditionally used a limited set ofvariables and examined communication Style as a predictor of attitudes and behavior, rather than as a consequence of values. METHOD The Simmons Market Research Bureau (SMRB) 2003 Full Year Study was used, selecting only those participants who self- reported they were the mother of a child age 18 or younger (n = 4,400). The analysis was based on the 1 59 SMRB questions in the following categories: values, opinions, and interests; social interaction; self-concept; shopping behavior; and attitudes about technology, lifestyle, the Internet, personal finance, diet and health, travel, and media.
Within this set of 159 are 1 5 questions specifically re ated to parent-child marketplace interactions, parents’ attitudes about appropriate children’s roles and marketing influence, and socialization behaviors that have been demonstrated in previous Studies (Buijzen and Valkenburg 2003; Bush, Smith, and Martin 1999; Carlson, Grossbart, and alSh 1990; puji0ka and Austin 2002; Moore and MOSChiS 1981 ; Rose, Dalakas, and Kropp 2002; Warren, Gerke, and Kelly 2002).
Although the SMRB questions are not directly representative of the socio/concept orientation, permissive/ restrictive, or warmth/ hostility dimensions used 33 of the socio/concept orientation, permissive/ restrictive, or warmth/hostility dimensions used in previous research, they do reflect the spirit of prior research examining haw parents and children interact in the marketplace and communicate about factors that contribute to consumer socialization (such as advertising). SB20: I don’t like it when my children ask for nonessential purchases.
SB23: I often postpone purchases for my children until special occaslons. ME23: Advertising to children is wrong. PFI 8: I teach my children to be careful with money. GE57: Nowadays, children are exposed to too much materialism. GE48: Children should be allowed to express themselves freely. GE55: I like to provide my children with the things I didnt have as a child. GE56: I often indulge my children with little extras. SB 18: enjoy shopping with my children. SB 19: My children have a significant impact on the brands choose.
GEI 08: I find it dlfficult to say no to my kids. SB21: I find it hard to resist my children’s requests for nonessential purchases. ME30: enjoy watching kids’ TV shows with my children. ME31: Advertising helps me choose products to buy for my children. GE54: When I play with my children, think I enjoy their toys even more than they do. A two-stage cluster analysis was conducted using hierarchical clustenng to determine the inltlal number of clusters, followed by an iterative K-means clustering.
All clustering was conducted at the respondent level and then aggregated for reporting. Several options were considered for the number of clusters with a final etermination required be and six-cluster solution. Because there is «no single final determination required between a flve- and six-cluster solution. Because there is «no single standard, objective selection procedure» for determining the number of clusters (Hair et al. 1995, p. 42), standardized centroid mean comparisons and variances for all 159 variables were compared cluster-by-cluster to determine distances. A priori, the marketing practitioners who would be using these clusters in client work were consulted for their intuitive opinions on strategic differentiation, theoretical onceptualization, usability, and interest. The five-cluster solution, while providing efficiency, lost the power of differentiation for two of the segments, so the decision was made to use the six-cluster solution that was determined to be the most parsimonious.
RESULTS Results of the cluster analysis indicated the existence of Six distinct mom segments, differentiated by their core life values, interests and attitudes, social interaction, self-concept, and interaction with their child (Neeley and Coffey 2004). Even though income, race, marital status, and geographic location provide dditional explanation for each segment, these variables are dispersed across all segments so no particular segment can be deemed specific to any demographic variable.
Each segment and its respective percentage within the I_J. S. population are detailed in Table 1. The first three mom clusters are similar in that they tend to be more marketing receptive. They are more accepting of outside influences on their children, such as the media, brand imagery•, and other people. They enjoy indulging their children and tend to be more receptive to their children’s requests as well. They look at eac