- Email: [email protected]
Consumer satisfaction with food products
Viewpoint
views.’ If even proposals for piecemeal restructuring of the world food economy are to be taken seriously, then internationalists in developed countries must acknowledge and refute the sceptical and negative views which claim to reflect realistic assessments of national self-interest.
’ North-South: A Programme for Survival. (‘The Brandt report’), Pan Books, London, ‘I 980. 2 Op tit, Ref 1 I pp 91-3. and for an example of such projections: international Food Polrcy Research institute, Food of Developing Countries: Needs and Projections of Production Consumption to 1990, Research Report No 3, Washington DC, 1976. 3 World Food Counctl. Food Crisis Cuntjngency Planning, Report by the Executive Director, WFCilQ8014, Rome, 1980. * Op cit. Ref 1, p 9. 5 Op tit, Ref 3. “J.P. Houck and M.E. Ryan, Economic Research on international Grain Reserves: The State of Knowledge. Station Bulletin No 532, Agricuitural
Edward J. Clay, Institute
of ~evalopment
Studies,
~niversjty
of Sussex,
Brighton,
UK
This is a revised version of a background paper for the IDSiODl meeting ‘World Food Security in the Context of the Brandt Commission Proposals’, RIIA. Chatham House, London, 7 May 1980.
Consumer satisfaction An
jmportant
market
performance.
existence and
problem
consumption.
some
Responding assigning depend
comparing
market resource
and
even though
high priority
the
interest.
satisfaction
problem
resources.
central
role
areas,
of food
attitudes
protection can
provide
a range
consumption to policy
makers
are
designed
programmes a basis
afiocating
in everday
to
may
measures.’ makers
of products
of etternative
the
approach
policy
and for effectively
importance
viewing
of programmes
which across
are
economist,s
consumer
Given the number
is of special
such as the
additional
movement,
to the development Effective
to measure
in production
consumer
of the
consumer
of information
of consumer
allocation
makers
performance,
availability
protectjon
used criteria
policy
objectivity
best
and externalities
as an important
and
levels
traditjona~iy
barriers,
however,
of the
the
is how
satisfaction
to the growth
for identifying
consumer
have
of the precision
the consumer on
services,
of market
with food products
pot~cy makers
entry
increasingly,
a relatively
to protect
forces,
of consumer
the assessment
public
Economists
of monopoly
measurement lack
facing
for and
limited
foods on the life,
effective
concerned
with
food and agriculture.
The value of consumer satisfaction as a measure of market performance is already widely recognized by marketing practitioners who view the satisfaction of consumer needs as one of the principal goals of marketing activity. If both policy makers and marketers can agree on the usefulness of satisfaction data as a performance measure, the probability of cooperative efforts between these two groups to correct the causes of dissatisfaction with particular products or services is likely to be enhanced. Interest in consumer satisfaction studies also stems from the growing recognition of the limitations of conventional complaint data as a measure of consumer dissatisfaction
FOOD
POLICY
November
1980
University of Experiment Statlon, Minnesota, St Paul, MN, 1979. ‘World Food Council, ‘Italian political action on food and hunger results tn devefopment assistance substantial increase’, Rome, 1979; Hunger in the World, a report on behalf of the CommIttee on Development and Cooperation of the European Parliament, Working document 34 l/80, 1980. ’ R. Sobhan, ‘Politics of food and famine m Bangladesh’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 14, No 48, 1979, pp 197380. ’ Foreign and Commonwealth OffIce. The Brandt Commission Report, a memorandum prepared for the Overseas Development Sub-Committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, HMSO, London, 1980
within a population, and as a means of giving priority to problem categories of products and services to guide policy interventions.2 Several studies have suggested that complaint letters tend not to be representative either of the types of problems confronting consumers or of the types of people experiencing consumer problems. For example, complaint letters suffer from ‘big ticket’ bias since they tend to focus on unsatisfactory consumption experiences with products that are unusually important to the consumer. Volunteered complaints therefore tend to underrepresent dissatisfactions with lower cost items or those which play a relatively modest role in the consumer’s daily life. There is some
as well, that writers of evidence, complaint letters or those who take some action to their resolve dissatisfaction are atypical of the entire population since they tend to be younger, better educated, more aftluent, and more active politically than noncomplainers.3 The overriding concern about complaint letters, however, is that they may simply represent the tip of the iceberg. The number of dissatisfied consumers may substantially exceed the number who complain, particularly if the consumer is unclear about how to voice a complaint. Concern with the value of complaint data as a diagnostic tool, has increased interest in the application of the survey research technique to the problem of measuring consumer satisfaction. This article reports a portion of the results of one such survey conducted for the Consumer Research and Evaluation Branch of the Canadian Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Research method The data for this study were obtained as part of a nationwide survey of Canadian consumers in 1979. The survey instruments employed in this research were similar to those used previously in a local study conducted in Bloomington, Indiana.4 In both cases, the instruments obtained data on consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction and complaining
313
Viewpoint behaviour on an aided recall basis. The data gathered were with selfadministered questionnaires using the ‘drop-off/pick-up’ method to a national probability sample of approximately 3 000 dwelling units. A five-stage, stratified probability sample drawn from a national frame comprising 42 000 enumeration areas distributed across the five regions of Canada was used to collect the data. The sampling plan represented a compromise between a strict random sample and a conventional quota sample in that cost constraints required substitution of households at the block level. Although the exact true response rate cannot be computed with the modified probability sample drawn for this study, results have shown that the data compare favourably with Statistics Canada census information. Usable questionnaires were furnished by 3 123 adult Canadians, both males and females. eighteen years of age and over. Of these, 1 041 subjects answered a questionnaire covering four categories of non-durables; consumer food products; household supplies; personal and health care products; and clothing. The results reported in this article pertain to the food products section of this questionnaire covering twenty-six product categories. Interviewers were instructed to interview the household member primarily responsible for buying the types of products or services covered by a particular questionnaire. Thus, the household self-selected a primary decision maker who acted as a spokesman for the household in completing the questionnaire.
Food products The initial task required respondents to indicate whether or not they had purchased each of twenty-six food products during the previous year. Those who indicated that they had used the product were asked to rate the frequency of purchase and their relative extent of satisfaction or dissatisfaction within the category. Subjects then indicated whether or not they had been ‘highly dissatisfied’ with any of the twenty-six categories during the past year and, if so, stated the one product which was ‘the most unsatisfactory of all’. The remaining questions in the
314
section provided additional data on this single most unsatisfactory product. First, subjects were asked to complete a set of questions identifying their reasons for dissatisfaction. Then, those reporting dissatisfaction were asked to indicate what steps were taken, if any, to resolve their dissatisfaction. In line with the framework developed by Day and Landon the action options were divided into two groups - personal actions and direct or public actions. Respondents who reported taking direct action were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the way their complaints were handled. Subjects who reported taking no action when dissatisfied were questioned as to their reason for not doing so.
Baseline data Certain limitations to the scope of the study should be noted. First, there is no historical dimension to the study. No conclusions can be drawn as to whether consumers are more satisfied with food products today than they were in the past. However, it is anticipated that this study will provide baseline data against which the results of future surveys can be compared. It may be noted, though, that differences in consumer satisfaction over time may not only be caused by objective changes in product quality or performance, but also by changes consumer perceptions and in expectations.6 Second, no attempt is made to develop an overall index of consumer satisfaction which might serve as a social indicator analagous to the Consumer Price Index. The advantages and problems associated with development of such an index have been discussed elsewhere.’ Third, the study does not permit a detailed diagnosis of the reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction with specific food products in terms of their attribute profiles. Handy’ has previously defined consumer dissatisfaction as ‘the gap or distance between consumer’s “ideal” the attribute combination for a particular product or service and the attribute combination of the product or service offered in the marketplace which comes closest to his ideal’. In this study, detailed attribute-related reasons for
dissatisfaction are not available. Problems associated with product attributes performance are and subsumed within a broader set of reasons for dissatisfaction covering the major dimensions of marketing practice.
Satisfaction Table 1 summarizes responses denoting the frequency of use and level of satisfaction and dissatisfaction for each twenty-six food product of the categories. The percentage of subjects purchasing each food product during the past year is first listed, followed by the percentage of purchasers buying the ‘often’ as product opposed to ‘sometimes’. Next, the relative which purchasers frequency with checked each of four satisfaction/ dissatisfaction scale responses is reported. The final columns in Table 1 summarize the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied subjects in each food category. The information presented in Table 1 is not available either from volunteered complaint data or from studies which ask consumers to recall a single unsatisfactory experience. The problem of ‘big ticket’ bias has been identified with both of these approaches and the suggestion is that recurring causes of dissatisfaction with less important items such as food products may not be brought up to the attention of business leaders, consumer interest groups or policy makers. Information on the rate of use of products permits the number of expressing dissatisfaction consumers with the category to be considered in relation to the total number of respondents reporting usage of the category within the recall period. For dietetic, and example, specialty, gourmet foods ranked twenty-fifth in terms of percentage of respondents who had purchased, but ranked tenth in terms of percentage of dissatisfied purchasers. Specialty foods would probably not figure on conventional complaint lists as a problem in the food products area because the absolute number of purchasers is relatively small. Although the number of users is itself of significance to consumer protection the agencies, this example pinpoints weaknesses of setting policy priorities
FOOD
POLICY
November
1980
Viewpoint Table
1. Food products:
Category
Fresh bread, rolls, cakes, other baked goods Frozen bread, dough, pizza, cakes, pie crust Flour, cornmeal, rice Macaroni and noodle products Breakfast cereals Syrups, molasses, honey Sugar, salt, spices, seasonings Cake/cookie mix, pudding, desserts, party food Margarine, cooking oils, shortening Peanut butter, jams, jellies, spread Milk, cheese, yogurt, butter, ice cream, dairy Eggs and egg products Non-alcoholic beverages Canned, frozen fruits, vegetables, soups Cooked, canned or processed meat, poultry, fish, dinners Pickles, mustard, ketchup, other dressings Baby food, juices, formula Fresh or frozen meats Fresh, frozen, BBQ poultry Fresh or frozen fish/seafood Fresh fruits/ vegetables Specialty, dietetic, gourmet foods Pet food Alcoholic beverages Restaurant meals Take-out foods a
Based on 1040
FOOD
purchase; frequency
rating; satisfaction/dissatisfaction
Purchase
Frequency
%of respondents having purchased
% of purchasers buying 0 ften
97.6
74.1
55.1
rating.a
rating
% of purchasers OIite
% of purchasers satisfied dissatisfied Total Rank Total Rank
5.3
1.3
93.4
16
6.6
10
54.9
10.6
2.2
87.2
21
12.8
6
65.0
33.3
1.4
0.3
98.3
3
1.7
24
12 13
64.7 56.4
33.5 38.4
1.5 4.4
0.3 0.8
98.2 94.8
4 12
1.8 5.2
23 15
38.0
20
65.1
33.7
0.9
0.3
98.8
1
1.2
26
98.0
73.3
9
68.4
29.7
1.3
0.6
98.1
5
1.9
21
86.4
38.1
19
49.9
45.0
4.2
0.9
94.9
11
5.1
16
98.0
79.8
6
65.9
32.2
1.3
0.6
98.1
5
1.9
21
93.1
55.3
15
60.5
36.3
2.7
0.5
96.8
8
3.2
18
99.5
91.9
1
60.8
33.3
4.9
1 .o
94.1
15
5.9
12
97.4
88.9
3
58.7
36.0
4.5
0.8
94.7
13
5.3
14
98.2
82.0
5
60.0
36.7
2.6
0.6
96.7
9
3.2
18
89.7
56.9
14
48.8
45.5
4.8
0.9
94.3
14
5.7
13
76.8
31.3
21
35.4
49.0
13.1
2.5
84.4
24
15.6
3
96.7
53.5
17
61.7
36.8
1.2
0.3
98.5
2
1.5
25
10.4
53.8
16
58.3
37.0
4.6
95.3
10
4.6
17
96.5
84.8
4
40 .o
46.1
12.3
1.6
86.1
22
13.9
5
87.1
64.4
10
45.9
46.7
6.0
1.4
92.6
19
7.4
8
82.9
43.4
18
43.0
50.0
6.0
1 .o
93.0
18
7.0
9
98.0
89.6
2
43.0
42.7
12.9
1.4
85.7
23
14.3
4
24.7 42.6
23.9 75.6
23 7
42.6 47.6
50.8 44.7
4.6 6.8
2.0 0.9
93.4 92.3
16 20
6.6 7.7
10 7
75.1 83.4 JO.0
30.8 17.9 12.1
22 24 26
58.4 26.7 24.8
38.7 54.1 54.6
2.3 17.6 17.2
0.5 1.6 3.4
97.1 80.8 79.4
7 25 26
2.8 19.2 20.6
20 2 1
Rank by frequency rating
satisfied Quite
Somewhat
8
48.9
44.5
17.4
25
32.3
93.5
60.9
11
92.8 83.2
60.0 59.5
90.3
dissatisfied Somewhat
responses.
POLICY
November
1980
315
on the basis of volunteered complaint data. From the standpoint of specific food product categories, the principal highlights of Table 1 are as follows: Take-out foods and restaurant meals are the two categories with the highest percentages of dissatisfied purchasers. Several explanations may be applicable. First, the purchase in these cases often involves a complete meal rather than an individual food product which may serve as a component of a meal. The product is therefore more complex and there are. potentially, more ‘parts’ which could be deficient. Both financially and psychologically, the importance of the purchase to the consumer is likely to be greater: The consumer is. therefore, likely to be more sensitive to performance. Secondly, consumer expectations for meals eaten awayfrom-home may be higher than for individual food products since such activity is frequently regarded as a treat. If expectations are inflated or ill-formed due to a relative lack of prior purchase experience, consumers may be more prone to dissatisfaction. A third explanation centres on the fact that purchases of meals away-from-home involve the purchase of a service as well as food. Since quality control along these two dimensions has frequently presented a problem for service operations in the catering business, it would not be surprising if some of the dissatisfaction of purchasers of awayfrom-home meals stemmed from deficiencies in service performance rather than in the quality of the food. Processed dinners registered the third highest percentage of dissatisfied purchasers. Once again, the fact that TV dinners constitute complete meals rather than components of meals raises their importance to the consumer. For some consumers, expectations may also be inflated due to a lack of prior purchasing experience. They may not expect to have to make a trade-off in terms of product quality for the convenience and time saved by a TV dinner. Among the ten food categories registering the highest percentages of dissatisfied consumers, no fewer than
316
five categories include fresh foods. Given the efforts of nutritionists to increase consumption of fresh rather than processed foods, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables, the discovery of widespread dissatisfaction with fresh foods represents a significant finding. A previous study of thirty-one individual food products found that the highest level of consumer dissatisfaction was with fresh tomatoes.9 Consumer dissatisfaction with fresh foods may be explained in several ways. In the absence of packaging for purposes of preservation, fresh foods are subject to wider quality variations than processed foods. Since the quality of fresh produce can deteriorate rapidly, dissatisfaction may occur if the consumer does not understand degrees of ripeness or overestimates the quantity needed at the time of purchase, or if the consumer lacks knowledge of appropriate storage and preparation techniques. In addition, fresh foods are subject to wide and frequent price fluctuations on a seasonal basis and as availability dictates. In summary, Table 1 indicates that an overwhelming majority of respondents were satisfied with each of the twenty-six food product categories, suggesting that consumers see far more good than bad in their consumption experiences. The results accord with those of an earlier study which concluded that ‘consumers expressed a moderately low level of dissatisfaction with the good products they buy’.‘O The greatest frequency of dissatisfaction is paradoxically found at the two ends of the processing spectrum - with those fresh foods which have not been processed, and with those products involving the highest degree of processing which amount to complete meals. The least dissatisfaction is evident for processed food products of standard quality which leave the meal preparation function to the consumer.
Dissatisfaction Subjects were asked to indicate whether they had had one or more experiences during the previous year with food products with which they were ‘highly dissatisfied’. Giving the frequency of food product purchases, it may seem surprising that only 370 or 35.5% of subjects responded affirmatively. Of
these, less than 25% stated that they had been dissatisfied with food products more than ten times in the past year. To organize the analysis on reasons for dissatisfaction and action by dissatisfied consumers, subjects who reported being highly dissatisfied were asked to indicate the one food product category which was the most unsatisfactory of all.
Dairy products The five categories cited most often were ‘fresh or frozen meats’, ‘fresh fruits and vegetables’, ‘cooked, canned, or processed meat, poultry, fish dinners’, ‘milk, cheese, yogurt, butter, ice cream, dairy products’, and ‘take-out foods’. Four of these five categories also appeared in Table 1 with the highest percentages of dissatisfied purchasers. The remaining category, dairy products, ranked twelfth in percentage of dissatisfied consumers. Usage of dairy products is both widespread and frequent; the more frequently a product is used, the more likely it is, by chance, that the consumer may encounter an unsatisfactory item. Moreover, frequency of use generates clear expectations about the quality and performance of a product. Digressions from this norm are readily apparent and liable to lead to dissatisfaction. Quality deterioration can occur rapidly with diary products and is clearly noticeable when it has occurred. The fact that dairy products were among the five categories most often cited as unsatisfactory reinforces the notion that consumer dissatisfaction is particularly likely to occur with fresh foods. Among the 370 highly dissatisfied consumers, 18% reported that they suffered out-of-pocket financial losses arising from the purchase of the product. In three-quarters of these cases, however, the loss was reported as being less than $25, as might be expected in the case of food products. A physical injury, presumably sickness, was reported by 5.6% of highly dissatisfied respondents.
Reasons for dissatisfaction The 370 highly dissatisfied subjects were asked to check reasons for dissatisfaction with the one food
FOOD
POLICY
November
1980
Viewpoint
Table 2. Major reasons for consumer dissatisfaction
Percentage share of mentionsa
Reasons
The product was spoiled,defective or damaged The quality was poorer than expected The amount was less than It was supposed to be The product did not correspond to the advertisement A salesman made false or misleading claims about the product The package was misleading The product was not delivered when promised A different item than the one bought was delivered The instructions for use were unclear or incomplete The product was unsafe or harmful The special discount price was as high or higher than the regular price of other sellers An advertised ‘spectal’ was out of stock I was charged a higher price than that advertised The store was unwilling to provide a refund or exchange Other reasons not listed above a 780 mentions by dissatisfied respondents.
370
Fresh foods (N = 415)
Other foods (N = 365)
All foods (N = 780)
27.7
16.1
22.3
33.0
31.8
32.5
4.6
4.4
4.5
7.5
15.1
1 1 .o
0.0 6.5
1.4 4.9
0.8 5.8
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.8
1 .o 2.9
0.1 4.4
1 .o 3.6
3.4
4.7
4.0
7.0
5.8
6.4
1.4
0.1
1.4
0.5 3.4
0.1 6.3
0.6 4.7
highly
product category named as the most unsatisfactory of all. Multiple responses were permitted. From a list of fifteen reasons, respondents checked an average of 2.1 items. Table 2 reports the percentage share of mentions for each reason. Due to small cell sizes, share data are not provided on a product-specific basis. However, a breakdown of the share of mentions for six fresh food categories versus the remaining categories is reported. In both cases, the most frequently cited reasons for dissatisfaction were ‘the quality was poorer than I expected’ and ‘the product was spoiled, had a defect, or was damaged’. The second of these was significantly (P < 0.05) more frequently mentioned for fresh foods that for other foods, reinforcing the earlier suggestion that quality variations may partially explain the relatively higher level of consumer dissatisfaction with fresh produce. Significantly fewer subjects were dissatisfied because of marketing
FOOD
with food products.
POLICY
November
1980
practices such as selling techniques and advertising claims. As might be expected, complaints relating to the content of advertising held a lower share in the case of fresh foods which tend to be tess heavily advertised. Stock-outs of foods advertised by retailers were mentioned as a source of dissatisfaction with similar frequencies for both fresh and processed foods.
Responses to dissatisfaction Of the 370 subjects who cited reasons for dissatisfaction, 217 (59%) reported that they had taken personal and/or direct actions as a result. Consumers who took no action following dissatisfaction were asked to consider four possible reasons for not doing so and to check the one which they considered most appropriate. Given the relatively low unit-cost of most food products and the effort required to return a defective product to the place of purchase, it is not surprising that the most frequently cited reason (checked
by 44% of those who took no action) was that it was not worth the time and effort. Scepticism that action would not make any difference was checked by 40%. This reaction probably relates not so much to a belief that retailers and manufacturers would be unresponsive, but rather to the impracticality of ‘repairing’ food products of deficient quality. Lack of determination (10%) and lack of knowledge as to where to obtain help were significantly less frequently cited as deterrents to taking action. A summary of the actions taken by 2 16 dissatisfied respondents is presented in Table 3. Each subject reported, on average, taking 2.3 actions. Personal actions accounted for the majority of total actions. Consumers appeared more likely to switch brands within the product category rather than to drop the product category or switch stores. Of equal significance was the frequency with which consumers reported warning family or friends through word of mouth, not surprisingly since food is a common subject in everyday conversation. It is important to note that neither business firms not consumer protection agencies would ordinarily be aware of these types of personal actions. As previously stated, assessing consumer dissatisfaction levels on the basis of direct actions alone can lead to severe underestimates of dissatisfaction. Direct or public actions accounted for a minority of 39.2% of total actions. principally involved These actions complaining and seeking redress from the place of purchase in the form of refund or replacement. Few consumers reported contacting the manufacturer. Two explanations are possible. First, consumers who are dissatisfied initially approach the retailer and, if satisfied, have no need to pursue their complaints with the manufacturer. Second, a substantial percentage of the unsatisfactory experiences reported occurred with fresh food products which are often not labelled with a manufacturer name. In the case of these and private brand processed foods carried by major supermarket chains, the consumer’s principal form of recourse must lie with the retailer. Just as few direct actions involved complaints to the manufacturer, there
317
Viewpoint Table 3. Consumer food produck.
behaviour
in response to unsatisfactory
purchase experiences
I decided not to buy that brand again I decided to stop using that kind of product I decided to stop shopping at that store I warned my family and friends about the brand,
19.6
product, or store Other personal action Total personal action
18.4 3.0 60.8%
Direct action I returned the product to the seller for replacement or refund I contacted the store to complain I contacted the manufacturer I contacted the manufacturers’ industry association I contacted the Better Business Bureau I contacted a governmental agency or a public official I contacted a private consumer advocate or consumer organization I contacted a lawyer, went to Small Claims Court or otherwise took legal action Other direct action not listed above
were correspondingly few approaches consumer organizations, made to government agencies, and lawyers. The degree of financial loss involved in an unsatisfactory experience with a food product is relatively low. Consequently, to invest unlikely are consumers substantial time, effort and money in pursuing complaints related to food products beyond the retailer. Each subject who took direct action was also asked how satisfied he was with the way the complaint was handled. The results indicated that a majority (71%) of consumers were satisfied. In the case of food products, the cost to the retailer and manufacturer of providing a refund or replacement to a dissatisfied consumer is negligible in the context of the value of future sales to a consumer whose brand loyalty or store loyalty can be sustained. Also, the relatively modest importance of food product purchases to consumers in both financial and psychological terms suggests that, when dissatisfied, they are likely to be less demanding of the complaint resolution process.
Conclusions The survey results suggest that the majority of consumers are, in general, satisfied with food products. However,
318
identifying problem areas priorities for consumer programming.
and setting protection
John A. Quelch
Share of total actions
Personal action
Total direct action
with
Harvard
Business
School,
and Stephen
11.1 8.7
University
of Western
USA
B. Ash Ontario Canada
19.2 14.7 2.0 0.4 0.6 1.2 0.4 _ 0.8 39.2%
the results showed wide variation in the proportions of dissatisfied purchasers across the twenty-six food product categories. A relatively higher frequency of dissatisfaction was found among purchasers of fresh foods and among purchasers of highly processed foods, both in the form of meals eaten away from home and in the form of TV dinners.
Advertising claims Reasons for dissatisfaction also varied significantly between fresh and processed foods, but in both cases the product quality tended to overshadow other reasons such as advertising claims and selling practices. Only 59% of highly dissatisfied consumers took some form of action in response to dissatisfaction and of these only 68% took action that would come to the attention of policy makers and producers. It is clear that the level of consumer complaints does not reflect the full magnitude of consumer dissatisfaction. The results reported here confirm the feasibility of obtaining high quality data on consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction and complaint behaviour through large scale survey research. The information provided is of potential use to policy makers as a basis for
The authors gratefully acknowledge fundlng for this study provided by the Consumer Research and Evaluation Branch of the Canadian Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. ‘See. for example: Charles R. Handy, ‘Implications of the index of consumer satisfaction for public policy pertaining to makret performance’, In M. Venkatesan, ed. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, 1977, pp 738-741. 2 See Ralph L Day and E. Laird Landon, ‘Collecting comprehensive consumer complaint data by survey research’, In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 3, Assoclatlon for Consumer Research, 1976, pp 263-268 3 See, for example. Rex l-l. Warland, Robert 0. Hermann and Jane Willits, ‘Dissatisfied consumers: who gets upset and who takes what action,‘, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Winter 1975, pp 148163. 4 Results of this study are reported in Ralph L Day and Stephen B. Ash, ‘Consumer response to dissatisfaction with durable products’, William L. Wtlkie, ed, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 6. Association for Consumer Research, 1979. pp 438-444; and Ralph L. Day and Muzaffer Bodur, ‘A comprehensive study of satisfaction with consumer services,’ In Ralph L. Day, ed, Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Division of Research, Indiana University, 1977, pp 64-74. ‘Ralph L Day and E. Laird Landon, ‘Toward a theory of consumer complaining behaviour’, in Arch G. Woodside. Jagdish N. Sheth, and Peter Bennett, Eds. Foundations of Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, Amencan Elsevler, Amsterdam, 1977, pp 425-437. ‘James C. Lingoes and Martin Pfaff, ‘The Index of consumer satisfaction’ methodology’, in Venkatesan, op tit, Ref l.p689-712. ‘Anita Pfaff, ‘The index of consumer satisfaction’, in Venkatesan, op tit, Ref I, pp 7 13-737: and Martin Pfaff, ‘The index of consumer satisfaction: management problems and opportunities’, in H. Keith Hunt, ed. Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, Marketing Science Insmute, Cambridge, 1977, pp 36-71. a Charles R. Handy, ‘Monitoring consumer satisfaction with food products’, in Hunt, opcit,Ref7,p217. ’ Op cit. Ref 8, p 230. ” Op cit. Ref 8, p 2 19.
FOOD
POLICY
November
1980
views.’ If even proposals for piecemeal restructuring of the world food economy are to be taken seriously, then internationalists in developed countries must acknowledge and refute the sceptical and negative views which claim to reflect realistic assessments of national self-interest.
’ North-South: A Programme for Survival. (‘The Brandt report’), Pan Books, London, ‘I 980. 2 Op tit, Ref 1 I pp 91-3. and for an example of such projections: international Food Polrcy Research institute, Food of Developing Countries: Needs and Projections of Production Consumption to 1990, Research Report No 3, Washington DC, 1976. 3 World Food Counctl. Food Crisis Cuntjngency Planning, Report by the Executive Director, WFCilQ8014, Rome, 1980. * Op cit. Ref 1, p 9. 5 Op tit, Ref 3. “J.P. Houck and M.E. Ryan, Economic Research on international Grain Reserves: The State of Knowledge. Station Bulletin No 532, Agricuitural
Edward J. Clay, Institute
of ~evalopment
Studies,
~niversjty
of Sussex,
Brighton,
UK
This is a revised version of a background paper for the IDSiODl meeting ‘World Food Security in the Context of the Brandt Commission Proposals’, RIIA. Chatham House, London, 7 May 1980.
Consumer satisfaction An
jmportant
market
performance.
existence and
problem
consumption.
some
Responding assigning depend
comparing
market resource
and
even though
high priority
the
interest.
satisfaction
problem
resources.
central
role
areas,
of food
attitudes
protection can
provide
a range
consumption to policy
makers
are
designed
programmes a basis
afiocating
in everday
to
may
measures.’ makers
of products
of etternative
the
approach
policy
and for effectively
importance
viewing
of programmes
which across
are
economist,s
consumer
Given the number
is of special
such as the
additional
movement,
to the development Effective
to measure
in production
consumer
of the
consumer
of information
of consumer
allocation
makers
performance,
availability
protectjon
used criteria
policy
objectivity
best
and externalities
as an important
and
levels
traditjona~iy
barriers,
however,
of the
the
is how
satisfaction
to the growth
for identifying
consumer
have
of the precision
the consumer on
services,
of market
with food products
pot~cy makers
entry
increasingly,
a relatively
to protect
forces,
of consumer
the assessment
public
Economists
of monopoly
measurement lack
facing
for and
limited
foods on the life,
effective
concerned
with
food and agriculture.
The value of consumer satisfaction as a measure of market performance is already widely recognized by marketing practitioners who view the satisfaction of consumer needs as one of the principal goals of marketing activity. If both policy makers and marketers can agree on the usefulness of satisfaction data as a performance measure, the probability of cooperative efforts between these two groups to correct the causes of dissatisfaction with particular products or services is likely to be enhanced. Interest in consumer satisfaction studies also stems from the growing recognition of the limitations of conventional complaint data as a measure of consumer dissatisfaction
FOOD
POLICY
November
1980
University of Experiment Statlon, Minnesota, St Paul, MN, 1979. ‘World Food Council, ‘Italian political action on food and hunger results tn devefopment assistance substantial increase’, Rome, 1979; Hunger in the World, a report on behalf of the CommIttee on Development and Cooperation of the European Parliament, Working document 34 l/80, 1980. ’ R. Sobhan, ‘Politics of food and famine m Bangladesh’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 14, No 48, 1979, pp 197380. ’ Foreign and Commonwealth OffIce. The Brandt Commission Report, a memorandum prepared for the Overseas Development Sub-Committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, HMSO, London, 1980
within a population, and as a means of giving priority to problem categories of products and services to guide policy interventions.2 Several studies have suggested that complaint letters tend not to be representative either of the types of problems confronting consumers or of the types of people experiencing consumer problems. For example, complaint letters suffer from ‘big ticket’ bias since they tend to focus on unsatisfactory consumption experiences with products that are unusually important to the consumer. Volunteered complaints therefore tend to underrepresent dissatisfactions with lower cost items or those which play a relatively modest role in the consumer’s daily life. There is some
as well, that writers of evidence, complaint letters or those who take some action to their resolve dissatisfaction are atypical of the entire population since they tend to be younger, better educated, more aftluent, and more active politically than noncomplainers.3 The overriding concern about complaint letters, however, is that they may simply represent the tip of the iceberg. The number of dissatisfied consumers may substantially exceed the number who complain, particularly if the consumer is unclear about how to voice a complaint. Concern with the value of complaint data as a diagnostic tool, has increased interest in the application of the survey research technique to the problem of measuring consumer satisfaction. This article reports a portion of the results of one such survey conducted for the Consumer Research and Evaluation Branch of the Canadian Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Research method The data for this study were obtained as part of a nationwide survey of Canadian consumers in 1979. The survey instruments employed in this research were similar to those used previously in a local study conducted in Bloomington, Indiana.4 In both cases, the instruments obtained data on consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction and complaining
313
Viewpoint behaviour on an aided recall basis. The data gathered were with selfadministered questionnaires using the ‘drop-off/pick-up’ method to a national probability sample of approximately 3 000 dwelling units. A five-stage, stratified probability sample drawn from a national frame comprising 42 000 enumeration areas distributed across the five regions of Canada was used to collect the data. The sampling plan represented a compromise between a strict random sample and a conventional quota sample in that cost constraints required substitution of households at the block level. Although the exact true response rate cannot be computed with the modified probability sample drawn for this study, results have shown that the data compare favourably with Statistics Canada census information. Usable questionnaires were furnished by 3 123 adult Canadians, both males and females. eighteen years of age and over. Of these, 1 041 subjects answered a questionnaire covering four categories of non-durables; consumer food products; household supplies; personal and health care products; and clothing. The results reported in this article pertain to the food products section of this questionnaire covering twenty-six product categories. Interviewers were instructed to interview the household member primarily responsible for buying the types of products or services covered by a particular questionnaire. Thus, the household self-selected a primary decision maker who acted as a spokesman for the household in completing the questionnaire.
Food products The initial task required respondents to indicate whether or not they had purchased each of twenty-six food products during the previous year. Those who indicated that they had used the product were asked to rate the frequency of purchase and their relative extent of satisfaction or dissatisfaction within the category. Subjects then indicated whether or not they had been ‘highly dissatisfied’ with any of the twenty-six categories during the past year and, if so, stated the one product which was ‘the most unsatisfactory of all’. The remaining questions in the
314
section provided additional data on this single most unsatisfactory product. First, subjects were asked to complete a set of questions identifying their reasons for dissatisfaction. Then, those reporting dissatisfaction were asked to indicate what steps were taken, if any, to resolve their dissatisfaction. In line with the framework developed by Day and Landon the action options were divided into two groups - personal actions and direct or public actions. Respondents who reported taking direct action were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the way their complaints were handled. Subjects who reported taking no action when dissatisfied were questioned as to their reason for not doing so.
Baseline data Certain limitations to the scope of the study should be noted. First, there is no historical dimension to the study. No conclusions can be drawn as to whether consumers are more satisfied with food products today than they were in the past. However, it is anticipated that this study will provide baseline data against which the results of future surveys can be compared. It may be noted, though, that differences in consumer satisfaction over time may not only be caused by objective changes in product quality or performance, but also by changes consumer perceptions and in expectations.6 Second, no attempt is made to develop an overall index of consumer satisfaction which might serve as a social indicator analagous to the Consumer Price Index. The advantages and problems associated with development of such an index have been discussed elsewhere.’ Third, the study does not permit a detailed diagnosis of the reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction with specific food products in terms of their attribute profiles. Handy’ has previously defined consumer dissatisfaction as ‘the gap or distance between consumer’s “ideal” the attribute combination for a particular product or service and the attribute combination of the product or service offered in the marketplace which comes closest to his ideal’. In this study, detailed attribute-related reasons for
dissatisfaction are not available. Problems associated with product attributes performance are and subsumed within a broader set of reasons for dissatisfaction covering the major dimensions of marketing practice.
Satisfaction Table 1 summarizes responses denoting the frequency of use and level of satisfaction and dissatisfaction for each twenty-six food product of the categories. The percentage of subjects purchasing each food product during the past year is first listed, followed by the percentage of purchasers buying the ‘often’ as product opposed to ‘sometimes’. Next, the relative which purchasers frequency with checked each of four satisfaction/ dissatisfaction scale responses is reported. The final columns in Table 1 summarize the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied subjects in each food category. The information presented in Table 1 is not available either from volunteered complaint data or from studies which ask consumers to recall a single unsatisfactory experience. The problem of ‘big ticket’ bias has been identified with both of these approaches and the suggestion is that recurring causes of dissatisfaction with less important items such as food products may not be brought up to the attention of business leaders, consumer interest groups or policy makers. Information on the rate of use of products permits the number of expressing dissatisfaction consumers with the category to be considered in relation to the total number of respondents reporting usage of the category within the recall period. For dietetic, and example, specialty, gourmet foods ranked twenty-fifth in terms of percentage of respondents who had purchased, but ranked tenth in terms of percentage of dissatisfied purchasers. Specialty foods would probably not figure on conventional complaint lists as a problem in the food products area because the absolute number of purchasers is relatively small. Although the number of users is itself of significance to consumer protection the agencies, this example pinpoints weaknesses of setting policy priorities
FOOD
POLICY
November
1980
Viewpoint Table
1. Food products:
Category
Fresh bread, rolls, cakes, other baked goods Frozen bread, dough, pizza, cakes, pie crust Flour, cornmeal, rice Macaroni and noodle products Breakfast cereals Syrups, molasses, honey Sugar, salt, spices, seasonings Cake/cookie mix, pudding, desserts, party food Margarine, cooking oils, shortening Peanut butter, jams, jellies, spread Milk, cheese, yogurt, butter, ice cream, dairy Eggs and egg products Non-alcoholic beverages Canned, frozen fruits, vegetables, soups Cooked, canned or processed meat, poultry, fish, dinners Pickles, mustard, ketchup, other dressings Baby food, juices, formula Fresh or frozen meats Fresh, frozen, BBQ poultry Fresh or frozen fish/seafood Fresh fruits/ vegetables Specialty, dietetic, gourmet foods Pet food Alcoholic beverages Restaurant meals Take-out foods a
Based on 1040
FOOD
purchase; frequency
rating; satisfaction/dissatisfaction
Purchase
Frequency
%of respondents having purchased
% of purchasers buying 0 ften
97.6
74.1
55.1
rating.a
rating
% of purchasers OIite
% of purchasers satisfied dissatisfied Total Rank Total Rank
5.3
1.3
93.4
16
6.6
10
54.9
10.6
2.2
87.2
21
12.8
6
65.0
33.3
1.4
0.3
98.3
3
1.7
24
12 13
64.7 56.4
33.5 38.4
1.5 4.4
0.3 0.8
98.2 94.8
4 12
1.8 5.2
23 15
38.0
20
65.1
33.7
0.9
0.3
98.8
1
1.2
26
98.0
73.3
9
68.4
29.7
1.3
0.6
98.1
5
1.9
21
86.4
38.1
19
49.9
45.0
4.2
0.9
94.9
11
5.1
16
98.0
79.8
6
65.9
32.2
1.3
0.6
98.1
5
1.9
21
93.1
55.3
15
60.5
36.3
2.7
0.5
96.8
8
3.2
18
99.5
91.9
1
60.8
33.3
4.9
1 .o
94.1
15
5.9
12
97.4
88.9
3
58.7
36.0
4.5
0.8
94.7
13
5.3
14
98.2
82.0
5
60.0
36.7
2.6
0.6
96.7
9
3.2
18
89.7
56.9
14
48.8
45.5
4.8
0.9
94.3
14
5.7
13
76.8
31.3
21
35.4
49.0
13.1
2.5
84.4
24
15.6
3
96.7
53.5
17
61.7
36.8
1.2
0.3
98.5
2
1.5
25
10.4
53.8
16
58.3
37.0
4.6
95.3
10
4.6
17
96.5
84.8
4
40 .o
46.1
12.3
1.6
86.1
22
13.9
5
87.1
64.4
10
45.9
46.7
6.0
1.4
92.6
19
7.4
8
82.9
43.4
18
43.0
50.0
6.0
1 .o
93.0
18
7.0
9
98.0
89.6
2
43.0
42.7
12.9
1.4
85.7
23
14.3
4
24.7 42.6
23.9 75.6
23 7
42.6 47.6
50.8 44.7
4.6 6.8
2.0 0.9
93.4 92.3
16 20
6.6 7.7
10 7
75.1 83.4 JO.0
30.8 17.9 12.1
22 24 26
58.4 26.7 24.8
38.7 54.1 54.6
2.3 17.6 17.2
0.5 1.6 3.4
97.1 80.8 79.4
7 25 26
2.8 19.2 20.6
20 2 1
Rank by frequency rating
satisfied Quite
Somewhat
8
48.9
44.5
17.4
25
32.3
93.5
60.9
11
92.8 83.2
60.0 59.5
90.3
dissatisfied Somewhat
responses.
POLICY
November
1980
315
on the basis of volunteered complaint data. From the standpoint of specific food product categories, the principal highlights of Table 1 are as follows: Take-out foods and restaurant meals are the two categories with the highest percentages of dissatisfied purchasers. Several explanations may be applicable. First, the purchase in these cases often involves a complete meal rather than an individual food product which may serve as a component of a meal. The product is therefore more complex and there are. potentially, more ‘parts’ which could be deficient. Both financially and psychologically, the importance of the purchase to the consumer is likely to be greater: The consumer is. therefore, likely to be more sensitive to performance. Secondly, consumer expectations for meals eaten awayfrom-home may be higher than for individual food products since such activity is frequently regarded as a treat. If expectations are inflated or ill-formed due to a relative lack of prior purchase experience, consumers may be more prone to dissatisfaction. A third explanation centres on the fact that purchases of meals away-from-home involve the purchase of a service as well as food. Since quality control along these two dimensions has frequently presented a problem for service operations in the catering business, it would not be surprising if some of the dissatisfaction of purchasers of awayfrom-home meals stemmed from deficiencies in service performance rather than in the quality of the food. Processed dinners registered the third highest percentage of dissatisfied purchasers. Once again, the fact that TV dinners constitute complete meals rather than components of meals raises their importance to the consumer. For some consumers, expectations may also be inflated due to a lack of prior purchasing experience. They may not expect to have to make a trade-off in terms of product quality for the convenience and time saved by a TV dinner. Among the ten food categories registering the highest percentages of dissatisfied consumers, no fewer than
316
five categories include fresh foods. Given the efforts of nutritionists to increase consumption of fresh rather than processed foods, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables, the discovery of widespread dissatisfaction with fresh foods represents a significant finding. A previous study of thirty-one individual food products found that the highest level of consumer dissatisfaction was with fresh tomatoes.9 Consumer dissatisfaction with fresh foods may be explained in several ways. In the absence of packaging for purposes of preservation, fresh foods are subject to wider quality variations than processed foods. Since the quality of fresh produce can deteriorate rapidly, dissatisfaction may occur if the consumer does not understand degrees of ripeness or overestimates the quantity needed at the time of purchase, or if the consumer lacks knowledge of appropriate storage and preparation techniques. In addition, fresh foods are subject to wide and frequent price fluctuations on a seasonal basis and as availability dictates. In summary, Table 1 indicates that an overwhelming majority of respondents were satisfied with each of the twenty-six food product categories, suggesting that consumers see far more good than bad in their consumption experiences. The results accord with those of an earlier study which concluded that ‘consumers expressed a moderately low level of dissatisfaction with the good products they buy’.‘O The greatest frequency of dissatisfaction is paradoxically found at the two ends of the processing spectrum - with those fresh foods which have not been processed, and with those products involving the highest degree of processing which amount to complete meals. The least dissatisfaction is evident for processed food products of standard quality which leave the meal preparation function to the consumer.
Dissatisfaction Subjects were asked to indicate whether they had had one or more experiences during the previous year with food products with which they were ‘highly dissatisfied’. Giving the frequency of food product purchases, it may seem surprising that only 370 or 35.5% of subjects responded affirmatively. Of
these, less than 25% stated that they had been dissatisfied with food products more than ten times in the past year. To organize the analysis on reasons for dissatisfaction and action by dissatisfied consumers, subjects who reported being highly dissatisfied were asked to indicate the one food product category which was the most unsatisfactory of all.
Dairy products The five categories cited most often were ‘fresh or frozen meats’, ‘fresh fruits and vegetables’, ‘cooked, canned, or processed meat, poultry, fish dinners’, ‘milk, cheese, yogurt, butter, ice cream, dairy products’, and ‘take-out foods’. Four of these five categories also appeared in Table 1 with the highest percentages of dissatisfied purchasers. The remaining category, dairy products, ranked twelfth in percentage of dissatisfied consumers. Usage of dairy products is both widespread and frequent; the more frequently a product is used, the more likely it is, by chance, that the consumer may encounter an unsatisfactory item. Moreover, frequency of use generates clear expectations about the quality and performance of a product. Digressions from this norm are readily apparent and liable to lead to dissatisfaction. Quality deterioration can occur rapidly with diary products and is clearly noticeable when it has occurred. The fact that dairy products were among the five categories most often cited as unsatisfactory reinforces the notion that consumer dissatisfaction is particularly likely to occur with fresh foods. Among the 370 highly dissatisfied consumers, 18% reported that they suffered out-of-pocket financial losses arising from the purchase of the product. In three-quarters of these cases, however, the loss was reported as being less than $25, as might be expected in the case of food products. A physical injury, presumably sickness, was reported by 5.6% of highly dissatisfied respondents.
Reasons for dissatisfaction The 370 highly dissatisfied subjects were asked to check reasons for dissatisfaction with the one food
FOOD
POLICY
November
1980
Viewpoint
Table 2. Major reasons for consumer dissatisfaction
Percentage share of mentionsa
Reasons
The product was spoiled,defective or damaged The quality was poorer than expected The amount was less than It was supposed to be The product did not correspond to the advertisement A salesman made false or misleading claims about the product The package was misleading The product was not delivered when promised A different item than the one bought was delivered The instructions for use were unclear or incomplete The product was unsafe or harmful The special discount price was as high or higher than the regular price of other sellers An advertised ‘spectal’ was out of stock I was charged a higher price than that advertised The store was unwilling to provide a refund or exchange Other reasons not listed above a 780 mentions by dissatisfied respondents.
370
Fresh foods (N = 415)
Other foods (N = 365)
All foods (N = 780)
27.7
16.1
22.3
33.0
31.8
32.5
4.6
4.4
4.5
7.5
15.1
1 1 .o
0.0 6.5
1.4 4.9
0.8 5.8
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.8
1 .o 2.9
0.1 4.4
1 .o 3.6
3.4
4.7
4.0
7.0
5.8
6.4
1.4
0.1
1.4
0.5 3.4
0.1 6.3
0.6 4.7
highly
product category named as the most unsatisfactory of all. Multiple responses were permitted. From a list of fifteen reasons, respondents checked an average of 2.1 items. Table 2 reports the percentage share of mentions for each reason. Due to small cell sizes, share data are not provided on a product-specific basis. However, a breakdown of the share of mentions for six fresh food categories versus the remaining categories is reported. In both cases, the most frequently cited reasons for dissatisfaction were ‘the quality was poorer than I expected’ and ‘the product was spoiled, had a defect, or was damaged’. The second of these was significantly (P < 0.05) more frequently mentioned for fresh foods that for other foods, reinforcing the earlier suggestion that quality variations may partially explain the relatively higher level of consumer dissatisfaction with fresh produce. Significantly fewer subjects were dissatisfied because of marketing
FOOD
with food products.
POLICY
November
1980
practices such as selling techniques and advertising claims. As might be expected, complaints relating to the content of advertising held a lower share in the case of fresh foods which tend to be tess heavily advertised. Stock-outs of foods advertised by retailers were mentioned as a source of dissatisfaction with similar frequencies for both fresh and processed foods.
Responses to dissatisfaction Of the 370 subjects who cited reasons for dissatisfaction, 217 (59%) reported that they had taken personal and/or direct actions as a result. Consumers who took no action following dissatisfaction were asked to consider four possible reasons for not doing so and to check the one which they considered most appropriate. Given the relatively low unit-cost of most food products and the effort required to return a defective product to the place of purchase, it is not surprising that the most frequently cited reason (checked
by 44% of those who took no action) was that it was not worth the time and effort. Scepticism that action would not make any difference was checked by 40%. This reaction probably relates not so much to a belief that retailers and manufacturers would be unresponsive, but rather to the impracticality of ‘repairing’ food products of deficient quality. Lack of determination (10%) and lack of knowledge as to where to obtain help were significantly less frequently cited as deterrents to taking action. A summary of the actions taken by 2 16 dissatisfied respondents is presented in Table 3. Each subject reported, on average, taking 2.3 actions. Personal actions accounted for the majority of total actions. Consumers appeared more likely to switch brands within the product category rather than to drop the product category or switch stores. Of equal significance was the frequency with which consumers reported warning family or friends through word of mouth, not surprisingly since food is a common subject in everyday conversation. It is important to note that neither business firms not consumer protection agencies would ordinarily be aware of these types of personal actions. As previously stated, assessing consumer dissatisfaction levels on the basis of direct actions alone can lead to severe underestimates of dissatisfaction. Direct or public actions accounted for a minority of 39.2% of total actions. principally involved These actions complaining and seeking redress from the place of purchase in the form of refund or replacement. Few consumers reported contacting the manufacturer. Two explanations are possible. First, consumers who are dissatisfied initially approach the retailer and, if satisfied, have no need to pursue their complaints with the manufacturer. Second, a substantial percentage of the unsatisfactory experiences reported occurred with fresh food products which are often not labelled with a manufacturer name. In the case of these and private brand processed foods carried by major supermarket chains, the consumer’s principal form of recourse must lie with the retailer. Just as few direct actions involved complaints to the manufacturer, there
317
Viewpoint Table 3. Consumer food produck.
behaviour
in response to unsatisfactory
purchase experiences
I decided not to buy that brand again I decided to stop using that kind of product I decided to stop shopping at that store I warned my family and friends about the brand,
19.6
product, or store Other personal action Total personal action
18.4 3.0 60.8%
Direct action I returned the product to the seller for replacement or refund I contacted the store to complain I contacted the manufacturer I contacted the manufacturers’ industry association I contacted the Better Business Bureau I contacted a governmental agency or a public official I contacted a private consumer advocate or consumer organization I contacted a lawyer, went to Small Claims Court or otherwise took legal action Other direct action not listed above
were correspondingly few approaches consumer organizations, made to government agencies, and lawyers. The degree of financial loss involved in an unsatisfactory experience with a food product is relatively low. Consequently, to invest unlikely are consumers substantial time, effort and money in pursuing complaints related to food products beyond the retailer. Each subject who took direct action was also asked how satisfied he was with the way the complaint was handled. The results indicated that a majority (71%) of consumers were satisfied. In the case of food products, the cost to the retailer and manufacturer of providing a refund or replacement to a dissatisfied consumer is negligible in the context of the value of future sales to a consumer whose brand loyalty or store loyalty can be sustained. Also, the relatively modest importance of food product purchases to consumers in both financial and psychological terms suggests that, when dissatisfied, they are likely to be less demanding of the complaint resolution process.
Conclusions The survey results suggest that the majority of consumers are, in general, satisfied with food products. However,
318
identifying problem areas priorities for consumer programming.
and setting protection
John A. Quelch
Share of total actions
Personal action
Total direct action
with
Harvard
Business
School,
and Stephen
11.1 8.7
University
of Western
USA
B. Ash Ontario Canada
19.2 14.7 2.0 0.4 0.6 1.2 0.4 _ 0.8 39.2%
the results showed wide variation in the proportions of dissatisfied purchasers across the twenty-six food product categories. A relatively higher frequency of dissatisfaction was found among purchasers of fresh foods and among purchasers of highly processed foods, both in the form of meals eaten away from home and in the form of TV dinners.
Advertising claims Reasons for dissatisfaction also varied significantly between fresh and processed foods, but in both cases the product quality tended to overshadow other reasons such as advertising claims and selling practices. Only 59% of highly dissatisfied consumers took some form of action in response to dissatisfaction and of these only 68% took action that would come to the attention of policy makers and producers. It is clear that the level of consumer complaints does not reflect the full magnitude of consumer dissatisfaction. The results reported here confirm the feasibility of obtaining high quality data on consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction and complaint behaviour through large scale survey research. The information provided is of potential use to policy makers as a basis for
The authors gratefully acknowledge fundlng for this study provided by the Consumer Research and Evaluation Branch of the Canadian Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. ‘See. for example: Charles R. Handy, ‘Implications of the index of consumer satisfaction for public policy pertaining to makret performance’, In M. Venkatesan, ed. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, 1977, pp 738-741. 2 See Ralph L Day and E. Laird Landon, ‘Collecting comprehensive consumer complaint data by survey research’, In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 3, Assoclatlon for Consumer Research, 1976, pp 263-268 3 See, for example. Rex l-l. Warland, Robert 0. Hermann and Jane Willits, ‘Dissatisfied consumers: who gets upset and who takes what action,‘, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Winter 1975, pp 148163. 4 Results of this study are reported in Ralph L Day and Stephen B. Ash, ‘Consumer response to dissatisfaction with durable products’, William L. Wtlkie, ed, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 6. Association for Consumer Research, 1979. pp 438-444; and Ralph L. Day and Muzaffer Bodur, ‘A comprehensive study of satisfaction with consumer services,’ In Ralph L. Day, ed, Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Division of Research, Indiana University, 1977, pp 64-74. ‘Ralph L Day and E. Laird Landon, ‘Toward a theory of consumer complaining behaviour’, in Arch G. Woodside. Jagdish N. Sheth, and Peter Bennett, Eds. Foundations of Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, Amencan Elsevler, Amsterdam, 1977, pp 425-437. ‘James C. Lingoes and Martin Pfaff, ‘The Index of consumer satisfaction’ methodology’, in Venkatesan, op tit, Ref l.p689-712. ‘Anita Pfaff, ‘The index of consumer satisfaction’, in Venkatesan, op tit, Ref I, pp 7 13-737: and Martin Pfaff, ‘The index of consumer satisfaction: management problems and opportunities’, in H. Keith Hunt, ed. Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, Marketing Science Insmute, Cambridge, 1977, pp 36-71. a Charles R. Handy, ‘Monitoring consumer satisfaction with food products’, in Hunt, opcit,Ref7,p217. ’ Op cit. Ref 8, p 230. ” Op cit. Ref 8, p 2 19.
FOOD
POLICY
November
1980