“What do you think about these three consumer problem-solving processes? Which one seems the most important to you and which one do you use more frequently?”
I feel people use all three processes-routinized response, limited problem solving, and extended problem solving-some more than others. Routinized response is the most commonly used process. People use this all the time when buying groceries or other household products. If a consumer is comfortable with a product there is no need to second guess it; it becomes routine. I feel I use this process more than the other two. As a college kid, I do not buy cars or laptops on a regular basis. I buy food and beverages, all of which take little or no thought.
I use limited problem solving only when looking to switch brands or a product. I get my information from the internet or family and friends to help me come up with a decision. I may also use this process when buying text books for classes. I may do a little research to see if I can buy the text book cheaper online or in a store. But, this does not happen as often because (as of right now) I am satisfied with all of my current products. Minimal research is needed because items are not as expensive.
More expensive items need the extended problem solving process. When I was deciding on which college to get my education I did months of research; college tours, online research, researching what the college has to offer, etc., etc. When getting ready to spend a large amount of money people want to make sure they make the right choice. If I was to buy a car or invest money, I would do a thorough amount of research to make sure I had an educated decision. This process is not as frequently used as routinized because people do not buy cars as often as they buy groceries.
Which process do you feel you use more?
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Overspent Americans
“Overspent Americans” talks about how American lifestyles and spending habits have changed throughout the years. The United States was considered to be, at one point, a “leisure society”; there was even talk of switching to a 4 day work week. Too much time on our hands seemed to be the major problem throughout the states. Then, Americans were trying to “keep up with the Jones’s” or “the Gates’s”. Possessions started to turn into status symbols. Everyone was trying to keep up or one-up their neighbors. Firms took some control over the employees and things started to change. Classes were starting to be grouped by “personal possessions” (depending on who you talked too). American’s now a days face tremendous credit card debt. The documentary determines that some Americans buy items based solely on the brand name or the status it carries in society. Buying items by what you needed changed to buying items by what you wanted. “Living within your means” was soon thrown out the window. Brands and logos were chosen over quality and durability. Things have changed.
I agree with some of the documentary. The documentary states that purchasing certain items can pose as a status symbol to peers or co-workers. The example of SUV’s in cities helps define this. SUV’s are designed with four wheel drive to help get through snow or mud, but people in the cities were starting to buy these vehicles based on the status symbol they carried. People don’t care whether they are more expensive or impractical; they buy them because they are the “it” thing at the time. Another good example was the t-shirt test. Different company labels on the shirts influenced the way people ranked them, even though all three shirts were exactly the same. Jewelry is flaunted as to show you have the money to buy it; a necklace can be seen but figures in a bank account cannot. People buy brands because they were recognizable. Cars, clothes, jewelry, or homes are shown off and flaunted. They are status symbols.
“Work hard, play even harder”. That is what we hear in today’s society. Musicians and actors speak those very words whether on a song or in a movie. Media is a big influence on people today. We see celebrities on television with fancy cars, expensive jewelry, million dollar houses, and fashionable clothes. Like I previously stated, brands of clothing or cars can influence what consumers buy; price doesn’t seem to be a factor. The documentary states that 25% of people with $100,000 of annual income say they do not have the money for basic necessities. When did $100,000 not become enough to provide the basic necessities for your family? I could live off of an income of $100,000. I wonder how many people in that percentage have expensive cars or large houses. “Living within your means” is something that we have gotten away from. We work 50 hours a week and we feel we need to spend money to show that. I can’t be a hypocrite because if I’m working long hours and getting paychecks on a regular basis I’ll buy things I probably don’t need. I might be more willing to entertain the idea to eat out or rent more movies or whatever because I know that money is sitting in my pocket. American’s do not realize how much debt they are actually in, according to the documentary. We all need to determine the difference between needs and wants. Something I feel like I need (a new cell phone) my end up just being a want. I can’t pass judgment because I do some of these things, but I can see where this documentary is coming from.
How do you feel? Do you think this documentary is accurate? Are these issues blown out of proportion? Do we have a spending problem?
I agree with some of the documentary. The documentary states that purchasing certain items can pose as a status symbol to peers or co-workers. The example of SUV’s in cities helps define this. SUV’s are designed with four wheel drive to help get through snow or mud, but people in the cities were starting to buy these vehicles based on the status symbol they carried. People don’t care whether they are more expensive or impractical; they buy them because they are the “it” thing at the time. Another good example was the t-shirt test. Different company labels on the shirts influenced the way people ranked them, even though all three shirts were exactly the same. Jewelry is flaunted as to show you have the money to buy it; a necklace can be seen but figures in a bank account cannot. People buy brands because they were recognizable. Cars, clothes, jewelry, or homes are shown off and flaunted. They are status symbols.
“Work hard, play even harder”. That is what we hear in today’s society. Musicians and actors speak those very words whether on a song or in a movie. Media is a big influence on people today. We see celebrities on television with fancy cars, expensive jewelry, million dollar houses, and fashionable clothes. Like I previously stated, brands of clothing or cars can influence what consumers buy; price doesn’t seem to be a factor. The documentary states that 25% of people with $100,000 of annual income say they do not have the money for basic necessities. When did $100,000 not become enough to provide the basic necessities for your family? I could live off of an income of $100,000. I wonder how many people in that percentage have expensive cars or large houses. “Living within your means” is something that we have gotten away from. We work 50 hours a week and we feel we need to spend money to show that. I can’t be a hypocrite because if I’m working long hours and getting paychecks on a regular basis I’ll buy things I probably don’t need. I might be more willing to entertain the idea to eat out or rent more movies or whatever because I know that money is sitting in my pocket. American’s do not realize how much debt they are actually in, according to the documentary. We all need to determine the difference between needs and wants. Something I feel like I need (a new cell phone) my end up just being a want. I can’t pass judgment because I do some of these things, but I can see where this documentary is coming from.
How do you feel? Do you think this documentary is accurate? Are these issues blown out of proportion? Do we have a spending problem?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)