注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

宁老师留学DIY咨询

MBA及Master申请PS/Essay/简历/推荐信写作咨询人

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

2009年7月份,我给一个老朋友(Simon FT-MBA,2010春季班)为申请MBA而写的Essay提了几点比较关键的修改建议。后来,她成功拿到Simon的Offer。再后来,她建议我做留学DIY咨询方面的工作,并向我介绍了我的第一个客户。最终,我的第一个客户也成功拿到几个TOP16商学院的面试并顺利拿到Duke Fuqua商学院MBA的录取。 本人毕业于上海复旦大学管理学院国际企业管理系,属于商科科班出身并且做过管理工作、有领导经验的人士。

网易考拉推荐
 
 

INSEAD选读:Why Advertising Safety isn’t Safe  

2017-02-21 01:49:37|  分类: 领导力与管理学 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

INSEAD选读:Why Advertising Safety isn’t Safe

 

 

Juan Ma, INSEAD Assistant Professor of Strategy | February 20, 2017

 

 

Providing information that signals safety or quality may have a negative impact on sales, if it draws consumers’ attention to product safety risks.

Consumer trust in baby milk formula produced in China was forever changed in 2008. After six infants died and 300,000 others became sick from drinking formula based on milk powder laced with melamine to elevate its protein levels in standards tests, Chinese consumers turned in large numbers to home-made soybean milk or buying milk formula from overseas for their children.

Even though the response of the authorities was swift and firm, involving an investigation of Sanlu, then the fourth largest Chinese dairy company, for adding melamine to its powder and the sentencing of Sanlu’s chairwoman to life imprisonment, confidence remained low. Further investigations later found that dozens of milk brands were also tainted by melamine, which was a “known secret” in the dairy industry. One of the biggest problems was the opaque and complex nature of the industry’s supply chain, which made tracing the source of the contamination and enforcement of quality difficult.

Given the gravity of the safety lapse, brands that were tested clean went on a PR offensive to reassure customers with positive messages of safety. It is widely accepted in economics literature that providing more information on quality increases consumers’ willingness to pay for a given product, especially where such information disclosure is not made mandatory by regulators or is absent. However, as I find in my latest research paper, "Why Advertising Safety Isn’t Safe", in certain contexts, disclosure of quality information can actually do more harm than good, especially when it reminds consumers of a particularly negative experience.

Trust us, we’re safe

In my paper, with Zhaoning Wang and Tarun Khanna of Harvard, we studied Beingmate, a Chinese infant milk powder producer whose products were tested clean during and after the melamine scandal. Beingmate, which obtained ISO9001:2008 certification, invested US$3.2 million in a product traceability system after the crisis to reassure customers that its products were safe. The traceability system included QR codes on packaging so that consumers could instantly access information on the product’s source and history via smartphone.

We conducted two experiments to investigate the effects of this voluntary disclosure of quality information to see how it affected consumers’ purchasing decisions.

In the first experiment, we conducted an online survey experiment on customers visiting Beingmate’s online store. Visitors were shown different types of quality-related information via a pop-up window and then asked to complete a survey after making a purchase. One group was shown a pop-up about Beingmate’s traceability system, another was shown information about the company’s ISO certification, another was presented with a generic positive brand message about Beingmate and a control group was shown nothing. We found that the disclosure of quality-related information had a negative effect on purchase behaviour, with those shown traceability information 16-21 percent less likely to make a purchase and those shown ISO certification information 14-18 percent less likely to buy. Our survey also revealed that disclosure of quality-related information leads consumers to report a lower level of trust in China’s milk powder industry.

We also conducted an offline experiment in 87 supermarkets in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, where Beingmate is headquartered. We randomly assigned stores to the same treatment and control groups as our online experiment. We instructed Beingmate to attach an information card to the product racks on one of the following: traceability, certification or a generic ad. We then examined dollar and volume sales before, during and after the experiment to test the impact on sales. We find that all three treatments had a negative impact on average daily sales. We also compared the income level of different districts and found that the negative effect was significantly stronger in high-income districts, compared with low-income districts, suggesting that wealthy consumers are more likely to respond negatively when reminded of safety lapses.

Beware of what you disclose

Our results are consistent with recent developments in behavioural economics, which show that more information about product quality may change consumer behaviour in unexpected ways when it diverts consumers’ attention and triggers recollections of past experiences.

Across our studies, we observe this negative “reminder effect” which challenges the conventional view that consumers always respond to product quality information with an increased willingness to buy. The Chinese milk scandal shows that despite efforts to go above and beyond to showcase product safety, the severity of the milk scandal of 2008 was made salient in people’s minds whenever quality or safety information about milk powder was provided, producing an undesirable and inefficient outcome.

Institutional distrust in the developing world

We are not suggesting that product quality information is useless. Voluntary disclosure of such information has been proven to increase consumers’ purchase intention in developed markets where trust is taken for granted and product safety is taken more seriously at an institutional level. However, even in developed countries, in certain contexts, it is advisable to avoid reminding consumers of safety lapses or accidents. This is why airlines don’t advertise their safety features, as customers would be reminded of the past air disasters. Instead, their advertising focuses on functional features like comfort and flight experience.

Our research is particularly relevant for brands operating in emerging markets where trust isn’t taken for granted, and consumers are naturally suspicious of the information they are provided by corrupt governments or industries that may have been associated with safety lapses in the past. This is a socio-economic phenomenon that I refer to as “institutional distrust” – a collective belief that businesses and governments are corrupt and untrustworthy. In the Chinese milk powder setting, consumers were nervous when provided with product quality information, and asked, “Why do you want to assure me your products are safe?” The lack of trust worsens an already tough situation, and makes it impossible for a good producer to effectively differentiate itself from a bad one. Consequently, companies may not have the incentive to invest in safety and quality, and the whole market “races to the bottom.” 

Trust is the foundation for markets and organisations to function. A firm is a nexus of long-term implicit labour contracts, whereby employees “tie” themselves into a company by making firm-specific investments, for example, learning organisational routines, practices and cultures that support this particular company, and they count on managers to compensate them for these firm-specific investments that are generally valueless elsewhere. Without employees’ trust in managers, organisations wouldn’t move forward. Adam Smith noted the importance of trust to the functioning of markets in his Theory of Moral Sentiments written in 1759. Five of the world’s seven billion people are living in the developing world, where trust in advertising, managers, businesses and even governments are often not taken for granted. All the reputable businesses in developing countries have worked to cultivate trust. Alibaba, for example, not only created an e-commerce platform that enables sellers to display their products, but also created an ecosystem that allows both parties of the transaction to cultivate trust. Chinese buyers prefer to develop trust through their own interactions with sellers rather than acting on other users’ ratings. Buyers wanted to be able to see a seller’s online status and communicate with them instantaneously. That is why Taobao’s built-in instant messaging system became its competitive edge over eBay in China. When it comes down to cultivating trust in the developing world, businesses that respond creatively stand out.

Juan Ma is an Assistant Professor of Strategy at INSEAD.


 

 

以上内容摘自:

http://knowledge.insead.edu/strategy/why-advertising-safety-isnt-safe-5266 

 

 

宁老师(Coach Ning)联系方式:

QQ906866938

微信:可通过qq号加宁老师微信

微信公众号:宁老师DIY留学咨询

SKYPEessay-ningchunlong

LinkedIn账号:http://cn.linkedin.com/pub/chunlong-ning/30/28/409

新浪微博:http://weibo.com/ningchunlong

网易博客:http://ningchunlong.blog.163.com/

腾讯博客:http://user.qzone.qq.com/906866938/2

宁老师(Coach NingDIY留学咨询服务说明与收费标准(2016-2017

http://ningchunlong.blog.163.com/blog/static/1153712692016461220967

http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4MDU3MzYxOA==&mid=504022883&idx=1&sn=bb813d21e4565b2911bb7e6cdbc9a07d#rd

(注:上述两个服务说明的链接,若一个无法打开请点击另一个)

宁老师Coach Ning部分MBA或者Master咨询成功案例介绍

http://ningchunlong.blog.163.com/blog/#m=0&t=1&c=fks_087069080082082074081082086095085087084064083087084069093

 

 

DIY留学申请交流QQ群:

MBA申请DIY群:137254413

Master申请DIY群:162474877

MSF/MFE申请DIY 群:27769133

HRM申请DIY群:122368914

MKT申请DIY群:228695973

MSA/Macc申请DIY群:234137969

法律LL.M申请DIY群:110533381

英国及欧洲申请DIY群:209994593

HK申请DIY群:247226867

Canada申请DIY群:255130861

新加坡香港MSF申请DIY群:82449369

MBAMaster申请差别很大请正确选择要加入的群

  评论这张
 
阅读(6)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017