Retailers may just have a problem with cooties and/or lurgi, that imaginary childhood plague that infects by association. The perception that an item has been handled or - gasp - even tried on can significantly affect a costumer’s decision to buy. Customers may want to handle, sniff or feel while making their buying decision, but it better be a pristine and virgin piece of merchandise.
The proof? A study by a trio of Canadian and U.S. consumer researchers has produced:
” … a theory of consumer contagion, whereby consumers are thought to contaminate the products they touch, consequently lowering evaluations and purchase intentions of other consumers for the same products.”
Apparently, these perceptioon of cooties on a product is magnified by the customer’s proximity to the well-known habitat of other, smellier and less careful, consumers: “…when the product was located in the dressing room or on the return rack, consumers may have thought the product had been more recently contaminated compared to when it was located on the regular rack.”
Knowledge@A.P.Carey describes their experiment:
The team added three variables to the process in order to test customer reaction to different levels of contamination, based on the proximity to previous contact, time elapsed since contact, and the number of contact sources:
· In the “close” contamination scenario, the sales associate informed the customer that somebody else was trying the shirt on. The associate then took the customer to a dressing room, where they waited while the contaminating customer exited the dressing room, leaving the shirt behind.
· For “medium” contamination, the customer was told the shirt was “over here on the return rack,” and was guided by the sales associate to that location, where the shirt hung.
· For the “far” scenario, the customer was merely told the shirt “is just over here on the rack” and taken to a regular display rack located a few feet away from the return rack.
At no point did the customer see anyone else — either the sales associate or the other customer — actually touch the shirt.”
The result? A distinct perception of customer cooties by participants.
How can retailers react to these results? By: clearly separating their merchandising areas from the display shelves; keeping the changing rooms clean and free of “soiled” clothing; limiting the number of on-floor samples available for “touching”; and regular tidying of their on-floor displays.
An area I’d like to see explored in future research is the impact of perceptions of “customer contagion” in the context of discount or factory outlet shops. The merchandising at Filene’s or a J. Crew outlet is always a constant battle against touching, trying and discarding, yet the apparent disorder only seems to increase (my) perception that deals are to be had and that the items on display (on the rack or on the floor) are desirable.
Perhaps management at these types of stores, long accustomed to dealing with customer’s perceptions of use, abuse and disgust, have learnt to manipulate pricing models to move merchandise despite those perceptions. For example: an easily washable dirt mark means 10% discount. Wrinkles on returned prom dress means 60% discount. Evident sweat stain on returned prom dess means 90% discount. White stain on blue Gap dress means …
More details from the study itself: “Consumer Contamination: How Consumers React to Products Touched by Others“, by Jennifer J. Argo, Darren W. Dahl, and Andrea C. Morales in the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Marketing.