Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Fall 1974, Vol. 2, No. 4, 539-552 Product Classification and the Theory of Consumer Behavior Henry Assael, Ph.D. New York Univemity Generalized product classifications have been offered as a means of structuring markets since Copeland's early delineation (1923)of products as convenience, shopping and specialty goods. 1 Product and brand groupings are important in positioning potential competition, providing a comparative framework for evaluating marketing strategies, and as a starting point in developing strategies for new products. This process of classification may be viewed as an attempt to develop generalizations regarding a product's marketing mix, thereby simplifying the scope of the manager's marketing alternatives. Current emphasis on perceptual mapping and multidimensional scaling approaches to product classification represent a move away from generalized classification schemes such as Copeland's, to a more heuristic and brand-specific approach based on the perceptual and response characteristics of the consumer. 2 If generalized product classification schemes are to become useful in developing a framework for marketing strategy, they must establish a link between a product's characteristics and the consumer's decision process in evaluating those characteristics. The two best known generalized product classification schemes, Copeland's convenience-shopping goods typology and Aspinwall's characteristics of goods theory, 3 fail to establish this essential relationship between the consumer's decision mechanism and the characteristics of the products being classified. The purpose of this paper is to establish such a link. The vehicle is Howard and Sheth's classification of consumer decision-making into routinized response behavior (RRB), limited decision-making, and extensive decision-making (EDM).4 The decision process variables defining routinized response behavior and extensive decision making will be associated to the marketing characteristics of convenience and shopping goods. The result will be a fairly rich set of hypotheses relating consumer decision variables to product characteristics. 539 540 ASSAEL These hypotheses serve two purposes. First, they aid the marketing manager in associating strategy to the manner in which consumers make decisions. As an example, one set of hypotheses states: Heavy advertising (a marketing characteristic of convenience goods) is associated to limited informational search, informational consistency and stronger brand attitudes (characteristics of RRB). Such relationships could have important implications for the length and content of the message, and the utility of influencing switching behavior. The second advantage in linking decision process variables to marketing characteristics of goods is the extension of consumer behavior theory to marketing variables. To date, consumer decision processes have been described as an outgrowth of choice behavior derived from principles of social psychology. Although relevant, such theories have failed to associate choice to the specifics of the market place. Hypotheses relating stimulus ambiguity and cognitive dissonance to distributive and promotional penetration, or perceptual bias to product characteristics help in the development of a marketing oriented theory of consumer behavior. THE LINK BETWEEN THE PRODUCT AND DECISION TYPOLOGIES The relationship between the Copeland, Aspinwall and Howard-Sheth classifications is both logical and direct. Copeland's classification is based on the consumer's purchasing process as defined primarily by shopping effort. Convenience goods are "those consumers' goods which the consumer usually purchases frequently, immediately, and with a minimum of effort.''s Shopping effort is the key distinction since "the probable gain from shopping is small (because of minimal price and quality variations among sellers) relative to searching costs. "6 Shopping goods are "consumers' goods which the customer, in the process of selection and purchase, characteristically compares on such bases as suitability, quality, price and style. ''7 These are less frequently purchased items warranting greater search since the probable gain from shopping is higher. The operational implications of Copeland's typology are limited for two reasons. First, the purchasing process is not related to the marketing characteristics of goods. Second, there is no insight into the manner in which consumers make decisions, and therefore no basis for altering marketing strategy to the decision process. THEORY OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR 541 AspinwaU's characteristics of goods theory provides the link between pruchasing process and the marketing characteristics of products. He incorporates the convenience-shopping goods dichotomy on a color continuum from "red goods" to "yellow goods". Red goods are similar to convenience goods in having a high replacement rate, low search time, low time of consumption and low gross margin. Yellow goods are associated to shipping goods and have the opposite characteristics, with an infinite number of gradations between red and yellow.8 Aspinwall's contribution is in associating red and yellow goods to marketing strategy. He develops a normative marketing mix for red goods by stating that the further the product is on the red part of the continuum, the more intensive will be the distribution process and the greater will be the reliance on advertising. Conversely, yellow goods should be distributed selectively with greater reliance on personal selling. Miracle extended this definition to incorporate a broader set of marketing mix characteristics such as product variety, price control, and rate of technological change. 9 But even with this important association of classification theory to the marketing mix, there is still no allowance for variations based on the consumer's decision processes. The need remains to establish a link between the marketing characteristics of a product and the consumer's brand choice characteristics in evaluating that product. Howard and Sheth's consumer decision typology provides the link. Howard and Sheth define routinized response behavior primarily as routinization of the decision process characterized by lack of stimulus ambiguity, structured choice criteria, fewer alternatives, and greater buyer confidence. Yet most important, they recognize that routinization is established in shopping behavior as well: Although our focus is on brand choice behavior, the buyer also simplifies the total sequence of behavior necessary to make a purchase-going to the store, looking at the products, paying at the counter, and so forth-by reducing the number of steps and ordering them in a definite way. The greater the Attitude, the more the simplification of total buying behavior, hence the greater the routinization of his purchase. (Italics mine). I o Both routinized response behavior and convenience goods are thus characterized by routinized shopping behavior, providing a direct link between the two typologies. The Howard-Sheth typology is also related to the marketing 542 ASSAEL characteristics of products since red goods are defined by Aspinwall and Miracle as having less search time and effort spent in purchasing by the consumer.1 1 Howard and Sheth thus recognize the link between purchase process and choice variables by stating that simplification of the decision and purchase process go hand-in-hand. They also recognize the relationship of the decision variables to product characteristics by associating this desire for routinization more with frequently purchased products such as grocery and personal care items, products that are more likely to be classified as convenience/red goodsJ 2 The results of the association of convenience/red goods to routinized response behavior are illustrated in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 takes Copeland's classification of convenience and shopping goods and relates it to the variables associated to routinized response behavior and extensive decision making. Table 2 related convenience and shopping goods to those broader sets of marketing characteristics associated with red and yellow goods. Although Tables 1 and 2 rely primarily on the Howard/Sheth and Aspinwall/Miracle scheme, some logical extensions of both typologies are presented. The three typologies are listed on the top of Tables 1 and 2. Copeland's classification of specialty goods is not utilized because specialty goods do not fall on the same dimension as convenience and shopping goods. Holton recognized that the definition of specialty goods rests on the magnitude of market demand-a limited market demand requiring a special purchasing effort-and overlap the other two definitionsJ 3 He suggested deleting specialty goods from the classification in favor of the single convenienceshopping goods dimension as defined by shopping effort and frequency of purchase. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DECISION PROCESS AND MARKETING CHARACTERISTICS Decision Process Characteristics The characteristics of routinized response behavior and extensive decision making are broken out in Table 1 into stimulus variables (A), mediators (B), and response characteristics (C). The construct variables defining convenience/red goods are limited informational search (A1), limited physical search (C4) and a high frequency of purchase (C 1). The other variables are either decision process variables developed by Howard and Sheth in defining RRB and EDM, or extensions of their classification. TABLE 1 Relationship of Decision Process Characteristics to Product Typologies Sources Copelanda-Holton b Aspinwalle-Miracle d Howard-Sheth e Howard-Sheth e Copelanda-Holton b Aspinwalle-Miracle d Howard-Sheth e Howard-Sheth e Howard-Sheth e Howard-Sheth e Howard f Assael Howard-Sheth e Howard-Sheth e Howard-Sheth e Howard f Howard-Sheth e Assael Howard f Source Copelanda-Holton b Aspinwalle-Miracle d Howard-Sheth e Howard-Sheth e Copelanda-Holton b Assael Classification Schemes Convenience Goods Red Goods Routinized Response Behavior DECISION PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS A. Stimulus Characteristics 1. Limited Informational Search Shopping Goods Yellow Goods Extensive Decision Making 2. Lack of stimulus ambiguity 3. Stimulus Discrimination 4. Selective Exposure 5. Cognitive Consistency 6. Product Stimuh Dominate 7. Direct stimulus effects B. Mediators 1. Limited Evoked Set 2. Strong brand attitudes 3. Structured choice criteria 4. Less Ideation 5. More buyer confidence 6. Low psychological risks 7. Less need for consensual validation Stimulus ambiguity Extensive Generalization Non-Selective Inconsistent Informational Stimuli Delayed or cumulative Extensive Weak Unstructured More Less High More Decision Process Characteristics C. Response Characteristics 1. High frequency of purchase 2. High probability of repurchase 3. Little time between intention and purchase 4. Limited physical search 5. Low level of cognitive dissonance Low Low More time Extensive High a Same reference as f o o t n o t e 1. b Same reference as f o o t n o t e 6. e Same reference as f o o t n o t e 3. d Same reference as footnote 9. e Same reference as footnote 4. f John A. Howard, Marketing Management: Analysis and Planning (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 1963), Chpts. 3 and 4. 543 544 ASSAEL Viewing the stimulus variables, RRB is characterized by a lack of stimulus ambiguity (A~) and a higher level of stimulus discrimination (A3) because of familiarity and experience with the brand. Consumers will view stimuli selectively to screen out information so as to avoid clutter, and accept messages that are congruent with the brand experience (Ag,s). Product cues play a more important role than informational cues-for example, the reminder effect of the product in the supermarket (A6). Stimuli are more likely to have direct rather than cumulative effects because of the dominance of product cues (AT). All of these characteristics require a situation where the experiences of the consumer are confirmed and brand perceptual processes have become routinized. The establishment of routine is predicated on the consumer narrowing choice to a limited number of alternatives (B1). This is only possible where attitudes towards brands are strong (B2) and the choice criteria for selection are already structured (B3). Under such conditions less ideation is necessary (B4). As the consumer continues to build up experience and achieves reinforcement with subsequent purchases, more confidence is gained (Bs). The psychological risk of failure diminishes (B6). The technological and financial risk will also be lower since high frequency of consumption would mean the purchase of a smaller amount of utility at one time. Howard also sees the need for social support diminishing and consensuat validation from the peer group being less necessary under routinized response (BT). In short, the mediators play a lesser role in RRB because a portion of the environment has been simplified by insuring that the cognitive set of the individual will not be disturbed in the process of brand choice. Again, this condition is most likely to occur when it is most required-for frequently purchased items. The response variables are also centered on repetitive purchase behavior and the establishment of routine (C1). As a few brands begin to dominate, the probability of purchasing the same brands increases (C2). Yet as Holton points out, brand loyalties may not be strong enough to warrant additional search in an out-of-stock situation since the possible gain from shopping is small. More than likely, consumers will have one or two "fallback" brands under RRB. The response variables also reflect Howard and Sheth's recognition that purchase implementation is simplified. The time between intention and purchase is short, and sometimes instantaneous (C3). Moreover, the physical searching out of a brand is minimal (C4). The lack of conflicting information is also likely to produce less post-purchase dissonance (Cs). Yet routinized behavior can also lead back to decision-making. Howard THEORY OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR 545 and Sheth postulate that lack of stimulus ambiguity may lead to a search for ambiguity and disequilibrium: The buyer, after attaining routinization of his decision process, may find himself in too simple a situation. He is likely to feel monotony or boredom . . . He therefore feels a need to complicate his buying situation by considering new brands. ~4 Holton saw a different reason for the same shift from routine to decision-making: The tired and busy consumer may buy without much price and quality comparison an item which she may buy at some future date only after careful shopping when the searching costs are lower.1 s Thus, a convenience good can become a shopping good for the individual consumer, depending on the decision process. Marketing Characteristics The marketing characteristics in Table 2 are based primarily on Aspinwall/Miracle's classification of red and yellow goods. They are broken out into product (D), price (E), advertising (F) and distributive (G) characteristics. Aspinwall associated red goods to two marketing characteristics: intensive distribution (G1) and greater reliance on consumer advertising (F1).16 The latter has been modified to stipulate a higher advertising-to-sales ratio to account for the fact that although absolute dollars spent on advertising for certain products may be high, the product is not intensively distributed because of high unit value, low frequency of purchase, and possible service requirements. In m~st cases, such products are characterized by low advertising to sales ratios. Miracle's incorporation of a broader set of product and price characteristics is reflected in Table 2. Based on "observation of a large number of products," he associated the following characteristics to red goods:l 7 - L o w unit value (D1) - A slow rate of technological change (D2) - L o w level of technical complexity (D3) -Little need for product service (D4) 546 ASSAEL TABLE 2 Relationship o f Marketing Characteristics of Goods to Product Typologies Sources Copelanda-Holton b Aspinwalle-Miracle d Howard-Sheth e Miracle d Miracle d Miracle d Miracle d Miracle d Miracle d Aspinwall e Aspinwall c Miracle d Miracle d Miracle d Aspinwall e (Assael) Classification Schemes Convenience Goods Shopping Goods Red Goods Yellow Goods Routinized Response Extensive Decision Behavior Making M A R K E T I N G CHARACTERISTICS D. Product Characteristics 1. Low Unit value High 2. Slow rate o f technoFast logical change 3. Low level o f technical High complexity 4. Less need for product Greater service 5. Wide variety of uses for Limited uses individual product 6. Less variety in p r o d u c t Greater variety alternatives 7. Lower margins Higher 8. Higher turnover Lower E. Pricing Characteristics 1. Little variation in price Greater variation b e t w e e n customers 2. Price less subject to negotiation 3. Less control over price Greater control b y seller F. Advertising Characteristics More negotiation 1. High advertising-toLow sales ratio a Same reference as f o o t n o t e 1. b Same reference as f o o t n o t e 6. e Same reference as footnote 3. d Same reference as f o o t n o t e 9. e Same reference as f o o t n o t e 4. f Same reference as f o o t n o t e 18. g Valentine F. Ridgway, "Administration of Manufacturer-Dealer Systems," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1 (March, 1957), pp. 4 6 4 4 8 3 h Same reference as f o o t n o t e 19. i Henry Assael, "The Political Role of Trade Associations in Distributive Conflict Resolution," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 (April, 1968) pp. 21-28. THEORY OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR 547 TABLE 2-Continued Sources Aspinwallc Assael Assael Alderson f Ridgewayg Palamountain h Assaeli Palamountain h Palamountain h Palamountain h Marketing Characteristics G. Distributive Characteristics 1. Intensive Distribution 2. Heavier sales promotion 3. Total transactional costs higher 4. Routinized transactions 5. Little interdependence between consumers, retailers and manufacturers 6. Low level of vertical channel conflict 7. Less co-operation within channel 8. High level of intertype conflict Selectiveor Exclusive Lighter Carrying costs higher Personal selling and negotiations Greater interdependence High level Greater co-operation Low level -Wide variety of consumer uses for an individual product (Ds) - Y e t fewer varieties of the product by style, color, model or price (D6). In addition, Aspinwall characterized red goods as having lower margins and higher turnover (D7 & D8). Regarcling pricing characteristics, Miracle characterized manufacturers of red goods as having little variation in pricing policy from customer to customer (El), even if customers can be considered different under the Robinson-Patman Act. Moreover, prices for red goods are less subject to negotiation than those for yellow goods (E2). As a result, Miracle contends manufacturers of red goods have less control over pricing policy (E3). The distributive characteristics of red goods are extended beyond Aspinwall's definition of intensive distribution (G1). Manufacturer-sponsored deals and cents-off promotions are more likely to occur under intensive distribution because the manufacturer does not have the price control on the retail level that he has under selective or exclusive distribution (G2). Due to the frequency of re-orders, total transactional costs are likely to outweigh carrying costs (G3). Yet average transactional costs per unit are likely to be smaller since, as Wroe Alderson points out, the repetitive nature of transactions is likely to lead to greater routinization in an attempt to create marketing efficiencies (G4). Alderson 548 ASSAEL associates such routinization to the adoption of self-service, prepackaging, and mass advertising; marketing characteristics ordinarily associated with intensive distribution.1 s The characteristics of red goods could also be extended to channel relations. There is little interdependence between manufacturers, retailers and consumers under conditions of intensive distribution (Gs). Given the lower unit value of the item, the brand can not represent a significant proportion of total sales and little leverage can be exerted by the manufacturer. Vertical channel pressures on the retailer from the manufacturer are unlikely, resulting in a minimum of conflict (G6). Yet this will also result in a minimum of cooperative programs in advertising, selling and managerial assistance since the level of interdependence is low (GT). Intertype conflict (conflict between organizations on the same level in the channel) is more likely than vertical conflict because of greater price control by retailers and the application of different concepts of retailing (e.g., discount vs. regular stores) in the same local areas ( G s ) . 19 Relating Decision Process Variables to Product Characteristics The decision process variables and marketing characteristics in Tables 1 and 2 appear to be internally consistent. This construct provides a vehicle for generating hypotheses which can associate the marketing characteristics in Table 2 to the decision process variables in Table 1. Subsequent validation of these hypotheses will aid marketing strategists in better understanding the decision process within their own markets. The following hypotheses and their possible implications are provided as some examples of these associations: 1. Products with higher advertising-to-sales ratios (convenience or red goods) are most likely to be characterized by direct stimulus effects since reminder is more important than ideation and image building. An attempt to reposition such products through advertising will be more difficult than similar attempts for yellow or shopping goods. Moreover, since a high advertising-to-sales ratio is also associated with greater frequency of repurchase and a limited evoked set, advertising will be more effective in reinforcing existing loyalties than in influencing switching behavior. 2. Products with high advertising-to-sales ratios are also associated with selective exposure, informational consistency, lack of stimulus THEORY OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR 549 ambiguity and stimulus discrimination. There is greater difficulty in penetrating the perceptual barriers the consumer is likely to construct and in changing attitudes, compared to products with low advertising-to-sales ratios. As a result, the marginal utility of each additional unit of advertising is likely to be lower for convenience/red goods than for shopping/yellow goods. 3. Sales promotional activity is likely to be more intense where there is limited informational search, a lack of stimulus ambiguity, and a dominance of product over symbolic cues. The implications would seem to be to keep the informational content of promotions to a minimum, impart product associations for reminder effects rather than more complex need-fulfillment messages, and physically tie promotions to the product. 4. High technical complexity is related to greater stimulus ambiguity, stimulus generalization, a lower level of buyer confidence, and greater psychological and cognitive risks. If brand loyalty is to be established, the level of ambiguity must be diminished through an informational campaign, enabling the consumer to discriminate brand stimuli. The manfacturer must give the consumer the equipment for dealing with complex products by conveying the appropriate choice criteria. The anxieties of inconsistent information and the risk of failure will then be reduced. Moreover, since service requirements are also associated to these decision variables, consumers may view service as a necessary extension of technical risk. Therefore, reassurance on service is an important element in the purchase of yellow/shopping goods. 5. Greater variety in product alternatives is associated with a dominance of symbolic over product cues, informational ambiguity and inconsistency, and cognitive dissonance. The implication is that by increasing the number of alternatives, product variety causes greater confusion and difficulty in the decision process. Where the manufacturer offers variety, he should also give the consumer the equipment to deal with it. 6. Personal selling is more important where information is ambiguous and inconsistent, attitudes are weak, and the psychological and cognitive risks high. This suggests the proper role of the salesman as an influential: To alleviate anxieties by providing the consumer with a set of choice criteria through unambiguous information. 7. Channel conflict is most likely to occur where information is 550 ASSAEL ambiguous, the consumer's informational search extensive, attitudes weak and more subject to outside influence, and cognitive dissonance more pronounced. These decision variables support the manufacturer's desire for control on the retail level and increase the potential for conflict. Where information and ideation are important, the manufacturer will wish to control the message to the consumer on the retail as well as the national level. Retailers frequently view such control as unnecessary influence on their operations. Moreover, the manufacturer will want to reduce the consumer's perceived risk by reinforcement of purchase decisions through advertising and liberalized service and warranty policies, often in the dealer's view at his expense. A consumer decision process view of channel conflict adds another perspective to the more frequently discussed economic and ideological dimensions of conflict and its resolution. . Routinized transactions are most logically associated with high frequency of purchase and limited informational search. But they are also associated with lack of ambiguous or inconsistent information and the relative unimportance of the mediating variables. Therefore, in order to achieve routine in transactions, some prior routine must be established in the consumer's decision processes. CONCLUSION Existing product and decision process typologies provide a basis for relating the marketing characteristics of products to the consumer decision process used to evaluate them. Yet several problems remain in establishing the classification as an operational tool. First, a particular brand must be identified on the continuum of routinized to extensive decision making or red to yellow goods. Such a positioning is required if the marketing manager is to associate normative channel, product and promotional characteristics with his brand. Second, a normative framework for marketing characteristics based on consumer decision processes has its limitations. The manufacturer's ability to adjust product, promotional and pricing characteristics to a generalized norm is limited by the degree to which the marketing characteristics of goods are controllable. Can a manufacturer adjust the rate of technological change? Can he exert greater control over price given prevailing market conditions or government regulations? The manufacturer's attempt to suit THEORY OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR 551 the product to the normative model may be severely limited depending on the degree of environmental constraints. In addition, there may be numerous exceptions to the norm. Infrequently purchased products may involve minimal search because little can be gained from shopping, or products distributed selectively may require high advertising-to-sales ratios in an introductory phase. Also, products distributed intensively may demonstrate a greater degree of product variety. As with any theory or classification, an increasing number of exceptions may require a revision of the scheme or necessitate discarding it altogether. This raises the third question, the generality of the interaction between marketing and consumer decision characteristics. Is there greater selective exposure under conditions of heavy advertising? Is there less informational search when sales promotional activity is dominant? Is greater product variety associated with stimulus ambiguity? These hypotheses must be tested across product categories and across brands and consumer groups within categories to establish their generality. If many of these relationships prove valid, it may provide the basis for incorporating marketing characteristics of goods into consumer decision theory. Moreover, should the relationships prove to be generalizable to product classes and consumer groups, then the classification scheme may assist the marketing manager by narrowing the scope of his decision parameters. FOOTNOTES ~Melvin T. Copeland, Principles of Merchandising (Chicago: A. W. Shaw Co., 1924), Chpts. 2-4. 2See for example: Lester A. Neidell, "The Use of Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling in Marketing Analysis," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 (October, 1969), pp. 37-43; Paul E. Green and Frank J. Carmone, "Multidimensional Scaling: An Introduction and Comparison of Nonmetric Unfolding Techniques," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. VI (August, 1969), pp. 330-341; and Henry Assael, "Perceptual Mapping to Reposition Brands," Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. II (February 1971), pp. 39-42. Leo V. Aspinwall, 'q'he Characteristics of Goods Theory," and "The Parallel Systems Theory," in William Lazer and Eugene J. Kelley, Editors, Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1962), pp. 633-652. 4 John A. Howard and Jagdish N. Sheth, The Theory of Buyer Behavior (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969), Chpt. 2. 5American Marketing Association, "Report of the Definitions Committee," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 13 (October 1948), pp. 202-217. 552 ASSAEL Richard D. Holton, "The Distinction Between Convenience Goods, Shopping Goods, and Specialty Goods," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23 (July, 1958), pp. 53-56, at p. 55. 7 American Marketing Association, same reference as footnote 5. 8 Aspinwall, same reference as footnote 3, at p. 641. 9 Gordon E. Miracle, "Product Characteristics and Marketing Strategy," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29 (January, 1965), pp. 18-24. 10 Howard and Sheth, same reference as footnote 3, at p. 641. ~Aspinwall, same reference as footnote 3, at p. 641. Miracle, same reference as footnote 9, at p. 20. 12 Howard and Sheth, same reference as footnote 4, at p. 25. 13 Holton, same reference as footnote 6, at p. 55. 4 Howard and Sheth, same reference as footnote 4, at pp. 27-28. s Holton, same reference as footnote 6, at p. 54. 6 Aspinwall, same reference as footnote 3, at p. 644. 17 Miracle, same reference as footnote 9, at p. 20. aWroe Alderson, Marketing Behavior and Executive Action (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1957), pp. 296-304. ~gThe distinction between vertical and intertype conflict was formulated by Joseph C. Palamountain, Jr. in The Politics of Distribution (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1955), Chpt. 2. ABOUT THE AUTHOR DR. H E N R Y A S S A E L is a Professor o f M a r k e t i n g at New Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y ' s G r a d u a t e S c h o o l o f Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Dr. Assael has led in t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a n a l y t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s to m a r k e t i n g p r o b l e m s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e areas of m a r k e t s e g m e n t a t i o n , p r o d u c t p o s i t i o n i n g a n d advertising effectiveness, a n d serves as a c o n s u l t a n t t o a n u m b e r of large c o r p o r a t i o n s in these areas. Dr. Assael has p u b l i s h e d widely in t h e J o u r n a l o f Marketing, J o u r n a l o f M a r k e t i n g R e s e a r c h , J o u r n a l o f A d v e r t i s i n g R e s e a r c h a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y . Dr. Assael received a B A f r o m ~ a r v a r d University in 1957, g r a d u a t i n g w i t h h o n o r s , an MBA f r o m the W h a r t o n S c h o o l in 1959 a n d a Ph.D. f r o m t h e C o l u m b i a G r a d u a t e School o f Business in 1965. He is listed in O u t s t a n d i n g E d u c a t o r s of A m e r i c a , A m e r i c a n Men a n d W o m e n o f Science, a n d t h e D i c t i o n a r y o f International Biography.
