Product classification and the theory of

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 exten-
sive 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 con-
sistency 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 characteris-
tics 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 convenience-
shopping 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 Classification Schemes
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
Convenience Goods
Red Goods
Routinized Response
Behavior
DECISION PROCESS
CHARACTERISTICS
A. Stimulus Characteristics
1. Limited Informational
Search
B.
2. Lack of stimulus
ambiguity
3. Stimulus Discrimination
4. Selective Exposure
5. Cognitive Consistency
6. Product Stimuh
Dominate
7. Direct stimulus effects
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
Shopping Goods
Yellow Goods
Extensive Decision
Making
Extensive
Stimulus ambiguity
Generalization
Non-Selective
Inconsistent
Informational
Stimuli
Delayed or cumulative
Extensive
Weak
Unstructured
More
Less
High
More
Decision Process
Source Characteristics
C. Response Characteristics
Copelanda-Holton b 1. High frequency of
purchase
Aspinwalle-Miracle d
Howard-Sheth e
Howard-Sheth e
Copelanda-Holton b
Assael
Low
2. High probability of Low
repurchase
3. Little time between More time
intention and purchase
4. Limited physical search Extensive
5. Low level of cognitive High
dissonance
a Same reference as footnote 1.
b Same reference as footnote 6.
e Same reference as footnote 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