By Michael A. Belch, PhD, Professor of Marketing and Co-director of the Centre for Integrated Marketing Communications at San Diego State University.

Here's what you'll learn in this article:

1. What are hierarchy models?

2. How do marketers use these models?

3. Are there any problems with using these models?

 

For decades researchers have attempted to understand consumer decision processes, recognizing that decisions are, in fact, often a process rather than an immediate behavioral response. Understanding this process has been a priority not only for marketers and those attempting to understand consumer behaviors, but also others in the disciplines of sociology, rural sociology, social psychology, cognitive psychology and communications, among others. Their research has led many to believe that decision processes move through a cognitive (thinking) to an affective (feeling) and then to (conative) behavioral sequence. While critics argue against such processes, nevertheless, they have been adopted by many marketers and used to develop a variety of marketing strategies.

Examples of the usage of hierarchies are demonstrated by the variety of models that exist. As far back as the 1920’s, the Attention --> Interest --> Desire (AIDA) model was being employed by salespeople recognizing that to make a sale, they would need to move potential buyers through the sequential stages.

The Lavidge-Steiner model of a hierarchy of effects –Awareness --> Knowledge --> Liking --> Preference --> Conviction --> Purchase was adopted by advertisers to guide their communications strategies in the 1960’s, as was the Awareness --> Comprehension --> Conviction and Action hierarchy of Russell H. Colley. This last model led to the development of DAGMAR (Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results) a report written for the Association of National Advertisers advocating a model for setting advertising objectives and measuring the effects of a campaign. This hierarchy—or variations thereof—continue to be used by many advertisers today.

Perhaps the most ubiquitous of hierarchy models—and one that I have found to be extremely valuable in guiding marketing strategies—is the adoption model set forth by Everett Rogers in 1962. Rogers proposed that consumers followed a hierarchical process of Awareness --> Interest --> Evaluation --> Trial --> Adoption (AIETA) in the adoption of innovations. The model also led to the extensive literature on the diffusion of innovations, which has led to literally thousands of studies in a multitude of disciplines.

Simply put, hierarchy models provide a systematic way to look at how consumers respond—whether it be to advertising communications, purchase decisions or the adoption of innovations. While the hierarchies assume a linear ordering notion, and all decisions may not necessarily include each step, they nevertheless provide some guidance for those seeking to understand the process under consideration.

Critiques of hierarchy models stem from a number of legitimate considerations. Included among these are (1) treating each stage as independent – for example, the ability to separate cognition and affect, or to determine which comes first; and (2) the fact that consumers must move through an ordered sequence—arguments that the order may be reversed (for example trial preceding evaluation) or skipped, have merit. While these arguments are legitimate, there is little evidence to render the hierarchies as of no value.

Given advertisers (and marketers) concerns with determining ROI, and the fact that it is clear that sales are usually not a DIRECT measure of marketing communications effectiveness, hierarchies provide a useful indirect measure of effectiveness (as noted by DAGMAR). Achievement of the stages established by these models will contribute to, and increase, the likelihood of achieving behavioral goals.

 

Michael A. Belch, PhD is a Professor of Marketing and Co-director of the Centre for Integrated Marketing Communications at San Diego State University.

Comment