When you make a major purchase, how do you choose between competing products? Do you buy solely on price? Or do you consider features, quality, and brand reputation?
A new study in the April 2009 issue of Journal of Consumer Research reveals that our purchasing decisions are susceptible to the influence of external descriptions. When we shop, we may spend too much when we base our decisions on product specifications.
The researchers found that “even when consumers can directly experience the relevant products, and the specifications carry little or no new information, their preference is still influenced by specifications”. In other words, even when we can compare products first-hand, we don’t trust our own judgment. We let specifications influence our decisions.
First-hand experience
I’ve experienced this first-hand many times. I might, for example, be shopping for a new blender and find a model that I really like. It does what I need and is easy to use. It matches our kitchen and the price is right. But then I’ll notice that it only has 6 speeds and other models have 8 speeds. Suddenly I’ll second-guess myself and end up buying a different blender — one that I ultimately find less satisfying.
Now obviously, product specifications are useful; they allow us to compare models and features. The problem comes when we let the specifications unduly influence our decisions.
When I purchased a digital camera in 2007, for example, I became fixated on the number of megapixels each model offered despite the fact that I know megapixels make no difference to quality. Ultimately I chose the camera that I preferred subjectively, but for a while I had dismissed it because its specifications weren’t top-of-the-line. I made a smart choice. That little camera has been a reliable producer of great photos.
Practical implications
The authors of this study conclude that marketers can manipulate consumers by taking advantage of their tendency to seek better specifications. For example, manufacturers might create new measurements and emphasize their importance, such as a hypothetical “crispness index” for crackers. And I’ve often wondered if some companies don’t funnel customers toward certain profitable models in their product line through the use of specifications.
The authors also have a recommendation for consumers: Base your buying decisions on experience, not just on numbers. They write, “The situation we find ourselves in when we decide what to purchase often differs significantly from the situation we will find ourselves in when we eventually consume the good we purchase.”
Comparing specifications is useful for creating a pool of choices, but you should base your final decision on personal experience whenever possible.
[Journal of Consumer Research: Specification seeking: How product specifications influence consumer preference]
This article is about Consumerism, News, Shopping Monday, 30th March 2009 (by J.D. Roth)


RSS Feeds
Facebook
GRS Twitter







March 30th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Specifications are extremely key for my purchases. This article puts them in a bad light. I think the problem arises out of people viewing specifications such as megapixels and watts of power and get blindsided thinking more is better, which is many times incorrect.
People have to be informed consumers and understand what specifications mean. They have to understand things past the megapixels race in cameras, things like sensor size, optics quality, ease of use, storage mediums, etc. And these form an extremely small list by not even an amateur photographer. And this is with a simple camera.
Specifications are a great measuring tool. But you have to understand what the spec is measuring, otherwise you will be lost in just numbers.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I believe there is a significance to the megapixel spec. At about 10MP the spec no longer matters for standard size photos, only if you intend to blow it up.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:19 am
I’m experiencing this myself right now as I shop for a new TV. There are so many different specifications and measurements (many I’m sure are just made up or meaningless), and I find it very easy to get caught up in all the different specs. In the end, I just want a quality TV at a good price.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:19 am
I narrow my choices down to two or three similar products (by price range) before I even look at the specs just to avoid this trap of overspending for something that I don’t really need. Although I think that avoiding the spec trap gets tougher and tougher with products like computers. Computers seem to be all about specifications these days, although after reading this article I wonder if that is just another marketing tactic?
March 30th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I always find that I get overwhelmed with too many choices. I try to pick one feature that’s important to me, and then search for that. I will then usually shop based on reviews (easily found on Amazon), and I do usually choose a brand that I know offers a good product or customer service.
And sometimes I just ask other people what they like, and get some great recommendations that way.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I just wanted to tell you that your frugality and search for another penny pinched is very helpful. Times are tough. I had some thoughts about the iPhone and how to save money using virtually any cell. I have a simple blog (workawaynow.blogspot.com) and I am constantly looking for better and less expensive ways to function in my business. I REALLY look for ways to work from anywhere in the world and not pay a fortune and that leads me to saving money in many areas. Your blog has been a big help. Just wanted to thank you and maybe give you a new idea on saving re the cell.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I bought a DLP HDTV about a year and a half ago. I either had the choice of the traditional color wheel and incandescent projector bulb that lasts for about 3 years and costs over $100 to replace, or the tri color LED light engine that lasts for the life of the television (in other words, it dies and the TV is junk). I went with the LED version and paid more for the new technology. Did I save money by spending $100 more up front? Only time will tell.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I’m looking at kitchen range vent hoods right now, and it’s interesting how it’s easy to find the number of cubic feet per minute (easy to increase) and difficult to find the noise rating (more complicated to decrease, and really more important to me because if the vent fan sounds like a jet taking off I’m not going to turn it on and it will exhaust 0 cubic feet per minute).
March 30th, 2009 at 11:42 am
The comments so far remind me that I need to read Barry Schwartz’s The Paradox of Choice. How about I commit to making that one of the first books I review in May?
March 30th, 2009 at 11:51 am
I use a combination of Consumer Reports and features I desire to make major purchasing decisions. I look at each feature and decide whether it’s useful to me or not. If not, then I ignore it.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I think part of the reason we do this is because there’s such a huge number of choices that it’s impossible to have personal experience with all the options on which to base your choice. There must be 300 digital cameras on the market right now, to go to stores and try them all out would take weeks. So what do we do? We say “I want a name-brand camera in a small format with a high zoom”. We then eliminate all the cameras that don’t say Canon or Sony or Nikon on them. We eliminate all the cameras that aren’t a pocket-sized format. We eliminate all the cameras that have less than 4x optical zoom. Now there’s only 8 cameras left of those 300, and we can actually feasibly choose between that many. Maybe we eliminated the camera that we would have liked best, but being able to choose the second or third best camera is better than not being able to decide at all. The specs make it easy to weed cameras out without really evaluating them at all.
Coincidentally, this is the exact same function that new college graduates’ GPA has when applying for jobs. As a hiring manager with 300 applications, you can’t feasibly interview all those people, so you eliminate everyone with a GPA below 3.5. Now you have 50 people, and things are getting more manageable. You *might* have just eliminated your best candidate. Lots of smart people don’t do fantastically well in school. But you had to do something, because having so many options is paralyzing, and you have to apply some quick, easy heuristics to make your decision possible.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I just bought a phone. I ended up balancing price and specs. What I really really really wanted was an unlocked G-1 (The Google Android phone), but that would’ve required a $25/month data plan.
So instead, I used specs in my searches and found three phones that had Wi-Fi, but no 3G networking — these three didn’t require data plans. I then used user reviews and price to pick the phone I now have.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I had the exact situation come up with a blender recently. I had researched for the exact blender I wanted online. I had read reviews and done more than enough research to know what I wanted.
However, I made the mistake of walking into a couple stores in person to check prices and found myself wanting more and more every place I went. I was able to pull it together and order online, but I almost pulled the trigger on an impulse buy in store.
Thanks for shedding some light on this topic!
March 30th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
A coworker of my husband is caught up in this. He is buying a new TV for his new house. Apparently the top of the line isn’t good enough for him. The TV he is getting is verified to have fewer than 3 defective pixels, it has a camera on the TV that watches and adjusts the display based on ambient lighting and aging (though no one has told me what to expect if the camera is defective)…so on and so forth. Things that I promise you I would never notice nor really care. I think it is ~50″ screen. But he loves the specs.
The price tag is $13k, for a TELEVISION.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Whew, finally a financial trap that I don’t see myself in! I am a great believer in Good Enough. When shopping for a gadget or tool, I decide how much I want to spend first, then look for products in that range and choose what I think will work best for me … buyer reviews are very useful for screening. Juicy ad copy can be tempting, but I know I don’t need The Perfect anything. (Who was it who said “the perfect is the enemy of the good”?)
March 30th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
This really seems to apply to HDTV shopping. There isn’t really any discernible difference between 720p and 1080p at most sizes and viewing distances, but 1080p is “top of the line” so people think it must be worth it. Part of it is probably also bragging rights, as someone’s less likely to boast about their 720p TV that they got for a great value.
And Tyler, I love the logic involved. It actually helps me sometimes to have too many choices. I’ll get the urge to buy a gadget, but I want to get the best value. I start researching, get overwhelmed, and either the urge goes away or I really want the product and find it worth the time to find out more.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I instantly thought of the Paradox of Choice myself when I read this post, lol. It’s a great book–I highly recommend it.
I used to be all about “What’s the BEST that I can get?”, even if I never used most of the features that I paid for. Then one day we needed to replace our scanner, but we were broke, so I “settled” for a $99 cheap one. Wouldn’t you know that worked better than the one we’d spent thousands on? Same thing happened with the $69 dvd player I got to replace our (third) $300 one. It works amazingly well, and has lasted years longer than the previous ones. It was a huge switch in my thinking, but it’s really worked well for us.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
@ Matt T
“There isn’t really any discernible difference between 720p and 1080p at most sizes and viewing distances, but 1080p is “top of the line” so people think it must be worth it.”
Whoa whoa. There IS a discernible difference. All blu-rays and some ps3/xbox 360 games display in full HD 1080p. If you have a 720p display you are definitely missing out. You have over twice the amount of viewable pixels in a 1080p display over 720p. This helps on larger sets where the pixels are larger and more spread out. If you are getting a small TV that you are watching 15 feet away from a couch…then yes, there probably isn’t a difference. But if you are getting a large TV or one that you plan on using close-up like a computer monitor then 1080p is a huge difference. It’s not just bragging rights if you know why and when it makes a difference. But if you go into best buy and can’t see the difference (assuming the sets are calibrated properly, which is unlikely), by all means get the 720p.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p
March 30th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I made a deal with my wife long ago. If I need a new tool I buy a tool near the bottom of the price range. Not the bottom but close. Then when it breaks I get to buy one of the better tools I had my eye on. So far I have not had any break.
Thanks for the article becuase I need to learn how to apply this to the rest of my purchases.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
@MarcoL (#18) and co.
I wish I had thought of the whole Hi-Def television thing before I posted this story. It’s a perfect example.
If I were to purchase a television solely on specs, I’d be overwhelmed. I wouldn’t know which to choose. But if I actually experience the television, I can make a better choice.
For myself, I don’t give a rat’s ass about Hi-Def. It’s unimportant. I have a Hi-Def TV, but it’s the lowest of the low end. (I have no idea how many i or p it is.) So, for me, looking at specs on televisions is just going to cause me to spend more money. I need to go with the experience and see what makes me happy, and pay as little as possible for it.
On the other hand, I’m very fussy about computers. I love the Mac operating system. Windows drives me nuts. (I’m not saying Windows is bad, so don’t let’s degenerate here — I’m just saying that for me, Mac is better.) I’m willing to pay extra for a Mac computer. If I went purely on specs, this would never happen. But because I base my decision on experience, that’s where I’m at…
March 30th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
@J.D.
I am definitely not condoning the purchase of a TV solely on specs. Definitely go to best buy after your research and *see* the set(s) you have in mind. But in the end, specs matter…at least the 720p / 1080p which defines how many viewable pixels the TV can display. Some specs are iffy, like “contrast ratio” which I have seen (comparable specs) some with extremely high numbers that look horrible…and some with much lower numbers look amazing. So alot of your decision should be actually looking at the set.
I suppose it is one of those things. If movies & video games aren’t high on your priority list it’s a moot point since you probably don’t care for bluray and/or PS3/xbox 360.
I personally have a ps3 which is hooked up to an oldschool 720p. It’s ok, but the old TV is definitely holding it back. In a few months I will probably start saving up for and researching a nice 1080p.
I like how you mentioned the Mac. To you having a mac is important and you don’t mind paying the higher premium/Apple Tax. So, everybody has a few things they are into and don’t mind paying extra for while saving money on the things that they don’t find too important. So for me, my windows is fine but I’d like a 1080p flat screen. For you it’s the opposite. It’s just one of those things =)
March 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
@ MarcoL
Sorry, I should’ve been more specific about the “most sizes” I was referring to. I was referring to screens in the 30″ range. There is definitely a difference once you get over 40″ or if you sit close to the TV. I just need to find a way to objectively compare screens since I’m guessing the signals in Best Buy, etc are not created equal…
Movies and games are important to me, but not enough to justify spending that much money on BluRay or PS3, especially considering the recurring extra cost of BluRay DVDs.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Hey J.D., had to chime in again re: Hi-Def. Our TV is an HD, LCD flatscreen. One of the first movies we watched on it was Star Trek VI (regular old DVD, not Blu-Ray). And the resolution is almost TOO good - you can see the matte lines in the special effects! I still laugh about that. Specs, schmecs.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Unfortunately, I don’t have Hi Def eyes, so I’d be buying a tv with a lot of pointless quality.
Yet, I have friends who can’t believe I haven’t bought an HDTV yet.
Their love of gadgets completely trumps any innate practicality they might have.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
When I purchased a digital camera in 2007, for example, I became fixated on the number of megapixels each model offered despite the fact that I know megapixels make no difference to quality.
*puts on photog school student hat*
This is true insofar as photo composition is concerned. You could use a pinhole camera and good composition and come out with a high-quality photo even if it’s slightly blurry.
But sometimes you need other specs in addition to good composition. If you are going to need good quality at large sizes then a higher MP camera is a must, just as 100 or 200 ISO film is necessary for sharper photos in a film camera. Unfortunately for the photographer on a budget, it is cheaper to get sharp photos in a film camera than a digicam, for obvious reasons.
You can get around this a little bit if you must have a digicam by looking for one that lets you manually override the focus in some way. It doesn’t have to be an SLR.
Sorry to take away from the central point of your post, I just thought I’d throw that in there.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
This article left me thinking about how many people get ripped off when buying a certain brand of audio equipment that starts with B, ends with e, and has os in the middle. You can get FAR higher quality for a fraction of the price, but so many people believe from the marketing that it’s the best. The web has many forums on it that are full of ANGRY ex-Bose owners.
If it sounds good, it is. If it looks good, it is. You just have to be careful about the audition…
March 30th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Definitely don’t go for the cheapest but I’m also not a brand snob.
I’ll weigh quality vs price and usually give quality a priority.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
When we bought a TV, one of the main specs I was concerned with, much more so than how high-def it was, was how many and what kind of connections it had.
I knew we’d have a DVD player, a Wii, a Computer a SNES and an aerial antenna, so I needed inputs for those, preferably without anything hanging off the front. My dad gets annoyed right now with his huge high-def TV because he can’t hook everything up to it.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:03 am
The one thing that Dana (#25) reminds me to mention is that sometimes you’re *more* susceptible to overbuying when you know what all the tech specs mean.
I mentioned overbuying on our scanner, but didn’t give the full story. Both my husband and I are graphic professionals. In 1997, we set out to buy a computer system. I decided it had to be top of the line, so that we could do freelance work at home. Knowing what all the technical specs meant, I consistently chose the highest end equipment that I could find. I had a very powerful machine for the time, but it had cost major $$.
I eventually realized that, even working on professional graphic projects, I never used 95% of the computer’s capabilities. The type of work we do is involves large files that hog RAM, so having that maxed out was important, but when we scanned stuff, we never used all the bells and whistles on our scanner (i.e. we wouldn’t play with the color on the scanner–we’d go into Photoshop to do that). If we had to print high resolution images and needed something professional grade, we’d still go to a print shop rather than try to fuss with our pricey but temperamental inkjet printer. And even with the processor, we soon discovered that there wasn’t a noticeable difference between our “top of the line” and the next level down in terms of performance. The big thing that we paid for was the “future expandability” but by the time we needed to “expand”, it was five years later, and easier and cheaper to upgrade to a newer computer than try to salvage the current one.
On our latest computer, we actually stepped down from the “professional” level computers to the “consumer grade” computers, and it’s put no crimp in our ability to do our professional work. In fact, our “consumer grade” system works smoother than a friend’s top of the line system. She even commented that she was amazed at how nice our machine was to work on.
I think that being a working professional, it was much easier to lean towards the “aspirational” side of purchasing. “Of course I’m going to be working on projects that DEMAND the best processors known to mankind! Of course I absolutely MUST have all the tools that are potentially available to me!” It’s like walking into an art store and wanting to buy every single brush and pallet knife that you see, but then continuing to paint with the same five brushes you always have, because they work best for you. I have no doubt that *some* users do need the high end features, and if you do, then by all means spend the money on them. But my new personal rule of thumb is to only add features when a specific job demands them. The funny thing is that, since I started following this rule, I’ve only once found a situation that required an additional feature to be added.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:50 am
@MITBeta
It’s funny you bring up Bose, because isn’t a major complaint that they never publish the specs of their equipment?
I know there are a lot of people who have a problem with this, but I think it’s best to do A/B listening tests and not worry about what misleading numbers can say. Who cares if the numbers aren’t the best if it sounds the best to you? I agree with “If it sounds good, it is. If it looks good, it is.”
In the interest of disclosure, I do have a loved one that works for Bose (not in marketing/sales)
March 31st, 2009 at 7:34 am
I’m going through this as well. I’m on the fence on whether to buy a riding mower or not for this year. If I decide to buy one, do I buy a ‘cheap’ MTD branded mower, a Husky (or Craftsman), a Cub Cadet (which is a better built MTD), or a John Deere. Do I go cheap and replace it in 5 years or do I spend a bit more hoping for it to last at least 10 years. And then with the John Deere, I just missed out on a free John Deere tow-cart offer…it was a pretty nice tow-cart as well. Then again, I already have a push mower which takes longer to get the job done…maybe I should just stick with that.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:02 am
The war of specifications is closely related to the idea of diminishing returns (in economics and buyer behavior). This basically says that we value the first information we get more than later information. That’s why companies want to be among the first to get in your way. Once the 20th company gets in your way, minute details tend to matter a lot less in our decisions.
So if a company focuses on its high crispness index v. the competition (and cracker comparison is new to us), we will tend to value crispness index information higher than other information the competition uses - like taste. This would be an effective strategy to gain more new people entering the cracker market, but would not be as effective with people who have an established preference (because it’s late information).
Companies can and do use the value of diminishing returns to frame a debate instead of being framed by others’ information - which makes it something to watch out for.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:51 am
Its also very easy to get caught up in specifications while losing focus in the overall function of two ‘different’ models which vary in costs. For my case of the riding mower, there is mainly differences in horsepower, 1cyl vs 2cyl engine, width of cut, cast iron vs steel front axel. Beyond that, you start getting into height of the seatbacks, inclusion of a bumper vs no bumper (kinda like a spoiler on a car), blade clutch engagement type. Quality and reliability in components and construction and quality of the function is spread across all that. In the end, its just a riding mower that cuts grass which may or may not break in 5 years.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Heh. I’ve had a bit of bad luck with certain top-of-the-line items. My brother, bless him, has gotten me electrical gifts upon occasion, and they’ve all been top of their line; much better, in fact, than I would have looked for or gotten. Off the cuff, I recall an electric mixer, a toaster, and a boombox that was barely portable, it had so much boom to it.
Every. Single. Item. DIED at or before the third use. It was a miracle! A cr@ppy miracle, but a miracle nonetheless. And the bottom-of-the-line stuff that I’ve generally been able to afford? That stuff just keeps chugging along. I’d say, generally, a few rungs up from the BOTTOM of the line is probably good enough for most stuff, unless it’s a specialty purchase - camera equipment for a professional or dedicated amateur, that sort of thing.
Turns out that “adequate”, in my case, is generally … adequate.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:45 am
My pre-purchase research depends upon the $ investment and how long I will have to live with the decision.