Quantifying Anti-Consumption of Private Labels and National Brands: Impacts of Poor Test Ratings on Consumer Purchases

Consumers use test ratings to inform their buying decisions and enhance their well-being. This study considers whether and how poor test ratings might induce anti-consumption behaviors, out of fear of poor product performance. In contrast with previous research, the focus for this study is not intrinsic reasons for anti-consumption but rather actual purchasing, or non-purchasing, behavior. With panel data representing 30,000 households, the authors show that the market shares of national brands and private labels considerably decline after the publication of poor test ratings, suggesting high customer churn and anti-consumption behavior. The use of price promotions for national brands also declines, leading to increasing average paid prices. Among private labels, though, poor test ratings affect the use of price promotions and paid prices only to a small extent. These findings in turn suggest implications for manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and scholars. ********** Previous anti-consumption studies tend to focus primarily on expressed attitudes or consumer intentions, such that they highlight intrinsic motivations and provide some key insights. For example, Iyer and Muncy (2009) derive an anti-consumption typology that differentiates the focal objects (all consumption or specific products) and relevant concerns (societal or personal). If a consumer avoids a particular product for personal reasons, it implies an anti-loyalty attitude, likely based on the product's failure to meet some functional or symbolic need. Englis and Solomon (1997) also note that the products consumers avoid may be as important as the products they actively seek, which implies high consumer involvement. Because most people consume products to gain some benefit (Kotler and Armstrong 2014), such involved consumers might sense risk even before they purchase (e.g., wasted time, monetary losses, physical damage) (Imkamp 2009) and worry about the threat of buyer's remorse (Bell 1967). These studies accordingly suggest that perceived risks and fear of incorrect purchase decisions can lead to anti-consumption attitudes (Cherrier, Black, and Lee 2010). As Lee, Fernandez, and Hyman (2009) caution, though, the field lacks sufficient longitudinal research that can explicate anti-consumption attitudes and consumers' actual behaviors over time. For example, to mitigate their purchase risk, consumers often consult test ratings, which influence their actual buying decisions (Buxel and Schulz 2010). Positive test ratings likely increase customer demand; poor test ratings may lead to consumption deprivation (Kaas and Tolle 1981) or anti-consumption attitudes and behaviors (Albinsson, Wolf, and Kopf 2010), especially if avoiding consumption enhances consumer well-being (Marquardt and McGann 1975). Considering the potential influence of poor test ratings, this study seeks to extend extant research into anti-consumption by addressing the following research questions: * Does anti-consumption arise in response to poor test ratings? * How do poor test ratings affect actual purchases? * How can retailers deal with the impacts of poor test ratings on purchases? * What insights derived from quantitative data pertaining to consumers' actual behavior can inform anti-consumption research? * How do test ratings influence consumer well-being? To determine whether poor test ratings lead to anti-consumption, in the form of experiential avoidance (Lee, Conroy, and Motion 2009) and as a reaction to poor product performance, we use quantitative measures. Previous research on anti-consumption tends to focus on intrinsic motivations and rely on interview data (e.g., Hoffmann and Miiller 2009), thus ignoring the potential impacts of variables such as product price or quality. In contrast, we consider market shares, average paid prices, and promotion shares, according to household panel data representing approximately 30,000 households. …