July 26, 2007
Nielsen IDs Consumer Shopping Modes
By Tom Ryan
According to a recent Nielsen study, consumers display up to four different ‘mindsets’ during grocery shopping, and knowing the differences can help brands and retailers better target customers by category.
Nielsen’s Shopping Modality study of 30 categories integrated retail sales data with a customized examination of consumers’ attitudes and behavior in the store to reveal four broad shopping modes:
- Auto-Pilot – Shoppers grab ‘n go. Typical categories: margarine, mayonnaise, bottled water, nuts, coffee, popcorn, carbonated soft drinks, hot cereal, cheese and cold cuts.
- Buzz-Activated – Shoppers are open to buzz and engaging advertising.
Categories: energy and sports drinks, chocolate, ready-to-drink tea and yogurt
drinks. - Variety-Activated – Shoppers seek new tastes, new formats. Categories:
cookies, salad dressing, chewing gum, salty snacks, breakfast bars and cold
cereal. - Bargain-Activated – Shoppers compare prices and hunt for promotions.
Categories: canned tuna, canned tomatoes, canned fruit and pasta sauce.
According to the study, the key to breaking through to shoppers on Auto-Pilot lies in knowing when and how it can be disrupted by external stimuli. When this happens, shoppers reevaluate their decisions, look at alternatives and consider new offers. Nielsen calls these disruptions “Delta Moments” and it is at these times that marketers have a brief window of opportunity to connect with the shopper.
“Shoppers don’t waste energy on everyday decisions,” wrote Manjima Khandelwal, senior vice president customized research at Nielsen in the company’s Consumer Insight publication. “To simplify their lives, they often shop in grab-and-go mode, reaching for the brands they usually buy without reading the label or checking the price. At these times, they are on auto-pilot, brand choice is highly habitual and in these moments shoppers are not in the market to try anything new, and marketers need to tailor their strategies to reach them.”
On the other hand, leaders in these Auto-Pilot categories might want to avoid radical repositioning or packaging changes. “You may risk disrupting habitual behavior which drives brand choice in your favor,” said Ms. Khandelwal.
A different set of rules applies for other shopping mindsets. Indeed, other shopping modes are much more open to new product innovations to varying degrees.
Buzz-Activated categories require “exciting advertising, new introductions and dynamic packaging that leaps off the shelves” or consumers may opt for a more hyped-up competitor’s brand.
In Variety-Activated categories, consumers are bored with the same old picks and “new introductions” and “news” can help a lesser-established brand gain entry. “Here, consumers browse actively, which makes packaging a key communication tool at point of purchase,” said Ms. Khandelwal.
Bargain-Activated categories are mainly driven by price comparisons and promotions but Nielsen also believes new innovations, especially in categories such as pasta sauce, could add some “sizzle” to the category.
Overall, the study finds that tracing the body language of shoppers and showing “which hot buttons to push” can help vendors and retailers ensure their brands are best positioned for the way people shop.
“By leveraging consumer’s Delta Moments, you have the best opportunity to win at the point of purchase,” said Ms. Khandelwal.
Discussion Question: What do you think of Nielsen’s four shopping mindsets and the potential to sway purchasing decisions by creating “Delta Moments”? Ultimately, how do marketers disrupt the shopper with stimuli that helps them re-evaluate decisions and consider new offers?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Nielsen’s four shopping habits are interesting. You could probably add a couple more, like health conscious (label checkers) and environmentally conscious (package pickers) although these are probably, at this point, minimal numbers. With the percentage of consumers being on auto pilot it certainly proves the point of shelf merchandising, placement and packaging.
The “Delta Moments” are essential in getting your brand noticed. One way is to have samples or tastings. Another would be do have a promo stand. The reason to switch needs to be compelling whether it’s for better tasting, healthier, easier to clean,etc. The three most important areas to execute well to take advantage of Delta Moments would be marketing, promotion and packaging.
I find Nielsen’s study to be a great marketing tool for Nielsen in selling Nielsen, perhaps less so for manufacturers and retailers in selling customers.
The categorization of shoppers into four convenient shopping modes that also align with product categories in my mind over simplifies purchasing habits and under represents shoppers motivations.
Like Stephan Kouzomis, I would like to know more about the statistics and assumptions of the study and like Mark Lilien, I find the conclusions to be too subjective.
We found that when we let 75,000 shoppers in three different major supermarket chains sort themselves into groups, there ended up being three groups: quick trippers, fill-in shoppers, and stock up shoppers. No surprises there, and this was based only on a selection of behavioral characteristics (walking speed, length of trip, number of items purchased, etc. – hierarchical cluster analysis) and no attitude or demographic measures.
The valuable part of the finding was that six categories were purchased in quantity by all three groups; another half dozen were purchased mostly by the second two groups; and a final half dozen categories were purchased predominantly by the stock-up shoppers. This makes possible a rational scheme for merchandising a SELECTION of these 18-20 categories in an intuitive (for the shopper), instinctual manner.
Too many segmentation schemes are too complicated and too intellectual to allow practical execution on the sales floor.
I wholeheartedly agree with the insight about auto-pilot modes. In research that we at Nunwood have conducted, it’s certainly apparent that some categories are approached to a greater extent than others in a very blinkered fashion by shoppers who use past brand experience coupled with great packaging standout as a shortcut to purchase decision making.
However, the comments made by others are also pertinent here and I’m not convinced that we should paint all SKUs in a category with the same brush based on prevailing modes. Certainly there may be modes which prevail in a category, but the mode of an individual in a category may vary from one purchase occasion to the next depending on the consumption occasion that is being shopped for. Categories usually cater to a variety of consumer need states which in turn will influence the way in which the shopper approaches the category (the shopping mode).
What brands need to understand is their competitive position on fixture and the mode in which their SKUs a generally shopped. If you are fortunate enough to have a product which is predominantly shopped on autopilot you need to protect that position by reinforcing the shopper behaviour through strong visual cues and merchandising which back up the relevance of the product for the consumption occasion for which it is being purchased. If however you have a high purchase penetration at fixture but your product is being purchased in a more considered manner, there’s perhaps nothing too wrong with that either–it is, after all, being purchased! Your opportunity in this situation is to become the shopper’s “no-brainer” for the consumption occasion that you are targeting and as such, change purchase behaviour over time to being auto-pilot in your favour. If however, your getting considered but rarely picked then you need to establish a. is this product fit for purpose? and if so, b. is my marketing (on-pack, in-store, out of store) effective at communicating a resonating message?
Finally, you might be getting no attention at all in which case: a. you might be competing for a consumption occasion which is already “owned” by another SKU which is being purchased on autopilot (not good!) b. you simply aren’t standing out on shelf (still not good–but at least it’s more in your own control to do something about it!)
Some of Nielsen’s conclusions sound questionable. Many shoppers check prices carefully in every category, Auto-Pilot or not. Nielsen advises against Auto-Pilot label changes. I have a feeling that most label changes aren’t constructive, not just Auto-Pilot categories.
Interesting modes. I find them to be rather limited and one dimensional. I believe looking at them could be interesting but they are only one small piece to the consumers decision to take action. These are not stand alone reasons for purchase and better not be sole reason reason for a product assortment, merchandising style, or promotional plan.
Are these shopper segmentations, or category descriptions? They sound more like the latter to me. “Buzz-activated” describes the categories, not the shoppers. I think the ultimate end-game for shopper behavior is to be able to get to a point where the manufacturer and retailer understands the consumer’s aims–“health conscious,” “buying for the big party” “trying to figure out what to make for dinner”–and help the consumer achieve those aims. Do these segmentations help us get closer to that? I don’t really think so.
This research is a great description of “grocery shoppers.” Which shoppers come to your store and what is their rationale for shopping during that trip? The Ralphs that is going to open will have a different set of consumers than the Ralphs in Bel-Air. Knowing the general categories is very useful but doesn’t help you make decisions for your store unless you know which consumers are coming to your store and what their purchasing criteria are.
What interesting discoveries research continues to wrought? As David says, “This is definitely an advisable study if taken in the right light and if acted upon in a practical way.” But those are two compelling covenants, aren’t they? At the moment I am on “Auto Pilot” waiting for the sunrise to shine more light upon this latest uncovering.
This system will definitely help in the merchandising of products. Any brand that can gain influence over its rival through positioning. This data can be of value for external marketing and can even sway customer’s opinion about a certain product. One thing to remember is that impulse can always be the overriding factor in any purchaser’s decision.
As avid members of the RetailWire community might recall, a Brandweek article in May on Synovate’s category shopping styles was the basis of a recent discussion. While Nielsen’s modes tend to confirm our results, I would quibble a little with their “auto-pilot set of categories. Our results show that the categories they have grouped together are actually quite distinct as some are highly commoditized (e.g. bottle water) while others exhibit extremely high levels of brand loyalty (e.g. CSDs).
To develop research approaches that integrate brand and customer marketing we must be able to create a synthesized view of the consumer and the shopper. Grouping together categories, irrespective of brand loyalty levels, into the same segment would prevent this from happening. This is why we have distinguished functional planners (gotta buy canned peas) from preference planners (gotta buy more Coke…).
Nielsen is taking what I would call the next logical step in understanding consumer’s behavior at the category level. Sorry for the plug, but synovate has recently conducted a similar study and our results show that consumers do have multiple personalities during a single shopping trip. Some of it is based on need states, however their shopping “styles” as we call it doesn’t change too much on any trip type as it relates to a single category, regardless of outlet type. Glad to see we’re all headed in the same, right direction.
I love these. Since most grocers now have a high percentage of the customers on a loyalty program, there is an extraordinary opportunity to leverage Neilsen’s segmentation scheme within retailer’s own data warehouses.
Working with business intelligence software, clever retailers could infer which of these four profiles fit with each customer’s market basket. What an impact this may have on management reporting if store managers and regional managers were able to see the long term segment trends in their area of responsibility. They’d want to track average spend, gross margin percent, frequency. They’d want to know which stores had a disproportionate number of bargain-activated and auto-pilot customers.
BI could also to track the response of each segment from advertising and promotion strategies. Before a promotional initiative is rolled out across the chain what is the impact, at a few test stores, on average spend, margin, on segment mix? For example, if my store is trying to attract variety-activated, I’d want my promotional initiative to score high with them, and not bargain-activated.
Using the same segmentation grocers could analyze their new customers to determine the mix of shopping behaviors their advertising is attracting. Similarly, they can look at their lost customers to understand where grocers are struggling with customer retention segment by segment.
This is indeed a fascinating discovery, which can help marketers and especially supermarket retailers better understand the motives of their customers and their shopping habits.
I might add that coupons play an important role in product introduction, especially in that segment that actually uses them.
A&P. on each of its individual banner sites, offers a $1 dollar downloadable printed coupon off the purchase of a half gallon of Organic Valley milk. This motivates the customer to try this fine product and possibly become a lifetime customer.
So from this analysis, I guess we can expect to continue seeing 10 jars for $10 Ragu spaghetti sauce specials and 10 for $10 Star Kist cans of chunk white tuna featured regularly in supermarket ads.
With all due respect to Nielsen, and any company that does consumer research, it is important to convey how the research was done; to whom; and in what time period.
It isn’t clear how Nielsen conducted its study. Was it “one on one” face to face, with 100 shoppers per new ‘mindset’ category? Was the study across the U.S.A.? Or did Nielsen look at the category numbers, traffic patterns, time spent, and create these shopper mindsets. The latter could be helpful, but truly doesn’t get into the shoppers mind and attitude for the supermarket trip.
In most cases, numbers don’t tell the whole story, or a reliable portion. Shoppers are very different today than 10 years ago, and the gender and age levels have modified. What was the bench mark? And do you not believe the major consumer packaged foods and goods marketers haven’t shaped their core shoppers?
And for the grocers, Nielsen must know how to take this abstract research and convert it to something concrete that is useful to the Industry.
Good effort, but dimensionalize the consumer mindset! Hmmmmmmmmm
The Nielsen Body Language study of shopper modality and Nielsen’s four shopping mindsets and the potential to sway purchasing decisions by creating “Delta Moments” is worthwhile for all marketing people in the CPG industry, with a few other considerations to keep in mind:
1. Marketers disrupt the shopper with stimuli that helps them re-evaluate decisions and consider new offers by making timely adjustments as a work-in-progress with constant attention to how the retail and real world environment is changing year to year.
2. The risk in taking any type of shopper classifications too literally is that most humans tend not to fall into just one classification. For example, any given shopper might be “grab and go” under one circumstance while she or he might well be “bargain-activated” in another circumstance for any number of reasons.
This is definitely an advisable study if taken in the right light and if acted upon in a practical way. I like it!
It certainly makes sense that consumers have different motivations in various categories. It is fairly obvious, when you consider something like cigarettes, that brand is all important verses commodities, like sugar. But it over-simplifies the issue to try to apply the same characteristics to all shoppers and even the same shopper based on “the purpose” of a particular store visit. That is one big opportunity that online markets have not been able to exploit. It is important to understand “why are you here today?” from the consumer’s perspective. If they are there to get something for a party or to do the monthly shopping trip their goals are completely different. First of the month shopping may have considerably different goals than end of the month. The online store can present the consumer a different view of the store to meet their needs.
I think reaching the consumer requires a multi-pronged effort that focuses on life style, in-store awareness, and price. Life style means meeting the consumer “where they play,” whether it is in magazines, video games, or on TV if that is where your targeted customers linger. In-store means getting their attention at the shelf edge and enticing them to try something new. Finally, price can be a motivator for almost anyone if it really signals a bargain.
Sorry, one other comment. To say there is a one-to-one mapping of shopping mode and category is quite an oversimplification. We found that each category actually has all 4 types of shopping styles, but in varying proportions. For example, categories that we classify as “in-store desires” index very high on “explorers” but have many shoppers who are “preference planners” as well. Categories that we classify as “brand matters,” have a preponderance of “preference planners” but have a surprisingly high level of “Systembeaters(tm)” in a number of cases (e.g. CSDs). Our research suggests that SystemBeaters(tm) don’t exist in nature but that marketers create them via over-promoting their categories.
Guess you could tell that this is a topic I feel strongly about!
More Discussions
Mass Retailers, Including Walmart, Tie Grocers on Penetration For the First Time: What’s Next?
Walmart and other mass-channel retailers are reaching dominant penetration levels. What’s next?Why Have Gourmet Grocers Become Social Clubs?
Gourmet grocers are leaning into the experience.Should US Consumers Be as Upbeat Over Their Finances as Data Suggests?
A new study suggests U.S. consumers are rosy over their finances, but should they be?
Nielsen’s four shopping habits are interesting. You could probably add a couple more, like health conscious (label checkers) and environmentally conscious (package pickers) although these are probably, at this point, minimal numbers. With the percentage of consumers being on auto pilot it certainly proves the point of shelf merchandising, placement and packaging.
The “Delta Moments” are essential in getting your brand noticed. One way is to have samples or tastings. Another would be do have a promo stand. The reason to switch needs to be compelling whether it’s for better tasting, healthier, easier to clean,etc. The three most important areas to execute well to take advantage of Delta Moments would be marketing, promotion and packaging.
I find Nielsen’s study to be a great marketing tool for Nielsen in selling Nielsen, perhaps less so for manufacturers and retailers in selling customers.
The categorization of shoppers into four convenient shopping modes that also align with product categories in my mind over simplifies purchasing habits and under represents shoppers motivations.
Like Stephan Kouzomis, I would like to know more about the statistics and assumptions of the study and like Mark Lilien, I find the conclusions to be too subjective.
We found that when we let 75,000 shoppers in three different major supermarket chains sort themselves into groups, there ended up being three groups: quick trippers, fill-in shoppers, and stock up shoppers. No surprises there, and this was based only on a selection of behavioral characteristics (walking speed, length of trip, number of items purchased, etc. – hierarchical cluster analysis) and no attitude or demographic measures.
The valuable part of the finding was that six categories were purchased in quantity by all three groups; another half dozen were purchased mostly by the second two groups; and a final half dozen categories were purchased predominantly by the stock-up shoppers. This makes possible a rational scheme for merchandising a SELECTION of these 18-20 categories in an intuitive (for the shopper), instinctual manner.
Too many segmentation schemes are too complicated and too intellectual to allow practical execution on the sales floor.
I wholeheartedly agree with the insight about auto-pilot modes. In research that we at Nunwood have conducted, it’s certainly apparent that some categories are approached to a greater extent than others in a very blinkered fashion by shoppers who use past brand experience coupled with great packaging standout as a shortcut to purchase decision making.
However, the comments made by others are also pertinent here and I’m not convinced that we should paint all SKUs in a category with the same brush based on prevailing modes. Certainly there may be modes which prevail in a category, but the mode of an individual in a category may vary from one purchase occasion to the next depending on the consumption occasion that is being shopped for. Categories usually cater to a variety of consumer need states which in turn will influence the way in which the shopper approaches the category (the shopping mode).
What brands need to understand is their competitive position on fixture and the mode in which their SKUs a generally shopped. If you are fortunate enough to have a product which is predominantly shopped on autopilot you need to protect that position by reinforcing the shopper behaviour through strong visual cues and merchandising which back up the relevance of the product for the consumption occasion for which it is being purchased. If however you have a high purchase penetration at fixture but your product is being purchased in a more considered manner, there’s perhaps nothing too wrong with that either–it is, after all, being purchased! Your opportunity in this situation is to become the shopper’s “no-brainer” for the consumption occasion that you are targeting and as such, change purchase behaviour over time to being auto-pilot in your favour. If however, your getting considered but rarely picked then you need to establish a. is this product fit for purpose? and if so, b. is my marketing (on-pack, in-store, out of store) effective at communicating a resonating message?
Finally, you might be getting no attention at all in which case: a. you might be competing for a consumption occasion which is already “owned” by another SKU which is being purchased on autopilot (not good!) b. you simply aren’t standing out on shelf (still not good–but at least it’s more in your own control to do something about it!)
Some of Nielsen’s conclusions sound questionable. Many shoppers check prices carefully in every category, Auto-Pilot or not. Nielsen advises against Auto-Pilot label changes. I have a feeling that most label changes aren’t constructive, not just Auto-Pilot categories.
Interesting modes. I find them to be rather limited and one dimensional. I believe looking at them could be interesting but they are only one small piece to the consumers decision to take action. These are not stand alone reasons for purchase and better not be sole reason reason for a product assortment, merchandising style, or promotional plan.
Are these shopper segmentations, or category descriptions? They sound more like the latter to me. “Buzz-activated” describes the categories, not the shoppers. I think the ultimate end-game for shopper behavior is to be able to get to a point where the manufacturer and retailer understands the consumer’s aims–“health conscious,” “buying for the big party” “trying to figure out what to make for dinner”–and help the consumer achieve those aims. Do these segmentations help us get closer to that? I don’t really think so.
This research is a great description of “grocery shoppers.” Which shoppers come to your store and what is their rationale for shopping during that trip? The Ralphs that is going to open will have a different set of consumers than the Ralphs in Bel-Air. Knowing the general categories is very useful but doesn’t help you make decisions for your store unless you know which consumers are coming to your store and what their purchasing criteria are.
What interesting discoveries research continues to wrought? As David says, “This is definitely an advisable study if taken in the right light and if acted upon in a practical way.” But those are two compelling covenants, aren’t they? At the moment I am on “Auto Pilot” waiting for the sunrise to shine more light upon this latest uncovering.
This system will definitely help in the merchandising of products. Any brand that can gain influence over its rival through positioning. This data can be of value for external marketing and can even sway customer’s opinion about a certain product. One thing to remember is that impulse can always be the overriding factor in any purchaser’s decision.
As avid members of the RetailWire community might recall, a Brandweek article in May on Synovate’s category shopping styles was the basis of a recent discussion. While Nielsen’s modes tend to confirm our results, I would quibble a little with their “auto-pilot set of categories. Our results show that the categories they have grouped together are actually quite distinct as some are highly commoditized (e.g. bottle water) while others exhibit extremely high levels of brand loyalty (e.g. CSDs).
To develop research approaches that integrate brand and customer marketing we must be able to create a synthesized view of the consumer and the shopper. Grouping together categories, irrespective of brand loyalty levels, into the same segment would prevent this from happening. This is why we have distinguished functional planners (gotta buy canned peas) from preference planners (gotta buy more Coke…).
Nielsen is taking what I would call the next logical step in understanding consumer’s behavior at the category level. Sorry for the plug, but synovate has recently conducted a similar study and our results show that consumers do have multiple personalities during a single shopping trip. Some of it is based on need states, however their shopping “styles” as we call it doesn’t change too much on any trip type as it relates to a single category, regardless of outlet type. Glad to see we’re all headed in the same, right direction.
I love these. Since most grocers now have a high percentage of the customers on a loyalty program, there is an extraordinary opportunity to leverage Neilsen’s segmentation scheme within retailer’s own data warehouses.
Working with business intelligence software, clever retailers could infer which of these four profiles fit with each customer’s market basket. What an impact this may have on management reporting if store managers and regional managers were able to see the long term segment trends in their area of responsibility. They’d want to track average spend, gross margin percent, frequency. They’d want to know which stores had a disproportionate number of bargain-activated and auto-pilot customers.
BI could also to track the response of each segment from advertising and promotion strategies. Before a promotional initiative is rolled out across the chain what is the impact, at a few test stores, on average spend, margin, on segment mix? For example, if my store is trying to attract variety-activated, I’d want my promotional initiative to score high with them, and not bargain-activated.
Using the same segmentation grocers could analyze their new customers to determine the mix of shopping behaviors their advertising is attracting. Similarly, they can look at their lost customers to understand where grocers are struggling with customer retention segment by segment.
This is indeed a fascinating discovery, which can help marketers and especially supermarket retailers better understand the motives of their customers and their shopping habits.
I might add that coupons play an important role in product introduction, especially in that segment that actually uses them.
A&P. on each of its individual banner sites, offers a $1 dollar downloadable printed coupon off the purchase of a half gallon of Organic Valley milk. This motivates the customer to try this fine product and possibly become a lifetime customer.
So from this analysis, I guess we can expect to continue seeing 10 jars for $10 Ragu spaghetti sauce specials and 10 for $10 Star Kist cans of chunk white tuna featured regularly in supermarket ads.
With all due respect to Nielsen, and any company that does consumer research, it is important to convey how the research was done; to whom; and in what time period.
It isn’t clear how Nielsen conducted its study. Was it “one on one” face to face, with 100 shoppers per new ‘mindset’ category? Was the study across the U.S.A.? Or did Nielsen look at the category numbers, traffic patterns, time spent, and create these shopper mindsets. The latter could be helpful, but truly doesn’t get into the shoppers mind and attitude for the supermarket trip.
In most cases, numbers don’t tell the whole story, or a reliable portion. Shoppers are very different today than 10 years ago, and the gender and age levels have modified. What was the bench mark? And do you not believe the major consumer packaged foods and goods marketers haven’t shaped their core shoppers?
And for the grocers, Nielsen must know how to take this abstract research and convert it to something concrete that is useful to the Industry.
Good effort, but dimensionalize the consumer mindset! Hmmmmmmmmm
The Nielsen Body Language study of shopper modality and Nielsen’s four shopping mindsets and the potential to sway purchasing decisions by creating “Delta Moments” is worthwhile for all marketing people in the CPG industry, with a few other considerations to keep in mind:
1. Marketers disrupt the shopper with stimuli that helps them re-evaluate decisions and consider new offers by making timely adjustments as a work-in-progress with constant attention to how the retail and real world environment is changing year to year.
2. The risk in taking any type of shopper classifications too literally is that most humans tend not to fall into just one classification. For example, any given shopper might be “grab and go” under one circumstance while she or he might well be “bargain-activated” in another circumstance for any number of reasons.
This is definitely an advisable study if taken in the right light and if acted upon in a practical way. I like it!
It certainly makes sense that consumers have different motivations in various categories. It is fairly obvious, when you consider something like cigarettes, that brand is all important verses commodities, like sugar. But it over-simplifies the issue to try to apply the same characteristics to all shoppers and even the same shopper based on “the purpose” of a particular store visit. That is one big opportunity that online markets have not been able to exploit. It is important to understand “why are you here today?” from the consumer’s perspective. If they are there to get something for a party or to do the monthly shopping trip their goals are completely different. First of the month shopping may have considerably different goals than end of the month. The online store can present the consumer a different view of the store to meet their needs.
I think reaching the consumer requires a multi-pronged effort that focuses on life style, in-store awareness, and price. Life style means meeting the consumer “where they play,” whether it is in magazines, video games, or on TV if that is where your targeted customers linger. In-store means getting their attention at the shelf edge and enticing them to try something new. Finally, price can be a motivator for almost anyone if it really signals a bargain.
Sorry, one other comment. To say there is a one-to-one mapping of shopping mode and category is quite an oversimplification. We found that each category actually has all 4 types of shopping styles, but in varying proportions. For example, categories that we classify as “in-store desires” index very high on “explorers” but have many shoppers who are “preference planners” as well. Categories that we classify as “brand matters,” have a preponderance of “preference planners” but have a surprisingly high level of “Systembeaters(tm)” in a number of cases (e.g. CSDs). Our research suggests that SystemBeaters(tm) don’t exist in nature but that marketers create them via over-promoting their categories.
Guess you could tell that this is a topic I feel strongly about!