Much of the interest and research in services marketing has focussed on the differences that exist between physical goods and services. Outcomes of these efforts have been numerous classification schemes designed to organize services according to common service characteristics. While several service typologies have been proposed, seldom are the service categorizations examined from a consumer's point of view. Furthermore, only a few service classifications have been empirically tested (Bowen, 1990;Hartman and Lindgren, 1993). In the development of these typologies there may have been a tendency to emphasize the differences between goods and services. However, some authors have argued that services are not fundamentally different from goods and that no pure goods or services exist in today's marketplace (Enis and Roering, 1981;McDougall and Snetsinger, 1990;Williams and Mowen, 1990). This stream of thought suggests that the service/good dichotomy is more of a difference in degree and perhaps more variance exists within each category than between categories. These distinctions are further blurred when consumers believe that either a good or service can be purchased to fulfill their needs. For example, when consumers need to have their documents copied they may purchase a personal copy machine (a good) or visit a copy center (a service). In these situations services may compete directly with goods (Dholakia and Venkatraman, 1993). Instead of identifying differences, marketing strategy should be based on the similarities between services and physical goods with respect to the characteristics of the total market offering.
Unifying classificationCharacteristics such as intangibility, level of customization, variability, and the importance of employees versus machines have been included in proposed service typologies. As many as 19 different attributes have been used to classify services. With so many different characteristics, it has been difficult to determine what course of action marketing strategy should follow. Additionally, it is not clear who (i.e. the firm or the customer) determines the qualities which the service possesses. Even when consumers are able to distinguish services from goods by degree of tangibility, dimensions that focus on how consumers generally respond to or perceive a service category may be more meaningful. With so many alternatives available in the marketplace, differentiating goods from services may be of limited importance for consumer decision making.It has been suggested that separate classifications are not necessary, as a single classification scheme can be used for all physical goods, services and ideas (Murphy and Enis, 1986). Services, physical goods and ideas would be classified according to the risk and purchase effort which the consumer is willing to exchange to receive the product. Risk is the prepurchase concern that the product may not deliver the expected benefits. Purchase effort is the
As catalog proliferation continues, understanding consumer characteristics and motivations that lead consumers to examine catalogs is becoming increasingly important. This research presents the results of a preliminary investigation that extends the traditional analysis of in‐home shoppers through an examination of vicarious exploration with a catalog. A previous vicarious exploration measure is adapted and initial results suggest that vicarious exploration with catalogs is multidimensional, including daydreaming, information seeking, and interpersonal communication dimensions. Individual consumer characteristics (i.e. curiosity, need for stimulation, and perceived novelty) associated with vicarious exploration are examined. The findings reveal the importance of creating novel catalogs to encourage vicarious exploration.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.