Step 3: Evaluating the alternatives

7.4.1 Proposed model of benefits

So far, we have formed a consideration set and linked the consumer to the set by expectations and preferences. Now, we can start to evaluate the benefits and costs of each alternative in the consideration set. The gratification of motives is supposedly the prime reason why consumers use media. By definition all the alternatives in the consideration set could gratify the motives at least to some extent (if they wouldn’t,

they would not be in the set). It has been shown by empirical results (H2) that the benefits of having multiple motives dominate the possible downsides due to conflicting interests of having multiple motives; therefore, the more motives one has, the more satisfied one will be with the choices. This fact is significant for marketing implications.

The consumer benefits from media usage by gratification of different needs, for example, need for information, need for entertainment, need to manage time and tasks, escapism, mood management, identity building and signaling, social knowledge, and social currency. The empirical results showed that all motives tested had at least some effect on media choices (H3). Therefore, it can be concluded that gratifying motives in general is a benefit of media usage.

Brands can offer several possible benefits for consumers. Brands can, for example, be used in identity building, communication, self-branding, social currency, identity signaling, attaching qualities to oneself, and regulating feelings. People connect emotionally with brands due to those symbolic features and might start to see brands as parts of themselves. It is argued that brand benefits do not apply only to certain trademarks, but also to wider groups of products, such as media, for example, newspapers, afternoon papers, television, etc. Empirical results show that brand relationships are of extreme importance for consumers. Furthermore, empirical results showed (H4) that the stronger the brand relationship is as identity claim, feeling regulator, or social currency, the more satisfied people are with their media choices. Therefore, it is evident that the audience benefits from brand relationships in addition to gratifications of motives.

Habits are an important part of media usage. People have morning routines, coffee break routines, etc. Typically, people enjoy their habits. In the empirics (H5) it was shown that the more people are more satisfied with their media habits, the more satisfied people are with their media choices. Therefore, it can be stated that habits can be a benefit of media usage in general.

Based on empirical results it is argued that the benefits of each alternative in the consideration set are a combination of three factors: the gratification of motives, benefits of the relationship the consumer has with the products, and the benefits of using one’s habits.

7.4.2 Proposed model of costs

Gratification of motives, enjoyment of habits, and brand relationship are potential benefits related to each alternative in the consideration set. The alternatives have costs as well as benefits. In order to consume, people must use at least some of their scarce resources: money, time, effort, or attention. When thinking about choices, one notices that even though one might have some money, time, and energy one could use on media products, one might not want to use it. Willingness to pay depends on the level of resources. Willingness to use scarce resources varies a lot from person to person. It is a subjective decision. Based on reasoning in this study, it is argued that the strict limits are objective limits of resources, but the amounts of resources are important limits also, since they affect how much one is willing to pay (subjective limit). The usage of resources is the

“price” one pays for the use of a media product in addition to possible social and psychological costs. It is argued that resources, limits, and willingness to use them are linked in four separate ways: 1) If there are no resources or the level of resources is too low, one cannot consume (limit) 2) If the level of resources is low, one is unwilling to use his/her resources (subjectively high cost - unwilling to pay) 3) Moderate level of resources provide ability to use them (subjectively low cost – willing to pay). 4) High level provides a desire to use them (motive for consumption).

Think, for example about time; if one has a lot of time, one might feel bored and want to use time (spend it). In addition to these, there might be some psychological or social unwanted consequences, which are called psychological and social costs in this study. Based on the empirical results (H6), it can be stated that the costs of each alternative in the consideration set are a combination of monetary, time, effort, attention, psychological and social costs.

Only some of the costs could be measured in objective terms, namely money and time (duration). Objective prices are typically expressed in quantifiable terms, such as 5 euros or 2 hours. Objective prices could also be thought broadly to be such as

“needs a lot of energy or attention” or “has a high potential of causing psychological or social costs”. Objective prices are prices that people can generally agree on. The companies can try to control the objective prices of their products by product development and pricing. They can set monetary price and duration and try to influence other objective costs. For example, some newspapers have tried to lower the effort needed to read by making the headlines and pictures bigger and stories shorter. Even though objective prices are the same for everyone, they feel different

to each of us. And they may even feel different in different situations and contexts.

Consider, for example, renting a film for 5 euros. When one does not have 5 euros in the wallet at the moment (resources are low), the price is too high. It is also too high if the 5 euros in the wallet is meant for something else (availability of the resource). Therefore, objective costs do not explain the consumer’s ability nor willingness to pay the demanded price. Willingness to pay depends on how much the subjective benefits exceed the subjective costs. The empirical results showed that the level of resources affects the costs (H7). Based on this reasoning, it is further argued that the subjective cost of each cost type depends on the objective price (in terms of money, time, effort, attention, social and psychological discomfort), level of resources, and the subjective availability of that resource.

Due to the limited length of the questionnaire, the objective prices or subjective availability of resources was not tested. The subjective availability of resources is assumed to be embedded in the level of resource. That is, if the resource is not available for this particular consumption event, it is not included in the subjective resources. Therefore, the level of experienced costs is affected by the level of resources, as was discussed above, and price in objective terms. The data shows that costs are (at least partly) subjective, since they depend on the level of subjective resources of the decision maker.

Based on reasoning above, it is suggested that: The proposed model of consumers’ media costs is that 1) costs are a combination of many cost types 2) they are subjective, since they depend on the decision maker and 3) expected, since there are many costs, one cannot really be sure before one has bought and used the product. Furthermore, costs are affected by 4) level of resources and price in objective terms (duration, euros, etc.).

Figure 18 summarizes the discussion. Costs depend on objective prices and subjective levels of consumer resources and, naturally, the alternative which has been examined. The costs consist of money, time, effort, attention, psychological and social costs. Costs and benefits are attached to each alternative in the consideration set. That is, after this phase a consumer has a set of alternatives, which all have some costs and benefits. If these were monetary or measured in any other quantifiable currency, the next steps would be unnecessary, if the optimal choice could be calculated with mathematics. However, typically decision-making is not that easy and the next steps are needed.

Figure 18. The suggested model of how costs and benefits are linked to the media choice process

7.5 Steps 4 and 5: Choosing a decision goal and decision