To What Level Does Social Inequality Dictate the Consumption of Products - Essay Example

? Research Proposal: To what level does social inequality dictate consumption of products? BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE To what level does social inequality dictate consumption of products? Summary: All across the world, social inequality, especially in terms of income levels, is a problem in determining health and wellness benefits of citizens and also related to forecasting product consumption demand. Social inequality best defined as “a social condition in which privileges and obligations are given to some but denied to others” (Henslin 2005, p.81). For the sake of this proposed research project, income inequality will be the topic of discussion. Social inequality will be measured under the class system that drives most Westernized countries, defined as a type of social stratification based largely on the possessions of money or material possessions and individual holds (Henslin). Social inequality is “the most consistent predictor of his or her behaviour, attitudes and life chances” (sociologyindex.com 2011, p.1). There have not been many studies conducted about the linkages between product consumption and social inequality. Social inequality under the lens of finance is important to marketing organizations and also the strength of the national economy based on tax revenues earned by governmental bodies and ensuring corporate health. Thus, uncovering what drives consumption between classes, especially the lower-income class, is important for economic issues as well as satisfying knowledge regarding social systems. Literature review: People with higher financial resources tend to enjoy the ostentatious presentation that comes from consuming products as a means of demonstrating wealth (Mariana, Raluca & Gratiela 2009). With higher discretionary income comes the ability to highlight their class membership, such as purchasing a Mercedes Benz as a means to experience upper class social climbing. However, lower-class individuals with less discretionary income have a variety of different problems that are associated with consumption including lack of resources and physiological discrepancies that dictate the type of consumption possible or desired. “It is not easy to meet the needs of people belonging to middle class society” in relation to product marketing and product availability (Mariana et al, p.1020), likely for these reasons. There appears to be a fundamental difference between the higher resource consumer and the lower-class buyer. In capitalistic societies, it is theorized that lower-resource consumers view consumption of products as a form of escapism from political systems that leave these consumers feeling trapped and exploited by government and corporate growth (Wolff 2004). In essence, people in lower-class or middle-class buying segments see consumption as “the adequate, appropriate reward for their productive efforts” rather than finding personal utility through consumption and psychological needs rewards (Wolff, p.2). How low and middle-class consumers view consumption is important if the research study is to identify how social inequality dictates consumption patterns. Mass media also seems to have an influence on these decisions. Modern communication technologies are referred to as being “elite manipulation and oppression” (trinity.edu 2011, p.2). Marketers of low cost products targeted to lower class individuals are constantly present on television and thus influence purchase decision to some measureable degree. However, as social class increases, so does the volume of television viewing. Television “leads individuals to view themselves as being relatively powerless and apolitical, oblivious of the real forces shaping their lives” (trinity.edu, p.3). Thus, the question should be asked: does television advertising shape the consumption patterns of those who are isolated by social inequality? Previously, certain physiological problems in lifestyle associated with maintaining low resources was identified. A recent study conducted to measure food-related consumer perceptions of products identified two types of buyers: food-secure and food-insecure consumers. Food secure buyers are those who have adequate resources and are able to sustain their physiological needs appropriately. Food insecurity is “the inability to obtain sufficient, nutritious, personally acceptable food through normal food channels or the uncertainty that one will be able to do so” (Rock, McIntyre & Rondeau 2009, p.168). People of lower-income brackets were asked to give their opinion on the low cost Kraft Dinner (some identify it as macaroni and cheese). Only the food secure buyers viewed Kraft Dinner as being a comfort food and a form of vicarious consumption such as offering it to a child or providing it as a charitable donation to the less fortunate. Food insecure individuals viewed it as a staple product with no mention of its comforting abilities (Rock et al). Why was this particular study identified? When attempting to highlight what consumption values hold true for lower-income citizens, it is necessary to see the difference between those with higher financial resources and those who fit into lower-class social brackets. Consumption of Kraft Dinner by higher resource individuals brought emotional and psychological satisfaction whilst lower-income individuals felt none of these same arousing and poignant beliefs about its consumption. This shows the vast differences related to product consumption between the two different social groups based on resource availability and household capital. Consumer theory in marketing also dictates that some individuals consume for the personal regard they receive from others, the proverbial keeping up with the Jones’ philosophy of consumption. “Over time, their intrinsic sense of their own identity and their own evaluations of experience and attributions of value may be replaced by creations partly or even entirely due to the pressures felt from other people” (Mulhauser, 2011, p.1). Peer opinion about consumption is a widely understood fact as a rationale for making product purchases, especially with higher income buyers. However, does the lower class individual with less resources concern themselves with peer or other social opinion when making purchases while they are being burdened with certain physiological restrictions? If the lower class individual affords the luxury of being a variety seeker, rather than relying on peer opinion, they are likely to be price-sensitive (Martinez & Montaner 2008). To understand whether individuals purchase products, in lower-class categories and lower resource availability, it is necessary to understand how they view consumption as compared to other members of society. Do they purchase for their own identity, refer to peer group opinion, or simply buy out of necessity? Research questions How does social inequality dictate consumption of products? To answer this question, the research questions will refer to the literature as it has been proposed on the subject. 1. How does the lower-income buyer view their consumption habits in relation to government, politics, or corporate employment? 2. What role, if any, does television usage (volume and content) dictate lower-income buyer preferences and consumption behaviours? 3. In relation specifically to food, how do food insecure individuals view the food products they purchase in relation to needs or environment? 4. What is most important to the lower-income buyer: Peer opinion or price sensitivity and to which types of products does either/or apply? These research questions are designed to encompass the many different factors that drive lower resource buyers to make their purchases. The goal of the research is to uncover whether or not lower class, lower income buyers consider the external environment when making buying decisions or whether these decisions are completely internalized or based largely on physiological needs and income restrictions. The aforementioned research questions should determine the differences between lower resource buyers and their more affluent counterparts to assist product manufacturers in planning to serve low-income buyers better or help sociologists to understand these dynamics more effectively. Research methodology The research methodology will utilize a quantitative measurement tool modelled by the University of Washington by Professor Katherine Stovel, educator of the Food and Social Inequality Curriculum. The researcher will develop a Food Log as a means to record eating habits, observations about food in the social environment, and also what drove specific purchases. These food logs will provide questions and terminology that relate to television marketing, word-of-mouth, income restrictions, and other important data associated with the study’s intent. Upon contacting appropriate officials for approval and assistance, the prepared food log will be distributed to a health and human services facility that caters to low-income citizens in the region. The goal is to capture a sample population of at least 50-100 individuals. The food logs will be left with the health and human services practitioners for distribution, with a request to have them returned to the front desk receptionist within three to four weeks. As an incentive, the researcher will make connections with local grocers to distribute valuable incentive coupons with the food logs to ensure a higher volume of participation. If desired, those who agree to provide such coupons with the food logs will have their corporate brand displayed on the produced food log to show their sponsorship. It is expected that cooperation maintains a higher probability if the grocer receives a further incentive to participate. The data gleaned from the study will also be promised to the participating coupon sponsors to assist them, if possible, in understanding their low-income buyers better for future profit and sales successes. These meetings will be scheduled by both walk-in and appointment where applicable. Along with the food log, the researcher will develop a survey with a typical one-through-10 ranking system, asking questions about general consumption behaviours, the influence of television and peers on decision-making, and also the physiological restrictions that each participant maintains in their lifestyle. These surveys will be distributed by the researcher in an environment where low-income shoppers frequent in the region, with guaranteed anonymity to the participants. The expected sample is 50-100 individuals of varying demographics and socio-cultural backgrounds to gain a broader perspective of what drives product consumption as it relates to their social inequality among other more resourceful consumers. The data returned from the study will be correlated to find any similarities that might exist between certain socio-cultural backgrounds, geographics, or other relevant information. This data will be compared to further sociological literature and marketing literature regarding the consumption habits of affluent and non-affluent buyers to identify any potential trends from the sample groups targeted. Time plan The following chart illustrate the time required to create the research instruments, ensure their participation and return, and for analysis: Week Dates Project Timeline Activities 1 Nov 2 Prepare Survey and Food Log Templates 2 Nov 7 Distribute and Identify with Grocer Sponsors 3 Nov 28 Begin Compiling Returned Food Logs 4 Nov 28 Begin Survey Distribution to Low-Income Shopping Areas 5 Dec 5 Compile and Analyze Surveys and Food Logs Returned Coordinate all research materials used and make comparisons to appropriate literature on sociology, psychology and marketing 6 Dec 12 Chart Findings and List in Appropriate Tables 7 Dec 19 Begin Construction of Final Project 9 Dec 26 Deliver Data Results to Grocer Sponsors 10 Jan 2 Rough Draft of Final Project for Review 11 Jan 9 Changes as Needed to Rough Draft 12 Jan 23 Submission of Final Project The timeline identified provides the researcher with ample time to ensure reliability of the survey and food log instruments, as a contingency in the event that distribution or sample participation requires repeating due to minimal participation ratios or the need for a new sample. As a further contingency, if health and human services denies participation, a retail centre catering to lower-income buyers will be targeted for distribution of the food logs with the appropriate sponsor coupons attached. References Henslin, J.M. (2005). Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach, 6th ed.A&B Publishing. Mariana, C., Raluca, G. & Gratiela, G. (2009). Culture – Major Determinant of the European Consumer Behaviour, Annales Universitatis Apulensis: Series Oeconomica, 11(2), pp.1019-1025. Martinez, E. & Montaner, T. (2008). Characterization of Spanish store brand consumers, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(6), p.477. Mulhauser, G. (2011). [internet] An introduction to person-centred counselling [accessed October 11, 2011 at http://counsellingresource.com/types/person-centred/] Sociologyindex.com. (2011) [internet] Social stratification [accessed October 12, 2011 at http://sociologyindex.com/stratification.htm] Rock, M., McIntyre, L. & Rondeau, K. (2009). Discomforting comfort foods: stirring the pot on Kraft Dinner and social inequality, Agricultural Human Values, vol. 26, pp.167-176. Stovel, K. (2007). [internet] Sociology 401c: Food and social inequality, University of Washington. [accessed October 11, 2011 at http://courses.washington.edu/soc401a/syllabus-fall-07.pdf] Trinity.edu. (2011). [internet] Explorations in social inequality [accessed October 12, 2011 at http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/strat.html] Wolff, R. (2004). [internet] The riddle of consumption [accessed October 12, 2011 at http://rdwolff.com/content/riddle-consumption] Read More