Consumer Behaviour Double Jeopardy
Double Jeopardy
The theory of Double Jeopardy is described as a behavioural phenomenon which relates to the size structure of a market (Bandyopadhyay, Gupta & Dube 2005). This indicates that in any given time a smaller brand typically has fewer buyers compared to those of a larger brand as larger brands often have a higher percentage of penetration and market share (Ehrenberg, Goodhardt & Barwise 1990). A brand with more market share indicates that consumers purchase these brands more frequently compared to other brands. There are a number of reasons why this occurs. For example firms offering products that a consumer perceives as better quality and value, will grow larger (Jacobson 1988). Also, a firm that creates power advantages by introducing inferior products which competitors cannot offer to customer’s also results in a higher market share.
Careful analyses of all team members’ individual purchases over the tracking period, it can be noted that a large number of different brands were consumed. By viewing the Duplication of Purchases Table for fast food, out of all the 11 types of brands, McDonalds and Max Brennars were the most frequently purchased brands resulting in a higher percentage of penetration and market share compared to other brands. This is because McDonalds and Max Brennars have multiple locations within Australia which provides better access to customers, both brands participate in extensive television and both brands provide regular promotions in order to make customers more alert and aware. These facts all enforce the theory of the double jeopardy; larger brands have more buyers and have a higher market share.
To review the occurrence of the Double Jeopardy effect, Ehrenberg et al. (1990) states that there exists two market level explanations. The first market level consists of the differences in consumer exposure to the market mix efforts (price, promotion, advertising, point of purchase display, discount) of a brand. If a brand has
The theory of Double Jeopardy is described as a behavioural phenomenon which relates to the size structure of a market (Bandyopadhyay, Gupta & Dube 2005). This indicates that in any given time a smaller brand typically has fewer buyers compared to those of a larger brand as larger brands often have a higher percentage of penetration and market share (Ehrenberg, Goodhardt & Barwise 1990). A brand with more market share indicates that consumers purchase these brands more frequently compared to other brands. There are a number of reasons why this occurs. For example firms offering products that a consumer perceives as better quality and value, will grow larger (Jacobson 1988). Also, a firm that creates power advantages by introducing inferior products which competitors cannot offer to customer’s also results in a higher market share.
Careful analyses of all team members’ individual purchases over the tracking period, it can be noted that a large number of different brands were consumed. By viewing the Duplication of Purchases Table for fast food, out of all the 11 types of brands, McDonalds and Max Brennars were the most frequently purchased brands resulting in a higher percentage of penetration and market share compared to other brands. This is because McDonalds and Max Brennars have multiple locations within Australia which provides better access to customers, both brands participate in extensive television and both brands provide regular promotions in order to make customers more alert and aware. These facts all enforce the theory of the double jeopardy; larger brands have more buyers and have a higher market share.
To review the occurrence of the Double Jeopardy effect, Ehrenberg et al. (1990) states that there exists two market level explanations. The first market level consists of the differences in consumer exposure to the market mix efforts (price, promotion, advertising, point of purchase display, discount) of a brand. If a brand has