Journal of Consumer Marketing

Familiarity, expertise and involvement: key consumer segmentation factors

Paul Taylor-West Heather Fulford Gary Reed Vicky Story Jim Saker
Article information:
To cite this document:
Paul Taylor-West Heather Fulford Gary Reed Vicky Story Jim Saker, (2008),"Familiarity, expertise and involvement: key
consumer segmentation factors", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 Iss 6 pp. 361 - 368
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760810902495
Downloaded on: 10 February 2016, At: 06:40 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 33 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3698 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by New York University At 06:40 10 February 2016 (PT)

Dawn B. Valentine, Thomas L. Powers, (2013),"Generation Y values and lifestyle segments", Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 30 Iss 7 pp. 597-606 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-07-2013-0650
Ulrich R. Orth, Mina McDaniel, Tom Shellhammer, Kannapon Lopetcharat, (2004),"Promoting brand benefits: the
role of consumer psychographics and lifestyle", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 97-108 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760410525669
Salah S. Hassan, Stephen Craft, (2012),"Examining world market segmentation and brand positioning strategies", Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 Iss 5 pp. 344-356 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761211247460

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:198285 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Familiarity, expertise and involvement:
key consumer segmentation factors
Paul Taylor-West
Centre for Research in Automotive Management (CRAM), Business School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
Heather Fulford
Aberdeen Business School, The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK, and
Gary Reed, Vicky Story and Jim Saker
Centre for Research in Automotive Management (CRAM), Business School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK

Abstract
Purpose – It is generally accepted that the launch of a new product is critical to its success. Key to this is that manufacturers understand the market
segment which is targeted for the launch. However, recent research and criticism suggest that modern segmentation strategies, aligning products with
lifecycle typologies do not work. It is no longer possible to align consumers and products into neat and stable lifecycle segments. It is suggested that
more importance should be attached to products having a familiarity fit with consumers – what they know and expect from a particular product. These
views are moderated by a consumer’s enthusiasm or involvement with the product as well as their level of expertise in understanding complex
Downloaded by New York University At 06:40 10 February 2016 (PT)

products. This paper aims to look at these issues.

Design/methodology/approach – This research looks at consumer perceptions to the changes to two automotive models launched by one of the
major manufacturers at the Frankfurt Motor Show, Germany, held in September 2005, to discover which changes had the most appeal and to identify
correlations with consumer lifecycles.
Findings – Results revealed that consumer lifecycles had no correlation with any of the data, whereas familiarity, expertise and product involvement
will provide manufacturers with more accurate segmentation tools in the launch and marketing of new automotive products.
Practical implications – These findings suggest that a customer’s expertise, product involvement and familiarity with the product are likely to provide
more appropriate market segmentation tools.
Originality/value – This paper reveals useful information on consumer lifestyles and market segmentation tools.

Keywords New products, Market segmentation, Consumers, Skills, Consumer behaviour

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
This paper presents findings on primary research into
consumer perceptions to changes in automobiles, as well as
the usefulness of current high-level consumer segmentation
tools.
There are numerous studies that have categorised new
products into degrees of newness through their innovative
qualities (Booz, Allen & Hamilton, 1982; Gatignon and
Robertson, 1991; Ofek and Sarvary, 2003; Robertson, 1971;
Ziamou, 2002) and where they sit in the micro-/macro-
positioning framework (Booz, Allen & Hamilton, 1982;
Cooper et al., 2002; Gobeli and Brown, 1987).
However, no studies have been carried out to-date to look
at consumer perceptions of changes to new automobiles or
how these perceptions can be measured.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
Journal of Consumer Marketing
25/6 (2008) 361– 368
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]
[DOI 10.1108/07363760810902495]
A number of studies had looked at the ways consumers
assess new products (Gregan-Paxton and Roedder, 1997;
Hofstadter, 1998; Novick, 1988; Rogers, 1995) such
examples being product attributes, benefits, observability,
trialability and value. Yet the consumers and their perceptions
will vary greatly in all of these areas and will be influenced by
a number of moderators – expertise (Kleiser and Mantel,
1999; Gregan-Paxton and Roedder, 1997) and familiarity
(Danneels and Kleinschmidt, 2001) being the two main items
that determine the degree of newness by any given individual
for any given product. To some extent these variables will be
influenced by an individual’s enthusiasm or keen interest in
the product which has been established as product
involvement (Shimp and Sharma, 1983; Bloch, 1981).
In addition some automotive components, especially non-
visible or under the bonnet, may only be understood by a
certain consumer – with some degree of expertise. Novices,
for example, may not have sufficient knowledge or
understanding of engine modifications or performance
characteristics and would be more concerned with physical
attributes (Novick, 1988) – changes to the body styling.
Currently none of the literature has taken these aspects of
familiarity, expertise and product involvement into account
when seeking to establish consumer perceptions of new
product evaluations. This study is believed to be the first of its
kind.

361
 Familiarity, expertise and involvement
Paul Taylor-West et al.
Theoretical background
The major area of interest in this research is how customers
perceive the continuous stream of new automotive models
that are introduced by manufacturers each year. It is
suggested that new products are perceived differently by
producers and consumers.
In the case of the motor industry most manufacturers
introduce new models annually with only a few minor
changes. This is common amongst most manufacturers who
often introduce similar products by changing only one
attribute of the product (Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989.)
Nearly 80 per cent of new fast moving consumer goods
(FMCG) products reviewed in 1999 in a report by Ernst &
Young (Morris et al., 2003) were either me-too (copycat or
similar) products or line extensions (to existing brands).
Brandes and Brehmer (2000) suggest that future innovations
in the European car industry will be in incremental small
steps rather than being revolutionary. This is important as
Gatignon and Robertson (1991) state that the consumers’
Downloaded by New York University At 06:40 10 February 2016 (PT)
viewpoint of a new product is distilled by how novel or
innovative the product is, according to their perceptions.
As these changes are incremental rather than radical in
nature (Gobeli and Brown, 1987) the range of complexity,
raised by a number of authors (Gregan-Paxton and Roedder,
1997; Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Johannessen et al., 2001;
Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989; Rogers, 1995), may only be
minimal between novices and experts.
As most of the changes introduced are made to existing
previous models, it would be reasonable to assume that
previous owners of these models would detect the changes
more readily than non-owners; however the newness of those
changes is an area where familiarity may have its advantages
as well as disadvantages. For example you could be an expert
in automobiles, yet unfamiliar with a particular model, whilst
a novice could be very familiar through past ownership.
Therefore, the issue raised by Johannessen et al. (2001) –
what may be seen as new to one, may not be to the other –
may well be valid.
It would also be valid to consider the concept of “car
enthusiasts” as an indicator of the degree of expertise which
forms part of a new product evaluation. It is likely that
expertise will increase pro-rata to the keen interest and
involvement that one has with an automobile.
Conceptual development
Michaut et al. (2001) propose that the way in which newness
is considered influences the perceived value of a product and
also its success on the market. Michaut et al. suggest that
newness is a two-dimensional structure comprising:
perceptual newness and epistemic newness.
Perceptual newness is described as “elements consumers
directly notice during product exposure” making it easy for
the consumer to identify and be comfortable with. In this case
the experience is immediate, employing sensory stimulation to
formulate a summary assessment.
Epistemic newness, in contrast, is described as “elements
that require more information processing and reflection” A
complex product makes it more difficult for the consumer to
identify newness: requiring more thought; making the process
reflective and relying on cognitive stimulation (Michaut et al.,
2001). Hofstadter (1998) proposed that this internally held
362
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 361 –368
recall is an automatic trigger process of identification, that is:
cognition equals recognition.
It is suggested that the degree of newness in a new product
is perceived differently by producers and consumers, however,
Moors et al. (2003) suggest that conceptual newness must be
the prime objective for manufacturers when introducing new
products, that is they must ensure that consumers have a good
understanding of the product newness and benefits. It is likely
that conceptual newness can only be achieved through a
combination of perceptual and epistemic processes.
It is highly likely that the degree of epistemic newness, and
therefore product complexity, varies between novices and
experts, depending on the exposure and familiarity to any
given product, and that consumer perceptions are formed
through the attributes and relations of new products (Gregan-
Paxton and Roedder, 1997). In simple terms this means the
evaluation is made on the product’s appearance (attributes) –
what it looks like – and what it does (relations). Gregan-
Paxton and Roedder (1997) surmise that novices are likely to
be more perceptual than experts, who, with more in-depth
product knowledge, would probably be more epistemic. Alba
and Hutchinson (1987) suggest that novices are likely to view
products non-analytically (attributes), compared to experts
who actively seek more information (relations) simply because
they know it is likely to exist, whereas novices rely on recall
(familiarity) and fewer details.
This attribute-relation structure is important in establishing
product knowledge and this rational appraisal process is likely
to be extensive in high involvement purchases (such as
automobiles) – in contrast to low involvement products such
as FCMG and grocery items (Blythe, 1999).
In addition, consumer expertise is also an important part of
the attribute-relation framework during product assessment.
Novices are more likely to be attribute based – what it looks
like, as opposed to experts being relation based – what it does
(Gregan-Paxton and Roedder, 1997; Hofstadter, 1998;
Novick, 1988; Rogers, 1995). It is also suggested that
familiarity with the product is a moderator of expertise (Alba
and Hutchinson, 1987), a novice with high familiarity may
well be an expert for that given product. This role change of
novices and experts suggests that what may be seen as new to
one, may not be to the other (Johannessen et al., 2001).
Another aspect of previous research (Bloch, 1981)
suggested that the so-called “love affair with the
automobile” is associated with ridership and the propensity
to ride. This involvement suggests that this is a long-term
interest in automobiles based on the importance of personal
needs, image and values that reflect individual differences.
Bloch (1981) views product involvement as a construct that
affects consumer behaviour on an ongoing basis and varies
across individuals (ranging from minimal levels to extremely
high levels). Based on this view an Automobile Involvement
Scale (AIS) was developed by Bloch (1981) to measure these
levels.
In the area of marketing many practitioners as well as
academics have used personal needs, image and values to
develop marketing scales. The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS)
(Rokeach, 1973) and List of Values (LOV) (Kahle et al.,
1986) are used extensively in academic research and Value
and Lifestyle Segmentation (VALS) – a commercial product
– is used extensively in industry – this scale itself was a
development of RVS.
 Familiarity, expertise and involvement
Paul Taylor-West et al.
Marketing companies have taken these variables and
developed their own scales into high-level descriptives of the
population. Insight Social Value Groups (Insight Value Group
Ltd), ACORN (CACI Ltd) and MOSAIC (Experian Ltd) are
used extensively by manufacturers in Europe to identify
market segments for their products.
These scales and classifications have been the subject of
some criticism. Rokeach’s proposals have been criticised by
Home and Kahle (1988) because of the difficulty of the
lengthy ranking task and information loss due to rank
orderings. The use of social grade definitions, defined by
occupations, is an ambiguous concept in modern times
because the opportunities to progress are much greater for the
old lower classes and the shift in labour patterns from
manufacturing to service industries involving more
technological and administrative functions rather than
physical labour. Halliburton and Hünerberg (1993) also
argue that it is no longer possible to classify people into neat
and stable segments, a bottom-up approach of identifying
consumers is needed rather than the top-down approach of
Downloaded by New York University At 06:40 10 February 2016 (PT)
grouping unknown individuals by demographic, lifestyle or
industry criteria.
Therefore, it is hypothesised that there will be no
correlations between consumer perceptions of new products
and high-level consumer classifications such as lifestyles –
H1.
It is also hypothesised that familiarity, expertise and
product involvement are the main constructs in determining
consumer perceptions of new automotive products – H2
(Figure 1).
To test the hypothesis, this project carried out in-depth
research using appropriate instruments to measure these
variables and test their usefulness in the area of research into
consumer perceptions of new automotive products.
Methodology
The aim of this project was primarily to investigate the
constructs of familiarity, expertise and product involvement
Figure 1 Conceptual framework
363
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 361 –368
and their relationship in consumer perceptions of new
automotive products. The second objective was to establish
correlations between consumer perceptions and existing
academic consumer classifications. The method selected to
source primary data was a quantitative approach using hard
copy self-administered questionnaires with visitors to the
manufacturers’ stand at the Frankfurt Motor Show – the
collectors of the data were on hand to monitor and advise if
necessary; a maximum of three questionnaires were
monitored at any one time. This method allowed for the
controlled collection of specific information from the
participants (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2004).
Sample
The survey was conducted over three public viewing days
between 18 and 20 September 2005, two days being the
weekend. The venue was a main manufacturer’s stand at the
Frankfurt Motor Show, Frankfurt, Germany. This was chosen
because of its importance in the launch of new models in
Europe for manufacturers and availability in terms of timings
for the research schedule. Major changes to two of the
manufacturers’ models were the object of the questionnaires.
A total of 105 questionnaires were completed of which 102
were useable, this was in line with the study target of 100. The
split was 75.5 per cent for Model A and 24.5 per cent for
Model B.
Of the respondents, 80 per cent were male and 20 per cent
were female – regardless of model. A total of 95.1 per cent of
respondents were from Germany; 67.6 per cent of Model A
respondents were in the sub-30 age group and were
predominantly younger overall compared to Model B (48
per cent).
Methods and measures used
The manufacturer provided advance information, which was
subject to a press embargo, detailing the changes to the two
new models and the descriptions that the manufacturer was
promoting to reflect these changes.
Existing as well as exploratory scales were used to measure
consumer perceptions of these changes. Likert scales, on a
range of 1 to 7, were used throughout the survey.
Exploratory scales
A scale was developed to measure the appeal of the changes to
the new models. Respondents were asked to indicate whether
they found the changes Very unappealing (1) to Very
appealing (7). They were also asked if they agreed with a
number of descriptives (dummy descriptions as well as the
manufacturers’ actual description of the product) from
Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (7). Finally, in this
section, they were asked to choose just one of the descriptions
provided (or provide one of their own if they disagreed with
all of the descriptions) that they thought described the new
model overall.
Another exploratory scale was used to measure their
familiarity with previous models to discover if this acted as a
moderator to the responses. To measure the construct of
familiarity respondents were asked if they were familiar with
the previous model – Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly
agree (7).
Finally to gain an insight as to the respondent’s overall
acceptance of the new model, a similar scale was used to ask if
they would consider buying the new model.
 Familiarity, expertise and involvement
Paul Taylor-West et al.
Existing scales
The eight-item instrument – Automobile Involvement Scale
(AIS) – developed by Shimp and Sharma (1983) from the
original 18-item scale by Bloch (1981) was used to measure
product involvement.
To measure consumer expertise a ten-item, two-factor
instrument was established from the Consumer Expertise
construct developed by Kleiser and Mantel (1999); these
measured product knowledge acquisition and product recall.
A Pearson Correlation revealed large relationships between
these two factors, which justified the merging of the two
factors, in the final data analysis, into a new construct –
expertise.
In addition to the scale questions, respondents also supplied
demographic data, including age, country of residency,
gender, marital status, no. of children, people living in
household, occupation and household income band. These
data were used with two scales of consumer lifecycles to
identify correlations that would provide profiles of any
relevant consumer groups. The first scale being the widely
Downloaded by New York University At 06:40 10 February 2016 (PT)
used Wells and Gubar (1966) classification of nine lifecycle
groups; the second being a reduction of this scale to three
lifecycle groups by Watson (1999).
Scale properties, development and analysis parameters
Likert scales, on a range of 1 to 7, were used throughout the
survey.
SPSS was used throughout for the statistical analysis.
Analysis of groups of two or more (interval scales), was
carried out with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test;
where homogeneity of variance was significant, a Kruskal-
Wallis test was ran instead.
For two groups (i.e. male/female) an independent-sample
t-test was used.
Pearson correlation was used to explore the strength of
relationships between the interval (scales) variables.
Confidence level used: p , 0:05 with the exception of
Pearson Correlations where p , 0:01.
Pearson correlation used: r . 0:60 (36 per cent of the
shared variance) Note: r ¼ 0:50 to 1.0 is considered to be a
large relationship, strengthened by the use of a high
confidence level p . 0:01.
Eta squared values were used to calculate the effect size in
independent-sample t-test: 0:01 ¼ small effect, 0:06 ¼
moderate effect and 0:14 ¼ large effect.
In addition an exploratory factor analysis was used for data
reduction of the AIS scale with Varimax rotation. The results
indicated a reduction of items used in the scale.
Results
To maintain confidentiality the results for the models will be
referred to as Model A and Model B. Both models are from
the small car sector, although Model A is a longer established
and more popular model than Model B. Changes to the new
models were twofold, firstly the main changes were all visual –
changes to the bumpers, headlights, dashboard, seat fabrics
etc., these encompass Michaut et al. (2001) perceptual
newness classification. Secondly there were a number of
optional extras – rain sensing wipers and automatic
headlamps, bluetooth hands-free phone and voice control
system, portable music connector i.e. to connect mp3 player/
364
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 361 –368
walkman etc., more innovative items that encompass Michaut
et al. (2001) epistemic newness classification.
It was found that the AIS was one point higher for Model A
than for Model B respondents (five versus four); there were
no differences between males and females for either model.
This was similar for expertise (six versus five) however male
scores were higher than female for both models (mean 5.35
versus 4.42; t-test p ¼ 0:002). In the case of familiarity with
the previous models there were no significant differences.
Results also identified that expertise had a large positive
relationship with AIS (Kruskal-Wallis p , 0:000 – Pearson
Correllation r ¼ 0:488), as shown in Figure 2.
Overall there were relationships with familiarity and the
changes to the new models as well as the optional extras
available for the new models – 12.5 per cent of the main
changes had a positive relationship with familiarity; this was
the same for the optional extras – that is the higher the
familiarity the more appealing the product. This was in sharp
contrast to the other scales in the research. AIS revealed
strong product appeal with all the optional extras and 56 per
cent of the main changes (p , 0:05). However, expertise
revealed that none of the optional extras had strong product
appeal as opposed to 78 per cent of the main changes
(p , 0:05).
Yet the results revealed relationships between the scales
used in the research. There was a strong correlation p ¼ 0:008
between familiarity and AIS; the higher the familiarity the
higher the AIS as shown in Figure 3.
There was a similar relationship p ¼ 0:000 between
familiarity and expertise as shown in Figure 4.
Despite extensive analysis of the data no correlations were
found with the socio-demographic information. Neither
children nor lifecycles had any impact on the analysis.
However, by way of descriptives, most Model B respondents
were married, had children living at home, a clerical/admin or
professional occupation and had higher incomes compared to
Model A respondents.
In summary the results find that H1 – there will be no
correlations between consumer perceptions of new products
and high level consumer classifications such as lifestyles – and
H2 – familiarity, expertise and product involvement are the
Figure 2 AIS and expertise means plot
 Familiarity, expertise and involvement
Paul Taylor-West et al.
Figure 3 AIS and familiarity means plot
Downloaded by New York University At 06:40 10 February 2016 (PT)
Figure 4 Familiarity and expertise means plot
main constructs in determining consumer perceptions of new
automotive products – are supported.
Discussion and implications
The findings suggest that familiarity has a significant impact
on product appeal – these results show that previous owners
scored the appeal of the main changes and optional extras less
than those who were unfamiliar, this was regardless of their
level of expertise. This indicates that consumers have differing
thresholds of epistemic newness caused by exposure and
familiarity; a novice with high familiarity can switch places
with experts for a given product for example. Previous studies
have suggested that new products need to have a degree of
epistemic newness to be successful (Moors et al., 2003;
Mandler, 1981; Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989). The
indications are that less familiarity results in higher levels of
epistemic newness and increases product appeal.
Positive correlations were found between AIS and expertise
with the appeal of the main changes to the new models.
However, this was not the case for the optional extras – those
365
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 361 –368
with high AIS found all the optional extras to be appealing
whereas those with high expertise found none of them
appealing. From these findings it is suggested that experts are
likely to be familiar with most of the new automotive
innovations and therefore may not view the optional extras as
being new – this is similar to the familiarity with previous
models – and lacked the level of epistemic newness suggested
earlier (Moors et al., 2003; Mandler, 1981; Meyers-Levy and
Tybout, 1989).
The exploratory factor analysis used for data reduction of
the AIS indicated a reduction of items (questions) to two
main items, which explained 77.89 per cent of the variance,
regardless of male/female responses. The two items were as
follows:
1 I prefer to drive a car with a strong personality of its own.
2 Sometimes I get too wrapped up in my car.
This suggests that AIS does not require expertise or a greater
understanding of the more innovative aspects of an
automobile and that although males showed more expertise
in their product evaluations in this research, these differences
have no bearing on the scores for automobile involvement.
This is despite the fact that positive relationships exist
between a customer’s expertise and their involvement with the
product. From these findings the indications are that those
with higher AIS are likely to be more attracted to the
perceptual and epistemic aspects of new automotive products
than any other factor.
The study also showed that consolidation of the
demographic data into lifecycles identified no correlations
with any of the responses. This supports the arguments that
top-down segmentation does not work. However, the
demographics are, and will remain, essential when
describing the respondents – there is little value in
establishing links between variables and constructs without
being able to identify what those respondents look like. In
addition, the demographics indicated that although males had
higher expertise than females, there was no difference in
involvement with the product based on gender.
The findings also identified the newest and most appealing
changes for these two models as perceived by visitors to the
motor show, and showed that in general consumers agreed
with manufacturers’ descriptions of the new products. This
gave the designers for this particular manufacturer an insight
into the most appealing product improvements and a greater
awareness of the profiles of potential consumers. It also
confirmed that the manufacturer’s intended perception of
each model was valid in the eyes of the consumer.
In summary, although strong relationships exist between
familiarity, expertise and AIS, the most valuable factor that
manufacturers need to be aware of in the launch and
marketing of new automotive products is a consumer’s level of
AIS.
The implication for marketeers is that they need to rethink
the use of high-level lifecycle segmentation strategies and
consider the three factors identified in this research –
familiarity, expertise and AIS. Future consumer surveys and
other data collection techniques should include questions to
identify familiarity, expertise and AIS. Marketeers need to use
all three factors as a segmentation tool to tailor specific
campaigns for these segments. There are clear indications
from these findings that the marketing messages for those
with high AIS should convey differing meanings for those
 Familiarity, expertise and involvement
Paul Taylor-West et al.
with familiarity and differing messages again for those with
high levels of expertise.
Future research
It is suggested that a matrix should be developed and tested
based on the three factors identified in the current research to
identify optimum levels of product complexity for new
products. The matrix should indicate the optimum level of
perceptual newness and the optimum level of epistemic
newness – the area between these two points indicating the
spread of appeal of the new product. Areas below the lower
level would indicate that the product would become
unnoticeable or above the higher level it would become too
complex to be considered. The factors used to establish this
matrix should also reveal the upper and lower levels of
familiarity, expertise and AIS. Cross-referenced with
consumer databases this may become a powerful indicator
for manufacturers as to the likelihood of success of any new
product.
Downloaded by New York University At 06:40 10 February 2016 (PT)
Limitations
Limitations – because this research was carried out in the
context of a motor show there may be some bias in the results
and findings, but the three factors identified – familiarity,
expertise and AIS will be studied further to understand the
moderating effect they may have on consumer views in a
larger cross-cultural research project planned for the future
with a non-motor show sample.
In addition, whilst the exploratory factor analysis results
indicated a reduction of items used in the AIS scale may be
useful, it should not be relied on as being representative of a
wider sample, due again to possible bias of motor show
attendees in the sample used.
References
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), “Dimensions of
consumer expertise”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13
No. 4, p. 411.
Bloch, P.H. (1981), “Automobile involvement: IPCA”, in
Bearden, W.O. and Netemeyer, R.G. (Eds), Handbook of
Marketing Scales: Multi-item Measures for Marketing and
Consumer Behavior Research, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Blythe, J. (1999), “Innovativeness and newness in high-tech
consumer durables”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 415-29.
Booz, Allen & Hamilton (1982), New Products Management for
the 1980s, Booz Allen & Hamilton, New York, NY.
Brandes, O. and Brehmer, P. (2000), “Networks as barriers to
innovators -the case of car distribution in the European
Union”, available at: www.impgroup.org/uploads/papers/
4305.pdf (accessed 26 May 2004).
Churchill, G.A. and Iacobucci, D. (2004), Marketing
Research: Methodological Foundations, Dryden Press,
Chicago, IL.
Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Kleinschmidt, E. (2002),
Portfolio Management for New Products, 2nd ed., Perseus,
Reading, MA and Oxford.
Danneels, E. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2001), “Product
innovativeness from the firm’s perspective: its dimensions
366
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 361 –368
and their relation with project selection and performance”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18 No. 6,
pp. 357-73.
Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T.S. (1991), “Innovative decision
processes”, in Robertson, T.S. and Kassarjian, H.H. (Eds),
Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall International,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gobeli, D.H. and Brown, D.J. (1987), “Analyzing product
innovations”, Research Management, Vol. 30, July-August,
pp. 25-31.
Gregan-Paxton, J. and Roedder, J.D. (1997), “Consumer
learning by analogy: a model of internal knowledge
transfer”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 266-84.
Halliburton, C. and Hünerberg, R. (1993), European
Marketing: Readings and Cases, Addison-Wesley,
Wokingham.
Hofstadter, D. (1998), Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies:
Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought,
Penguin Books, London.
Home, P. and Kahle, L.R. (1988), “A structural equation test
of the value-attitude-behaviour hierarchy”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 638-46.
Johannessen, J., Olsen, B. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2001),
“Innovation as newness: what is new, how new, and new
to whom?”, European Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 20-31.
Kahle, L.R., Beatty, S.E. and Homer, P. (1986), “Research in
brief: alternative measurement approaches to consumer
values: the List of Values (Lov) and Values and Life Style
(Vals)”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 405-9.
Kleiser, S.B. and Mantel, S.P. (1999), “Expertise: consumer
expertise”, Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-item
Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research,
2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mandler, G. (1981), “The structure of value: accounting for
taste”, in Clark, M. and Fiske, S.T. (Eds), Affect and
Cognition: The Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on
Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Tybout, A.M. (1989), “Schema
congruity as a basis for product evaluation”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Michaut, A., van Trijp, H. and Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (2001),
“Dimensions of product newness and their differential
effect on market success”, paper presented at the EMAC
Conference, Braga.
Moors, E., Enzing, C., van der Giessen, A. and Smitts, R.
(2003), “User-producer interactions in functional genomics
innovations”, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice,
Vol. 5 Nos 2-3, pp. 120-43.
Morris, L., Abrams, D., Randsley de Moura, G. and Durlach, P.
(2003), “Delaying the inevitable?: The effects of time to think
on responses to innovative concepts”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 1440-56.
Novick, L. (1988), “Analogical transfer, problem similarity
and expertise”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 510-20.
Ofek, E. and Sarvary, M. (2003), “R&D, marketing, and the
success of next-generation products”, Marketing Science,
Vol. 22 No. 3, p. 355.
 Familiarity, expertise and involvement
Paul Taylor-West et al.
Robertson, T.S. (1971), Innovative Behavior and
Communication, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York,
NY.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., Free
Press, New York, NY and London.
Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, Collier-
Macmillan Publishers, London.
Shimp, T. and Sharma, S. (1983), “The dimensionality of
involvement: a test of the automotive involvement scale”,
Winter Conference in Causal Modeling, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL, p. 58.
Watson, J.J. (1999), “A cross-cultural comparison of the
explanatory power of materialism and life cycle stage for
important possessions”, Seventh Cross-cultural Consumer and
Business Studies Research Conference, Cancun, December 12-15,
available at: http://marketing.byu.edu/htmlpages/ccrs/
proceedings99/watson.htm (accessed 7 December 2005).
Wells, W.D. and Gubar, G. (1966), “Life cycle concept in
marketing research”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 3
No. 4, pp. 355-63.
Downloaded by New York University At 06:40 10 February 2016 (PT)
Ziamou, P.(. (2002), “Commercializing new technologies:
consumers response to a new interface”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 365-74.
Further reading
Holt, D. (2002), “Why do brands cause trouble? A dialetical
theory of consumer culture and branding”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 29, June, pp. 70-90.
Marion, G. (2003), “Marketing dynamic: new identities, co-
optation and fragmentation”, in Gilson, I., Grugulis, I. and
Willmott, H. (Eds), Critical Management Studies 2003,
University of Waikato Management School, Hamilton, p. 1,
available at: www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cmsconference/
2003/default.asp
Corresponding author
Paul Taylor-West can be contacted at: p.taylor-west@
lboro.ac.uk
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
material present.
Recent research has questioned the effectiveness of market
segmentation based on consumer lifestyles. Instead, many
experts are suggesting that more attention should be given to
consumer familiarity with the product, their enthusiasm or
involvement and level of expertise.
New product evaluation
Earlier studies into consumer assessment of new products
have examined factors like attributes, benefits, discernable
features and value. The work revealed widely varying
367
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 361 –368
perceptions of newness and a tendency for expertise and
familiarity to act as significant moderators.
Research carried out in 1999 showed that approximately 80
per cent of new fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) were
either virtual replicas or extensions to existing brands. In the
motor industry, it is typical for automakers to release new
models annually that contain incremental rather than
revolutionary changes.
This may be significant, as some analysts have discovered
that consumer assessment of a new model is shaped by their
perception of its innovativeness. Others claim that previous
owners would notice changes more easily than non-owners. If
the expert is not familiar with the model and the novice is a
previous owner, the distinction between expert and novice can
become blurred in these situations. It is also felt that
correlation exists between expertise and interest and
enthusiasm.
Some researchers have identified two levels of newness:
perceptual and epistemic. Perceptual newness relates to
visible features that can be immediately and readily detected,
while epistemic newness involves more complex and less
discernible attributes that require greater information
processing and reflection. In simple terms, assessment of
newness is based on how the product looks and/or what it
does. The general assumption is that novices are more
perceptual and experts more epistemic when making their
evaluations.
Investigations concluded that involvement wields ongoing
influence on consumer behaviour. But involvement levels
differ significantly and with automobiles indicate a long-term
interest that reflects individual variations in needs, images and
values. The Automobile Involvement Scale (AIS) was created
to measure these levels.
Study and outcomes
Taylor-West et al. aim to expand on earlier findings by
exploring the influence of familiarity, expertise and
involvement on customer perceptions of changes to new
automobiles.
A quantitative study was carried out over three days at the
stand of a leading car manufacturer at the Frankfurt Motor
Show. New model launches are a feature of this event so the
choice of venue was deemed appropriate. The self-
administered questionnaire brought 102 usable responses of
which 80 per cent were from males.
The study concerned major changes to two models
(labelled A and B). Details about the modifications were
provided by the manufacturer, along with descriptions used to
promote the car. Perceptual changes to the models related to
such as headlights, bumpers, dashboard and fabrics. Various
optional extras including automatic headlights, sensor wipers
and portable music connection were among changes
considered more epistemic.
Participants were asked to indicate how appealing they
found the changes, if they agreed with the manufacturer’s
descriptions of the changes and which descriptions they
considered most appropriate.
Demographic data were also collected so the authors could
determine whether any significant patterns existed. Marketers
often take these variables to develop scales that describe and
categorise consumers. The authors, however, argue that
segmenting consumers by such as occupation is no longer
 Familiarity, expertise and involvement
Paul Taylor-West et al.
valid given the greater scope for social mobility that nowadays
exists.
The survey measured familiarity with previous models and
consumer expertise was determined using a construct that
blended product knowledge acquisition and product recall.
The AIS was used in relation to product involvement.
Findings revealed:
.
no involvement differences between males and females for
either model;
.
no significant differences in relation to familiarity with
previous model;
.
higher expertise among males for both models;
.
a significantly positive relationship between expertise and
involvement;
.
strong correlation between familiarity and involvement;
and
.
correlation between familiarity and expertise.
There was also correlation between the constructs and
product appeal and around 12.5 per cent of both perceptual
and epistemic changes had a positive relationship with
Downloaded by New York University At 06:40 10 February 2016 (PT)
familiarity. Involvement indicated strong product appeal
with all optional extras and slightly over half of the main
changes. With expertise, 78 per cent of main changes strongly
appealed but none within the optional category.
Marketing implications and further research
Taylor-West et al. conclude that familiarity impacts on
product appeal. Both main and optional changes appealed
less to previous owners than to those who were unfamiliar and
these findings were not moderated by expertise. These
indications may be especially important in relation to the
optional changes given earlier indications that epistemic
newness helps new products to succeed. The authors suggest
that increased levels of epistemic newness and product appeal
occur when the consumer is less familiar with previous
models.
Similarly, optional extras may hold little appeal to experts
due to the likelihood that they will already be aware of
innovative developments and may therefore not perceive the
changes as being epistemic.
Positive relations often exist between expertise and
involvement though the study shows that individuals can be
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
368
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 361 –368
enthusiastic or involved even if they lack the expertise or
comprehension of a car’s more pioneering features.
Nevertheless, Taylor-West et al. claim that their findings
suggest that both perceptual and epistemic changes will
appeal to those who are highly involved.
As predicted, the study showed that socio-demographic
factors did not impact on consumer perceptions of new
products and casts further doubts about the validity of using a
segmentation strategy based on consumer lifestyle.
Demographics do, however, remain important in helping to
describe respondents and potential buyers.
That consumers in general agreed with the manufacturer’s
description of the new products provides some insight into
which improvements appeal most. It additionally suggests that
the manufacturer was able to elicit a desired response where
consumer perceptions were concerned.
Taylor-West et al. encourage marketers to measure
expertise, familiarity and involvement in future consumer
surveys and other data gathering processes. They believe that
the constructs can be used to develop segmentation strategies
but suggest a need for tailoring campaigns to each segment
with different marketing messages for high scorers in the
respective factors. The idea of creating a matrix to help
identify ideal levels of complexity in new products is also put
forward. It would indicate optimum levels of perceptual and
epistemic newness with points above or below the area
respectively showing the product to be too complex or
unremarkable. Upper and lower levels of expertise, familiarity
and involvement would form part of matrix development. The
authors propose that cross-referencing the matrix with
customer databases may provide strong indication of
whether or not a new product would succeed.
It is acknowledged that confining the study to the motor
show context may bias the results. Likewise, the items used to
form the AIS used may not be representative of a wider
sample as the two main items are specifically associated with
automobiles. Additional investigation is therefore
recommended.
(A précis of the article “Familiarity, expertise and involvement:
key consumer segmentation factors”. Supplied by Marketing
Consultants for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Lara Agnoli, Roberta Capitello, Diego Begalli. 2016. Behind intention and behaviour: factors influencing wine consumption in
a novice market. British Food Journal 118:3. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Paul Taylor-West, Jim Saker, Donna Champion. 2014. The benefits of using reduced item variable scales in marketing
segmentation. Journal of Marketing Communications 20, 438-446. [CrossRef]
3. Paul Taylor-West, Jim Saker, Donna Champion. 2013. Segmenting for complexity: persuading people to buy what they don't
understand. Journal of Strategic Marketing 21, 332-346. [CrossRef]
4. Jörg Hetterich, Sebastian Bonnemeier, Michael Pritzke, Anthimos Georgiadis. 2012. Ecological sustainability – a customer
requirement? Evidence from the automotive industry. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55, 1111-1133.
[CrossRef]
5. I. Lesschaeve, J. BruwerThe importance of consumer involvement and implications for new product development 386-423.
[CrossRef]
6. Angelo A. Camillo, Loredana Di PietroSocial Media and its Effect on Consumer Loyalty: 195-211. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by New York University At 06:40 10 February 2016 (PT)