Coalition of the Willing (Craig Douglass On Consumers)

Do consumers compromise? Many do, probably without knowing it. When making a purchasing decision, consumers consciously or unconsciously weigh price, level of quality and service. And they are willing to give up one to get the other, or to settle for two out of three.

There is some associated thinking going on when consumers engage. Price is often associated with quality. That association comes into play when a product or service reflects on a consumer’s self-perceived value and worth. The emotional or social motivator associated with self-esteem is a powerful core benefit of any product or service. It’s known, in part, as brand equity. Consumers are willing to pay more to get what they want, or what they want others to see.

There is, however, a give-and-take at play in many purchases, particularly when it comes to a product that has broad competition in the marketplace. It’s called the compromise effect.

A well-known marketing study illustrates the point. If the same basic product, with somewhat the same attributes of fulfilling a need, is offered at three different price points, the compromise effect takes over. For example, the product is priced at $215 and $142 and $95. The study revealed that more than 75% of consumers presented with these options chose the one priced in the middle at $142.

The middle. The center. Consumers’ decisions seem to gravitate toward this midpoint when they’re shown extremes on either side. Recent experience shows that a median position appears to include whether to support political and public policy issues, as well.

Some may say that the political center lacks conviction. To the contrary, it seems to us that finding the center, or a balance between two extremes, displays not only conviction, but foresight born of courage. While moderation may be deemed slow or plodding, it is moderation or the centrist view that holds the greatest opportunity for progress. (Of course, there are exceptions. The struggle for civil rights comes to mind.)

Remember the compromise-effect study briefly described above: An overwhelming majority of consumers took to the center, the midpoint.

How did they arrive there? A further look at the compromise effect from an organizational psychology point of view, as expressed in a recent edition of Frontiers in Psychology, suggests that “a product will have a higher chance to be chosen from a set when its attributes are not the extremes (the best with the highest price or the worst with the lowest price).”

We liken the ultimate selection to willingness, being willing to search for a safe, perhaps common-sense solution. A middle-of-the-road choice that can be easily and comfortably made. A preference for peace of mind. Willingness, after all, is defined in part as a freedom from reluctance, readiness. The next necessary step, then, is to take action.

Now, don’t be confused (as I often am). Action may be associated with sheer will or willfulness. But willfulness is a single-minded, egotistic and narrow path. It lacks tolerance. Willingness is a broad highway on which multiple approaches to a common goal may travel.

Consumers of all stripes seek that broad highway in the form of competitive choices. Marketplace competition is beneficial in a number of ways not often thought of. For example, according to Marketing91, a marketing-resource blog, competition has the potential to increase awareness, quality and efficiency. The winning brand is often adopted because it meets multiple consumer needs. With a little sacrifice here and there, the product and the consumer agree to mutual concessions resulting in a transaction.

In public policy, too, the winning position time after time — with the exception of an occasional extreme, short-lived experiment — is the broad center, where mutual concessions take place. Compromises. It’s that position that has the greatest opportunity to construct a willing coalition, expressing a collective majority. A majority that accepts progress rather than perfection.

Craig Douglass serves as executive director of the Regional Recycling & Waste Reduction District in Pulaski County.