The purpose of the critical analysis was to identify a broader significance of marketing practices researched in the article “Customer Perception Towards Effectiveness of Floor Advertisements in Organized Retail,” by Shrivastava, Saini, and Pinto (2014). To achieve this goal, the evaluation commenced with a detailed description of various article sections: abstract, introduction, literature review, methods, results, conclusions, and suggestions for further research. To clarify the efficiency of methods and approaches used by the researchers, they were compared with those implemented in three other scholarly articles located through Google Scholar and Springer Link. In this way, it was possible to make more credible statements regarding the quality of research by Shrivastava et al. (2014). The essay was concluded with the overall assessment of the main source, whereas the observations regarding the suitability of the paper title were provided afterwards.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
The present paper is devoted to the critical analysis of the article, “Customer Perception towards Effectiveness of Floor Advertisements in Organized Retail,” by Shrivastava et al. (2014). To identify strengths and weaknesses of the study, different sections of the document will be assessed and compared to methods and evidence provided in three other peer-reviewed articles on the effectiveness of the point-of-purchase advertising techniques in influencing consumer behaviours. Overall, the assignment will help to comprehend the significance of floor advertising in the modern business world.
The title of the article fully reflects researchers’ intentions because, in the paper, Shrivastava et al. (2014) investigate such elements of customer perception as attitudes to advertisements, their attractiveness, persuasiveness, and so forth. It is suggested that these constructs define advertising effectiveness which, in its turn, results in increased purchase intentions among consumers. Based on this, it is possible to assert that the title entirely captures the essence of the study.
The abstract of the article is comprehensive and covers such issues as research background, purposes and aims, data collection and analysis methods, main variables, and conclusions. Shrivastava et al. (2014) also explain the potential practical implications of their findings, stating that they may assist marketers in decision-making on advertisement investments. Overall, the reviewed abstract captures all essential aspects of the conducted investigation. At the same time, the study on a similar topic (namely, the effects of in-store displays on purchasing behaviours) by Loya, Ismail, and Khan (2015) does not contain an abstract at all. Not only does this decrease the overall quality of the source but also lowers the chance that people interested in the issue will read the paper through in detail.
The introduction in the article by Shrivastava et al. (2014) is brief and comprises just two paragraphs. The first one explains the background and specifies some of the terms (such as advertising, word of mouth intention, and so forth), while the second one provides the rationale for research and describes why it is significant. Since the researchers mention that the number of empirical studies on the effects of floor ads is scarce and that their investigation project is the first-ever administered in Oman, readers become enticed to scrutinise the article further.
Conversely, the introduction in the article by Sigurdsson, Engilbertsson, and Foxall (2010), who investigated the impacts of point-of-purchase advertising on sales of detergent products, is more lengthy and combined with the literature review. They provide a detailed information background and identify previous research gaps, which help to rationalise study objectives and outline their significance. Despite the differences in approaches by the authors of the two sources, the introduction by Sigurdsson et al. (2010) is precise, logical, and clear, so that readers may be interested in reading the paper further as well.
Unlike Sigurdsson et al. (2010), Shrivastava et al. (2014) have a separate section for literature review where they explore the major terms used to formulate the hypothesis. They explain multiple theoretical concepts identified in previous research, including customer perception, ad-recall, advertising persuasiveness, and others. These theoretical constructs provide a context for study objectives and guide the process of hypothesis formulation. Notably, Shrivastava et al. (2014) develop several hypotheses that separately investigate over six variables.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
Similarly, Veloso and Agante (2015), who investigate the impacts of floor advertising on children, construct multiple hypotheses aimed to test the relationships between two distinct variables, for instance, children’s attention peculiarities and floor advertisement characteristics, advertisement impacts and brand preference, and so forth. However, they apply a more structured approach to the literature review and explain different terms in separate sections.
As a result, it becomes easier to comprehend logical links between variables. Another advantage of the study by Veloso and Agante (2015) is the implementation of a larger pool of evidence in this section. They substantiate the description of each theoretical concept with a plethora of references to other scholars, while Shrivastava et al. (2014) do not support some of their statements at all.
Shrivastava et al. (2014) use non-probability convenience sampling and analyse the overall number of 100 respondents. Loya et al. (2015) implement the same type of sampling (convenience sampling) because it implies the selection of respondents based on the criterion of accessibility. For both studies, it means that not all the members of the general population had a chance of being selected for the study.
Probability sampling is considered more appropriate for quantitative studies because it ensures a high level of randomisation. Still, it is valid to assert that the technique implemented by the researchers is suitable for testing their hypothesis because they based their subjective judgement on theory and aimed to describe the intricacies of individual perceptions rather than to make generalisations about the population.
Shrivastava et al. (2014) utilised structured questionnaires to collect primary data. Similarly, Veloso and Agante (2015) applied questionnaires in their research to record respondents’ perceptions and researchers’ observations of their behaviours. This instrument is typical for quantitative studies as it fosters an easy categorisation and summary of information, as well as its translation into numbers and consequent analysis, for instance, through descriptive statistics. It is worth noticing that besides the measures of central tendency (namely, sample means), Shrivastava et al. (2014) applied the regression analysis. This tool is appropriate for answering the formulated research questions because it allows finding relationships between multiple variables.
As for the internal validity of results, Shrivastava et al. (2014) ensured it by administering the Cronbach alpha test for measuring the consistency of survey scales. They eliminated some of the questionnaire questions to make sure the results are attributable to independent variables and to increase the reliability findings. Similarly, Loya et al. (2015) conducted the pre-test aimed to align the questionnaire structure with the overall study purposes.
At the same time, Sigurdsson et al. (2010) failed to take into account many elements that could influence consumer purchasing behaviours in their study. For example, they note that due to functional characteristics of detergent products, consumers may be less incentivised by promotion techniques to buy them (Sigurdsson et al. 2010). This factor could significantly bias the results and compromise the confidence regarding variable relationships.
Regarding external validity, it is difficult to say whether the findings by Shrivastava et al. (2014) can be generalised to other population groups in Oman. First, the recruited participants are relatively young (aged 15-35) and, thus, their responses may not be representative of older populations. Secondly, the majority of them were non-Omani citizens, meaning that their perceptions may differ from those held by local residents due to differences in cultural backgrounds.
The conclusions in the article by Shrivastava et al. (2014) are clearly stated and based on the presented data analysis. Shrivastava et al. (2014) reveal that “floor ad persuasiveness, attitude towards floor ad and floor ad attractiveness contribute significantly to floor ad effectiveness, and floor ad persuasiveness has a largest contribution to floor ad effectiveness” (p. 16). At the same time, floor effectiveness is positively linked to such variables as purchase intention (significant correlation) and word of mouth intention (moderate correlation) (Shrivastava et al. 2014).
The researchers did not support their findings with evidence retrieved from other studies mainly because the topic of floor advertisement effects is currently under-investigated. However, Veloso and Agante (2015) obtained somewhat similar results when evaluating the impacts of floor ads on children, revealing a moderate correlation between the exposure to those ads and participants’ attempts to influence purchases, as well as brand preference.
Additionally, Loya et al. (2015) found that point-of-purchase advertising is significantly and positively associated with product sales. However, Sigurdsson et al. (2010) reached contradictory results, stating that point-of-purchase displays do not influence buying behaviours substantially. The differences in product and brand characteristics, as well as demographic features of consumers, can explain these controversies in findings.
Shrivastava et al. (2014) make a valuable contribution to literature by expanding knowledge about the effectiveness of floor advertisement. It was mentioned above that the topic is not sufficiently investigated and, thus, the results of their research project can help marketers become more aware of links between floor ads and consumer behaviours. Additionally, they can prompt some ideas for further research on the effects of the identified advertising technique on various populations.
It is also possible to assume that the findings presented in the article can trigger a debate regarding the efficiency of floor advertising compared to some other common methods. As for other articles reviewed in the paper, they add to the understanding of the influence of point-of-purchase displays on various consumer groups. Although those studies are conducted outside the Omani market, the results obtained by researchers can be used to substantiate further research of the topic.
Considering that the described methods and processes are consistent with high research standards, Shrivastava et al. (2014) managed to obtain high-quality, convincing findings. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see how the confounding variables (gender, age, and nationality) could influence the perception and behavioural outcomes of participants. Since the researchers aimed to explore the effects of the advertising technique in Omani market, the inclusion of a large portion of non-Omani post-graduate students in the sample seems inconsistent because the sample was not representative of the general population. Thus, it is suggested to consider a greater number of factors influencing consumer behaviours and advertising effectiveness in further research of floor ads.
Loya, S, Ismail, S & Khan, M Z 2015, ‘Impact of in-store display on sales: a comparative study among new and mature product’, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 188-196.
100% original paper
written from scratch
specifically for you?
Shrivastava, M, Saini, N & Pinto, A 2014, ‘Customer perception towards effectiveness of floor advertisements in organized retail’, International Journal of Business and Management Invention, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 2319-8028.
Sigurdsson, V, Engilbertsson, H & Foxall, G 2010, ‘The effects of a point-of-purchase display on relative sales: an in-store experimental evaluation’, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 222-233.
Veloso, B & Agante, L 2015, ‘The effects of floor advertising directed to children in a food retail environment’, Advances in Advertising Research, vol. 6, pp. 337-349.