Consumers' expectations of furniture labels during their pre‐purchase information search: an explication of proposed furniture labelling specifications

Abstract

Abstract This study aimed to investigate consumers' expectations of furniture labels during the pre‐purchase information search, in order to propose furniture labels that would serve as a more relevant source of external information during the consumer decision‐making process. A mixed‐method approach using a two‐phase exploratory design was followed. The qualitative phase consisted of semi‐structured interviews with experienced sales assistants, while the quantitative phase entailed a questionnaire filled out by consumers during furniture shopping. These results were used to design potential furniture labels during a final phase. Qualitative findings indicated participants' opinions regarding the appearance of and information on specific types of furniture. General information requested to be on furniture labels included price, care instructions, guarantees, warrantees, style and dimensions. Quantitative results showed that the majority of respondents deemed the price, materials used, cleaning instructions, guarantees and warrantees as important information that should appear on furniture labels. This coincided with their pre‐purchase search criteria. There was no practically significant difference between consumers' expectations of the information and appearance of different types of furniture labels. Consumers therefore expect all labels to be similar in appearance and to contain general information, apart from product‐specific information that would be necessary on different types of furniture, for example leather furniture. Appearance characteristics of furniture labels, such as colour, size and layout, were summarized and potential furniture labels were recommended accordingly. These labels can be used by product developers, marketers and the furniture industry to assist consumers during their pre‐purchase information search.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.