LEARNING ABOUT
LADDERING
Excerpts from
. Advancements in Laddering. by Tom Reynolds, Clay Dethloff, and Steve
Westberg
The
Laddering Interview
A
laddering interview is an in-depth, one-on-one structured dialog that draws out
the connections people make between product attributes, the consequences of
those attributes, and the human values linked with those consequences
(means-end chain). Interviews last
between forty-five minutes to two hours and generally recorded so that
interviewers do not lose the detail of what is said.
Getting
respondents to reveal their true beliefs, feelings, and goals requires warm-up
questions to put the respondent at ease with the interviewer and to help them start
thinking about the product of interest.
Laddering differs from other types of qualitative research in that it
aims to uncover personally motivating reasons behind brand choice and link them
to product attributes and their consequences.
Laddering
begins by identifying the most important distinguishing characteristics of the
brand for a given usage situation and then moving up and down the means-end
chain to get a complete picture of attribute-consequence-value identities and
linkages. Moving up and down the
means-end chain is done by asking a form of the question: why is that important to you?
Attitudes
toward a product do not often predict choice behavior, but attitudes toward
choice behavior concerning a product typically will. Laddering asks questions regarding the reasons people have for
making the choices they do. It requires
respondents to justify their buying behavior by explaining the distinctions
they make between choice alternatives.
Eliciting
Product Distinctions
Laddering
research is designed to uncover the reasons underlying purchase decisions. Both the positive reasons for choosing a
brand and the negative reasons for rejecting a brand should be determined. Simply asking what is good about a brand or
product is not enough. The marketer
needs to understand how a brand is believed to be better than others, or
conversely how a brand is believed to be worse than others.
There
are several methods for eliciting distinctions between brands. These methods are (1) top-of-mind imaging,
(2) grouping similar brands, (3) contextual environment, (4) preference, usage,
and preference-usage differences, (5) timing of purchase or consumption, (6)
usage trends, (7) product or brand substitution, and (8) alternative usage
occasions.
Top-of-mind
imaging. The respondent is asked to give one or more
first-thought associations for each of several brands or product types. Polarity (positive or negative) for each
association is also determined. Then,
the respondent is asked why the characteristic is a positive or a negative and
the responses are further probed to uncover the ladder. Top-of-mind imaging identifies the most
conspicuous characteristics of a brand, but not always the characteristics that
differentiate it from a close competitor.
Grouping
similar brands. This method uncovers the way respondents
group products together and the reasons they use for forming product
groups. Respondents are asked to group
brands and/or products into like categories.
Then the primary reason for group membership, either a positive or
negative characteristic, can be elicited and laddered. Additionally, the respondent can be asked to
identify the brand or product that best represents the group. Important traits and trait performance for
the most representative brand can be identified and laddered as well.
Contextual
environment. the contextual environment includes
predetermined physical or need-state occasions of brand purchase or use. Physical occasions are generally described
by time, place, and people when usage occurs.
A need-state occasion is a mental need or inner desire that can span
many physical occasions. For example,
need-states include occasions such as relaxing, rejuvenating, building
relationships, feeling powerful, reducing stress, and getting organized. The method asks respondents to associate a product or
brand with a context such as . those times when you want to relax,. or
. after you have just completed a tough job or accomplished something that is
important to you..
Preference,
usage, and preference-usage differences. Comparing
brand preference and brand usage is one of the most direct and commonly used
methods for eliciting brand distinctions.
Brands can be ranked with respect to (1) preference and (2) frequency of
use. Then,
brands can be directly compared against
each other based on these rankings using such questions as, . why
did you rank Brand A higher than Brand X,. and/or . why do you use Brand B
more often than Brand A.. Also, the
interviewer may ask why a brand ranks lower on preference than on usage. Often, respondents use price as the key reason
for ranking one brand over another.
Avoid the problem by selecting brands to compare that are price
competitive.
Timing
of purchase or consumption. Timing issues can influence
product choice and usage. For example,
a respondent might be asked to break a sickness such as the common cold into
several stages like onset, full-blown, and on-the-mend. Then the respondent would relate which
brands were preferred for each time-related stage. It is also common for
consumers to use one brand of product during the day (Coca-Cola) and a
different brand in the evening (sprite).
Usage
trends. Respondents are asked to quantify their
beliefs about past and future usage of a brand. For example, an interviewer might ask, . over the next five years,
do you expect to use this brand more often, less often, or about the same as
you have in the past?. Then, reasons
for increased, decreased, or unchanged usage are elicited.
Product
or brand substitution. Distinctions between brands
can be directly assessed based on the ability of one brand to be substituted
for another. The brand to be
substituted can be a brand currently used by the respondent if a goal of the
research is to increase use (identify what attribute or consequence needs to be
added or removed) or it can be a brand not currently used if a goal is to
increase trial (identify what attributes or consequences need to be
promoted). For an unfamiliar brand, the
respondent first can sample or be given a description of the brand. Follow-on questions might include, . how
likely would you be to substitute this new brand for your current brand for
this occasion --- why is that?.
Alternative
usage occasions. Another method is to alter or
add new usage occasions for the respondent to consider. Alternative occasions can be either
predetermined or provided by the respondent.
For example, one might ask, . think of a new situation or occasion in which
you might use Brand A, but that you currently don. t -- why would you consider
using Brand A for this occasion -- what is keeping you from using Brand A for
this occasion now?. Both positive
reasons why a brand fits a new occasion and negative reasons why it does not
fit can be elicited and laddered.
In
practice, several different elicitation techniques are used in a laddering
study to capture a full range of meaningful distinctions between a brand and
its competitors. For example, a laddering interview might
start with . top-of-mind imaging. to understand general product-category
beliefs, then increase in brand-related specificity through using
. contextual environment. and . alternative usage occasions..
Getting
the Ladders
Once
distinctions are elicited, they must be laddered to move the respondent up and
down the means-end chain to uncover salient attributes, consequences, and
values together with their linkages.
Salient
attributes are uncovered by
asking questions such as, . what is it about the brand that makes
it that way,. . what is it about the brand that gives you that benefit,. .
how can the brand deliver that benefit,. . what is the brand missing
to give it that defect.. Attributes are linked to higher level constructs
(consequences and values) by asking questions such as . why is
that important to you,. . how does that help you out,. . what do you get
from that,. . why do you want that,. and . what happens to you as a
result of that.. Higher level psychosocial
consequences and values are most often feelings or personal beliefs,
so asking . how does that make you feel. is an appropriate question.
Negative
ladders begin, of course, in negative terms.
At the consequence levels, the interviewer may want to ask, . why do you
want to avoid that.. This effectively
turns the discussion from negative to positive. Most respondents are better able to discuss feelings about
obtaining a value rather than avoiding one, so laddering is facilitated by
talking in positive terms before reaching the value level. More examples of
negative questioning are, . why is that negative
to you,. . how does that interfere with what you are doing,. . what. s
wrong with that..
Often
the respondent cannot answer a question or will not move to a higher level on
the means-end chain. In the
circumstances, one can try one of the following techniques to help the
respondent move on.
Reiteration
of occasion. The interviewer can remind the respondent of
the occasion basis for the ladder when the respondent appears to have forgotten
or lost track. It may help to have the
respondent provide further information about the occasion. For example, . you were with whom, doing
what, where, etc..
Alternate
scenario. The interviewer can ask the respondent to
think of another situation or scenario similar to the one currently being
discussed in which the brand is used in a similar way for similar reasons.
Absence
of product. The interviewer can ask the respondent for
his or her feelings, responses, and the potential consequences if the brand
were unavailable for the occasion.
Abstraction
form product. Occasionally,
respondents will not be able to leave
the brand at the attribute level and will wonder how the brand itself can .
make me feel good about myself. or can . improve my relationship with my
spouse.. The interviewer can ask the
respondent to ignore the brand and only consider the last consequence that was
mentioned.
Negative
laddering. Negative laddering seeks the respondent. s
reasons why they do not want to do certain things or feel certain ways. The interviewer can ask the respondent what
would happen if they were not able to achieve a certain positive consequence.
Age
regression contrast. The age regression contrast
forces the respondent to compare usage or consumption in a previous time period
with now. For example, the interviewer
may ask the respondent if he or she used the product five years ago then why or
why not. This technique is similar to the
. usage trend. method of eliciting distinctions, but is used during the
actual ladder to overcome a mental block.
Third
person probe. This method places the respondent in another person.
s shoes. The interviewer asks
the respondent how others might feel in similar circumstances. The approach is useful when the respondent
feels threatened or uncomfortable discussing their personal reasons underlying
their behavior.
Silence. Silence and patient attention will signal to the respondent that
the interviewer is waiting for a more detailed response. The respondent often will elaborate on a
vague or incomplete answer.
Reiteration of
. a-c-v. means-end chain. To help the respondent
maintain a complete train of thought during the ladder, the interviewer can
reiterate the answers given up to the point of the mental block. The complete ladder should be repeated back
to the respondent after a value has been reached allowing the respondent the
opportunity to verify his chain of thought.
In addition, the interviewer can use the technique to refocus a rambling
respondent.
Laddering
Pitfalls
In
the course of a laddering interview, the respondent will not always provide
responses that are whole or complete.
The interviewer must be able to identify incomplete responses so that
additional probes can draw out useful information.
Generic
statements. Respondents often provide generic answers
that have no specific meaning. For example,
. satisfied. can be either physical (feeling full after a meal) or psychological
(feeling content with oneself).
Likewise, . happy. can have multiple meanings, including feeling happy about
something accomplished and feeling happy for another person, and it can have
varying intensity. Slang words like . cool. and
. bad. in particular need to be clarified because they can hold different
meanings for different people. Often, these situations
can be resolved by simple asking, . what do you mean. or . could
you describe that feeling..
Not
brand specific. Differentiating characteristics should be
brand specific and unambiguous.
Distinctions that apply to many brands equally well or even to the
entire category are not useful.
Multiple
responses. Respondents may give more than one answer
when providing distinctions or during laddering probes. In these cases, the interviewer must ask
which characteristic or idea is most important for the given situation and then
continue probing from there. It is possible
to ladder multiple . branches. although this can confound the analysis.
Chutes
and ladders. Distinctions are most often product
attributes, but respondents may sometimes mention an upper level element as a
basis for differentiating one brand from another. The interviewer can . chute down. by asking, . what is it about the
brand that makes it that way?.
Occasionally, a respondent might ladder directly from an attribute to a
value or appear to leave an important element out. Again, the interviewer can ask, . I. m not sure how (lower level
element) leads to (upper level element) -- is there something about the brand
that makes you feel that way?.
Habit. Respondents tend to
say . it. s a habit. or . I. ve always done it
that way. when they cannot think of a more rational reason for their usage or
consumption behavior. The interviewer
should try to uncover when and how the habit started, and what brand they would
substitute if they could no longer get their favorite brand, then ladder the
resulting distinctions.
I
like it. Although similar to a generic statement,
this phrase occurs frequently in laddering and can almost always be handled the
same way. For
example, the interviewer can ask,
. could you describe that feeling for me. or . what is it about the
brand that you like..
This
review has covered the most common practices, difficulties, and remedies
associated with laddering interviews. A final
rule of thumb for interviewers is to ask themselves, . do I understand all
of the personal reasons why the respondent chooses and uses the brand?.
Excerpted
by David B. Whitlark
Sample Value Analysis-Research Survey
Please list the elements and then rate them as a value from 1- 10, with 10 being "very important" and 1 being "not very important".
| Attributes | Rating | Attributes | Rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First.
Second.
Third.