Talk:Consumer behaviour/Archives/2016

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Consumer behaviour/Archives/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Consumer behaviour This article seems to have been lifted from: Belch, GE & Belch MA 2007, Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communication Perspective, 7th edn, McGraw Hill/Irwin, New York. However this reference is not provided and the content is very similar to other web pages on the web. For instance at this link: http://www.usq.edu.au/course/material/MKT2001/consumer_behaviour.htm As a relative "newbie" to Wikipedia editing I don't know what action should be taken next. bradlenBradlen (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Not only is the page very similar to the link above, it is also potentially misleading. The process outlined in it is, at best, applicable to only a small proportion of people's purchase decisions.Patrick syms (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 12:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Major Revisions and Restructure

I have spent about 5 days working on this page. In the process, I have

• created a new structure with new headings and sub-heads
• added a number of new sections and written content for those new sections
• written entirely new content for a number of existing sections
• provided new references for all new content
• deleted content that was unfocussed, off-topic, repetitive, ambiguous in meaning or that simply repeated ideas canvassed elsewhere on the page
• as far as practical, tried to rework existing content so as to integrate it into the page's core themes (i.e. have made a concerted effort to retain content provided by other editors, providing that it was capable of being rescued)
• edited material that was poorly expressed and added suitable references to material that lacked a source
• edited existing content to clarify meaning, improve grammar and reduce verbiage
• added transitions and other passages to improve readability and flow
• added links to other relevant Wikipedia pages
• added relevant images, some created by myself in Photoshop and others sourced from Wiki Commons
• expanded the external links

Several problematic issues are still outstanding and in need of direction

(a) Wikipedia now has three separate pages devoted to the purchase decision (Consumer Behaviour (current page), Buyer Decision Process and Buying Decision Process. My view is that any discussion of the purchase decision quite properly belongs within the Consumer Behaviour framework and should remain on this page. In addition, the description provided on this page is far more detailed and more accurate than the other two pages and should be retained.

(b) Attitudes: The importance of attitudes, as an internal influence, on consumer decision-making has been entirely overlooked on this page. I feel that the discussion is incomplete without some reference to the role that attitudes play in terms of shaping evaluation and decision-making. A key theorists in this area are is Ajzen (1991,2001) and especially the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA).

(c) Two long sections - 'Information Processing' and 'Learning' were moved to the end of the page because they are not well integrated into the page's main themes, and in many places are so poorly written that the meaning is ambiguous. Further these sections often lack suitable references making it dificult to consult the original sources in order to clarify meaning. For these reasons, these sections defy simple remedies in terms of rewriting to link in the the main topics. I am unable to see how these sections, as they currently stand, could be integrated into the page's main themes. I feel that these sections add little value and should be deleted?

Although this page still needs some attention, I believe that the tag "essay like" could now be removed? Do people have an opinion about this?

BronHiggs (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)