Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selling strategies: The effects of suggesting a decision structure to novice and expert buyers

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research investigates the impact of selling strategies on selling effectiveness. The authors compare two selling strategies: (1) an agenda strategy, in which a salesperson attempts to influence the structure of the buyer’s decision by suggesting constraints that eliminate competitive products from consideration, and (2) a more typical selling strategy that summarizes the target product’s benefits. The results show that when sellers use an agenda selling strategy, target products receive higher evaluations and have higher probabilities of being considered and chosen. Buyer expertise moderates this effect, with the agenda strategy in most cases having more impact on novice buyers than on expert buyers. These findings demonstrate the importance of selling strategy to selling effectiveness, suggest the potential benefit for sellers of using selling strategies that attempt to influence the structure of the buyer’s decision, and provide support for the contingent nature of selling effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson. 1987. “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise.”Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March): 411–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Rolph E., Joseph F. Hair, Jr., and Alan J. Bush. 1999.Professional Sales Management. Houston, TX: DAME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, Rick L. and Ajau K. Manrai. 1998. “Simulation Experiments in Choice Simplification: The Effects of Task and Context on Forecasting Performance.”Journal of Marketing Research 35 (May): 198–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi. 1991. “Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices in Consumer Research.”Journal of Consumer Research 17 (March): 426–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, James R. 1979.An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, Mary Frances Luce, and John W. Payne. 1998. “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes.”Journal of Consumer Research 25 (December): 187–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brucks, Merrie. 1985. “The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior.”Journal of Consumer Research 12 (June): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, Wujin, Eitan Gerstner, and James D. Hess. 1995. “Costs and Benefits of Hard-Sell.”Journal of Marketing Research 35 (May): 198–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. 1979. “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs.”Journal of Marketing Research 16 (February): 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crow, Lowell E., Richard W. Olshavsky, and John O. Summers. 1980. “Industrial Buyer’s Choice Strategies: A Protocol Analysis.”Journal of Marketing Research 17 (February): 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple, Douglas J. and William L. Cron. 1995.Sales Management: Concepts and Cases. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donoho, Casey L. and Michael J. Swenson. 1996. “Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Sales Tactics Effects on the Presentation of a Product Line.”Journal of Business Research 37 (September): 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, William R. and William B. Locander. 1989. “Effects of Sales Presentation Topic on Cognitive Responses of Industrial Buying Groups.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 17 (Fall): 305–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Futrell, Charles M. 1998Sales Management. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1999.Fundamentals of Selling. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, Rashi, Barbara E. Kahn, and William L. Moore. 1991. “The Influence of External Constraints on Brand Choice: The Lone-Alternative Effect.”Journal of Consumer Research 18 (June): 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, John R. 1986. “Agendas and Consumer Choice.”Journal of Marketing Research 23 (August): 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, John R. and Birger Wernerfelt. 1990. “An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets.”Journal of Consumer Research 16 (March): 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawes, Jon M., James T. Strong, and Bernard S. Winick. 1996. “Do Closing Techniques Diminish Prospect Trust?”Industrial Marketing Management 25 (September): 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkelmann, Klaus and Oscar Kempthorne. 1994.Design and Analysis of Experiments: Introduction to Experimental Design. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, Kenneth A. and R. Edward Bashaw. 1990. “Using Buyer’s Information Processing to Formulate Selling Strategies.”Industrial Marketing Management 28 (January): 99–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Ralph W. and Robert D. Hisrich. 1996.Sales and Sales Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Eric J. and J. Edward Russo. 1984. “Product Familiarity and Learning New Information.”Journal of Consumer Research 21 (June): 542–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolson, Marvin A. 1975. “The Underestimated Potential of the Canned Sales Presentation.”Journal of Marketing 39 (January): 75–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, Barbara, William L. Moore, and Rashi Glazer 1987. “Experiments in Constrained Choice.”Journal of Consumer Research 14 (June): 96–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, M. E. and C. R. Plott. 1977. “Agenda Influence and Its Implications.”Virginia Law Review 63:561–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milliman, Ronald E. and Douglas L. Fugate. 1988. “Using Trust-Transference as a Persuasion Technique: An Empirical Investigation.”Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 8 (August): 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, Youngme. 2000. “Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self-Disclosure From Consumers.”Journal of Consumer Research 26 (March): 323–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mort, Terry A. 1977.Systematic Selling: How to Influence the Buying Decision Process. New York: AMACOM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nass, Clifford I., Youngme Moon, B. J. Fogg, Byron Reeves, and D. Christopher Dryer. 1995. “Can Computer Personalities Be Human Personalities?”International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43: 223–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, W. E. III. 1996. “Use of Human Judgment Models in Industrial Buyers’ Vendor Selection Decisions”Industrial Marketing Management 25:135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peacock, Peter and Harry L. Davis. 1970. “The Alphabet as an Independent Variable.”Journal of Business 43 (April): 205–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, W. Steven and Ram C. Rao. 1990. “The Role of Experience in Information Use and Decision Making by Marketing Managers.”Journal of Marketing Research 27 (February): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe. 1988. “The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization.”Journal of Consumer Research 15 (September): 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, Patrick J., Charles W. Faris and Yoran Wind. 1967.Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph L. Rosnow. 1985.Contrast Analysis: Focused Comparisons in the Analysis of Variance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, William T. and Elizabeth H. Creyer. 1993. “Interpreting Interactions: Raw Means or Residual Means?”Journal of Consumer Research 20 (September): 330–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawtooth Software. 1991.Ci3 System, Version 1.0. Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanteau, James. 1992. “How Much Information Does an Expert Use? Is It Relevant?”Acta Psychologica 81:75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, Mark T. and Merrie Brucks. 1997. “The Moderating Effects of Problem Characteristics on Experts’ and Novices’ Judgements.”Journal of Marketing Research 34 (May): 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos. 1972. “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice.”Psychological Review 79 (4): 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitz, Barton A. 1978. “Relationship Between Salesperson Performance and Understanding of Customer Decision Making.”Journal of Marketing Research 15 (November): 501–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1981. “Effectiveness in Sales Interactions: A Contingency Framework.”Journal of Marketing 45 (Winter): 85–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —, Harish Sujan, and Mita Sujan. 1986. “Knowledge, Motivation, and Adaptive Behavior: A Framework for Improving Selling Effectiveness.”Journal of Marketing 50 (October): 174–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter L. and Frederick Barbour. 1975. “The Relevance of Decision Process Models in Structuring Persuasive Messages.”Communication Research 2 (July): 246–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA

    Judy A. Wagner

  2. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia, USA

    Noreen M. Klein & Janet E. Keith

Authors
  1. Judy A. Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noreen M. Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janet E. Keith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Judy A. Wagner (Ph.D., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) is currently an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Texas at Arlington. Her primary research interests are personal selling strategies, sales management, and buyer decision making. Her research has been published inAdvances in Consumer Research and the proceedings of the American Marketing Association and is forthcoming in theJournal of Business Research.

Noreen M. Klein (Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University) is currently an associate professor of marketing at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Her research interests include consumer decision making and the behavioral aspects of pricing, and her research has been published in theJournal of Consumer Research andOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Making.

Janet E. Keith (Ph.D., Arizona State University) is currently an associate professor of marketing at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Her research interests lie in behavioral issues in channels of distribution and in sales and sales management. Her studies have been published in journals such as theJournal of Marketing Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Business Research, andJournal of Marketing Channels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wagner, J.A., Klein, N.M. & Keith, J.E. Selling strategies: The effects of suggesting a decision structure to novice and expert buyers. JAMS 29, 289–306 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02890786

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02890786

Keywords

Search

Navigation