research for product quality

• Data, AI, & Machine Learning
• Managing Technology
• Social Responsibility
• Workplace, Teams, & Culture
• AI & Machine Learning
• Hybrid Work
• Big ideas Research Projects
• Artificial Intelligence and Business Strategy
• Responsible AI
• Future of the Workforce
• Future of Leadership
• All Research Projects
• AI in Action
• Most Popular
• The Truth Behind the Nursing Crisis
• Coaching for the Future-Forward Leader
• Measuring Culture

MIT SMR ’s fall 2024 issue highlights the need for personal and organizational resilience amid global uncertainty.

• Past Issues
• Upcoming Events
• Video Archive
• Me, Myself, and AI
• Three Big Points

What Does “Product Quality” Really Mean?

In this article, the author reviews and synthesizes the varying definitions of product quality arising from philosophy, economics, marketing, and operations management. he then goes on to build an eight­-dimensional framework to elaborate on these definitions. using this framework, he addresses the empirical relationships between quality and variables such as price, advertising, market share, cost, and profitability..

• Quality & Service

Product quality is rapidly becoming an important competitive issue. The superior reliability of many Japanese products has sparked considerable soul-searching among American managers. 1 In addition, several surveys have voiced consumers’ dissatisfaction with the existing levels of quality and service of the products they buy. 2 In a recent study of the business units of major North American companies, managers ranked “producing to high quality standards” as their chief current concern. 3

Despite the interest of managers, the academic literature on quality has not been reviewed extensively. The problem is one of coverage: scholars in four disciplines — philosophy, economics, marketing, and operations management — have considered the subject, but each group has viewed it from a different vantage point. Philosophy has focused on definitional issues; economics, on profit maximization and market equilibrium; marketing , on the determinants of buying behavior and customer satisfaction; and operations management , on engineering practices and manufacturing control. The result has been a host of competing perspectives, each based on a different analytical framework and each employing its own terminology.

At the same time, a number of common themes are apparent. All of them have important management implications. On the conceptual front, each discipline has wrestled with the following questions: Is quality objective or subjective? Is it timeless or socially determined? Empirically, interest has focused on the correlates of quality. What, for example, is the connection between quality and price? Between quality and advertising? Between quality and cost? Between quality and market share? More generally, do quality improvements lead to higher or lower profits?

Five Approaches to Defining Quality

Five major approaches to the definition of quality can be identified: (1) the transcendent approach of philosophy; (2) the product-based approach of economics; (3) the user-based approach of economics, marketing, and operations management; and (4) the manufacturing-based and (5) value-based approaches of operations management. Table 1 presents representative examples of each approach.

The Transcendent Approach

According to the transcendent view, quality is synonymous with “innate excellence.” 4 It is both absolute and universally recognizable, a mark of uncompromising standards and high achievement. Nevertheless, proponents of this view claim that quality cannot be defined precisely; rather, it is a simple, unanalyzable property that we learn to recognize only through experience. This definition borrows heavily from Plato’s discussion of beauty. 5 In the Symposium, he argues that beauty is one of the “platonic forms,” and, therefore, a term that cannot be defined. Like other such terms that philosophers consider to be “logically primitive,” beauty (and perhaps quality as well) can be understood only after one is exposed to a succession of objects that display its characteristics.

The Product-based Approach

Product-based definitions are quite different; they view quality as a precise and measurable variable. According to this view, differences in quality reflect differences in the quantity of some ingredient or attribute possessed by a product. 6 For example, high-quality ice cream has a high butterfat content, just as fine rugs have a large number of knots per square inch. This approach lends a vertical or hierarchical dimension to quality, for goods can be ranked according to the amount of the desired attribute that they possess. However, an unambiguous ranking is possible only if the attributes in question are considered preferable by virtually’ all buyers. 7

Product-based definitions of quality first appeared in the economics literature, where they where quickly incorporated into theoretical models. In fact, the early economic research on quality focused almost exclusively on durability, simply because it was so easily translated into the above framework. 8 Since durable goods provide a stream of services over time, increased durability implies a longer stream of services — in effect, more of the good. Quality differences could, therefore, be treated as differences in quantity, considerably simplifying the mathematics.

There are two obvious corollaries to this approach. First, higher quality can only be obtained at higher cost. Because quality reflects the quantity of attributes that a product contains, and because attributes are considered to be costly to produce, higher-quality goods will be more expensive. Second, quality is viewed as an inherent characteristic of goods, rather than as something ascribed to them. Because quality reflects the presence or absence of measurable product attributes, it can be assessed objectively, and is based on more than preferences alone.

Get Updates on Transformative Leadership

Evidence-based resources that can help you lead your team more effectively, delivered to your inbox monthly.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up

Privacy Policy

The User-based Approach

User-based definitions start from the opposite premise that quality “lies in the eyes of the beholder.” Individual consumers are assumed to have different wants or needs, and those goods that best satisfy their preferences are those that they regard as having the highest quality. 9 This is an idiosyncratic and personal view of quality, and one that is highly subjective. In the marketing literature, it has led to the notion of “ideal points”: precise combinations of product attributes that provide the greatest satisfaction to a specified consumer; 10 in the economics literature, to the view that quality differences are captured by shifts in a product’s demand curve; 11 and in the operations management literature, to the concept of “fitness for use.” 12 Each of these concepts, however, faces two problems. The first is practical — how to aggregate widely varying individual preferences so that they lead to meaningful definitions of quality at the market level. The second is more fundamental — how to distinguish those product attributes that connote quality from those that simply maximize consumer satisfaction.

The aggregation problem is usually resolved by assuming that high-quality products are those that best meet the needs of a majority of consumers. A consensus of views is implied, with virtually all users agreeing on the desirability of certain product attributes. Unfortunately, this approach ignores the different weights that individuals normally attach to quality characteristics, and the difficulty of devising an unbiased statistical procedure for aggregating such widely varying preferences. 13 For the most part, these problems have been ignored by theorists. Economists, for example, have typically specified models in which the market demand curve responds to quality changes without explaining how that curve, which represents the summation of individual preferences, was derived in the first place. 14

A more basic problem with the user-based approach is its equation of quality with maximum satisfaction. While the two are related, they are by no means identical. A product that maximizes satisfaction is certainly preferable to one that meets fewer needs, but is it necessarily better as well? The implied equivalence often breaks down in practice. A consumer may enjoy a particular brand because of its unusual taste or features, yet may still regard some other brand as being of higher quality. In the latter assessment, the product’s objective characteristics are also being considered.

Even perfectly objective characteristics, however, are open to varying interpretations. Today, durability is regarded as an important element of quality. Long-lived products are generally preferred to those that wear out more quickly. This was not always true: until the late nineteenth century, durable goods were primarily possessions of the poor, for only wealthy individuals could afford delicate products that required frequent replacement or repair. 15 The result was a long-standing association between durability and inferior quality, a view that changed only with the mass production of luxury items made possible by the Industrial Revolution.

The Manufacturing-based Approach

User-based definitions of quality incorporate subjective elements, for they are rooted in consumer preferences — the determinants of demand. In contrast, manufacturing-based definitions focus on the supply side of the equation, and are primarily concerned with engineering and manufacturing practice. Virtually all manufacturing-based definitions identify quality as “conformance to requirements.” 16 Once a design or a specification has been established, any deviation implies a reduction in quality. Excellence is equated with meeting specifications, and with “making it right the first time.” In these terms, a well-made Mercedes is a high-quality automobile, as is a well-made Chevette.

While this approach recognizes the consumer’s interest in quality — a product that deviates from specifications is likely to be poorly made and unreliable, providing less satisfaction than one that is properly constructed — its primary focus is internal. Quality is defined in a manner that simplifies engineering and production control. On the design side, this has led to an emphasis on reliability engineering; 17 and on the manufacturing side, to an emphasis on statistical quality control. 18 Both techniques are designed to weed out deviations early: the former, by analyzing a product’s basic components, identifying possible failure modes, and then proposing alternative designs to enhance reliability; the latter, by employing statistical techniques to discover when a production process is performing outside acceptable limits.

Each of these techniques is focused on the same end: cost reduction. According to the manufacturing-based approach, improvements in quality (which are equivalent to reductions in the number of deviations) lead to lower costs, for preventing defects is viewed as less expensive than repairing or reworking them. 19 Firms are, therefore, assumed to be performing suboptimally: were they only to increase their expenditures on prevention and inspection — testing prototypes more carefully or weeding out a larger number of defective components before they become part of fully assembled units — they would find their rework, scrap, and warranty expenses falling by an even greater amount. 20

The Value-based Approach

Value-based definitions take this idea one step further. They actually define quality in terms of costs and prices. According to this view, a quality product is one that provides performance at an acceptable price or conformance at an acceptable cost. 21 Under this approach, a $500 running shoe, no matter how well constructed, could not be a quality product, for it would find few buyers.

A recent survey of consumer perceptions of quality in twenty-eight product categories suggests that the value-based view is becoming more prevalent. 22 While ingredients and materials were seen as the key quality indicators in such categories as food, clothing, personal care, and beauty products — reflecting a product-based approach to the subject — the study’s overall conclusion was that “quality is increasingly apt to be discussed and perceived in relationship to price.”

The difficulty in employing this approach lies in its blending of two related but distinct concepts. Quality, which is a measure of excellence, is being equated with value, which is a measure of worth. The result is a hybrid — “affordable excellence” — that lacks well-defined limits and is difficult to apply in practice.

The Implications of Multiple Definitions

Most existing definitions of quality fall into one of the categories listed above. The coexistence of these differing approaches has several important implications. First, it helps to explain the often competing views of quality held by members of the marketing and manufacturing departments. Marketing people typically take a user-based or product-based approach to the subject; for them, higher quality means better performance, enhanced features, and other improvements that increase cost. Because they see the customer as the arbiter of quality, they view what happens in the factory as much less important than what happens in the field.

Manufacturing people normally take a different approach. For them, quality means conformance to specifications and an emphasis on “doing it right the first time.” Because they associate poor quality with high levels of rework and scrap, manufacturing people usually expect quality improvements to result in cost reductions.

The Potential for Conflict.

These two views are obviously in conflict, and can cause serious breakdowns in communications. Remedial efforts may become paralyzed if the coexistence of these competing perspectives is not openly acknowledged. For example, a large division of a major consumer goods company recently reviewed its quality management practices. The firm was especially interested in assessing its new-product introduction process, for new products were regarded as the key to competitive success. Two divergent views emerged. One group felt that the process had been quite successful: new products appeared regularly, customer complaints were few, and defective items had not been shipped to the trade in any large number. Another group felt that the process had to be revamped because quality was so poor: new product releases were frequently delayed while designs were reconfigured to adapt to manufacturing requirements, and material and labor variances of several hundred thousand dollars had been incurred because of unanticipated expenditures on rework and scrap. Because of these disagreements, the project quickly stalled. Further progress requires the recognition that one group is employing a user-based definition of quality while the other is employing a manufacturing-based approach. Only then are the two groups likely to agree on the nature of the problems they face.

The Need for Different Definitions.

Despite the potential for conflict, companies need to cultivate such differing perspectives, for they are essential to the successful introduction of high-quality products. Reliance on a single definition of quality is a frequent source of problems. For example, a Japanese paper manufacturer recently discovered that its newsprint rolls failed to satisfy customers even though they met the Japanese Industrial Standard. Conformance was excellent, reflecting a manufacturing-based approach to quality, but acceptance was poor. Other rolls of newsprint, however, generated no customer complaints even though they failed to meet the standard. 23 A leading U.S. manufacturer of room air conditioners faced the opposite problem. Its products were well received by customers and highly rated by Consumer Reports . Reject, scrap, and warranty costs were so high, however, that large losses were incurred. While the product’s design matched customers’ needs, the failure to follow through with tight conformance in manufacturing cost the company dearly.

These examples suggest the need to actively shift one’s approach to quality as products move from design to market. The characteristics that connote quality must first be identified through market research (a user-based approach to quality); these characteristics must then be translated into identifiable product attributes (a product-based approach to quality); and the manufacturing process must then be organized to ensure that products are made precisely to these specifications (a manufacturing-based approach to quality). A process that ignores anyone of these steps will not result in a quality product. All three views are necessary and must be consciously cultivated.

Nevertheless, each of the major approaches to quality shares a common problem. Each is vague and imprecise when it comes to describing the basic elements of product quality. Relatively few analysts, with the exceptions of Juran 24 and Maynes, 25 have shown an interest in these details. That oversight is unfortunate, for much can be learned by treating quality in a less homogeneous fashion.

Eight Dimensions of Quality

Eight dimensions can be identified as a framework for thinking about the basic elements of product quality:

• Performance,
• Reliability,
• Conformance,
• Durability,
• Serviceability,
• Aesthetics,
• Perceived Quality.

Each is self-contained and distinct, for a product can be ranked high on one dimension while being low on another.

Performance

First on the list is performance, which refers to the primary operating characteristics of a product. For an automobile, these would be traits like acceleration, handling, cruising speed, and comfort; for a television set, they would include sound and picture clarity, color, and ability to receive distant stations.

This dimension of quality combines elements of both the product and user-based approaches. Measurable product attributes are involved, and brands can usually be ranked objectively on at least one dimension of performance. The connection between performance and quality, however, is more ambiguous. Whether performance differences are perceived as quality differences normally depends on individual preferences. Users typically have a wide range of interests and needs; each is likely to equate quality with high performance in his or her area of immediate interest. The connection between performance and quality is also affected by semantics. Among the words that describe product performance are terms that are frequently associated with quality as well as terms that fail to carry the association. For example, a 100-watt light bulb provides greater candlepower (performance) than a 50-watt bulb, yet few consumers would regard this difference as a measure of quality. The products simply belong to different performance classes. The smoothness and quietness of an automobile’s ride, however, is typically viewed as a direct reflection of its quality. Quietness is therefore a performance dimension that readily translates into quality, while candlepower is not. These differences appear to reflect the conventions of the English language as much as they do personal preferences.

There is a clear analogy here to Lancaster’s theory of consumer demand. 26 The theory is based on two propositions: 27

All goods possess objective characteristics relevant to the choices which people make among different collections of goods. The relationship between … a good … and the characteristics which it possesses is essentially a technical relationship, depending on the objective characteristics of the good…. Individuals differ in their reaction to different characteristics, rather than in their assessments of the characteristics…. It is these characteristics in which consumers are interested . . . the various characteristics can be viewed . . . as each helping to satisfy some kind of “want.”

In these terms, the performance of a product would correspond to its objective characteristics, while the relationship between performance and quality would reflect individual reactions.

The same approach can be applied to product features, a second dimension of quality. Features are the “bells and whistles” of products, those secondary characteristics that supplement the product’s basic functioning. Examples include free drinks on a plane flight, permanent press as well as cotton cycles on a washing machine, and automatic tuners on a color television set. In many cases, the line separating primary product characteristics (performance) from secondary characteristics (features) is difficult to draw. Features, like product performance, involve objective and measurable attributes; their translation into quality differences is equally affected by individual preferences. The distinction between the two is primarily one of centrality or degree of importance to the user.

Reliability

Reliability is a third dimension of quality. It reflects the probability of a product’s failing within a specified period of time. Among the most common measures of reliability are the mean time to first failure (MTFF), the mean time between failures (MTBF), and the failure rate per unit time. 28 Because these measures require a product to be in use for some period, they are more relevant to durable goods than they are to products and services that are consumed instantly. Japanese manufacturers typically pay great attention to this dimension of quality, and have used it to gain a competitive edge in the automotive, consumer electronics, semiconductor, and copying machine industries.

Conformance

A related dimension of quality is conformance, or the degree to which a product’s design and operating characteristics match preestablished standards. Both internal and external elements are involved. Within the factory, conformance is commonly measured by the incidence of defects: the proportion of all units that fail to meet specifications, and so require rework or repair. In the field, data on conformance are often difficult to obtain, and proxies are frequently used. Two common measures are the incidence of service calls for a product and the frequency of repairs under warranty. These measures, while suggestive, neglect other deviations from standard, such as misspelled labels or shoddy construction, that do not lead to service or repair. More comprehensive measures of conformance are required if these items are to be counted.

Both reliability and conformance are closely tied to the manufacturing-based approach to quality. Improvements in both measures are normally viewed as translating directly into quality gains because defects and field failures are regarded as undesirable by virtually all consumers. They are, therefore, relatively objective measures of quality, and are less likely to reflect individual preferences than are rankings based on performance or features.

Durability, a measure of product life, has both economic and technical dimensions. Technically, durability can be defined as the amount of use one gets from a product before it physically deteriorates. A light bulb provides the perfect example: after so many hours of use, the filament burns up and the bulb must be replaced. Repair is impossible. Economists call such products “one-hoss shays,” and have used them extensively in modeling the production and consumption of capital goods. 29

Durability becomes more difficult to interpret when repair is possible. Then the concept takes on an added dimension, for product life will vary with changing economic conditions. Durability becomes the amount of use one gets from a product before it breaks down and replacement is regarded as preferable to continued repair. Consumers are faced with a series of choices: each time a product fails, they must weigh the expected cost, in both dollars and personal inconvenience, of future repairs against the investment and operating expenses of a newer, more reliable model. In these circumstances, a product’s life is determined by repair costs, personal valuations of time and inconvenience, losses due to downtime, relative prices, and other economic variables, as much as it is by the quality of components or materials.

This approach to durability has two important implications. First, it suggests that durability and reliability are closely linked. A product that fails frequently is likely to be scrapped earlier than one that is more reliable; repair costs will be correspondingly higher, and the purchase of a new model will look that much more desirable. Second, this approach suggests that durability figures should be interpreted with care. An increase in product life may not be due to technical improvements or to the use of longer-lived materials; the underlying economic environment may simply have changed. For example, the expected life of an automobile has risen steadily over the last decade, and now averages fourteen years. 30 Older automobiles are held for longer periods and have become a greater percentage of all cars in use. 31 Among the factors thought to be responsible for these changes are rising gasoline prices and a weak economy, which have reduced the average number of miles driven per year, and federal regulations governing gas mileage, which have resulted in a reduction in the size of new models and an increase in the attractiveness to many consumers of retaining older cars. In this case, environmental changes have been responsible for much of the reported increase in durability.

Serviceability

A sixth dimension of quality is serviceability, or the speed, courtesy, and competence of repair. Consumers are concerned not only about a product breaking down, but also about the elapsed time before service is restored, the timeliness with which service appointments are kept, the nature of their dealings with service personnel, and the frequency with which service calls or repairs fail to resolve outstanding problems. Some of these variables can be measured quite objectively; others reflect differing personal standards of what constitutes acceptable service. For example, a recent study of consumer satisfaction with professional services found the major complaints to be that “the service was provided in a careless, unprofessional manner” and that “I feel I was treated as an object rather than as an individual.” 32 These comments clearly reflect subjective views of what constitutes acceptable professional behavior. Other aspects of service can be assessed more objectively. Responsiveness is typically measured by the mean time to repair (MTTR), while technical competence is reflected in the incidence of multiple service calls required to correct a single problem. Because most consumers equate more rapid repair and reduced downtime with higher quality, these elements of serviceability are less subject to personal interpretation than are those involving evaluations of courtesy or standards of professional behavior. A number of companies have begun emphasizing this dimension of quality. Caterpillar Tractor’s promise that it will deliver repair parts anywhere in the world within forty-eight hours and Mercedes’ guarantee of twenty-four-hour (overnight) service in California and Arizona show that even top-of-the-line producers believe that this approach has value.

The final two dimensions of quality are the most subjective. Both aesthetics and perceived quality are closely related to the user-based approach. Aesthetics — how a product looks, feels, sounds, tastes, or smells — is clearly matters of personal judgment, and reflections of individual preferences. In fact, the marketing concept of “ideal points” — those combinations of product attributes that best match the preferences of a specified consumer — was originally developed to capture just this dimension of quality. 33

Perceived Quality

Perceptions of quality can be as subjective as assessments of aesthetics. Because consumers do not always possess complete information about a product’s attributes, they must frequently rely on indirect measures when comparing brands. 34 In these circumstances, products will be evaluated less on their objective characteristics than on their images, advertising, or brand names. These forces even affect scholarly judgments. When professors around the country were asked to rank the departments in their fields by quality, their rankings were only partially explained by such objective measures as the number of articles published in leading journals by members of the department. Both reputation — the historical strength of the department — and affiliation — the quality of the university to which a department was attached — were equally important in explaining the rankings. 35

Together, the eight major dimensions of quality cover a broad range of concepts. Several of the dimensions involve measurable product attributes; others reflect individual preferences. Some are objective and timeless, while others shift with changing fashions. Some are inherent characteristics of goods, while others are ascribed characteristics.

The diversity of these concepts helps to explain the differences among the five traditional approaches to quality. Each of the approaches focuses implicitly on a different dimension of quality: the product-based approach focuses on performance, features, and durability; the user-based approach focuses on aesthetics and perceived quality; and the manufacturing-based approach focuses on conformance and reliability. Conflicts among the five approaches are inevitable because each defines quality from a different point of view. Once the concept is unbundled, however, and each dimension is considered separately, the sources of disagreement become clear.

The Strategic Importance of Quality Dimensions

A recognition of these eight dimensions is also important for strategic purposes. A firm that chooses to compete on the basis of quality can do so in several ways; it need not pursue all eight dimensions at once. Instead, a segmentation strategy can be followed, with a few dimensions singled out for special attention. For example, Japanese manufacturers have traditionally entered U.S. markets by emphasizing the reliability and conformance of their products while down-playing the other dimensions of quality. The superior “fits and finishes” and low repair rates of Japanese automobiles are well known; what are less frequently recognized are their poor safety records (performance) and low corrosion resistance (durability). Despite these drawbacks, Japanese automobiles have come to symbolize the very best in quality for many American consumers.

This example suggests that firms can successfully pursue a relatively narrow quality niche. In fact, they may have no other choice if competitors have already established broad reputations for excellence. In these circumstances, new entrants may only be able to secure a defensible position if they focus on an as yet untapped dimension of quality.

This pattern clearly fits the piano industry. For many years, Steinway & Sons has been the quality leader; its instruments are known for their even voicing (the evenness of character and timbre of each of the eighty-eight notes on the keyboard), the sweetness of their registers (the roundness and softness of tone throughout the piano’s entire range), the duration of their tone, their long lives, and their finely polished woodwork. 36 Each piano is handcrafted, and each is unique in sound and style. Despite these advantages, Steinway has recently been challenged by Yamaha, a Japanese manufacturer that has developed a strong reputation for quality in a relatively short time. Yamaha has done so by emphasizing reliability and conformance, two dimensions of quality that are low on Steinway’s list, rather than artistry and uniqueness. In fact, one of Yamaha’s major selling points is that all of its pianos sound exactly the same. Both companies enjoy high profits, despite their widely varying approaches to quality.

This example suggests the importance of carefully targeting one’s quality niche. The selection of a defensible niche, however, is only a first step. Operational requirements must also be met, for each dimension of quality imposes its own demands on the firm. High performance requires careful attention to design and a strong design staff; superior durability requires the use of long-lived or “derated” components and close cooperation between the engineering and purchasing departments; superior conformance requires attention to written specifications and precision in assembly; and exceptional serviceability requires a strong customer service department and active field representatives. In each case, a different function enjoys the lead role, and different tasks are required for success. The managerial implications of this analysis should be obvious: after selecting the dimensions of quality on which it hopes to compete, a firm must tailor its organization and operations to meet these specific needs. Otherwise, the wrong departments may be elevated in status, or the wrong tasks pursued. Disaggregating the concept of quality allows companies to pinpoint these operating requirements as carefully as they target untapped markets.

Correlates of Quality

Managers are interested in quality primarily because of its marketing and financial implications. Many believe that a product’s price, advertising, market share, costs, and profitability are connected in some way to product quality. The following section of the article explores the theory and evidence in each of these areas.

Quality and Price

The theoretical argument about the relationship between quality and price runs in both directions. On the one hand, quality and price are assumed to be positively correlated. If higher quality can only be produced at higher cost, and if costs and prices are, as economic theory suggests, positively related, then quality and price will move together. 37 This assumes, however, that consumers possess sufficient information to evaluate product quality. If they do not, they will rely on other cues when making that assessment, including comparative prices. 38 As Riesz points out, once managers observe this behavior, they may then respond by readjusting prices:

If managers believe that perceptions and perhaps consumer purchase decisions are positively correlated with price, they may set higher prices in order to imply higher product quality. Price, therefore, may become a means of differentiating a product …. Such pricing strategies … would likely result in a deterioration of the price-quality relationship within a product category. 39

The theory, then, is equivocal. Quality and price mayor may not be positively correlated, depending on the amount of information available to consumers. The empirical results are equally mixed. A number of studies have found a positive correlation between the two variables. 40 These studies, however, were based primarily on experimental evidence rather than on market data. When market data were used, the results differed by product category. Nondurables generally displayed a weak or negative correlation between price and quality (with quality measured by Consumer Report rankings, which typically focus on product performance), while durables showed a significant positive correlation. 41 The findings for durables are broadly consistent with research on the purchase decision for major home appliances. Westbrook et al. found that 86 percent of recent purchasers and 75 percent of prospective buyers felt that they had no difficulty judging the quality or reliability of competing brands. 42 A similar study, “The Buying Consumer: Room Air Conditioners,” found that 85 percent of all buyers rated the product information available to them as adequate or more than adequate. 43 Where information of this kind is available, a positive correlation between price and quality is to be expected.

This relationship breaks down, however, in the more sophisticated experimental studies. Where multiple cues are present for inferring quality — brand name, store image, product features, or country of manufacture, in addition to price — the strong price-quality association of the earlier bivariate research weakens or disappears. 44 In these circumstances, quality assessment is guided less by price than by the other variables present.

Quality and Advertising

The theoretical argument for a positive association between quality and advertising was initially developed by Phillip Nelson. 45 A more formal modeling was later pursued by Richard Schmalensee. 46 Nelson first introduced the distinction between “search” and “experience” goods. The attributes of the former can be determined prior to purchase, while those of the latter can only be learned after the product has been purchased and used. The cut and fit of an article of clothing are examples of product characteristics that can be learned through search; the reliability and durability of a major home appliance are examples of traits that can be learned only through experience. Nelson then argued that for experience goods, higher levels of advertising would be associated with higher quality products. Schmalensee has summarized this argument succinctly:

High-quality brands will obtain more repeat purchases, ceteris paribus, than low-quality brands. Thus, … sellers of high-quality brands will spend more to persuade consumers to try their wares, since ceteris paribus again, the present value of a trial purchase is larger. Nelson contends that this force causes better brands to advertise more in equilibrium as long as consumers respond to advertising at all; the level of advertising for experience goods is thus positively correlated with quality, regardless of what individual ads actually claim. Quality information is provided by the level of advertising, not the claims it makes. 47

The evidence on this point is inconclusive. Analysts using both American and British data have found some evidence of a positive relationship between advertising and product quality (with quality again measured by Consumer Reports or Consumers’ Bulletin rankings), but these results have been undercut by other studies. Rotfeld and Rozell, after reviewing the research on this topic, concluded that: “Advertised products are apparently of better quality than nonadvertised goods for some products, when rated by certain criteria, in some years …. But no broad generalizations can be made.” 48

Gilligan and Holmes, who expanded on the earlier studies by using a variety of different measures of both advertising expenditures and brand quality, reached a similar conclusion: “A heavily advertised product is just as likely to be poor quality as any other.” 49 While these studies have involved both search and experience goods, the same conclusions apply if the analysis is limited to goods in the latter category. Nelson’s claim that heavy advertising implies superior quality is, therefore, not supported by the available evidence. In fact, in a recent survey of consumer attitudes the majority of respondents felt that advertised products were no more likely to be dependable than were products without advertising. 50

Quality and Market Share

The relationship between quality and market share is likely to depend on how quality is defined. If a high-quality product is one with superior performance or a large number of features, it will generally be more expensive, and will sell in smaller volumes. But if quality is defined as fitness for use, superior aesthetics, or improved conformance, high quality need not be accompanied by premium prices. In that case, quality and market share are likely to be positively correlated.

Virtually all empirical work on this topic has employed the Profit Impact of Marketing Strategies (PIMS) data base. 51 All studies have, therefore, used the same, highly aggregated measure of quality. Each company in the PIMS survey was first asked the following questions: What was the percentage of sales of products or services from each business in each year which were superior to those of competitors? What was the percentage of equivalent products? What was the percentage of inferior products? Quality indexes were then compiled for each firm by subtracting its percentage “inferior” from its percentage “superior.”

Using these indexes, analysts have found a strong positive association between quality and market share. Those businesses in the PIMS study that improved in quality during the 1970s increased their market share five or six times faster than those that declined in quality, and three times as rapidly as those whose relative quality remained un-changed. 52 Cross-sectional studies using both bivariate 53 and multivariate methods 54 have confirmed the positive association between quality and market share.

Quality and Cost

Theoretical discussions of the relationship between quality and cost fall into three distinct categories. One group, following the product-based approach, argues that quality and direct cost are positively related. The implicit assumption here is that quality differences reflect variations in performance, features, durability, or other product attributes that require more expensive components or materials, additional labor hours in construction, or other commitments of tangible resources. This view dominates much American thinking on the subject. A second view, which draws on the operations management literature, sees quality and cost as inversely related because the costs of improving quality are thought to be less than the resulting savings in rework, scrap, and warranty expenses. According to this view, which is widely held among Japanese manufacturers and explains much of their dedication to the goal of “continuous improvement,” quality is synonymous with the absence of defects, and the costs in question are quality costs. 55

Quality costs are defined as any expenditure on manufacturing or service in excess of that which would have been incurred if the product had been built exactly right the first time. 56 In their most comprehensive form, these costs would include such hidden elements as the expense of carrying excess raw materials and work-in-process inventory to insure that defective items do not shut down the production process, as well as the cost of owning and operating excess capacity in order to compensate for machine clogging and downtime. In practice, less inclusive measures are usually employed. Total quality costs typically include expenditures in the following four categories: 57 prevention (e.g., quality planning, worker training, and supplier education); appraisal (e.g., product inspection and testing); internal failures (e.g., rework and scrap); and external failures (e.g., warranty and product liability).

A number of analysts have extended this argument, claiming that improved conformance should eventually lead to a reduction in long-term manufacturing costs. 58 One justification for this claim has been the expected link between quality improvement and productivity gains. For example, simplified and easy-to-assemble designs should require fewer workers at the same time that they reduce defects. Investments in machinery and equipment should result in more consistent production as well as improvements in worker productivity. Quality improvements are also expected to lead to further savings, in the form of experience-based scale economies, through their impact on market share and (cumulative) production levels. 59

While the evidence is limited, most empirical work suggests that superior conformance and total quality costs are inversely related. Garvin, for example, in a study of the room air conditioning industry, found that Japanese manufacturers, with defect and field failure rates between fifteen and seventy times lower than U.S. competitors, averaged total costs of quality that were 1.3 percent of sales. 60 The best American companies averaged rework, scrap, and warranty costs that alone were 2.8 percent of sales. At the U.S. firms with the poorest quality, these costs exceeded 5.8 percent of sales. Garvin also found that quality and productivity were positively related, even though firms employed similar technologies and showed few differences in capital intensity. In this industry, U.S. companies with the highest quality were five times as productive, when measured by units produced per man-hour of assembly-line direct labor, as companies with the poorest quality.

Several surveys have collected more comprehensive data on the costs of quality; these provide additional support for the above relationships. A 1977 survey, for example, found that companies with formal systems for assessing quality costs — which most analysts associate with superior quality management and low failure rates 61 — had lower total costs of quality than companies without such systems. Companies in the former group averaged quality costs that were 5.8 percent of sales; those in the latter, rework, scrap, and warranty costs that alone were 7.8 percent of sales. 62

Moreover, the amount that companies are spending to prevent quality problems — and, therefore, to insure lower failure rates — may very well be suboptimal. Gilmore found that at least one-quarter of the companies he surveyed were spending less than 5 percent of their quality costs on prevention; approximately one-half were spending less than 10 percent. 63 His conclusion was that greater expenditures on prevention would result in improved conformance and fewer defects; these, in turn, were likely to produce an overall reduction in the total costs of quality because of significant savings in rework, scrap, and warranty.

The PIMS data base has generally been used to examine the relationship between quality and direct cost. The results have varied considerably by industry. In one study, quality and direct cost were positively related for differentiated-product businesses but negatively related for homogeneous products. 64 In another study, the two were positively related in capital goods businesses but negatively related in components and supplies businesses. 65 However, the experience curve effect, with high quality leading to high market share, increases in cumulative production, and eventually, experience-based reductions in costs, were found in all types of businesses. 66

The varying results of these studies may reflect differences in the definitions of quality used by firms in different industries. The PIMS quality index is highly aggregated; no distinction is made among performance, features, reliability, or the other dimensions of quality discussed earlier. As a result, different industries could be employing different definitions when assessing the quality of their products. This, in turn, would determine whether the relationship between quality and direct cost was positive or negative. For example, among homogeneous product businesses (e.g., chemicals), quality is often defined as “meeting specifications.” 67 Such a conformance-based view of quality is likely to result in an inverse relationship between quality and direct cost. Among differentiated and capital goods businesses, however, quality is likely to be equated with performance or features, suggesting a positive association between quality and direct cost. While these inferences are consistent with the PIMS findings, they require further research in order to be verified.

Quality and Profitability

Figure 1 shows two ways in which improved quality might lead to higher profitability. The first route is through the market: improvements in performance, features, or other dimensions of quality lead to increased sales and larger market shares, or alternatively, to less elastic demand and higher prices. If the cost of achieving these gains is outweighed by the increases in contribution received by the firm, higher profits will result. 68

Quality improvements may also affect profitability through the cost side. Fewer defects or field failures result in lower manufacturing and service costs; as long as these gains exceed any increase in expenditures by the firm on defect prevention, profitability will improve.

Empirical studies using the PIMS data base confirm the strong positive association between quality and profitability. 69 High quality produces a higher return on investment (ROI) for any given market share: among businesses with less than 12 percent of the market, for example, those with inferior product quality averaged an ROI of 4.5 percent, those with average product quality an ROI of 10.4 percent, and those with superior product quality an ROI of 17.4 percent. 70 Quality improvements, by increasing share, also lead to experience-based cost savings and further gains in profitability. 71 The market-based link between quality and profitability is, therefore, well supported by the evidence. The second linkage described in Figure 1 is less firmly established. As an earlier discussion has shown, the relationship between quality and cost depends on how the terms are defined. Those studies that have equated quality with conformance, and cost with total quality cost, have found an inverse relationship between the two. They have not, however, carried the analysis a step further to find if profitability was similarly affected. Nor have the studies focusing on the connection between quality and direct cost taken into account differences in investment levels or capital costs, which would clearly affect the relationship between quality and ROI.

The empirical research on quality, then, has produced mixed results, with few clear directions for managers. The relationship between quality and such variables as price, advertising, and direct cost is both complex and difficult to predict. Few unambiguous results are found in the literature. Even where the expected relationships have emerged, further work is required because of the highly aggregated nature of the quality measures that have been employed. This is especially true of the studies relating quality to market share and profitability, for they have all employed the PIMS data base. These findings suggest a number of directions for future research.

Directions for Future Research

There is a clear need for more precise measures of product quality. Few studies have recognized the multiple dimensions of quality, and still fewer, the possibility that quality may have different meanings in different industries. Much of the empirical research on the correlates of quality needs to be replicated with these distinctions in mind. Similarly, analysts need to determine if the various dimensions of quality move together or separately, for otherwise, managers will be unable to position their companies to exploit particular quality niches.

These questions suggest two possible avenues of research. The first would focus on the determinants of consumer satisfaction, consumer perceptions of quality, and the relative importance of the various dimensions of quality in shaping buyer behavior. Andreasen, for example, has found that indexes of consumer satisfaction based on voiced complaints, objective measures of product nonperformance, satisfaction immediately after purchase, and satisfaction after initial problems have been resolved are not well correlated. 72 Each apparently measures a slightly different aspect of consumer satisfaction. Similar research is necessary to understand the precise connection between consumer satisfaction and the various dimensions of quality discussed in this article. As Takeuchi and Quelch point out, for many consumers “quality is more than [simply] making a good product.” 73

A second possible line of research would focus on manufacturing tradeoffs. Traditionally, analysts have argued that manufacturing operations could only be effective if they pursued a limited set of objectives. 74 Low cost, high quality, rapid delivery, flexibility to volume changes, and flexibility to new product introductions were thought to be mutually incompatible. Tradeoffs were unavoidable, and anyone goal could only be achieved at the expense of others.

Japanese manufacturers, however, have succeeded in producing products that meet the twin objectives of high quality (conformance and reliability) and low cost. Their ability to do so has forced analysts to reconsider the concept of manufacturing tradeoffs, for many traditional assumptions no longer apply. 75 This area clearly warrants further research. Tradeoffs among the various dimensions of quality and between these dimensions and the objectives of cost, flexibility, and delivery must be better understood. Do the different dimensions of quality require different forms of expertise, or are firms likely to succeed on several dimensions at once? Durability, for example, often requires the use of sturdy and oversized components; does it also guarantee superior reliability, or is that more a reflection of how the assembly process is managed? More generally, which of the dimensions of quality are primarily a reflection of manufacturing skills, and which reflect design and engineering expertise? These questions must be answered if companies are to devise and execute effective strategies for competing on the basis of product or service quality.

Quality is a complex and multifaceted concept. It is also the source of great confusion: managers — particularly those in different functions — frequently fail to communicate precisely what they mean by the term. The result is often endless debate, and an inability to show real progress on the quality front.

This article has identified several different perspectives on quality, and has emphasized a number of critical dimensions. These distinctions are more than just theoretical niceties: they are the key to using quality as a competitive weapon. Managers must learn to think carefully about how their approach to quality changes as a product moves from design to market, and must devise ways to cultivate these multiple perspectives. Attention must be focused on the separate dimensions of quality; markets must be closely examined for any untapped quality niches, and the organization must be tailored to support the desired focus. Once these approaches have been adopted, cost savings, market share gains, and profitability improvements can hardly be far behind.

About the Author

David A. Garvin is Associate Professor of Business Administration at the Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University. Dr. Garvin holds the A.B. degree from Harvard University and the Ph.D. degree from M.I.T. His primary research interests are in the areas of production and operations management, industrial economics, and discussion teaching. Dr. Garvin has had consulting and executive education experience with major U.S. corporations, nonprofit organizations, and public agencies. He is the author of The Economics of University Behavior and coauthor of Cases in Operations Management . His many articles have appeared in such journals as Columbia Journal of World Business, Business Horizons, Harvard Business Review, and California Management Review.

1. See: W. J. Abernathy, K. B. Clark, and A. M. Kantrow, Industrial Renaissance (New York: Basic Books, 1983); D. A. Garvin, “Quality on the Line,” Harvard Business Review, September–October 1983, pp. 64–75; D. A. Garvin, “Japanese Quality Management,” Columbia Journal of World Business , in press. J. M. Juran, “Japanese and Western Quality: A Contrast,” Quality Progress, December 1978, pp. 10–18; A. L. Robinson, “Perilous Times for U.S. Microcircuit Makers,” Science , 9 May 1980, pp. 582–586.

2. See: Barksdale et al., “A Cross-National Survey of Consumer Attitudes Towards Marketing Practices, Consumerism, and Government Relations,” Columbia Journal of World Business , Summer 1982, pp. 71–86; Center for Policy Alternatives, Consumer Durables: Warranties, Service Contracts, and Alternatives (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1978), pp. 3-127–3-146; “Rising Concern on Consumer Issues Is Found in Harris Poll,” New York Times , 17 February 1983.

3. See J. G. Miller, The 1983 Manufacturing Futures Project: Summary of North American Survey Responses & Preliminary Report (Boston, MA: School of Management, Boston University, 1983), p. 14.

4. See: R. M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (New York: Bantam Books, 1974); B. W. Tuchman, “The Decline of Quality,” New York Times Magazine , 2 November 1980.

5. See: S. Buchanen, ed., The Portable Plato (New York: The Viking Press, 1948); G. Dickie, Aesthetics: An Introduction (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1971), p. 5.

6. See: L. Abbott, Quality and Competition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955); Z. Griliches, ed., Price Indexes and Quality Change (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971); K. Lancaster, Consumer Demand: A New Approach (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), p. 122; K. B. Leffler, “Ambiguous Changes in Product Quality,” American Economic Review (December 1982): 956–967.

7. See: Abbott (1955), p. 129; K. Lancaster, Variety, Equity, and Efficiency (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), p. 28.

8. See: D. Levhari and T. N. Srinivasan, “Durability of Consumption Goods: Competition versus Monopoly,” American Economic Review (March 1969): 102–107; R. L. Schmalensee, “Regulation and the Durability of Goods,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science (Spring 1970): 54–64; P. L. Swan, “Durability of Consumption Goods,” American Economic Review (December 1970): 884–894; P. L. Swan, “The Durability of Goods and the Regulation of Monopoly,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science (Autumn 1971): 347–357; T. R. Saving, “Market Organization and Product Quality,” Southern Economic Journal (April 1982): 856.

9. See: C. D. Edwards, “The Meaning of Quality,” Quality Progress , October 1968, pp. 36–39; A. A. Kuehn and R. L. Day, “Strategy of Product Quality,” Harvard Business Review, November–December 1962, pp. 100–110.

10. See: Kuehn and Day (November–December 1962); R. M. Johnson, “Market Segmentation: A Strategic Management Tool,” Journal of Marketing Research , February 1971, pp. 13–18; P. Kotler, Marketing Decision Making: A Model Building Approach (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), pp. 491–497; B. T. Ratchford, “The New Economic Theory of Consumer Behavior: An Interpretive Essay,” Journal of Consumer Research , September 1975, pp. 65–75.

11. See: E. H. Chamberlin, “The Product as an Economic Variable,” Quarterly Journal of Economics , February 1953, pp. 1–29; R. Dorfman and P. O. Steiner, “Optimal Advertising and Optimal Quality,” American Economic Review (December 1954): 822–836; L. J. White, “Quality Variation When Prices Are Regulated,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science (Autumn 1972): 425–436.

12. See: J. M. Juran, ed., Quality Control Handbook , 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974), p. 2; H. L. Gilmore, “Product Conformance Cost,” Quality Progress , June 1974, pp. 16–19.

13. See: Edwards (October 1968), pp. 36–39; Lancaster (1979), p. 28; H. Theil, Principles of Econometrics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), pp. 556–573.

14. See: E. Sheshinski, “Price, Quality, and Quantity Regulation in a Monopoly Situation,” Economica , May 1976, pp. 127–137; White (Autumn 1972).

15. See R. B. Yepsen, Jr., ed., The Durability Factor (Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press, 1982), pp. 12–15.

16. See: P. B. Crosby, Quality Is Free (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979); Gilmore (June 1974).

17. See: G. Boehm, “ 'Reliability' Engineering,” Fortune , April 1963, pp. 124–127, 181–182, 184, 186; A. V. Feigenbaum, Total Quality Control (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), ch. 14; Juran (1974), pp. 8-9–8-32.

18. See: Feigenbaum (1961), chs. 10–13; J. M. Juran and F. M. Gryna, Jr., Quality Planning and Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980).

19. See: J. Campanella and F. J. Corcoran, “Principles of Quality Costs,” Quality Progress , April 1983, p. 21; Crosby (1979).

20. See: R. A. Broh, Managing Quality for Higher Profits (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982), ch. 1; Juran (1974), ch. 5.

21. See: Broh (1982); Feigenbaum (1961).

22. See The Consumer Network, Inc., Brand Quality Perceptions (Philadelphia, PA: The Consumer Network, Inc., August 1983).

23. See K. Ishikawa, “Quality and Standardization: Program for Economic Success,” Quality Progress , January 1984, p. 18.

24. See Juran (1974), pp. 2-4–2-9.

25. See E. S. Maynes, “The Concept and Measurement of Product Quality,” in Household Production and Consumption , ed. N. E. Terleckyj (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1976), pp. 550–554.

26. See: K. Lancaster, “A New Approach to Consumer Theory,” Journal of Political Economy , April 1966, pp. 132–157; Lancaster (1971); Lancaster (1979).

27. See Lancaster (1971), p. 7.

28. See Juran (1974), pp. 8–12.

29. See C. J. Bliss, Capital Theory and the Distribution of Income (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975), ch. 6.

30. See “Retiring Autos at 14,” New York Times , 3 April 1983, sec. 3, p. 1.

31. See S. W. Burch, “The Aging U.S. Auto Stock: Implications for Demand,” Business Economics , May 1983, pp. 22–26.

32. See J. A. Quelch and S. B. Ash, “Consumer Satisfaction with Professional Services,” in Marketing of Services, ed. J. H. Donnelly and W. R. George (Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 1981).

33. See: Kuehn and Day (November–December 1962); Johnson (February 1971).

34. See: D. F. Cox, ed., Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior (Boston, MA: Division of Research, Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, 1967), ch. 11; D. R. Lambert, “Price as a Quality Signal: The Tip of the Iceberg,” Economy Inquiry , January 1980, pp. 144–150.

35. See: W. O. Hagstrom, “inputs, Outputs, and the Prestige of American University Science Departments,” Sociology of Education , Fall 1971, pp. 384–385; D. D. Knudsen and T. R. Vaughan, “Quality in Graduate Education: A Reevaluation of the Rankings of Sociology Departments in the Cartter Report,” American Sociologist, February 1969, p. 18.

36. See Steinway & Sons (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services #9-682-625, 1981), p. 5.

37. See P. C. Riesz, “Price-Quality Correlations for Packaged Food Products,” Journal of Consumer Affairs , Winter 1979, p. 234.

38. See Lambert (January 1980).

39. See Riesz (1979), p. 244.

40. See: H. J. Leavitt, “A Note on Some Experimental Findings about the Meanings of Price,” Journal of Business , July 1954, pp. 205–210; A. Gabor and C. W. J. Granger, “Price as an Indicator of Quality: Report on an Enquiry,” Economica , February 1966, pp. 43–70; J. D. McConnell, “An Experimental Examination of the Price-Quality Relationship,” Journal of Business , October 1968, pp. 439–444.

41. See Riesz (1979), p. 236.

42. See R. A. Westbrook, J. W. Newman, and J. R. Taylor, “Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction in the Purchase Decision Process,” Journal of Marketing , October 1978, pp. 54–60.

43. See “The Buying Consumer: Room Air Conditioners,” a report by Appliance Manufacturer (Chicago, IL: Cahners Publishing, 1979).

44. See Lambert (January 1980).

45. See: P. Nelson, “Information and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Political Economy (March–April 1970): 311–329; P. Nelson, “Advertising as Information,” Journal of Political Economy (July–August 1974): 729–754.

46. See R. L. Schmalensee, “A Model of Advertising and Product Quality,” Journal of Political Economy (June 1978): 485–504.

47. Ibid., pp. 485–486.

48. See H. J. Rotfeld and K. B. Rotzoll, “Advertising and Product Quality: Are Heavily Advertised Products Better?” Journal of Consumer Affairs , September 1976, p. 46.

49. See C. T. Gilligan and D. E. A. Holmes, “Advertising Expenditure and Product Quality,” Management Decision (Vol. 17, No. 5): 392.

50. See Barksdale et al. (Summer 1982), p. 78.

51. See: R. D. Buzzell and F. D. Wiersema, “Modeling Changes in Market Share: A Cross-Sectional Analysis,” Strategic Management Journal, 1981, pp. 27–42; R. D. Buzzell and F. D. Wiersema, “Successful Share-Building Strategies,” Harvard Business Review, January–February 1981, pp. 135–144; C. S. Craig and S. P. Douglas, “Strategic Factors Associated with Market and Financial Performance,” Quarterly Review of Economics and Business , Summer 1982, pp. 101–111; B. T. Gale and B. S. Branch, “Concentration versus Market Share: Which Determines Performance and Why Does It Matter?” The Antitrust Bulletin, Spring 1982, pp. 83–105; L. W. Phillips, D. Chang, and R. D. Buzzell, “Product Quality, Cost Position, and Business Performance: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses,” Journal of Marketing , Spring 1983, pp. 26–43; S. Schoeffler, R. D. Buzzell, and D. F. Heany, “Impact of Strategic Planning on Profit Performance,” Harvard Business Review, March–April 1974, pp. 137–145.

52. See Buzzell and Wiersema (January–February 1981), p. 140.

53. See: Schoeffler, Buzzell, and Heany (March–April 1974), p. 141; Gale and Branch (Spring 1982), pp. 93–95.

54. See: Buzzell and Wiersema (1981); Craig and Douglas (Summer 1982); Phillips, Chang, and Buzzell (Spring 1983).

55. See: R. E. Cole, “Improving Product Quality through Continuous Feedback,” Management Review, October 1983, pp. 8–12; Garvin (in press).

56. See Campanella and Corcoran (April 1983) p. 17.

57. See: Campanella and Corcoran (April 1983); Crosby (1979); Gilmore (June 1974); H. L. Gilmore, “Consumer Product Quality Cost Revisited,” Quality Progress , April 1983, pp. 28–33.

58. See: R. S. Kaplan, “Measuring Manufacturing Performance: A New Challenge for Managerial Accounting Research,” The Accounting Review (October 1983): 686–705; S. C. Wheelwright, “Japan — Where Operations Really Are Strategic,” Harvard Business Review, July–August 1981, pp. 70–71.

59. See Phillips, Chang, and Buzzell (Spring 1983), p. 27.

60. See Garvin (September–October 1983).

61. See Crosby (1979).

62. See “Quality Cost Survey,” Quality, June 1977, pp. 20–22.

63. See: Gilmore (June 1974); Gilmore (April 1983).

64. See Gale and Branch (Spring 1982), pp. 96–97.

65. See Phillips, Chang, and Buzzell (Spring 1983), pp. 38–39.

66. Ibid., p. 37.

67. See M. E. Bader, Practical Quality Management in the Chemical Process Industry (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1983), ch. 1.

68. See: Chamberlin (February 1953); Dorfman and Steiner (December 1954).

69. See: Craig and Douglas (Summer 1982); Phillips, Chang, and Buzzell (Spring 1983); Schoeffler, Buzzell, and Heany (March–April 1974).

70. See Schoeffler, Buzzell, and Heany (March–April 1974), p. 141.

71. See: Buzzell and Wiersema (January–February 1981); Phillips, Chang, and Buzzell (Spring 1983).

72. See A. R. Andreasen, “A Taxonomy of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Measures,” Journal of Consumer Affairs , Winter 1977, pp. 11–24.

73. See H. Takeuchi and J. A. Quelch, “Quality Is More Than Making a Good Product,” Harvard Business Review , July–August 1983, pp. 139–145.

74. See: W. Skinner, “Manufacturing — Missing Link in Corporate Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, May–June 1969, pp. 136–145; W. Skinner, “The Focused Factory,” Harvard Business Review , May–June 1974, pp. 113–121; S. C. Wheelwright, “Reflecting Corporate Strategy in Manufacturing Decisions,” Business Horizons , February 1978, pp. 57–66.

75. See Wheelwright (July–August 1981).

Acknowledgments

More like this, add a comment cancel reply.

You must sign in to post a comment. First time here? Sign up for a free account : Comment on articles and get access to many more articles.

Comments (4)

Mike cunningham, kasawuli john, dileep dandge.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Author Interviews
• Research Curations
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access
• Submission Site
• Why Submit?
• About Journal of Consumer Research
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Traditional production, traditional production increases perceived quality, overview of studies, general discussion, data collection statement, author notes.

• < Previous

How Traditional Production Shapes Perceptions of Product Quality

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Keith Wilcox, Sandra Laporte, Gabriel Ward, How Traditional Production Shapes Perceptions of Product Quality, Journal of Consumer Research , Volume 51, Issue 2, August 2024, Pages 256–275, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad073

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The current research examines how the knowledge that a product is made using a traditional method influences perceptions of its quality. We propose that consumers believe that a brand using traditional methods is beneficial for society because it is concerned about cultural preservation and this belief has a positive effect on perceived quality. Six experimental studies show that consumers evaluate products produced with a method described as traditional to be higher in quality than similar products that are not described as traditionally made and this effect is mediated by the belief that the brand is beneficial for society. Consistent with this theory, the positive effect of traditional production on perceived quality is attenuated when consumers view the brand to be unconcerned about cultural preservation, such as when the use of a traditional method is framed as a follower strategy (i.e., it imitates the actions of other brands) or when the brand is a multinational company. By showing that the mere mention of a traditional method can be another subtle way to position a brand as a moral actor, these findings contribute to the understanding of the link between perceived social responsibility and product evaluations.

Products made using traditional methods are often marketed under alternative names (e.g., artisanal, handmade, craft, and natural). Regardless of how they are labeled, traditionally produced products have become quite popular with consumers in recent years. For instance, the markets for handmade goods and artisanal food currently exceed $700 billion ( International Market Analysis Research and Consulting Group (IMARC) 2020 ) and $150 billion ( Bizzozero 2020 ), respectively. The market share for craft beer quadrupled from 2004 to 2018 ( Bronnenberg, Dubé, and Joo 2021 ). Moreover, Etsy, a marketplace that offers a variety of handmade, craft, and artisanal products, has seen its number of active shoppers increase over 37% annually in recent years ( Patel 2021 ).

There are numerous reasons why consumers buy products made using traditional methods. Anecdotal evidence suggests that one prominent reason is consumers perceive traditionally produced products, such as artisanal products, to be higher in quality than those made using standard methods ( Riluxa 2020 ; Verve Culture 2022 ). Yet, few academic studies have examined how the use of a traditional production method can impact quality perceptions. To address this gap, the current research examines how perceived quality is influenced by the knowledge that a product is made using a traditional method.

We propose that when consumers learn a brand makes its products using a traditional method, they view the brand as a moral actor who is concerned about cultural preservation. As a result, consumers judge the brand to be beneficial for society, which has a positive effect on perceived quality. Consumers evaluate the products of a brand that uses a traditional method to be higher in quality than similar products that are not made using a traditional method. Consistent with this theory, we also demonstrate that the effect of traditional production on perceived quality is attenuated when consumers view the brand to be unconcerned about cultural preservation. Specifically, consumers do not judge traditionally produced products to be higher in quality when the use of a traditional method is framed as a follower strategy (i.e., it imitates the actions of other brands) or when the brand is a multinational company.

These findings contribute to the nascent literature examining the influence of a product’s production method on consumer evaluation ( Abouab and Gomez 2015 ; Newman, Gorlin, and Dhar 2014 ; Suher, Szocs, and van Ittersum 2021 ). Most notably, our findings extend research on the handmade effect ( Fuchs, Schreier, and Van Osselaer 2015 ), which demonstrates that consumers evaluate handmade products more positively, in several ways. First, our traditional production effect is demonstrated to operate through a different process (i.e., “brand is beneficial for society”) than that of the handmade effect (i.e., “product is made with love”). As such, the effect of traditional production is shown to have different moderators than the handmade effect. Second, we show that the effect of traditional production on perceived quality occurs even when a product is perceived to be predominantly machine made.

Our findings also contribute to research examining the effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on product evaluation in two ways. First, CSR initiatives encompass a variety of activities that have been categorized into several broad domains of societal impact (e.g., community support, diversity, and sustainable; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001 ). However, to the best of our knowledge, our research is the first to highlight that consumers view cultural benefits resulting from companies’ business activities as having a positive societal impact much in the same way as conventional forms of CSR. The use of traditional production methods is a subtler way a brand can be viewed as benefiting society. Second, numerous studies have documented a negative effect of ethical positioning on product evaluation because consumers expect lower performance from brands positioned as sustainable or socially responsible ( Essoussi and Linton 2010 ; Luchs et al. 2010 ; Newman et al. 2014 ). Ours is one of the few studies to nuance this result and demonstrate a positive effect of a socially responsible activity on product evaluation (see also Chernev and Blair 2015 , 2021 ).

Our findings also have implications for managers. That our effect is attenuated when the use of traditional production is viewed as imitative suggests, as the use of traditional production becomes more widespread, brands may need to find ways to distinguish their production methods from the competition. Moreover, the finding that consumers do not judge traditionally produced products to be higher in quality when a brand is a multinational is particularly timely, given the recent dramatic increase in international corporations purchasing artisanal brands ( Bland 2017 ). It may also explain why artisanal brands are often abandoned by consumers after they are acquired by multinationals. For instance, many craft breweries have underperformed after being sold to international spirits conglomerates ( Frake 2017 ; Furnari 2019 ).

While traditional production methods are employed across different product categories, what qualifies as “traditional” may differ among industries and even between companies within the same industry. Consider natural wines, a category of wine dedicated to making wine in a traditional manner by limiting interventions ( Legeron 2018 ). The definition of traditional in natural wine production can vary greatly among producers. While some may consider handpicking grapes and avoiding additives to be sufficient ( Wine Academy 2020 ), others adopt a more extensive definition that involves fermenting the grapes in clay amphoras, a technique reminiscent of the Roman-era wine production ( Scott 2018 ). Similarly, for artisanal bakers, traditional methods can involve either using traditional machines to mill grain into flour or the use of handheld tools to transform the flour into bread ( Malovany 2020 ).

While there are a variety of production methods that can be considered traditional, the methods share one thing in common; they have been used to make products over an extended amount of time. Therefore, we consider a production process to be traditional when it relies on skills, knowledge, tools, or techniques that have been used by a group or society to make products for a long period of time. This is consistent with the definitions used by UNESCO and the European Union, which specify that a practice or production method may be considered traditional if it has been in use for a period that allows transmission between generations ( Deacon 2018 ). Our definition encompasses products that are made completely or partially by hand, as well as products made using traditional machines. It is important to note that this definition does not mean that products using these methods completely avoid modern technology since there are frequently stages of a production process where the use of traditional methods is unfeasible. For instance, even though producers of natural wines use a variety of traditional methods to convert grapes into wine, they still bottle their wines using modern technology (Babcock 2021). What matters is that a salient aspect of the production process is drawn from the past, not the present.

Notably, despite the widespread use of traditional production methods, few studies have examined the factors that influence consumers’ response to learning that a product is produced using a traditional method. One exception is research on “the handmade effect,” which shows that consumers evaluate handmade products more favorably than machine-made products because they perceive handmade products to be imbued with love ( Fuchs et al. 2015 ). Importantly, this research finds that consumers judge handmade products to be higher in quality than machine-made products. However, because product quality was not the focus of the research (it was a covariate in analyses), it remains unclear whether this effect is specific to handmade products or if it will occur for any product that is marketed as traditionally produced. Moreover, there is little understanding as to why consumers might judge traditionally made products to be higher in quality.

Traditional Production as Cultural Preservation

At the end of the eighteenth century, the factory production system was introduced, which marked the beginning of the Industrial Revolution ( Katz and Margo 2014 ). The factory system replaced the domestic system, which involved workers crafting whole products in their homes or workshops. In the factory system, the tasks of labor were divided such that each aspect of the production process was performed by a specialized worker. The factory system continued its evolution with the introduction of specialized machinery to perform production tasks, which, along with the standardization of parts, enabled firms to engage in mass production ( Hounshell 1984 ). Though there have since been numerous advances in manufacturing, mass production is the most frequently utilized manufacturing strategy for making products today ( Hu 2013 ).

The Industrial Revolution not only changed how products were made, but it also is credited with beginning the period of modernization ( Sokoloff 1985 ). Modernization refers to the transformation of society from one that is agrarian and traditional to one that is industrial and modern ( Stearns 2020 ). Although modernization begins with industrialization, it is a continual and open-ended process ( Kumar 2023 ) that profoundly changes society. For example, specialization and the division of labor that allowed for mass production subsequently became an important facet of most modern institutions ( Hounshell 1984 ). It also led to a dramatic transformation in how people lived as workforces moved from rural communities to urban areas to accommodate industrial manufacturing ( Gallman and Rhode 2022 ). Meanwhile, the role of the family, which served as the basic unit of production in agrarian society, was limited to being a unit of consumption as production moved to factories and away from households ( Cowan 1976 ).

Although modernization has had many positive impacts on society, it has been frequently argued that it has a negative impact on culture ( Zaichkowsky 2022 ). As society became more modern, traditional beliefs and practices were replaced by new values and norms. Modernization resulted in a greater focus on individualism and materialism ( Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2005 ), which led to a decline in the importance of community and cultural traditions ( Giddens 2007 ). As new technologies and production techniques emerged in modern society, traditional knowledge and skills were lost ( Bell 1976 ). Moreover, globalization, which is a product of modernization ( Ferguson, Manela, and Sargent 2011 ), is often criticized for creating a homogenous, global culture that comes at the expense of more diverse, local cultures ( Robertson 1995 ).

The negative impact of modernization on culture has fostered an emergence of movements dedicated to preserving culture. For instance, in 2008, UNESCO created the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage to ensure the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage worldwide ( Bortolotto 2007 ). UNESCO defines intangible cultural heritage as a practice, representation, expression, knowledge, or skill considered to be part of a place’s cultural heritage ( United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2023 ). This includes oral traditions, performing arts, knowledge, and traditional craftsmanship. For example, UNESCO considers several traditional methods for producing products, including baguettes, silk, and tea, to be intangible cultural heritage that requires protection. The movement to preserve culture also led to the founding of organizations like the Slow Food Movement, a group that emerged following a demonstration in Rome protesting the opening of a fast-food franchise near the Spanish Steps ( Andrews 2008 ). The Slow Food Movement advocates for a cultural change toward “slow” to counteract the fast pace of modern life and promotes the use of traditional (i.e., slow) cooking techniques in over 160 countries ( Slow Food International 2023 ). The recent popularity of artisanal products may offer further evidence of the desire to preserve culture since a predominant feature that makes a product artisanal is that it is made using a traditional production method ( Cope 2014 ).

We propose that when consumers learn a product is made using a traditional production method, they will see this as an act of cultural preservation. As such, they will view brands that rely on such methods as having a positive cultural impact on society. To validate this assumption, we conducted a pilot study on one hundred respondents from Mechanical Turk. Respondents were told there has been a recent trend toward companies using traditional production methods to make their products. They were then asked to indicate their beliefs about the economic, environmental, and cultural impacts of these companies on society on three single-item scales (1 = very negative, 4 = neutral, 7 = very positive). They also indicated their beliefs about the impacts of companies that use standard production methods. The order of the standard and traditional method questions was randomized. A repeated measures ANOVA found that participants viewed companies that use traditional methods ( M  =   4.87, SD   =   1.32) as having a more positive cultural impact on society compared to companies that use standard methods ( M  =  M  =   4.42, SD   =   1.14; F (1, 99) = 8.33, p < .01; η p 2 = 0.08). There was no significant difference in the perceived economic and environmental impacts between the two types of companies (see web appendix A for details). This indicates that people perceive traditional methods as having a positive impact on society that is primarily cultural in nature. Next, we discuss how this positive cultural impact shapes quality perceptions.

Effect on Product Quality

Although previous research has demonstrated that a brand’s participation in socially beneficial activities can affect how consumers perceive the quality of its products, much of this research suggests that such activities may have a negative impact on perceived quality. For example, because sustainable brands are perceived to be gentler than non-sustainable brands, consumers expect sustainable brands to perform worse on strength-related quality dimensions ( Essoussi and Linton 2010 ; Luchs et al. 2010 ; Newman et al. 2014 ). Similarly, socially responsible brands tend to be perceived as lower in competence in their primary area of expertise ( Aaker, Vohs, and Mogilner 2010 ). One reason for this tendency may be because consumers tend to infer that a brand must compensate for being socially responsible, so it often comes at the expense of product quality ( Luo and Bhattacharya 2006 ; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001 ).

Whether consumers make compensatory inferences, however, depends on several factors. Research finds that when there is a direct relationship between a brand’s socially responsible activities and its products (e.g., the product is sustainable), consumers are likely to make negative compensatory inferences about product quality. When there is no direct relationship (e.g., the company donated money to charity), consumers perceive the brand as being beneficial for society, which results in a halo effect on perceived quality that leads them to judge the brand’s products to be higher in quality ( Chernev and Blair 2015 ). More recent research finds that socially responsible activities tied to the product (e.g., the product offers sustainable benefits) can also have a positive effect on product quality if consumers view the brand as a moral actor whose actions benefit society ( Chernev and Blair 2021 ). The extent to which brands are viewed as moral actors not only depends on whether their business practices have a positive impact on society but also whether consumers assess their motives for engaging in an activity as being pure (e.g., driven by benevolence; Chernev and Blair 2015 ).

While the use of traditional production methods may not always be an intentional act of cultural preservation by a manufacturer, consumers often form beliefs about a company and its motives based on its activities and business practices ( Xu, Bolton, and Winterich 2021 ). Indeed, the results of our pilot study indicate that consumers believe brands that use traditional methods have a positive cultural impact on society. Moreover, consumers are also unlikely to view the use of such methods as being driven by other motives, such as profit seeking, since traditional production often comes at a cost because the use of such methods foregoes many of the benefits associated with modern production (e.g., increased worker productivity, lower costs). Therefore, when a brand communicates its products are traditionally produced, consumers should view the company as a moral actor who is beneficial for society, which will have a positive effect on perceived product quality. Specifically, we predict that when a brand communicates its products are made using a traditional (vs. not traditional) method, consumers will judge the products to be higher in quality and this effect will be mediated by the belief that the brand is beneficial for society.

We acknowledge that the effect of traditional production on product quality is likely to be multiply determined. One potential determinant is perceptions of authenticity since research finds that authenticity perceptions can have a positive effect on perceived quality ( Cinelli and LeBoeuf 2020 ). If consumers perceive traditionally produced products as more authentic, this could explain why they may judge such products to be higher in quality. Moreover, other research suggests the extent to which a brand is perceived as being proficient at producing products, defined as “the display of skills, craftsmanship and/or expertise” can contribute to perceptions of authenticity ( Nunes, Ordanini, and Giambastiani 2021 ). This suggests that perceived quality may also contribute to perceptions of authenticity. Given these perspectives, we believe that authenticity could play some role in the process. Thus, we controlled for authenticity, as well as other potential determinants in our studies. However, we believe that cultural preservation generating societal benefit is a theoretically novel and managerially relevant determinant of perceptions of quality that warrants investigation.

When Traditional Production Is Not Cultural Preservation

Our theory argues that the positive effect of traditional production emerges because consumers believe that the use of such methods is motivated by a concern for cultural preservation. If this is the case, the effect should not emerge if consumers believe that the brand is unconcerned about cultural preservation, even if the brand makes its products using a traditional method. We propose two situations in which this is likely to occur: when the use of traditional production is framed as a follower strategy and when the brand that uses traditional production is a multinational company.

Follower Strategy

Although consumers reward brands for engaging in virtuous activities (e.g., CSR), recent research demonstrates that the order in which brands engage in prosocial initiatives can impact how consumers view the brands ( Hydock, Paharia, and Blair 2020 ; Silver, Kelly, and Small 2021 ). When a company is the first to engage in a prosocial initiative, consumers believe that the company cares about the cause the initiative supports. However, when a brand launches a prosocial initiative as a follower strategy (i.e., it imitates the prosocial actions of other brands), consumers judge the brand to be insincere because they believe that the brand has ulterior motives for launching the initiative. Therefore, we propose that when a brand uses a traditional method, but the use of the method is framed as a follower strategy, consumers should view the brand as being unconcerned about cultural preservation. As a result, consumers will not judge the brand to be more beneficial for society or its products to be higher in quality.

Multinational Company

A second situation in which consumers should view a brand as being unconcerned about cultural preservation is when the brand is a multinational company. It has been argued that globalization, and the corresponding rise of multinationals, has led to the spread of a single globalized culture that has eroded traditional, local cultures ( Adams 2021 )—a process referred to as cultural homogenization ( Ervin and Smith 2008 ). Cultural homogenization can be viewed as a byproduct, rather than a direct result, of multinationals’ business activities. Nevertheless, multinationals are widely viewed as having a negative impact on culture ( Adams 2021 ; Ritzer 2000 ; Zaichkowsky 2022 ). Indeed, the desire to stop cultural homogenization caused by multinationals is mentioned as a motivating factor behind movements dedicated to preserving culture, such as the Slow Food Movement ( Rayman 2014 ). Therefore, we expect that when it is made salient that a brand is a multinational, consumers should view the brand as being unconcerned about cultural preservation, which will attenuate the effect of traditional production on the belief that the brand is beneficial for society and perceived quality.

We tested our theory in six experiments. Study 1a demonstrates that consumers judge wine to be higher in quality when they learn it is made using a traditional production method. Moreover, perceived quality is shown to mediate the impact of traditional production on purchase intent. Study 1b conceptually replicates the findings of study 1a in a different product category (i.e., chocolate) using a consequential measure of willingness to pay (WTP). Study 2 shows that the effect of traditional production on perceived quality holds in a non-food category (i.e., clothing), while also ruling out company size and product quantity as alternative explanations. Study 3 demonstrates that traditional production increases the perceived quality of bread, while also providing evidence that this finding is not due to consumers perceiving traditionally made products as being more handmade. Specifically, respondents judged bread made using a traditional method to be higher in quality, even though they perceived the bread to be predominantly machine made. Importantly, the results show that the influence of traditional production on perceived quality is mediated by the perception that the bread maker is beneficial for society. Study 4 provides additional process evidence while also demonstrating that the effects are mitigated when consumers believe that the brand using a traditional method is unconcerned about cultural preservation due to the production method being framed as a follower strategy. Finally, study 5 shows that the effects of traditional production are mitigated when the brand is a multinational company because consumers perceive such brands as being unconcerned about cultural preservation. This study also rules out “made with love” as an alternative explanation. Stimuli and data for all studies are available for download on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/vceks/?view_only=f1928e1fd1af459583016ffafba57b85 ).

The primary objective of study 1a (preregistration: https://aspredicted.org/wz4_cny ) was to show that consumers perceive a product made using a traditional production method to be higher in quality than a similar product that is not traditionally made. A second objective was to show that this has a positive impact on purchase intentions. Thus, we described a wine as being made using a traditional method, a not traditional method, or an unspecified method. We expected participants to judge the traditionally made wine to be higher in quality and therefore be more likely to purchase the wine.

Participants and Design

Four hundred respondents from Mechanical Turk completed the study in exchange for a small payment. The study employed a three-cell (production method: traditional vs. not traditional vs. control) between-subjects design. Consistent with our preregistration, we eliminated respondents who indicated that they never drink wine ( n  = 59) because we anticipated that consumers who do not drink alcoholic beverages would respond differently to evaluating and purchasing wine. In this study (and study 5), we also preregistered excluding responses that were more than three standard deviations away from the mean of our focal dependent variable (i.e., perceived quality). However, because the significance of our findings does not change without these exclusions in these studies, we report the results of all studies without applying these exclusion criteria. Our final sample was 341 respondents.

We randomly assigned participants to one of three production method conditions. After reading the study instructions, participants were randomly administered one of two bot screeners that required them to enter the number of words in a sentence (see the web appendix for details on stimuli and measures for all studies). Respondents who did not enter the correct number were not allowed to complete the study. All respondents were then told that they were browsing through the options offered by an online liquor shop to buy a bottle of red wine. They were presented with an image of a bottle of wine and a description. The wine was described as being from Northern California and having deep flavors and a solid structure. Participants in the traditional production condition were then told that the winemaker uses a traditional fermentation method that consists of “fermenting a vat of grape juice and controlling the heat generated during fermentation by placing the vat in a clay pot atop blocks of ice.” Participants in the standard production condition were told that the winemaker uses a standard fermentation method that consists of “fermenting a vat of grape juice and controlling the heat generated during fermentation by placing the vat in a steel tank with built-in cooling rings.” Participants in the control condition were told nothing about the fermentation process.

Next, participants indicated their purchase intent on a two-item scale adopted from previous research ( Menon and Raghubir 2003 ) that asked them to indicate their purchase likelihood (“how likely are you to buy this wine?”; 1 = “not at all” and 7 = “very much”) and their general evaluation (“what is your overall evaluation of this wine?”; 1 = “very unfavorable” and 7 = “very favorable”). Since these measures were highly correlated, they were averaged to form a purchase intent index ( r = 0.75). Participants then indicated the extent to which they perceived the wine to be “well made” and “high quality” (1 = “not at all” and 7 = “very much”; r = 0.86) and the extent to which they perceived the wine to be “authentic” and “genuine” (1 = “not at all” and 7 = “very much”; r = 0.85). We wanted to show that perceived quality mediates the effect of traditional production on purchase intent, even when accounting for any relationship between perceived authenticity and purchase intent. Finally, participants completed several questions about the wine’s production method, including one asking the extent to which they perceived the wine as being made using a traditional method (1 = “not at all” and 7 = “very much”), which served as a manipulation check for the production method manipulation.

In line with previous research ( Naylor, Lamberton, and Norton 2011 ; Rosenthal, Rosnow, and Rubin 2000 ), we used orthogonal contrast coding to test our predictions. First, we contrasted the traditional condition (coded as +2) with the not traditional condition (coded as −1) and the control condition (coded as −1). We then used a second contrast code to compare the not traditional condition (coded as 1) to the control condition (coded as −1). The traditional condition was then coded as zero.

Manipulation Check

Participants were more likely to perceive the product as traditionally made in the traditional condition ( M  =   5.99, SD   =   1.22) compared to the not traditional condition ( M  =   4.52, SD   =   1.69) and control condition ( M  =   4.76, SD =   1.24; F (1, 338) = 69.90, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.17). The difference between the not traditional and control conditions was not significant ( F (1, 338) = 1.76, p = .19).

Perceived Quality

As expected, participants perceived the wine in the traditional condition to be higher in quality ( M  =   5.63, SD   =   1.12) than in the not traditional ( M  =   5.29, SD   =   1.05) and the control conditions ( M  =   5.29, SD   =   1.04; F (1, 338) = 7.44, p < .01; η p 2 = 0.02; figure 1a ). The not traditional and control conditions did not differ significantly ( F (1, 338) = 0.01, p = .96).

EFFECTS OF PRODUCTION METHOD ON PERCEIVED QUALITY AND PURCHASE INTENT (STUDY 1A)

Purchase Intent

Additionally, participants reported higher purchase intent in the traditional condition ( M  =   5.10, SD   =   1.17) compared to the not traditional condition ( M  =   4.80, SD = 1.04) and the control condition ( M  =   4.64, SD   =   1.18; F (1, 338) = 8.36, p < .01; η p 2 = 0.02; figure 1b ). The difference between the not traditional and control conditions was not significant ( F (1, 338) = 1.21, p = .27). The significance of these comparisons remains the same when we analyze each item of the purchase intent index separately.

Perceived Authenticity

Participants perceived the wine to be more authentic in the traditional condition ( M  =   5.55, SD   =   1.12) compared to the not traditional ( M  =   5.21, SD   =   1.08) and control conditions ( M  =   5.20, SD   =   1.02; F (1, 338) = 8.04, p < .01; η p 2 = 0.02). The difference between the not traditional and control conditions was not significant ( F (1, 338) = 0.01, p = .97).

We tested whether perceived quality and perceived authenticity mediate the effect of production method on purchase intent using PROCESS model 4 ( Hayes 2018 ; 10,000 samples) with production method (orthogonally coded) as the independent variable, purchase intent as the dependent variable, and perceived quality and perceived authenticity as the parallel mediators. The indirect effects through perceived quality (β = 0.07, 95% CI: [0.0152–0.1147]) and perceived authenticity (β = 0.02, 95% CI: [0.0024–0.0393]) were both significant. Thus, perceived quality mediates the effect of traditional production on purchase intent, even after accounting for the effect of the production method on perceived authenticity. It should be noted that in all studies where perceived quality and perceived authenticity were both measured, factor analyses revealed that perceived quality and perceived authenticity items load on the same factor. This suggests that participants do not view them as distinct constructs. Hence, in all studies where perceived authenticity was measured, we controlled for it in the mediation analyses.

The results of this study provide initial support for our theory. Specifically, participants judged a product to be higher in quality when it is made using a traditional production method compared to when the method was described as “standard” or not mentioned at all. Moreover, the positive effect of traditional production on perceived quality was shown to increase consumers’ likelihood of purchasing the traditionally made product, even after controlling for perceived authenticity. To offer additional support for this proposition, we conducted a preregistered supplemental study that replicated these findings in a non-alcoholic product category (i.e., bread; see web appendix B for details).

Study 1b sought to conceptually replicate the results of the previous study in a different product category (i.e., chocolate) using an incentive-compatible measure of WTP. We expected participants to judge traditionally made chocolate to be higher in quality and to have a higher WTP for the product compared to a chocolate that is not described as being traditionally made.

Four hundred fifty-four undergraduates from a large U.S. public university participated in the study for course credit. Our sample size was determined by the number of students who participated in the subject pool the week the study was administered. The study employed a two-cell (production method: traditional vs. not traditional) between-subjects design.

The design of the study was adopted from previous research ( Fuchs et al. 2015 ; study 4). Participants were told that the purpose of the study was to understand how consumers value different types of products. They were shown an image of a variety pack box of an actual artisanal chocolate brand (i.e., Taza) along with its product description. In the traditional condition, the image of the chocolate had the label “stone ground” on the packaging. The chocolate was described as having a smooth, rich taste because the chocolate maker manually roasts and grinds the beans using a traditional process. In the not traditional condition, the image did not have “stone ground” on the packaging. The chocolate was described as having a smooth, rich taste because the chocolate maker roasts and grinds the beans using a standard process (with no mention of manual grinding). A pretest conducted on the same pool as the main study found respondents perceived the chocolate to be more traditionally produced after receiving the traditional description ( M  =   6.16, SD   =   1.16), compared to the not traditional description ( M  =   5.07, SD   =   1.43; F (1, 191) = 33.62, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.15).

Participants were then given instructions for an adapted version of the BDM auction ( Becker, DeGroot, and Marschak 1964 ), which has been shown to be a reliable method for eliciting consumers’ WTP ( Wertenbroch and Skiera 2002 ). Consistent with previous research ( Fuchs et al. 2015 ), respondents were told to indicate the maximum price they would be willing to pay for the chocolate and that their price would be compared to the market price of the product (which was randomly drawn). If their bid was above or equal to the market price for the product, they would purchase the product. If it was below, they would not purchase the product. Before participating in the auction, however, all respondents were told that they would be entered into a raffle for $15, and several winners of the raffle would use the money to pay for the auction. If they did not win the raffle, they would not receive any money or chocolate. If they won the raffle and their bid was above or equal to the market price, they would receive the chocolate and $15 minus their bid. If they won the raffle and their bid was below the market price, they would receive the $15 won in the raffle.

Finally, respondents indicated the maximum amount they would be willing to bid on the chocolate (up to $15) rounded to the nearest dollar. Participants then indicated the extent to which they perceived the chocolate to be “well made” and “high quality” (1 = “not at all” and 7 = “very much”; r = 0.78). After the auction, five respondents were selected at random as winners of the raffle and were contacted to receive their money and chocolate (if their bid was above the randomly drawn market price).

An ANOVA found that the effect of production method on perceived quality was significant ( F (1, 452) = 6.74, p = .01; η p 2 = 0.01). Consistent with the findings of study 1a, participants perceived the chocolate in the traditional condition to be higher in quality ( M  =   5.75, SD = 0.93) compared to the chocolate in the not traditional condition ( M  =   5.53, SD = 0.86).

The effect of production method on WTP was also significant ( F (1, 452) = 3.71, p = .05; η p 2 = 0.01). Participants submitted higher bids in the traditional condition ( M = $6.27, SD = $3.32) compared to the not traditional condition ( M = $5.67, SD = $3.31). Because the measure of WTP was right skewed, we also analyzed the data with log-transformed WTP as the dependent measure. We added a “1” to the original WTP measure before the log transformation to avoid bids of “0” being converted to null results. The effect of production method on WTP remained significant ( F (1, 452) = 4.35, p = .04; η p 2 = 0.01).

We tested whether perceived quality mediates the effect of production method on WTP using PROCESS model 4 ( Hayes 2018 ; 10,000 samples). The indirect effect through perceived quality was significant with a confidence interval that did not include zero (β = 0.18, 95% CI: [0.0423–0.3527]), which supports mediation.

The findings of study 1b are consistent with those of study 1a, using an incentive-compatible measure of WTP. Thus, the results provide further evidence that consumers are more likely to purchase traditionally produced products because they perceive such products to be higher in quality. The purpose of the next study was to rule out several alternative explanations for the findings. Since our theory is about how traditional production shapes judgments of product quality, the remaining studies focus on perceived quality.

Study 2 (preregistration: https://aspredicted.org/em3m2.pdf ) sought to replicate the findings of previous studies in a non-food product category (i.e., clothing). We also wanted to rule out the possibility that our findings are due to consumers believing that companies that use traditional production are smaller in size than companies that do not engage in traditional production. Research has shown that consumers make inferences about product quality based on company size and, specifically, that non-tech products, such as the clothing used in this study, are judged higher in quality when they are made by a smaller (vs. larger) company ( Woolley, Kupor, and Liu 2023 ). To address this potential alternative mechanism, we manipulated the size of the company to see whether the effect of traditional production on perceived quality would hold across different company sizes. We expected consumers to judge traditionally produced clothing to be higher in quality compared to clothing for which the production method was not mentioned, regardless of the size of the company.

A second objective of this study was to rule out the possibility that consumers make inferences about the quantity of products that are produced by companies that use traditional methods. If consumers perceive that companies that use traditional production methods have lower production quantities, it is possible that the findings could be explained by scarcity or consumers believing that the product is more valuable because it is made in small quantities.

Finally, we wanted to test another explanation related to the possible perception of traditionally made products as the product of a craftsman’s strong work ethic. To rule this out, we examine whether beliefs in the protestant work ethic moderate our findings. People who have strong protestant work ethic beliefs tend to place high value on labor ( Weber 2002 ). Thus, to the extent that our findings are driven by consumers’ beliefs that companies that use traditional production value hard work, then one would expect our findings to be stronger (weaker) for people with strong (weak) protestant work ethic beliefs. However, if our findings can be explained by the perception that companies that use traditional production do so as a means of engaging in cultural preservation, then we would not expect our findings to be moderated by consumers’ beliefs in the protestant work ethic.

Four hundred forty-six respondents from Mechanical Turk completed the study in exchange for a small payment. The study employed a 2 (production method: traditional vs. control) by 2 (company size: medium vs. large) between-subjects design with protestant work ethic beliefs as a measured variable. Consistent with our preregistration, we eliminated respondents who completed the study but failed one of two attention checks ( n  = 9) resulting in a final sample of 437 respondents.

We randomly assigned participants to one of four conditions. Respondents were told that they were browsing online for clothing where they came across a clothing company called S&S. Participants in the medium condition were then instructed that they remembered reading that the company is a mid-sized business with about 100 employees. Those in the large condition were instructed that they remembered reading that the company is a larger-sized business with about 300 employees. We kept the number of employees at the lower end of what is considered a large business to avoid the possibility that respondents would perceive the company as a multinational. Participants in the traditional condition were then shown the logo and description of the company. The company’s fabrics were described as soft because they are made using traditional weaving looms. Those in the control condition were told that the fabrics are soft without mentioning how they are made.

Next, perceived quality was measured on a similar scale as previous studies ( r = 0.85). Participants then indicated how much quantity of clothing they perceived the company makes (1 = “small quantity”; 7 = “large quantity”). As a manipulation check for the company size manipulation, participants indicated their perception of the company size (“what is the size of this company?”; 1 = “small,” 4 = “medium,” and 7 = “large”). Participants then indicated whether they agree or disagree that the clothing company relies on traditional methods (1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”), which served as a manipulation check for the production method manipulation. Finally, participants completed the 19-item Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) scale ( Mirels and Garrett 1971 ; α = 0.89).

Manipulation Checks

Any differences in degrees of freedom in subsequent analyses reflect missing responses. An ANOVA on company size found a significant main effect of company size, such that participants perceived the company to be larger in the large condition ( M  =   4.75, SD   =   1.37) compared to the medium condition ( M  =   3.52, SD   =   1.27; F (1, 431) = 95.20, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.18). The effects of production method ( F (1, 431) = 1.09, p = .30) and the production method by company size interaction ( F (1, 431) = 0.25, p = .62) were not significant. An analysis of the production method manipulation check found that participants were more likely to perceive the product as traditionally made in the traditional condition ( M  =   6.01, SD   =   1.16) compared to the control condition ( M  =   4.42, SD   =   1.21; F (1, 432) = 194.13, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.31). The effects of company size ( F (1, 432) = 0.07, p = .79) and the production method by company size interaction ( F (1, 432) = 0.48, p = .49) were not significant.

As expected, an ANOVA on perceived quality found a significant main effect of production method ( F (1, 433) = 41.89, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.09; figure 2 ). Participants judged the traditionally produced clothing to be higher in quality ( M  =   5.82, SD = 0.83) compared to the control condition ( M  =   5.25, SD = 0.96). Importantly, the effects of company size ( F (1, 433) = 1.51, p = .22) and the production method by company size interaction ( F (1, 433) = 0.82, p = .37) were not significant. This suggests that our findings cannot be explained by inferences about the size of companies that use traditional production methods.

THE EFFECTS OF TRADITIONAL PRODUCTION ON PERCEIVED QUALITY (STUDY 2)

Production Quantity

To rule out differences in beliefs about the quantity produced, we conducted an ANOVA with production quantity as the dependent variable. The effect of production method was not significant ( F (1, 433) = 2.25, p = .14), which suggests that our findings cannot be explained by differences in perceived production quantity. Not surprisingly, participants perceived that the large company ( M  =   4.84, SD   =   1.41) produced more quantity compared to the medium-sized company ( M  =   3.99, SD   =   1.41; F (1, 433) = 40.50, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.09). The production method by company size interaction ( F (1, 431) = 3.57, p = .06) was marginally significant. Controlling for production quantity as a covariate in our analysis of perceived quality does not change the significance of the findings.

Moderation by PWE

We tested whether PWE moderated our findings using regression with perceived quality as the dependent variable, production method as the independent variable, and mean-centered PWE and company size as moderators. The effect of traditional production remained significant (β = 0.28; t (429) = 6.64, p < .001) and the interaction between PWE and traditional production method was not significant (β = −0.07; t (429) = −1.49, p = .14), which indicates that PWE does not moderate our focal effect. All other effects in the model were not significant, except for the interaction between production method, company size, and PWE (β = −0.09; t (429) = −1.97, p = .05). This three-way interaction was significant because production method was significant at every level of PWE and company size, except when the company size was large and PWE was high (+1 standard deviation above the mean). Although this interaction was not expected, since this null effect emerged when PWE was high, this rules out the possibility that the effect of traditional method on perceived quality is driven by consumers valuing hard work.

The results of study 2 replicate the findings of previous studies, while also ruling out inferences about company size and the quantity produced as alternative explanations. The results also suggest that the effect of traditional production on perceived quality may not be explained by the idea that consumers value hard work. The purpose of the next study was to provide initial evidence for our proposed process.

The primary objective of study 3 ( https://aspredicted.org/ze94x.pdf ) was to show that consumers perceive traditionally produced products as higher in quality because they view brands that use traditional methods as more beneficial for society compared to brands that do not use traditional methods. We also wanted to show that this effect would emerge even when the traditionally produced product is perceived to be predominantly machine made (as opposed to predominantly handmade) to differentiate this effect from the handmade effect documented by previous research ( Fuchs et al. 2015 ). We expected participants to judge traditionally produced, and predominantly machine-made, bread to be higher in quality compared to when the production method is not specified. Moreover, we expected this effect to be mediated by the belief that the brand using a traditional method is more beneficial for society.

Two hundred eighty-eight undergraduates from a large U.S. public university participated in the study for course credit. The study employed a two-cell (production method: traditional vs. control) between-subjects design. Consistent with our preregistration, we screened out participants who completed the study but failed one of two attention checks ( n  = 11), leaving a final sample size of 277 respondents.

We randomly assigned participants to one of two conditions. Participants were first administered two attention checks. They were then told that they were browsing through a store to buy a baguette. We presented participants with an image of a baguette from the brand Tasty Bakery. The bread from the bakery was described as made from the finest ingredients that give it wonderful taste. Participants in the traditional condition were told that, to get this result, the bread maker uses a traditional method. The method involves using a traditional machine to convert the grain into flour. Since the production method was not mentioned in the control condition, we expected participants to view the traditionally produced bread as more machine made.

Afterwards, participants completed the same measures of perceived quality ( r = 0.86) and perceived authenticity ( r = 0.84) as previous studies. To measure beneficial for society, participants indicated whether they agree or disagree that the bread maker is “good for society” and “beneficial for the community” ( r = 0.86).

We conducted a pretest to validate our production method manipulation and to show that participants perceive the traditionally made bread as more machine made (and not more handmade) compared to the control condition. Two hundred ninety-two respondents from the same pool as the main study participated. Participants received the same manipulation as the main study before indicating whether they perceived the product to be traditionally produced, machine made, and handmade. Participants in the traditional condition perceived the bread to be more traditionally produced ( M  =   5.83, SD = 1.41) compared to the control condition ( M  =   4.48, SD   =   1.45; F (1, 290) = 64.50, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.18). Importantly, those in the traditional condition perceived the bread to be more machine made ( M  =   4.43, SD   =   1.72) compared to the control condition ( M  =   3.84, SD   =   1.53; F (1, 290) = 9.44, p < .01; η p 2 = 0.03). The difference between the traditional ( M  =   4.16, SD   =   1.64) and control ( M  =   4.33, SD   =   1.47) conditions in terms of the perception that the product being handmade was not significant ( F (1, 290) = 0.92, p = .34).

An ANOVA on perceived quality revealed a significant effect of production method ( F (1, 275) = 5.52, p = .02; η p 2 = 0.02; figure 3a ). Respondents perceived the bread to be higher in quality in the traditional condition ( M  =   5.63, SD   =   1.10) compared to the control condition ( M  =   5.32, SD   =   1.13). Any differences in degrees of freedom in subsequent analyses are due to respondents failing to complete all the measures.

THE EFFECTS OF TRADITIONAL PRODUCTION ON PERCEIVED QUALITY AND BENEFICIAL FOR SOCIETY (STUDY 3)

Consistent with the results of study 1a, respondents perceived the bread to be more authentic in the traditional condition ( M  =   5.60, SD   =   1.17) compared to the control condition ( M  =   5.00, SD   =   1.10; F (1, 266) = 18.77, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.07).

Beneficial for Society

An ANOVA on beneficial for society found a significant effect of production method ( F (1, 271) = 6.13, p = .01; η p 2 = 0.02; figure 3 b). Respondents perceived the bread maker to be more beneficial for society in the traditional condition ( M  =   4.92, SD   =   1.15) compared to the control condition ( M  =   4.58, SD   =   1.08).

A mediation analysis using PROCESS model 4 ( Hayes 2018 ; 10,000 samples) found a significant indirect effect of production method on perceived quality through beneficial for society (β = 0.16, 95% CI: [0.0338–0.2942]), which supports mediation. Beneficial for society still mediates when authenticity is included in the model as a parallel mediator (see web appendix F for further details).

The findings of study 3 provide additional support for our prediction that consumers perceive products made using traditional production methods to be higher in quality, while also showing that this effect is mediated by the belief that the brand using traditional production is more beneficial for society. Importantly, this effect emerged when the traditionally produced products were perceived to be more machine made, and not more handmade, compared to the control condition, which suggests that our findings cannot be explained by the handmade effect. The purpose of the next study was to show that these effects are attenuated when the use of traditional production cannot be attributed to the firm’s willingness to preserve culture because of another salient ulterior motive such as imitating competitors.

In study 4 ( https://aspredicted.org/ds3mc.pdf ), we wanted to test our theory more directly, namely that the positive effect on product quality emerges when consumers perceive companies that use traditional methods as being concerned about cultural preservation. We also wanted to show that the positive effect would be attenuated when companies using traditional methods are judged to be unconcerned about cultural preservation. Specifically, we expected the traditional production effect to be mitigated when traditional production is framed as a follower strategy (i.e., it is imitating its competition).

Three hundred thirty-three participants from Mechanical Turk completed the study in exchange for a small payment. The study was a three-cell (production method: traditional vs. control vs. traditional follower) between-subjects design. Consistent with our preregistration, we excluded respondents ( n  = 13) who completed the study but failed one of two attention checks, leaving us with a final sample of 320 respondents.

We randomly assigned participants to one of three conditions. Participants were told that they were browsing through a store to buy a baguette and they came across a brand called Tasty Bakery. All participants were then presented with the same image and description of the taste of the bread as study 3. Participants in the traditional condition were told that the bread maker uses a traditional method that involves using traditional tools and techniques to convert the grain into flour. Participants in the traditional follower condition were given the same instructions. However, they were then told that they remembered reading that several of the company's biggest competitors launched brands of bread using a similar production method several months ago and they suspect that Tasty Bakery is doing this to compete with them. Participants in the control condition were not given any information about the production method or motive.

Next, participants completed similar two-item scales measuring perceived quality ( r = 0.86), perceived authenticity ( r = 0.82), and their beliefs that the brand is beneficial for society ( r = 0.88) as study 3. Participants were then asked to agree or disagree with the statement that the bread is made using a traditional process, which served as a manipulation check for the production method manipulation. Participants then indicated the extent to which they perceived the company as being concerned about cultural preservation (1 = “strong disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”). Finally, to control again for the possibility that respondents may perceive the traditional product as predominantly handmade, we asked respondents to indicate the percentage of the product that they perceived to be handmade (vs. machine made) on a constant sum scale (to 100).

We used orthogonal contrast coding for all analyses. For the analysis of the production method manipulation check, we contrasted the control condition with the traditional condition and the traditional follower condition. For all other analyses, we contrasted the traditional condition with the other two conditions.

Participants in the control condition ( M  =   4.71, SD   =   1.06) perceived the bread to be less traditionally produced compared to the traditional condition ( M  =   6.17, SD = 0.92) and the traditional follower condition ( M  =   5.91, SD   =   1.00; F (1, 317) = 124.52, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.28). The difference between the traditional and traditional follower conditions was marginally significant ( F (1, 317) = 3.65, p = .06), although both were rated very high on the traditional production measure.

Participants in the traditional condition ( M  =   5.22, SD   =   1.22) perceived the company to be more concerned about cultural preservation compared to those in the control condition ( M  =   4.07, SD = 1.20;) and the traditional follower condition ( M  =   4.28, SD   =   1.13; F (1, 317) = 56.41, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.15). Those in the traditional follower condition did not view the company as being more concerned by cultural preservation than the control condition ( F (1, 317) = 1.66, p = .20). Thus, even though respondents recognized that the bread maker used a traditional method in the traditional follower condition, as revealed by the above manipulation check, they did not view them as being particularly concerned about cultural preservation when they were told that the method was being used for competitive reasons.

Consistent with the results of previous studies, participants in the traditional condition ( M  =   5.85, SD = 0.74) perceived the bread to be higher in quality compared to those in the control condition ( M  =   5.58, SD = 0.99) and the traditional follower condition ( M  =   5.66, SD   =   91; F (1, 317) = 5.02, p = .03; η p 2 = 0.02; figure 4 a). Moreover, the difference between the control and traditional follower conditions was not significant ( F (1, 317) = 0.48, p = .49).

A FOLLOWER STRATEGY ATTENUATES THE EFFECT OF TRADITIONAL PRODUCTION (STUDY 4)

In addition to conducting ANOVA, we also preregistered running ANCOVA to control for percent handmade as a covariate. When we include this covariate in our model, the effect of traditional production on perceived quality is no longer significant. However, we believe that this was due to this measure being correlated with beneficial for society ( r = 0.30, p < .001), our focal mediator, and perceived authenticity ( r = 0.37, p < .001), which also mediates. Therefore, we deemed it more appropriate to include it as a mediator along with these other variables in a parallel mediation analysis that we report below.

In the traditional condition ( M  =   5.91, SD = 0.88), participants perceived the bread to be more authentic compared to those in the control condition ( M  =   5.42, SD   =   1.07) and the traditional follower condition ( M  =   5.42, SD   =   1.09; F (1, 317) = 17.03, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.05). The difference between the control condition and traditional follower conditions was not significant ( F (1, 317) = 0.01, p = .99).

As in the previous study, participants in the traditional condition ( M  =   5.38, SD = 0.96) believed that the brand was more beneficial for society compared to those in the control condition ( M  =   4.88, SD = 0.98) and the traditional follower condition ( M  =   4.99, SD   =   1.01; F (1, 317) = 14.84, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.04; figure 4 b). Moreover, the difference between the control and traditional follower conditions was not significant ( F (1, 317) = 0.58, p = .45).

A mediation analysis using PROCESS model 4 ( Hayes 2018 ; 10,000 samples) with production method (orthogonally coded) as the independent variable and beneficial for society and percent handmade as parallel mediators found significant indirect effects of beneficial for society (β = 0.06, 95% CI: [0.0282–0.1044]) and percent handmade (β = 0.02, 95% CI: [0.0047–0.0422]) on perceived quality. When authenticity is added as a parallel mediator to the model, the significance of the indirect effect of beneficial for society remains significant, but the indirect effect of percent handmade is no longer significant (see web appendix F for further details). This suggests that the effect of the product being handmade on perceived quality may be due to its correlation with perceived authenticity.

Our theoretical process argues that the reason people perceive a company that uses a traditional method as being beneficial for society is because they are concerned about cultural preservation. Thus, we conducted a serial mediation analysis (not preregistered) using model 6 (10,000 samples) with production method as the independent variable, concern about cultural preservation as the first mediator, and beneficial for society as a second mediator. The indirect effect through concern about cultural preservation and then beneficial for society was significant (β = 0.04, 95% CI: [0.0259–0.0630]). These findings are consistent with our theory that the positive effect on product quality resulting from the belief a brand is beneficial for society is due to the perception that the brand is concerned about cultural preservation.

The results of study 4 provide initial evidence that the traditional production effect emerges because consumers believe that brands that use traditional methods are concerned about cultural preservation. When respondents believed that a company using a traditional production method was concerned about cultural preservation, the traditional production effect emerged. However, the effect was attenuated when the use of traditional production was framed as a follower strategy because the brand was then believed to be unconcerned about cultural preservation. The next study examines how company type influences the effect of traditional production on perceived quality.

In study 5 (preregistration: https://aspredicted.org/pqy_tvq ), we sought to provide additional evidence for our process. In doing so, we also wanted to examine the extent to which the findings may also be influenced by the perception that traditionally made products are “made with love” since research demonstrates that people evaluate handmade products more favorably because they believe such product to be made with love ( Fuchs et al. 2015 ) and handmade is one way in which a product can be traditionally produced. To accomplish this, we told participants that the traditional production method involved a manual intervention to measure the “made with love” mechanism and show it cannot be confounded with our proposed “beneficial for society” mechanism.

A second objective was to provide additional evidence that the effect of traditional production on perceived quality and the perception that the brand is beneficial for society would be attenuated when participants believe that the brand is unconcerned about cultural preservation. We operationalized concern about cultural preservation via the company type. We expected participants to view a multinational to be unconcerned about cultural preservation, even if it uses a traditional method, because, as stated, multinationals are often criticized for damaging culture.

A final objective was to examine how beneficial for society influences product uniqueness. Although the results of study 2 suggest that our findings may not be explained by product specialness (traditional method was not associated with lower perceived production quantity), beliefs that a brand is beneficial for society may influence other judgments associated with product quality. Thus, we thought that it would be informative to explore how uniqueness judgments are influenced by production method and company type. The uniqueness judgments assessed in this study were designed to tap into inferences about product specialness, beyond just those resulting from low production quantity.

Six hundred respondents from Mechanical Turk completed the study in exchange for a small payment. The study was a 2 (production method: traditional vs. not traditional) × 2 (company: control vs. multinational) between-subjects design. Although we preregistered excluding respondents whose responses were more than three standard deviations from the mean of our focal dependent variable (i.e., perceived quality), the significance of our results does not change without these exclusions. Therefore, we report the results of our entire sample.

We randomly assigned participants to one of four conditions. After reading the study instructions, they were administered two bot screeners. Those who failed one of the bot screeners were not allowed to complete the study. Participants were told they were browsing through a store to buy a chocolate bar and were then presented with an image and description of Toot! Chocolate. The chocolate was described as made from the finest chocolate that has a smooth, rich taste. Participants in the traditional condition were then told that, to get this result, the chocolate maker manually roasts and grinds the beans. Participants in the not traditional condition were told that the chocolate maker roasts and grinds the beans (without mentioning manual). Participants in the multinational condition were further told that the chocolate company is a division of “Rossen International, Inc.” Participants in the control condition were not provided this additional information.

Next, participants completed the focal measures. Perceived quality ( r = 0.87), perceived authenticity ( r = 0.89), and beneficial for society ( r = 0.82) were measured on similar two-item scales as in previous studies. Perceived uniqueness (“the chocolate is unique” and “the chocolate is original,” r = 0.82) and made with love (“the chocolate is made with love” and “the chocolate is imbued with love”; r = 0.87) were measured on two-item scales.

We conducted a pretest on 304 respondents from the same pool as the main study to validate our company manipulation and demonstrate that participants believe that a multinational brand is unconcerned about cultural preservation (even if the brand uses a traditional method). Respondents were given the same production method and company manipulations as the main study. Afterwards, they were asked the extent to which they believe that the company that makes the chocolate is a global company. They then indicated the extent to which they view the brand as being concerned about cultural preservation. Validating our multinational manipulation, a two-way ANOVA found that participants in the multinational condition ( M  =   5.46, SD   =   1.50) were more likely to perceive the company as a global company compared to those in the control condition ( M  =   3.56, SD   =   1.75; F (1, 300) = 102.91, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.26). The effects of production method ( F (1, 300) = 0.80, p = .37) and the production method by company interaction ( F (1, 300) = 1.81, p = .18) were not significant.

An ANOVA with concern about cultural preservation as the dependent variable found a significant production method by multinational interaction ( F (1, 300) = 4.11, p = .04; η p 2 = 0.01). Consistent with the results of study 4, in the control condition, respondents judged the brand to be more concerned about cultural preservation in the traditional ( M  =   4.42, SD   =   1.83) compared to the not traditional condition ( M  =   3.68, SD   =   1.87; F (1, 300) = 7.08, p < .01; η p 2 = 0.02). However, in the multinational condition, there was no significant difference in concern about cultural preservation between the traditional ( M  =   3.80, SD   =   1.67) and not traditional conditions ( M  =   3.86, SD   =   1.45; F (1, 300) = 0.04, p = .84). Thus, respondents did not perceive a multinational brand to be more concerned about cultural preservation, even though the brand used a traditional method.

We conducted a second pretest on 412 respondents from the same pool as the main study to ensure that the product made using manual intervention was perceived to be more handmade and more traditionally produced than the product made with no mention of manual intervention. Participants received the same stimuli as the main study and were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived the product to be handmade and made using a traditional production method. Two ANOVAs found that respondents in the traditional condition judged the product to be more handmade ( M  =   5.36, SD   =   1.37) than those in the not traditional condition ( M  =   4.46, SD   =   1.85; F (1, 408) = 31.95, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.07) and that those in the traditional condition judged the product to be more traditionally produced ( M  =   5.10, SD   =   1.51) than those in the not traditional condition ( M  =   4.77, SD = 1.60; F (1, 408) = 4.79, p = .03; η p 2 = 0.01). In both models, the main effects of company and the production method by company interactions were not significant.

The predicted production method by company interaction on perceived quality was significant ( F (1, 596) = 3.92, p = .05; η p 2 = 0.01; figure 5 a). As expected, in the control condition, respondents judged the traditionally made product to be of higher quality ( M  =   5.52, SD = 1.11) than participants in the not traditional condition ( M  =   5.07, SD   =   1.33; F (1, 596) = 11.55, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.02). However, there was no significant difference between the traditional ( M  =   5.29, SD   =   1.07) and not traditional conditions ( M  =   5.21, SD   =   1.10; F (1, 596) = 0.36, p = .55) when the company was a multinational. Any differences in degrees of freedom in subsequent analyses reflect missing responses.

THE EFFECT OF TRADITIONAL PRODUCTION IS ATTENUATED FOR MULTINATIONALS (STUDY 5)

There was also a marginally significant production method by company interaction on perceived authenticity ( F (1, 595) = 3.60, p = .06; η p 2 = 0.01). In the control condition, respondents judged the traditionally made product to be more authentic ( M  =   5.49, SD   =   1.12) than participants in the not traditional condition ( M  =   5.16, SD   =   1.27; F (1, 595) = 5.72, p = .02; η p 2 = 0.01). When the company was a multinational, the difference between the traditional ( M  = 5.23, SD = 1.23) and not traditional conditions was not significant ( M  =   5.27, SD   =   1.15; F (1, 595) = 0.08, p = .77).

Perceived Uniqueness

An analysis of perceived uniqueness found a main effect of production method ( F (1, 596) = 17.06, p < .001; η p 2 = 0.03), such that respondents judged traditionally made product to be more unique ( M  =   5.19, SD   =   1.30) compared to participants in the not traditional condition ( M  =   4.72, SD   =   1.51). The main effect of company type was marginally significant ( F (1, 596) = 2.69, p = .10; η p 2 = 0.01) and the interaction was not significant ( F (1, 596) = 0.80, p = .37). The absence of moderation suggests that the effect of the production method on perceived uniqueness may operate through a different process than the effect on perceived quality and perceived authenticity. We address this further in the study discussion.

The predicted production method by company interaction on beneficial for society was significant ( F (1, 595) = 4.82, p = .03; η p 2 = 0.01; figure 5 b). In the control condition, respondents judged the brand to be more beneficial for society in the traditional condition ( M  =   4.76, SD   =   1.20) compared to the not traditional condition ( M  =   4.35, SD   =   1.11; F (1, 595) = 9.18, p < .01; η p 2 = 0.02). As expected, there was no significant difference between the traditional ( M  =   4.48, SD   =   1.22) and not traditional conditions ( M  =   4.49, SD   =   1.15; F (1, 595) = 0.01, p = .94) when the brand was a multinational.

Made with Love

An analysis of made with love found a significant main effect of production method ( F (1, 596) = 8.00, p < .01; η p 2 = 0.01), such that respondents judged the traditionally made (by hand) product to be more made with love ( M  =   4.42, SD   =   1.42) than those in the not traditional condition ( M  =   4.10, SD   =   1.42). The effect of company ( F (1, 596) = 2.44, p = .12) and the company by production method interaction were not significant ( F (1, 596) = 0.95, p = .33).

We tested whether beneficial for society and made with love mediated the effect of production method on perceived quality for the different company types using PROCESS model 8 with beneficial for society and made with love as parallel mediators ( Hayes 2018 ). In the control condition, the indirect effects through beneficial for society (β = 0.13, 95% CI: [0.0419–0.2244]) and made with love were significant (β = 0.12, 95% CI: [0.0292–0.2240]). In the multinational condition, the indirect effects through beneficial for society (β = −.01, 95% CI: [−0.0860 to 0.0789]) and made with love were not significant (β = 0.06, 95% CI: [–0.0294 to 0.1570]). The index of moderated mediation was significant for beneficial for society (index = −0.13, 95% CI: [−0.2589 to −0.0146]), but not for made with love (index = −0.06, 95% CI: [−0.1950 to 0.0701]). Thus, even when accounting for the effect of made with love, beneficial for society mediates the effect of production method on perceived quality in the control condition, but not when the brand is a multinational. Consistent with previous studies, the indirect effects for beneficial for society do not change in significance when perceived authenticity is included in the model as a parallel mediator (see web appendix F for further details).

The findings of study 5 offer further support that the effect of traditional production on perceived quality is mediated by the belief that the brand is beneficial for society. Additionally, the findings show that these effects are attenuated when the brand is a multinational because consumers perceive the brand to be unconcerned about cultural preservation. Notably, the results also show that, for a traditionally made product with manual intervention, made with love does play a role in the process leading to higher perceived quality, but that it does not subsume the effect of beneficial for society on quality perceptions, which is a distinct mechanism in line with our theorizing.

One interesting finding from the study is that judgments of perceived authenticity were consistent with participants’ beliefs that the brand was beneficial for society to the extent they were moderated by company type, while judgments of perceived uniqueness were more aligned with participants’ beliefs that the product was made with love (no interaction with company type). One would expect judgments of perceived authenticity, which tend to be based on a brand’s actions, to be influenced by the perception that the brand is beneficial for society. In contrast, judgments, such as perceived uniqueness, which tend to be based on the characteristics of a product, should be less influenced by respondents’ beliefs about the brands’ actions. Instead, one would expect perceived uniqueness to be influenced by beliefs about how the product was made, such as that it was made with love. Consistent with these ideas, moderated mediation analyses found that beneficial for society mediated the interaction on perceived authenticity but made with love did not mediate the interaction. In contrast, the main effect of production method on perceived uniqueness was mediated by made with love, but not by beneficial for society (see web appendix G for further details).

This research examines how consumers respond to products that are made using a traditional production method. The results of six studies show that the use of a traditional production method enhances perceived product quality, while investigating the underlying mechanism for this effect. Specifically, studies 1a and 1b show that the mere mention of a traditional method is enough to increase perceptions of product quality and intentions to purchase. Study 2 shows that the effect of traditional production on perceived quality is not due to inferences about company size or the quantity of products produced. Study 3 demonstrates that the traditional production effect is mediated by the belief that the brand is beneficial for society, even when the product is judged to be predominantly machine made. Study 4 shows that traditionally made products are perceived as beneficial for society because consumers believe that a company that uses a traditional method is concerned about cultural preservation. Moreover, the results of this study show that this effect is attenuated when the use of traditional production is framed as a follower strategy because consumers believe that the company is unconcerned about cultural preservation. Finally, study 5 demonstrates that the effect of traditional production on perceived quality is mitigated when a brand is owned by a multinational since consumers believe that multinationals are unconcerned about cultural preservation.

These findings add to the existing research on the handmade effect ( Fuchs et al. 2015 ), which shows that consumers evaluate handmade products more favorably because they perceive such products as being imbued with love. Although our findings are consistent with the handmade effect, study 3 shows that the effect of traditional method is also observed when consumers perceive products to be machine made (not handmade), as long as the method is described as traditional.

Study 5 shows that while consumers perceive that traditionally made products due to a manual intervention are “made with love” (i.e., the explanation for the handmade effect), the perception that the brand is good for society is shown to explain the relationship between traditional production and perceived quality, even when controlling for the perception that the product is made with love. Furthermore, the effect of traditional production on the perceived uniqueness of the product is mediated by the same belief that the product is imbued with love and is not moderated by the type of ownership. This rules out the possibility that the effect of traditional production on perceived quality can be explained by perceived uniqueness.

Theoretical Contributions

This research contributes to previous work examining the impact of viewing a brand as socially responsible on product evaluation. Several studies have documented a negative effect of ethical positioning on product evaluation due to compensatory beliefs that lead consumers to expect lower performance from brands positioned as sustainable or socially responsible ( Luchs et al. 2010 ; Luo and Bhattacharya 2006 ; Newman et al. 2014 ; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001 ). However, more recent research argues that when there is a direct link between a brand’s socially responsible activity and its products, what matters is whether consumers infer that the company’s motives are pure ( Chernev and Blair 2021 ). Consistent with this perspective, we show that, even though the socially responsible activity is a brand’s production method, consumers do not make compensatory inferences that lower perceived quality. We argue that consumers are unlikely to make negative compensatory inferences about product quality when a product uses a traditional method because traditional methods are a form of cultural preservation. It may also be explained by the fact that the brands in our studies do not explicitly communicate or proclaim being good for society. They merely mention the traditional production method, which is enough to tap into consumers’ associations between cultural heritage and benefits for society. Further research could test if the explicitness of the morality cue (explicit claim by the brand vs. inferred by the consumers) acts as a boundary for the positive effect of corporate morality.

More generally, our findings demonstrate how production cues can impact consumers’ perceptions of the products. Recent research has documented how firm cues influence product judgments. A firm’s market power influences perceived fairness of price increases ( Lu et al. 2020 ), and the firm size triggers inferences about products’ naturalness ( Scekic and Krishna 2021 ). The reliance on crowdfunding as a financing method translates into higher perceived quality and consumers believe that it reduces inequality in the marketplace ( Acar et al. 2021 ). The traditional nature of the production method represents another example by affecting the perceived quality of a product. That a brand is a multinational, as another firm cue, can block this effect. Our results contribute to the better understanding of how various types of firms, production, and financing cues can combine to shape consumer perceptions of products.

While quality judgment is the core concept in this research, additional results show the impact of a traditional method on perceived product authenticity. This result is consistent with existing research emphasizing proficiency as one of the most important components of authenticity ( Nunes et al. 2021 ). It taps well into the rationale that a traditional method is seen as preserving culture, which is good for society. Our research demonstrates how mentioning a traditional method can be a way for brands to convey the proficiency of the source of the product, making it look more authentic but also of higher quality.

Managerial Contributions

Although the popularity of artisanal products is the result of several factors, our research sheds light on one of these factors: a positive effect from a production method described as traditional. Brands can use the traditional aspects of their production method to give a moral undertone to their operations that will translate into higher quality perceptions by consumers. This communication strategy should highlight how the traditional method protects cultural heritage, such as skills, knowledge, and techniques that have been used for a long time, without being restricted to some manual intervention. An important factor in the implementation of this positioning is that companies should avoid being perceived as a follower when they use this positioning. Accordingly, companies should ensure that their use of the traditional method is effectively differentiated from similar competitors who also rely on traditional production methods. Finally, some firm cues, such as being a multinational corporation, may be at odds with the moral undertone that the traditional method grants to the brand and mitigate the effect on perceived quality. The brand should then be careful to not let potentially unethical practices in sourcing, human resources management, social media interfere with the moral signal conveyed by a traditional method. Under these conditions, our results also demonstrate that referring to some traditional method can be a way for brands to convey social responsibility without suffering the cost in terms of product perceived quality and performance.

These insights may be particularly relevant for the luxury sector which tends to rely heavily on references to tradition to convey authenticity ( Morhart and Malär 2020 ). Ironically, the reference to their traditional method may contribute to the perception that these brands are good for society because they are concerned by culture preservation, while their products will be only affordable to a small number of wealthy customers. For example, the most exclusive Swiss watch brands emphasize the conservation of a traditional process in fine mechanics and the most expensive models are still built with mechanical clockwork as opposed to automatic ones. In Haute Couture, Chanel offers a Métiers d’art collection every year presented in a runaway show. The explicit purpose of this collection is to pay tribute to the embroiderers, feather workers, goldsmiths, pleaters, milliners, glove makers, tanners, and leatherworkers who perpetuate the necessary process to create exceptional haute couture pieces. The brand has acquired some of these workshops to secure their heritage by protecting the employees and artisans and supporting the transfer of their unique savoir-faire to a new generation. While Chanel’s strategy to rely heavily on traditional methods is consistent with the preservation of culture and being good for society, this might be a fine line to walk for other luxury brands. This narrative may be more difficult to sustain for brands belonging to multinational corporations and conglomerates such as Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH), which consumers may spontaneously see as mainly motivated by profit and not that concerned about culture preservation. This might be one of the reasons why the group is structured as a house of brands where each brand is presented as autonomous, leaving the LVMH ownership in the background. Thus, the prestigious Château Cheval Blanc in St Emilion can keep boasting a traditional savoir-faire in the picking of grapes, blending, and aging in oak barrels as a sign of quality while being part of the multinational. Another challenge for the luxury sector might be to strike a balance between traditional methods and innovation, which may require the use of a new technology. Some winemakers can thus downplay the use of new technology and techniques to control the temperatures during fermentation, optimize the aging of wine, and ease the bottling to avoid counteracting the positive effect of traditional method on quality perceptions. Other brands do not communicate about a traditional production method and present the use of cutting-edge innovation as a way to offer sustainable alternatives to leather or fur such as Stella McCartney.

Limitations and Further Avenues for Research

While our manipulations used different ways to convey the traditional nature of a production method (traditional process, traditional machines, manual intervention), it is still possible that consumers may interpret a method described as traditional as “nonstandard” or “special,” which could have a positive effect on quality perceptions due to the positive connotations of specialness. However, it is unclear whether a merely special production method would lead consumers to perceive the product as preserving culture and being good for society. This would likely be conditional on the way it is special. The results of study 5 offer some evidence against this potential explanation since product uniqueness, which is closely associated with a product being nonstandard or special, was not affected by the type of corporate ownership in the same manner as the good for society mechanism. Additionally, the results of study 2, which show that the traditional method does not lead people to perceive that the product is made in smaller quantities, also help us rule out the possibility that traditionally made products are seen as special due to smaller quantities. However, this potential interpretation of traditional as special and its effect on consumer evaluations may still warrant further investigation.

Further research should also explore other factors that could influence the relationship between traditional production and perceived quality, including moderators and boundaries for the effect. The consumer inference that a traditional method reveals concerns for cultural preservation may sometimes be complemented by the belief that the firm is less concerned about profit maximization. For example, some traditional production can be perceived as more costly than standard production techniques. Prior research has found that consumers judge companies that are not profit maximizing to be better for society than those that are profit seeking ( Bhattacharjee, Dana, and Baron 2017 ). Hence, the perception that the company is less focused on profit could reinforce the positive effect of a traditional method on quality perceptions. Moreover, while the studies replicated the effect for several types of products—wine, bread, and clothing—a more systematic investigation could reveal the types of products for which the traditional production method increases or does not increase perceived quality. Is the effect more pronounced for hedonic versus utilitarian consumption occasions? Does the perceived risk associated with the product use block the effect? The positive effect of crowdfunding on perceived quality reverses indeed in high-risk domains: for products involving high physical risk like a climbing rope, consumers tend to view crowd-funded products as lower quality ( Acar et al. 2021 ). In a similar vein, we could investigate if the quality effect of traditional production is mitigated when some physical risk is salient. This issue may be raised in the skincare and wellness sector where artisanal products are also well represented. Traditional method may be associated with natural ingredients and activates lay beliefs that natural products are safer but less potent ( Scott, Rozin, and Small 2020 ). Building on this idea, further research could test if people’s preference for artisanal products follows the same pattern as the preference for natural products such that they will prefer artisanal products more for preventive than curative contexts. The consumer expertise in the product category could also be tested as a potential moderator for the interpretation of a traditional method as a signal of quality. An expert will be more knowledgeable about the details of the production process such that this objective knowledge may crowd out the positive effect deriving from the belief that traditional method is good for society. On a related note, an expert might be more discerning and cynical about the use of traditional method as a communication narrative when he knows with certainty that it does not improve quality, which could even reverse the effect on the product evaluation. The mention that a wine is obtained by traditionally crushing grapes by foot would probably make a wine expert laugh and discard the product.

The first and second authors jointly managed the collection of data for study 1a on Mechanical Turk in winter 2021. The first and second authors jointly analyzed these data. The first and third authors oversaw the collection of data for study 1b by research assistants in the Mays Business School’s behavioral lab in spring 2022. The first and third authors jointly analyzed these data. The first and third authors jointly managed the collection of data for study 2 on Mechanical Turk in winter 2023. The first and third authors jointly analyzed these data. The first and third authors oversaw the collection of data for study 3 by research assistants in the Mays Business School’s behavioral lab in fall 2022. The first and third authors jointly analyzed these data. The first and second authors jointly managed the collection of data for study 4 on Mechanical Turk in winter 2022. The first and second authors jointly analyzed these data. The first and second authors jointly managed the collection of data for study 5 on Mechanical Turk in winter 2021. The first and second authors jointly analyzed these data. Stimuli and data for all studies are available for download on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/vceks/?view_only=f1928e1fd1af459583016ffafba57b85 .

Keith Wilcox ( [email protected] ) is a professor of marketing and the Macy’s Foundation Professor at the Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, Wehner 220S, College Station, TX, USA.

Sandra Laporte ( [email protected] ) is a professor of marketing at the Toulouse School of Management, TSM-Research, Toulouse Capitole University, CNRS, Toulouse, France.

Gabriel Ward ( [email protected] ) is a doctoral candidate at the Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, Wehner 220S, College Station, TX, USA.

Supplementary materials are included in the web appendix accompanying the online version of this article.

Aaker Jennifer , Vohs Kathleen D. , Mogilner Cassie ( 2010 ), “ Nonprofits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter ,” Journal of Consumer Research , 37 ( 2 ), 224 – 37 .

Google Scholar

Abouab Nathalie , Gomez Pierrick ( 2015 ), “ Human Contact Imagined during the Production Process Increases Food Naturalness Perceptions ,” Appetite , 91 , 273 – 7 .

Acar Oguz A. , Dahl Darren W. , Fuchs Christoph , Schreier Martin ( 2021 ), “ The Signal Value of Crowdfunded Products ,” Journal of Marketing Research , 58 ( 4 ), 644 – 61 .

Adams Ella ( 2021 ), “Opinion: Big Business Is Killing Cultures,” Last Accessed April 09, 2023. https://theappalachianonline.com/opinion-big-business-is-killing-cultures/ .

Andrews Geoff ( 2008 ), The Slow Food Story: Politics and Pleasure , London : Pluto Press .

Google Preview

Bhattacharjee Amit , Dana Jason , Baron Jonathan ( 2017 ), “ Anti-Profit Beliefs: How People Neglect the Societal Benefits of Profit ,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 113 ( 5 ), 671 – 96 .

Becker Gordon M. , DeGroot Morris H. , Marschak Jacob ( 1964 ), “ Measuring Utility by a Single‐Response Sequential Method ,” Behavioral Science , 9 ( 3 ), 226 – 32 .

Bell Daniel ( 1976 ), “ The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society ,” The Educational Forum , 40 ( 4 ), 574 – 9 .

Bizzozero Judie ( 2020 ), “Specialty Food Sales Hit $158.4 Billion in 2019, Up 11% Since 2017,” Last Accessed April 09, 2023. https://www.foodbeverageinsider.com/market-trends-analysis/specialty-food-sales-hit-record-1584-billion-2019 .

Bland Alastair ( 2017 ), “Craft Beer, Brought to you by Big Beer,” Last Accessed April 09, 2023. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/28/539760477/craft-beer-brought-to-you-by-big-beer .

Bortolotto Chiara ( 2007 ), “ From Objects to Processes: UNESCO’s ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage’ ,” Journal of Museum Ethnography , 19 (March 2007), 21 – 33 .

Bronnenberg Bart J. , Dubé Jean-Pierre H. , Joo Joonhwi ( 2021 ), “Millennials and the Take-Off of Craft Brands: Preference Formation in the US Beer Industry,” Working Paper No. w28618, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA 02138.

Chernev Alexander , Blair Sean ( 2015 ), “ Doing Well by Doing Good: The Benevolent Halo of Corporate Social Responsibility ,” Journal of Consumer Research , 41 ( 6 ), 1412 – 25 .

Chernev Alexander , Blair Sean ( 2021 ), “ When Sustainability Is Not a Liability: The Halo Effect of Marketplace Morality ,” Journal of Consumer Psychology , 31 ( 3 ), 551 – 69 .

Cinelli Melissa D. , LeBoeuf Robyn A. ( 2020 ), “ Keeping It Real: How Perceived Brand Authenticity Affects Product Perceptions ,” Journal of Consumer Psychology , 30 ( 1 ), 40 – 59 .

Cope S. ( 2014 ), “ Artisanal Food Production and Craft ,” Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics , 168 – 74 .

Cowan Ruth S. ( 1976 ), “ The ‘Industrial Revolution’ in the Home: Household Technology and Social Change in the 20th Century ,” Technology and Culture , 17 ( 1 ), 1 – 23 .

Deacon Harriet ( 2018 ), “ Safeguarding the Art of Pizza Making: Parallel Use of the Traditional Specialities Guaranteed Scheme and the UNESCO Intangible Heritage Convention ,” International Journal of Cultural Property , 25 ( 4 ), 515 – 42 .

Ervin Justin , Smith Zachary Alden ( 2008 ), Globalization: A Reference Handbook , Santa Barbara, CA : ABC-CLIO .

Essoussi Leila Hamzaoui , Linton Jonathan D. ( 2010 ), “ New or Recycled Products: How Much Are Consumers Willing to Pay? ,” Journal of Consumer Marketing , 27 ( 5 ), 458 – 68 .

Ferguson Niall , Manela Erez , Sargent Daniel J. ( 2011 ), The Shock of the Global: The 1970s in Perspective , Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .

Frake Justin ( 2017 ), “ Selling Out: The Inauthenticity Discount in the Craft Beer Industry ,” Management Science , 63 ( 11 ), 3930 – 43 .

Fuchs Christoph , Schreier Martin , Van Osselaer Stijn M. J. ( 2015 ), “ The Handmade Effect: What’s Love Got to Do with It? ,” Journal of Marketing , 79 ( 2 ), 98 – 110 .

Furnari Chris ( 2019 ), “Constellation Brands Will Sell Struggling Ballast Point to Small Illinois Brewery,” Last Accessed April 09, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisfurnari/2019/12/03/constellation-brands-will-sell-struggling-ballast-point-brand-to-small-illinois-brewery/ .

Gallman Robert E. , Rhode Paul W. ( 2022 ), Capital in the Nineteenth Century , Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press .

Giddens Anthony ( 2007 ), “The Consequences of Modernity. 1990,” in Contemporary Sociological Theory , ed. Calhoun Craig J. , Malden, MA : Blackwell, 2 – 243 .

Hayes Andrew F. ( 2018 ), “ Partial, Conditional, and Moderated Mediation: Quantification, Inference, and Interpretation ,” Communication Monographs , 85 ( 1 ), 4 – 40 .

Hofstede Geert , Hofstede Gert Jan , Minkov Michael ( 2005 ), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind , New York, NY : McGraw-Hill .

Hounshell David ( 1984 ), From the American System to Mass Production, 1800–1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States , Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press .

Hu S. Jack ( 2013 ), “ Evolving Paradigms of Manufacturing: From Mass Production to Mass Customization and Personalization ,” Procedia CIRP , 7 , 3 – 8 .

Hydock Chris , Paharia Neeru , Blair Sean ( 2020 ), “ Should Your Brand Pick a Side? How Market Share Determines the Impact of Corporate Political Advocacy ,” Journal of Marketing Research , 57 ( 6 ), 1135 – 51 .

International Market Analysis Research and Consulting Group (IMARC) ( 2020 ), “Handicrafts Market: Global Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2021–2026.” Last Accessed April 09, 2023. https://www.imarcgroup.com/handicrafts-market .

Katz Lawrence F. , Margo Robert A. ( 2014 ), “Technical Change and the Relative Demand for Skilled Labor: The United States in Historical Perspective,” in Human Capital in History: The American Record , Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press , 15 – 57 .

Kumar Krishan ( 2023 ), “Modernization,” Encyclopedia Britannica , Last Accessed April 09, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/topic/modernization .

Legeron Isabelle ( 2018 ), Natural Wine: An Introduction to Organic and Biodynamic Wines Made Naturally , New York, NY : Ryland Peters & Small .

Lu Zhi , Bolton Lisa E. , Ng Sharon , Chen Haipeng (Allan) ( 2020 ), “ The Price of Power: How Firm’s Market Power Affects Perceived Fairness of Price Increases ,” Journal of Retailing , 96 ( 2 ), 220 – 34 .

Luchs Michael G. , Naylor Rebecca Walker , Irwin Julie R. , Raghunathan Rajagopal ( 2010 ), “ The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference ,” Journal of Marketing , 74 ( 5 ), 18 – 31 .

Luo Xueming , Bhattacharya C. B. ( 2006 ), “ Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value ,” Journal of Marketing , 70 ( 4 ), 1 – 18 .

Malovany Dan ( 2020 ), “Add an Artisan Touch to the Commercial Process,” Last Accessed April 09, 2023. https://www.bakingbusiness.com/articles/51137-add-an-artisan-touch-to-the-commercial-process .

Menon Geeta , Raghubir Priya ( 2003 ), “ Ease-of-Retrieval as an Automatic Input in Judgments: A Mere-Accessibility Framework? ,” Journal of Consumer Research , 30 ( 2 ), 230 – 43 .

Mirels Herbert L. , Garrett James B. ( 1971 ), “ The Protestant Ethic as a Personality Variable ,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 36 ( 1 ), 40 – 4 .

Morhart Felicitas , Malär Lucia ( 2020 ), “Authenticity in Luxury Branding,” in Research Handbook on Luxury Branding , ed. Felicitas Morhart, Keith Wilcox, and Sandor Czellar, Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar Publishing , 190 – 207 .

Naylor Rebecca Walker , Lamberton Cait Poynor , Norton David A. ( 2011 ), “ Seeing Ourselves in Others: Reviewer Ambiguity, Egocentric Anchoring, and Persuasion ,” Journal of Marketing Research , 48 ( 3 ), 617 – 31 .

Newman George E. , Gorlin Margarita , Dhar Ravi ( 2014 ), “ When Going Green Backfires: How Firm Intentions Shape the Evaluation of Socially Beneficial Product Enhancements ,” Journal of Consumer Research , 41 ( 3 ), 823 – 39 .

Nunes Joseph C. , Ordanini Andrea , Giambastiani Gaia ( 2021 ), “ The Concept of Authenticity: What It Means to Consumers ,” Journal of Marketing , 85 ( 4 ), 1 – 20 .

Patel Neil ( 2021 ), “Got $1,000? Here's 1 Stock to Buy for the Long Term,” Last Accessed April 09, 2023. https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/12/11/got-1000-heres-1-stock-to-buy-for-the-long-term/ .

Rayman Noah ( 2014 ), “How a McDonald's Restaurant Spawned the Slow Food Movement,” Last Accessed April 09, 2023. https://time.com/3626290/mcdonalds-slow-food/ .

Riluxa ( 2020 ), “Why Are We So Obsessed with Artisans and Their Crafts?,” Last Accessed August 08, 2023. https://www.riluxa.com/en/blog/artisans-and-their-crafts#:∼:text=However%2C%20in%20this,it%20so%20good .

Ritzer George ( 2000 ), The McDonaldization of Society , Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE

Robertson Roland ( 1995 ), “ Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity ,” Global Modernities , 2 ( 1 ), 25 – 44 .

Rosenthal Robert , Rosnow Ralph L. , Rubin Donald B. ( 2000 ), Contrasts and Effect Sizes in Behavioral Research: A Correlational Approach , Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press .

Scekic Ana , Krishna Aradhna ( 2021 ), “ Do Firm Cues Impact Product Perceptions? When Small Is Natural ,” Journal of Consumer Psychology , 31 ( 2 ), 350 – 9 .

Scott Samuel ( 2018 ), “A Delicious Foot: The Natural Wines Made in Urban Wellington,” Last Accessed April 09, 2023. https://thespinoff.co.nz/partner/woap-2018/17-06-2018/a-delicious-foot-the-natural-wines-made-in-urban-wellington .

Scott Sydney E. , Rozin Paul , Small Deborah A. ( 2020 ), “ Consumers Prefer “Natural” More for Preventatives than for Curatives ,” Journal of Consumer Research , 47 ( 3 ), 454 – 71 .

Sen Sankar , Bhattacharya C. B. ( 2001 ), “ Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility ,” Journal of Marketing Research , 38 ( 2 ), 225 – 43 .

Silver Ike , Kelly Brooke A. , Small Deborah A. ( 2021 ), “ Selfless First Movers and Self‐Interested Followers: Order of Entry Signals Purity of Motive in Pursuit of the Greater Good ,” Journal of Consumer Psychology , 31 ( 3 ), 501 – 17 .

Slow Food International ( 2023 ), “Slow Food International,” Last Accessed April 09, 2023. https://www.slowfood.com/ .

Sokoloff Kenneth L. ( 1985 ), Productivity Growth in Manufacturing during Early Industrialization: Evidence from the American Northeast, 1820 to 1860 , Cambridge, MA : National Bureau of Economic Research .

Stearns Peter N. ( 2020 ), The Industrial Revolution in World History . New York, NY : Routledge .

Suher Jacob , Szocs Courtney , van Ittersum Koert ( 2021 ), “ When Imperfect Is Preferred: The Differential Effect of Aesthetic Imperfections on Choice of Processed and Unprocessed Foods ,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 49 ( 5 ), 903 – 24 .

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) ( 2023 ), “UNESCO—What Is Intangible Cultural Heritage?” Last Accessed April 09, 2023. https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003 .

Verve Culture ( 2022 ), “8 Reasons to Buy Artisanal and Handmade Products,” Last Accessed August 08, 2023. https://verveculture.com/blogs/a-taste-of-verve/8-reasons-to-buy-artisanal-and-handmade-products .

Weber Max ( 2002 ), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: And Other Writings , New York, NY : Penguin .

Wertenbroch Klaus , Skiera Bernd ( 2002 ), “ Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay at the Point of Purchase ,” Journal of Marketing Research , 39 ( 2 ), 228 – 41 .

Wine Academy ( 2020 ), “Everything you Need to Know about Natural Wine,” Last Accessed April 09, 2023. https://www.wineinvestment.com/us/learn/magazine/2020/04/everything-you-need-to-know-about-natural-wine/ .

Woolley Kaitlin , Kupor Daniella , Liu Peggy J. ( 2023 ), “ Does Company Size Shape Product Quality Inferences? Larger Companies Make Better High-Tech Products, but Smaller Companies Make Better Low-Tech Products ,” Journal of Marketing Research , 60 ( 3 ), 425 – 48 .

Xu Haiyue (Felix) , Bolton Lisa E. , Winterich Karen Page ( 2021 ), “ How Do Consumers React to Company Moral Transgressions? The Role of Power Distance Belief and Empathy for Victims ,” Journal of Consumer Research , 48 ( 1 ), 77 – 101 .

Zaichkowsky Judith Lynne ( 2022 ), “ Cultural Erosion through Retail Globalization ,” Global Journal of Management and Business Research , 22 ( E1 ), 11 – 4 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1537-5277
• Print ISSN 0093-5301
• Copyright © 2024 Journal of Consumer Research Inc.
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, customers’ experienced product quality: scale development and validation.

European Journal of Marketing

ISSN : 0309-0566

Article publication date: 4 April 2020

Issue publication date: 4 April 2020

Product quality is a central construct in several management domains. Theoretical conceptualizations of product quality unanimously stress its multidimensional nature. Yet, no generalizable, multidimensional product quality scale exists. This study develops and validates a multidimensional Customers’ experienced product quality (CEPQ) scale, across four diverse product categories.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on the exploratory studies, CEPQ is conceptualized as a second-order reflective-formative construct and validated in quantitative studies with survey data collected in the USA.

Results reveal that the CEPQ scale and its underlying quality dimensions possess sound psychometric properties. In addition, CEPQ has a substantial impact on customer behavior over and above customer satisfaction. The strength of this impact is positively moderated by expertise and quality consciousness. CEPQ predicts objective quality scores from consumer reports substantially better than the existing measures of product quality.

Research limitations/implications

The cross-sectional nature of the main study, as well as samples from only one country, restricts the generalizability of the findings.

Practical implications

Operations managers and marketers should start to measure CEPQ as an additional key metric. The formative weights of the first-order quality dimensions explain how customers define product quality in a specific product category.

Originality/value

A generalizable, multidimensional scale of product quality, CEPQ, is developed and validated. Materials as a new product quality dimension is identified. Once correctly measured, product quality ceases to be a mere input to satisfaction. Boundary conditions for CEPQ’s relevance were hypothesized and confirmed.

• Scale development
• Product quality
• Willingness to pay premium
• Quality consciousness

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the area editor for their constructive comments and suggestions made during the review process.

Das Guru, R.R. and Paulssen, M. (2020), "Customers’ experienced product quality: scale development and validation", European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 645-670. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2018-0156

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• Publication
• Arts & Humanities
• Behavioural Sciences
• Business & Economics
• Earth & Environment
• Education & Training
• Health & Medicine
• Engineering & Technology
• Physical Sciences
• Thought Leaders
• Community Content
• Outreach Leaders
• Our Company
• Our Clients
• Testimonials
• Our Services
• Researcher App
• Podcasts & Video Abstracts

Subscribe To Our Free Publication

By selecting any of the topic options below you are consenting to receive email communications from us about these topics.

• Behavioral Science
• Engineering & Technology
• All The Above

We are able share your email address with third parties (such as Google, Facebook and Twitter) in order to send you promoted content which is tailored to your interests as outlined above. If you are happy for us to contact you in this way, please tick below.

• I consent to receiving promoted content.
• I would like to learn more about Research Outreach's services.

We use MailChimp as our marketing automation platform. By clicking below to submit this form, you acknowledge that the information you provide will be transferred to MailChimp for processing in accordance with their Privacy Policy and Terms .

Customer experience of product quality: A new metric

Product quality has long been recognised as a key factor in driving business performance and achieving competitive advantage, but what we mean by quality can be subjective and hard to define. For example, while an engineer might judge quality according to whether a car conforms to certain design standards and specifications, a customer might perceive quality according to whether the door closes with the right kind of click, and yet another might judge quality according to the size of the engine.

Customers’ perceptions count. Their experience of product quality – their judgement of the overall excellence or superiority of a particular product relative to alternatives – influences their future purchasing behaviour, their willingness to pay as well as the degree to which they would recommend a product to another potential purchaser. Customer experience of quality is different from customer satisfaction; it is more complex than simply giving a four-star rating on an online shopping portal. Digging deeper into customer behaviour, we find that customers experience product quality in a multi-dimensional way. It involves consideration of a product’s performance and primary operating characteristics, as well as other characteristics that ‘supplement’ the base product – for example, additional features, its durability or its aesthetics.

It is therefore vitally important for manufacturers of durable goods to know how different dimensions of product quality are experienced by their customers. While there are recognised research instruments such as SERVQUAL and SERVPERF, which measure customer service quality, metrics for assessing exactly how customers experience product quality have been lacking.

New research to develop such a metric is therefore timely. Professor Marcel Paulssen and Dr Ramesh Roshan Das Guru, from the Geneva School of Economics and Management at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, have developed a multi-dimensional scale called the ‘Customer Experienced Product Quality’ (CEPQ) scale, which identifies and measures how customers experience and respond to the quality of products. They have tested the validity and reliability of the CEPQ metric across diverse product categories.

The study Professor Paulssen and Dr Das Guru began with exploratory research into the factors that influence customers’ quality experience for durable products. Online surveys with customers were carried out in both India and the United States in four product categories, which covered: cars, smartphones, headphones and running shoes.

The most significant product quality dimension across all products was performance.

A preliminary literature review had led the researchers to expect seven quality dimensions. These dimensions were: performance, features, reliability, durability, ease of use, aesthetics and serviceability. These were confirmed in the exploratory research across categories. In addition, the surveys identified the importance of an eighth factor: the quality of materials used in the product’s manufacture. The eight identified dimensions of quality were validated in a pre-test in two product categories with US customers.

The main study covered four product categories – cars, dishwashers, headphones, and tablet computers – and was completed by 2500 respondents from the United States. Respondents must have owned and used the respective product regularly (at least once a week) for a minimum of 6 months and were asked about their product experience on the eight identified dimensions of product quality.

Analysis of data Analysis of the data from the main study produced significant insights. First, the eight identified product quality dimensions could be validated in all four product categories of the main study.

Second, previous research considered product quality as a mere antecedent of or input to customer satisfaction, which in turn is supposed to drive relationship outcomes such as willingness to pay premium (WTPP) or repurchase intention (RI). In contrast, the study results clearly support that CEPQ has a strong, direct effect on both WTPP and RI over and above customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction only partially mediates the effect of CEPQ on relationship outcomes. Especially for WTPP, the direct effect of CEPQ accounts for around 50% of the total effect across categories. For RI, the relative impact of the direct CEPQ effect is comparatively weaker but still accounts for about 40% of the total effect. It is particularly noteworthy that the total effect of CEPQ is stronger than the total effect of satisfaction for both RI and WTPP across all product categories.

Moderators for the relevance of CEPQ were also identified. The degree to which a consumer focuses on buying high-quality products, their ‘quality consciousness’, as well as their level of expertise moderated the impact of CEPQ on outcomes (RI and WTPP). For high-quality conscious customers and experts, the direct effects of CEPQ on RI and WTPP are stronger than the effects of satisfaction in seven out of eight cases. In all four product categories, the direct effect of satisfaction on WTPP is not significant for high-quality conscious customers. Thus, for some substantial and relevant customer groups, i.e. experts and quality-conscious customers, satisfaction is simply not the most relevant metric, but instead CEPQ is.

It is vitally important for manufacturers of durable goods to know how different dimensions of product quality are experienced by their customers.

A new metric Importantly, the multi-dimensional product quality scale with its eight quality dimensions developed by Professor Paulssen and Dr Das Guru has by now been validated across a diverse set of product categories ranging from lawn mowers to televisions.

Dr Paulssen and Dr Das Guru have found that their CEPQ metric is more sophisticated in its insights when compared to alternative quality metrics, such as those used by online shopping platforms. By drilling down and revealing how the quality dimensions relate to each other, the CEPQ metric provides a more comprehensive and diagnostic insight into how product quality is experienced in a category.

The most significant product quality dimension across all products was performance. However, for all other dimensions, results differed depending on the product. For tablet computers, the additional dimensions were serviceability, ease of use, and features; for dishwashers they were material, features, and durability. This makes a lot of sense – what is important for one product will not necessarily be important for another. And herein lies the beauty of CEPQ: it allows companies to understand what aspects of quality are most important to their specific customers.

Application CEPQ is a new product quality metric for manufacturers, which aggregates customer evaluation of a product’s performance across eight quality dimensions into an overall quality judgement. Based on actual experience, the CEPQ metric helps companies understand how customers define product quality in specific product categories.

Professor Paulssen and Dr Das Guru’s research shows that CEPQ is a better predictor of customer behaviour than other established metrics such as customer satisfaction. In addition, they suggest that measuring and tracking CEPQ on a regular basis can help companies “to decode exactly how their customers experience product quality and can pinpoint strengths and weaknesses of a company’s product portfolio on a quality dimension level”. The insights generated can help to both improve production processes and inform new product development. It can also enable operations managers and product managers to focus on critical product quality dimensions and thus allocate resources more effectively for improving the quality of their products.

In addition, the CEPQ metric can be applied to different market segments within a product category, for example to help companies develop products or target messages at specific market segments. Professor Paulssen and Dr Das Guru explain: “This segment-specific, dimensional significance is crucial for product managers when targeting and positioning existing and new products by allowing them to prioritise which product aspects to focus on in research development for new products.”

A key measure for business While customer satisfaction has traditionally been regarded by companies as the most significant customer metric, this alone is not a sufficient predictor of future purchase behaviour. Rather than being regarded as an antecedent to customer satisfaction, Professor Paulssen and Dr Das Guru’s study shows that Customer Experienced Product Quality (CEPQ) drives key customer behaviours such as repurchase and willingness to pay. It follows that the CEPQ metric they have developed should become both a key measure of business performance and a subject for further research.

Personal Response

What was the most surprising insight into customer experienced product quality gained from your research?

<> It was quite surprising to observe that despite theoretical conceptualisation of product quality insisted on its multidimensional nature, no scale existed to capture such a fundamental construct despite of a service quality scale being so significant and around for decades.

This feature article was created with the approval of the research team featured. This is a collaborative production, supported by those featured to aid free of charge, global distribution.

Want to read more articles like this, sign up to our mailing list and read about the topics that matter to you the most., leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dimensions of Product Quality

• First Online: 26 November 2014

Cite this chapter

• George N. Kenyon 3 &
• Kabir C. Sen 3  

3890 Accesses

Quality is first and foremost a strategic question, in that it governs the development of product designs and the choice of features or options, as well as setting the criteria for the selection of suppliers and materials.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Duncker, K. (1941). On pleasure, emotion, and striving. Philosophical and Phenomenological Research, 1 , 415.

Google Scholar  

Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (6th ed., pp. 81–84). New York, NY: Routledge.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Lamar University, 4400 M.L.K. Blvd., PO Box 10025, Beaumont, TX, USA

George N. Kenyon & Kabir C. Sen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George N. Kenyon .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Kenyon, G.N., Sen, K.C. (2015). The Dimensions of Product Quality. In: The Perception of Quality. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6627-6_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6627-6_13

Published : 26 November 2014

Publisher Name : Springer, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-4471-6626-9

Online ISBN : 978-1-4471-6627-6

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The evolution of quality: Higher quality output, lower cost of quality

Disaster has a way of concentrating the mind. Massive recalls and lawsuits—over beverages, dairy products, detergents, beauty products, and others—become almost totemic reminders of what a lapse in quality can mean. And for consumer companies everywhere, simultaneous increases in supply-chain complexity and media reach mean that the aftershock of a quality lapse is likely to be much larger than in the past.

Stay current on your favorite topics

But despite their impact, these events are only part of the story. Indeed, as important as it is to keep rare disasters from happening, focusing too closely on them can distort an organization’s understanding of what quality really means. Fundamentally, quality is about meeting or exceeding customer expectations: every day, every shipment, in each product, year after year. That’s where the true value is, measured not only in higher revenues from greater customer satisfaction  but also in higher operational efficiency and effectiveness due to increases in productivity and innovation—and even employee engagement.

Yet organizations face constraints. Rising margin pressures, particularly in consumer-oriented industries such as fast-moving consumer goods, limit how much companies can spend on quality practices. Organizations therefore cannot just be good at quality—they need to be smart about it as well.

More than compliance

Especially in highly regulated industries such as packaged foods or pharmaceuticals, organizations often see quality mainly in compliance terms. There’s good reason: as products become more complex, compliance and quality start to overlap, with some standards explicitly incorporating minimum quality targets.

Yet even the most intricate of standards may not incorporate all of the factors that customers include in deciding whether a product is fit for purpose. Instead, regulators have traditionally focused on the most critical variables, usually centering on safety—such as the presence of allergens and other potentially hazardous ingredients in foods.

And although at least some regulators are broadening their perspective on quality—for example, assessing new drugs based on holistic health or life-span effects rather than just control of symptoms—companies nevertheless have substantial room to expand their understanding of quality to encompass the standards that customers want met and improve on them. That’s what organizations build as they move through the stages of quality maturity.

To achieve the right balance, organizations must learn to think about quality systematically. At the very earliest stage of quality awareness, organizations start to hear the voice of the customer more clearly while stabilizing their operating systems and promoting greater transparency about quality problems (see sidebar, “More than compliance”). As these practices take hold, the next stage of maturity centers on strengthening cross-functional accountability and collaboration for quality—such as with new performance standards so that quality standards inform the design of products and the management of supply contracts.

At the third stage, quality informs much of the organization’s decision making, embedding itself so deeply that it becomes a part of the culture and essential to the company’s value proposition. Finally, among a small group of the very highest performers, quality becomes the basis for their reputation. These exceptional organizations expand their perspective on quality to address customer problems in ways that push their businesses into new areas, building on behavioral research and process analytics to develop deeper solutions and customer relationships.

Achieving these outcomes requires investment. But the good news is that the organizations whose quality practices are the most sophisticated are not necessarily the ones that spend the most on quality. Instead, these leaders prioritize so that what they spend on quality is highly effective. At each stage of maturity, the advantages build: from essentially nonexistent to basic, from basic to average, from average to advanced, and from advanced to industry leading.

Would you like to learn more about our Consumer Packaged Goods Practice ?

For example, a major dairy manufacturer at a basic stage reduced its “cost of nonquality”—such as for warranty claims, yield losses, and rework—by about 35 percent. A mid-level food producer’s facility reduced process deviations by more than 30 percent, while at the same time reducing the time to market by 30 percent. On average, the top personal-care and food plants produce dramatically better quality results on factors such as yield and consumer complaints, both of which have significant cost implications (Exhibit 1). At every stage, therefore, companies across industries are achieving higher quality at competitive cost, building capabilities that prepare them for further stages of quality evolution.

Four evolution stages of quality ‘maturity’

In assessing an organization’s quality practices, we focus on three foundational elements of quality.

The first is the operating system—the manufacturing processes for a dairy or the logistics operations for a distributor—gauging how well it can contribute to quality. Second is the quality system itself, including enterprise-level capabilities such as measuring quality output, or incorporating quality standards into the design of products and processes. The third element is the cultural dimension of quality—the way employees think about their contribution to product quality, and how they behave to ensure good quality.

How an organization performs in these three areas determines its stage of maturity (Exhibit 2). Although the boundaries between the different stages are not precise, each nevertheless correlates with a few important characteristics.

From the experiences of organizations that are investing in quality, a few broad lessons stand out. Most important, investments can pay off at every possible starting point, from stage zero, when a company has very few quality capabilities, to stage four, when it is among the standard-setting organizations that are redefining what quality can mean.

A further, related lesson is that the impact from investing in quality tends to increase with the organization’s quality maturity. That’s partly because of scale: as maturity increases, quality involves more and more of the organization. And it’s also because quality increasingly informs strategy so that its effects are broader and longer lasting.

The final lesson, however, is that progress from stage to stage is neither smooth nor automatic—nor even necessary, depending on an organization’s circumstances. Instead, progress comes from triggers that share certain features, even though the details are inevitably specific to the organization.

Building the basics of customer focus, transparency, and stability

The first trigger typically occurs when the organization recognizes that simply reacting to quality problems is no longer tenable. Often, a recall (or even just adverse news coverage) simply costs too much for a company to absorb—in administrative resources, warranty expenses, and lost reputation. And it’s a lesson that applies equally to a start-up that has focused mainly on growth, a state-owned enterprise protected from market demands, and a company in a high-demand industry.

That was the case for a regional dairy player in a market where incumbent private labels started aggressive price reductions. The company’s leadership team recognized that quality would be the competitive advantage that would help it navigate the industry’s downturn. But that meant changing peoples’ mind-sets to help them see that the poor results were a product of a weak quality culture.

Today the company has built quality into its entire organization, starting with shop-floor huddle meetings that begin with a discussion of what the team did the day before to improve quality. In their regular cycle of in-person site reviews (or “gemba walks”), managers and leaders always mention quality, even when it is not the main focus of the day’s review. Together, changes such as these transformed the operation, increasing sales by 5 percent and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization by 2 percent.

Strengthening the culture for tighter collaboration

Once an organization’s quality becomes more transparent and stable, new opportunities often arise to increase quality’s value and decrease its cost. Our latest research confirms that higher-performing manufacturing sites score better on culture-related factors than their peers (Exhibit 3). Accordingly, at this stage, the goal becomes to enable greater collaboration across the entire organization so that quality becomes embedded in the culture. That collaboration extends outside the organization as well, to include stakeholders, such as partners and regulators.

Two pharmaceutical manufacturers illustrate how this stage evolves. One, a generics maker, was facing compliance issues and needed to establish better quality operations on the factory shop floor. The other, one of the world’s largest branded pharmaceuticals manufacturers, reexamined its already robust compliance practices for ways to improve its quality outcomes and risk profile even further—while reducing costs.

To reinforce the cross-functional nature of quality, both companies expanded their use of broad performance measures, such as error-free or right-the-first-time (RFT) production and on-time, in-full delivery. In team huddles throughout their production sites, the companies focused on daily tracking and discussion of the new indicators. In addition, tying these shared metrics to annual bonuses increased everyone’s attention to quality—not just within their particular functional or operational units but also across organizational boundaries.

Starting at the source: Sustainability in supply chains

As these new practices took hold, productivity at the generic manufacturer’s sites increased by more than 15 percent, while its end-to-end RFT percentage rose to more than 92 percent, from 83 percent. Individual sites started passing regulatory inspections more confidently and without any noted compliance issues or regulatory observations. For the branded pharmaco, the changes reduced both the number of quality incidents and its cost of poor quality, improving its risk profile with no added investment in IT, capital, or other resources.

Turning quality into the core value proposition

The third transition deepens the quality culture until it becomes the company’s core value proposition. In effect, quality is no longer mainly a question of bottom-line savings but of top-line revenue generation. Tactically, this stage requires renewed investment in human and digital capabilities so that the company can consolidate all available customer data—from every internal touchpoint, and from external sources as well—to identify new openings.

A global logistics company’s transformation of its quality approach illustrates the level of commitment required. Previously, the company’s focus had been on fast delivery, a goal it had largely achieved. But customers increasingly looked to other factors, such as accuracy in predicted delivery times—speed was not necessarily helpful if a delivery arrived before the customer was ready to receive it. Moreover, the rise of a digital economy meant that deliveries were becoming far more complex: fewer large deliveries to warehouses and retail stores, and more very small deliveries to a vast number of residential addresses.

The new world demanded not just high quality but also quality leadership. The entire organization, from the executive suite to the uniformed drivers, immersed itself in capability-building sessions to understand the competitive reasons for higher quality and the implications for day-to-day work. Deeper problem-solving methodologies allowed people to identify new ways to serve customers. And new technologies crunched route data to enable wholesale restructuring of delivery practices that minimized the chance of error. The result was a major increase in customer satisfaction and renewed growth.

Setting a new standard with the latest analytics and technologies

The final stage applies the wider range of measurement and analytic technologies to develop solutions that push well beyond the organization’s traditional business in predicting emergent customer needs —sometimes before the customers themselves are aware of them. One early example comes from sterile food filling, using techniques such as the ultrahigh-temperature pasteurization that has become familiar in shelf-stable dairy products. Historically, the sector’s business model relied mainly on unit sales, but quality is an increasing focus as processors improve their remote monitoring of sterile machinery and use advance analytics to maximize output at the client’s desired quality level.

At the level of individual manufacturing sites, advanced analytics are increasing output and yield: a dairy company has almost eradicated a chronic overfilling problem by refining the parameters that affect its filling process. Likewise, sophisticated modeling of energy inputs and demands can reduce energy usage by 5 percent or more. An appliance manufacturer used a cloud database to store several sources of information (for example, repair-technician notes, warranty-claims data, call-center records, product information, and manufacturing data), for which predictive analysis gave it early warnings of issues and allowed it to improve its design processes for both future and current products. And in less than two years, a biopharma site more than doubled its yield and RFT levels—with minimum additional process investments—by deploying advanced analytics to better understand important process variables and improve process specifications.

Not every organization needs to achieve the highest level of quality maturity—and certainly not all in one go. But all organizations should recognize that when a trigger looms, an investment in quality capabilities can often open major new opportunities for competitive advantage.

Alvaro Carpintero is an associate partner in McKinsey’s Madrid office, Evgeniya Makarova is a partner in the Chicago office , Alessandro Faure Ragani is a senior expert in the Milan office, and Paul Rutten is a partner in the Amsterdam office .

The authors wish to thank Adriana Aragon, Phil Duncan, and Anil Sikka for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Simpler is (sometimes) better: Managing complexity in consumer goods

The ‘how’ of transformation

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• Science and Research | Drugs

Product Quality

Back to Regulatory Science at CDER

One of FDA’s major goals is to modernize the regulation of pharmaceutical manufacturing and enhance product quality. As part of its comprehensive approach to quality oversight across the drug product lifecycle, CDER conducts research to support the development of scientific standards and policies related to quality, safety, and effectiveness of human drug products.

Product quality research studies help to address unresolved regulatory science questions and prepare the organization for emerging science issues and technologies. Results from this research have directly informed review decisions, impacted or revised agency guidance and policies, and protected the public health by ensuring that high-quality products reach the American people.

One of the many areas of product quality research supported by CDER is manufacturing science and innovation. Learn about the impact of CDER's research on continuous manufacturing , a quicker and more reliable way to make drugs and drug components than the common practice of manufacturing drugs step-wise in batches.

• Starting a Business

Our Top Picks

• Best Small Business Loans
• Best Business Internet Service
• Best Online Payroll Service
• Best Business Phone Systems

Our In-Depth Reviews

• OnPay Payroll Review
• ADP Payroll Review
• Ooma Office Review
• RingCentral Review

Explore More

• Business Solutions
• Entrepreneurship
• Franchising
• Best Accounting Software
• Best Merchant Services Providers
• Best Credit Card Processors
• Best Mobile Credit Card Processors
• Clover Review
• Merchant One Review
• QuickBooks Online Review
• Xero Accounting Review
• Financial Solutions

Human Resources

• Best Human Resources Outsourcing Services
• Best Time and Attendance Software
• Best PEO Services
• Best Business Employee Retirement Plans
• Bambee Review
• Rippling HR Software Review
• TriNet Review
• Gusto Payroll Review
• HR Solutions

Marketing and Sales

• Best Text Message Marketing Services
• Best CRM Software
• Best Email Marketing Services
• Best Website Builders
• Textedly Review
• Salesforce Review
• EZ Texting Review
• Textline Review
• Business Intelligence
• Marketing Solutions
• Marketing Strategy
• Public Relations
• Social Media
• Best GPS Fleet Management Software
• Best POS Systems
• Best Employee Monitoring Software
• Best Document Management Software
• Verizon Connect Fleet GPS Review
• Zoom Review
• Samsara Review
• Zoho CRM Review
• Technology Solutions

Business Basics

• 4 Simple Steps to Valuing Your Small Business
• How to Write a Business Growth Plan
• 12 Business Skills You Need to Master
• How to Start a One-Person Business
• FreshBooks vs. QuickBooks Comparison
• Salesforce CRM vs. Zoho CRM
• RingCentral vs. Zoom Comparison
• 10 Ways to Generate More Sales Leads

Business.com aims to help business owners make informed decisions to support and grow their companies. We research and recommend products and services suitable for various business types, investing thousands of hours each year in this process.

As a business, we need to generate revenue to sustain our content. We have financial relationships with some companies we cover, earning commissions when readers purchase from our partners or share information about their needs. These relationships do not dictate our advice and recommendations. Our editorial team independently evaluates and recommends products and services based on their research and expertise. Learn more about our process and partners here .

Elevating Expectations: 5 Ways Product Quality Affects Your Brand

Improve customer retention, build brand trust and boost your ROI by focusing on product quality.

Table of Contents

Product quality can make or break your brand’s success and profitability — however, determining what makes a quality product depends on the end user. Each consumer has their own idea of what constitutes a valuable product; for some, a fancy and durable product demonstrates quality, while others may look for something unpretentious and easy to use. 

Although what one person views as luxurious may appear simple to others, what’s important is creating a product of quality that is right for your target market. Here’s how to determine what constitutes quality, why caliber is important and how to improve your products .

What constitutes product quality?

Product quality describes a product’s capability to meet user standards. Here are some questions to consider when evaluating a product’s caliber:

• Does it solve a problem? No product would exist if it weren’t solving or improving something. The extent to which it fixes the intended problem helps to determine its quality.
• Is it easy to use? A high-quality product shouldn’t be complicated to use. Customers shouldn’t have to spend too much time trying to figure out how to assemble or work it.
• Is it polished? Colors, dimensions, fonts (if applicable) and other elements of design should be in alignment. The product shouldn’t appear cheap in any way.
• Is it efficient? The product should not only get the job done, but it should do so efficiently. In other words, it should deliver quickly and require minimal effort from the consumer.
• Is it tailored to your customers? The product should be tailored specifically to users’ needs, showing that you understand your customers and are willing to accept the recommendations they voice.

5 reasons product quality is important

Improving your product quality is paramount to preserving your business’s bottom line. Here are five reasons product quality is important:

1. It builds trust with your customers.

Most businesses won’t succeed if they can’t build customer trust ; potential sales are lost when brands fail to make deeper connections with prospective buyers. In contrast, when you gain the confidence and loyalty of consumers, you have more freedom to make decisions such as raising prices. Ensuring high-quality products and services is one way to help you get consumers to appreciate and believe in what you have to offer.

Humanizing the company also can help customers connect with your brand. One way to do this is to create newsletters or social media posts that show updates and photos of what employees are working on. If customers begin to associate faces with your company, it will help them connect with your organization more than they would with a faceless corporate entity. Another way to build loyalty and appreciation is to establish a rewards program. Understanding the value of customer loyalty is crucial when trying to establish repeat business.

2. It fuels recommendations.

Most people trust recommendations from friends and family above all other forms of advertising when making a purchase decision. This is why nothing beats word of mouth when you’re trying to gain customers.

Word-of-mouth recommendations can be a persuasive factor in both online and offline purchasing decisions. Friends and family want to know if someone similar to them had a good experience with a product. The higher-quality product a company has to offer, the better chance they’ll have at driving positive reviews, recommendations and shares between consumers.

Starting campaigns to get people buzzing about a product is a great way to spread recommendations by word of mouth. You can also respond to complaints or compliments online to show that you provide good customer service , which is another aspect of high product quality.

3. It results in fewer customer complaints and returns.

Marketing studies have proven again and again that companies that produce high-quality products obtain more repeat business. Spend more time and money upfront to perfect a product before it hits the market if you want to minimize customer complaints and returns.

It’s common for sellers of high-quality brands to spend more to persuade consumers to try their goods. The more successful companies are at pleasing customers during their initial experience with a product, the more likely they’ll be to see repeat purchases from those customers. 

Testing products with potential customers or a market research group can help to produce a great product. Most people in these groups will give brutally honest opinions, and companies can use that feedback to make improvements to their products.

4. People care about aesthetics.

One dimension of quality is the aesthetics — or how a product looks, feels, sounds, tastes and smells. For example, MrTakeOutBags pays close attention to these qualities, and it shows in the company’s bakery cupcake boxes. The colors, prints, shapes, textures and features (such as handles) make all the difference, and it’s what sets the brand apart from its competitors. Customers notice these details, and they can make or break a sale.

5. It produces a higher ROI.

Studies show a strong positive association between quality and profitability. In fact, high quality produces a higher return on investment (ROI) for any given market share. According to MIT Sloan Management Review, having fewer defects or field failures results in lower manufacturing and service costs. As long as these gains exceed any increase in expenditures by the firm on defect prevention, profitability will improve. In addition, improvements in performance, features or other dimensions of quality lead to increased sales and larger market shares.

If you have produced a quality product and marketed it effectively, it’s time to see if you can cut costs without sacrificing quality.

How to ensure product quality

Here are five tips to ensure high product quality:

1. Implement a quality management system.

A quality management system is a set of business practices comprising the planning and execution of delivering a product. The system includes principles that help to prepare a product for its launch, such as customer focus, leadership, research and evidence-based decision-making .

2. Build a product strategy.

A product strategy details information about a product and the company’s vision for it. Its key points should include the target customers, market, competitors and business goals. This strategy serves as a roadmap for your product’s journey, from creation to launch.

3. Consider competitors.

Thinking about your competitors is an important part of developing your product. What are they doing that you aren’t (and vice versa)? How are their products performing? What works for them and why? Answering these questions will put you in a better position to compete with similar businesses in the market.

4. Listen to your customers.

Don’t be afraid to ask your customers how you can improve your products. Use any negative customer feedback to learn more about your consumers and help your products better meet their needs.

5. Always test your products.

It’s essential to test every product before launch so you can anticipate how buyers might react and see what changes you might need to make before you release it to the public.

Sean Peek contributed to this article. ​​

• Inspiration Revealed: 36 Top CEOs Share Their Secrets to Success
• How to Expand Your Revenue Sources

Get Weekly 5-Minute Business Advice

B. newsletter is your digest of bite-sized news, thought & brand leadership, and entertainment. All in one email.

Our mission is to help you take your team, your business and your career to the next level. Whether you're here for product recommendations, research or career advice, we're happy you're here!

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 13 September 2024

Post-approval evidence generation: a shared responsibility for healthcare

• Ali Abbasi 1 ,
• Donna Rivera 1 ,
• Lesley H. Curtis 1 &
• Robert M. Califf 1  

Nature Medicine ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Clinical trials
• Drug development
• Scientific community
• Translational research

Post-approval evidence generation is essential for high-quality clinical care and should be a shared priority for clinicians, health systems, payors, and the medical products industry, as well as the FDA and federal agencies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

195,33 € per year

only 16,28 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

21 US Code § 355 (d).

Fanaroff, A. C., Califf, R. M., Windecker, S., Smith, S. C. Jr. & Lopes, R. D. JAMA 321 , 1069–1080 (2019).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

US Food and Drug Administration. https://go.nature.com/4e5igl9 (12 January 2016).

21 US Code § 355(o)(3) and (c).

21 US Code § 356(c).

Cooke, N. J. & Hilton, M. L. (eds.) Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science (National Academies Press, 2015).

Abbasi, A. B., Curtis, L. H., Fleisher, L. A. & Califf, R. M. JAMA 332 , 412–417 (2024).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mackay, C. B., Antonelli, K. R., Bruinooge, S. S., Saint Onge, J. M. & Ellis, S. D. Cancer 123 , 2893–2900 (2017).

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. https://go.nature.com/4e5K34V (31 October 2023).

The Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration. https://go.nature.com/3MqItik (14 November 2023).

US Food and Drug Administration. https://go.nature.com/43MUG74 (5 February 2023).

US Food and Drug Administration. https://go.nature.com/4dMDYL2 (2 May 2024).

Sweet, K. L. et al. Clin. Cancer Res. 29 , 2179–2183 (2023).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mangoni, A. A. et al. BMC Rheumatol. 3 , 10 (2019).

Pulte, E. D. et al. Oncologist 27 , 149–157 (2022).

Bhatnagar, V. et al. Blood 130 , 4352 (2017).

Google Scholar  

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://go.nature.com/3XoaQE6 (21 September 2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge J. Woodcock, P. Marks and P. Stein for their comments on this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Ali Abbasi, Donna Rivera, Lesley H. Curtis & Robert M. Califf

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert M. Califf .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

A.A. is a resident physician at the University of California, San Francisco, is the recipient of an NIH T32 training grant (5T32CA251070-04) on assignment at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and has no conflicts of interest related to this manuscript to disclose; he reports past consulting income from LeMaitre and MIS Technologies, LLC. D.R. is an employee of the FDA and has no conflicts of interest to report. L.H.C. is a faculty member at Duke University who is on assignment at the FDA and has no conflicts of interest related to this manuscript to disclose; she reports past consulting income from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, the NFL Players Association and Boehringer Ingelheim and institutional grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. R.M.C. is an employee of the FDA and has no conflicts of interest related to this manuscript to disclose; prior to his appointment to the FDA as Commissioner for Food and Drugs, he was an employee of and held equity in Verily Life Sciences and Google Health (Alphabet) and served on boards of directors for Cytokinetics, Centessa, Clinetic, Keystone Symposia, the Critical Path Institute (C-Path), the Clinical Research Forum and One Fifteen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Abbasi, A., Rivera, D., Curtis, L.H. et al. Post-approval evidence generation: a shared responsibility for healthcare. Nat Med (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03241-x

Download citation

Published : 13 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03241-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Search Form

Fdst spotlight: rachana police.

September 13, 2024

Tells us a little about yourself. I am Rachana Police a graduate student in Food Science and Technology department. My journey into this field has been driven by deep passion for food and the science behind it, as well as its impact on health. I have a keen interest in Food Safety and Quality (FSQ) and product development, which drives my academic and research pursuits. Outside of my academic pursuits, I enjoy exploring new cuisines and experimenting with recipes.   What year of studies are you in? I am in my second year of the master’s program. It’s been challenging yet rewarding experience so far, and I’m eager to continue learning and growing in this field.   What drew you to the University of Nebraska? The University of Nebraska Lincoln has a strong reputation in food science and the diverse research opportunities available here were major factors that attracted me.   What aspect of food science and technology interests you the most (i.e. What is your research about)? I am particularly fascinated by food safety and quality control. I have completed my summer internship at Michael Foods as a Food Safety and Quality Corporate intern. My research focus on Quality Attributes of cumin seeds after treating with radio frequency over storage. This work aims to optimize preservation methods while maintaining the seeds nutritional and sensory properties.   What is your typical day like? My typical day involves a balance between coursework, research and assignments. I spend my mornings attending lectures and seminars while my afternoons are dedicated to conducting experiments.   What is something that most people don’t know about you? Most people don’t know that I am an ambivert with introverted tendencies. While I enjoy socializing and collaborating with others, I also value my alone time to recharge and focus on my personal interests.   What is your life like outside of school? Outside of school, I enjoy exploring new places, trying different foods, and immersing myself in various cultures. I find these experiences enriching and they broaden my perspective. Additionally, I’m an avid reader and spend a lot of my free time with a good book. I also enjoy crocheting, which allows me to relax and express my creativity in a fulfilling way.

Latest News

Husker faculty lead conference honing strategies for national ag data network.

46 Food science students named to spring Deans’ List

Achievements | Honors, appointments and publications for May 10

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

•   Facebook
•   Twitter
•   Linkedin
•   Digg
•   Reddit
•   Pinterest
•   Email

Latest Earthquakes |    Chat Share Social Media  

Landsat Reprocessing Events

The USGS consistently delivers high quality Landsat products suitable for science research and analysis. On occasion, Landsat data may need to be reprocessed. Reprocessing events may be planned, or may be immediate, depending on the magnitude of the reason reprocessing is needed. Large-scale reprocessing efforts are rare and contain most or all of a specific dataset and are planned in advance.

Occasional Reprocessing Events 

Occasionally, small-scale reprocessing events are required due to one of the reasons described below. When Landsat data are reprocessed during these events, all affected products are removed and regenerated using the newly processed data. Affected products include Level-1, U.S. Analysis Ready Data (ARD) and Level-2, /Level-3 science products.   

Corrections: Satellite, Sensor, Processing Systems

When satellite, sensor, or data processing system components experience anomalies or disconnects, already-archived data may need to be reprocessed. The number of affected Level-1 products vary each event.   On occasion, reprocessing is required well beyond the date when products are initially generated to allow complete investigation about the required changes and to implement changes for successful product processing. One example is the reprocessing that took place after moon intrusion was discovered in July 2023. Details about data reprocessing events can be found on the Landsat Collection 2 Reprocessing Events webpage.     

Other: Data Storage and Distribution System Issues

Landsat storage and distribution systems occasionally experience network outages that disrupt the flow of data to the distribution source. Reprocessing is performed when warranted.     

Landsat Global Archive Consolidation (LGAC) Initiative

The Landsat Global Archive Consolidation (LGAC) initiative began in 2010 to bring Landsat 1-7 data that had been downlinked and stored at Landsat International Grounds Stations (IGS) into the USGS Landsat archive. While LGAC may not be considered rare, as much of the data captured and held internationally were unique relative to each ground station's area of coverage, some of the data received are duplicates of data already held in the USGS archive. When a duplicate Level-1 product is generated with the same or a better-quality score, the already existing Level-1 and subsequent products are removed and replaced with data from the newly processed Level-1 scene.    

NEW 09/2024: The Landsat Reprocessing Events application allows you to search and locate Landsat products that have been reprocessed and categorized in one of the Occasional Reprocessing sections described above. 

Large-scale reprocessing events  .

Large-scale reprocessing events are rare and may affect a single entire Landsat dataset, or they may affect multiple Landsat datasets – and all the products contained in them.  Previous large-scale reprocessing events include the first-year reprocessing of the entire Landsat 9 Level-1 inventory to apply updated calibration updates.  Details about large scale reprocessing events are posted on the Landsat Collection 2 Reprocessing Events webpage. 

When Landsat data are reprocessed during large-scale events, the already existing products affected (Level-1, U.S. Analysis Ready Data (ARD) and Level-2, /Level-3) are removed and regenerated using the newly processed data. 

How do you know if products over your study area have been reprocessed?  

When Landsat Level-1 products are reprocessed, the latest updated calibration parameters are applied to the data. While this may not drastically change the data, scientific comparisons may indicate differences when comparing the original to the newly generated product. 

Landsat Level-1 Product Identifiers clearly display the processing date (i.e., LE07_L1GT_135040_20000418_ 20240612 _02_T2). In this example, a new Collection 2 Level-1 product was generated when data was received from an IGS in support of the LGAC effort in 2024.  The newly generated Level-1 product replaced the product that was originally-processed into Collection 2 in 2020.   

How to locate reprocessed Landsat products  

There are several ways to locate Landsat products that have been reprocessed during large-scale or occasional events.  Visit the links below to access to the USGS Inventory.  

• Conduct a search using EarthExplorer : Enter a date range of the processing date on the Additional Criteria tab.  
• The Landsat Bulk Metadata Service contains files of Landsat Level-1, Level-2 and U.S. ARD products. These files are updated daily. 
• The USGS EROS Machine-to-Machine (M2M) Application Programming Interface (API) is an alternative method of searching and acquiring data from the USGS/EROS data inventories. 

Announcements will be made on the Landsat Missions Web Site  and USGS Landsat social media accounts when large-scale or occasional reprocessing events are required, to ensure all users are aware of the affected products and timeframe of the reprocessing.  

Please contact USGS EROS Customer Services with any questions about Landsat reprocessing events.  

Related Content

Landsat reprocessing events search application.

The Landsat Reprocessing Application allows you to discover scene and tile products that have been changed by reprocessing.

DuPont™ Cyrel® Flexographic Solutions and DuPont™ Tyvek® Graphics Partnering for Printing Excellence at Labelexpo Americas 2024.

Press release | sep, 09 2024.

With its extensive experience and unique expertise across the printing and packaging value chain for the Tag & Label segment, DuPont is strongly positioned to help customers stay ahead of the curve and address the evolving demands of the marketplace.

Wilmington, Delaware - September 09, 2024 – DuPont will feature next-generation portfolios of solutions that meet today's label and printing trends at Labelexpo Americas 2024 (Sept. 10-12, Chicago, USA). Innovation, sustainability, performance, and quality are the core values that set the tone of our company's participation in the industry. Our commitment to these values is reflected in our product offerings, which focus on reducing our environmental footprint, our investments in research and development, and our dedication to delivering high-quality products.

At the show, Cyrel ® Flexographic Solutions will display its brand-new equipment, the DuPont™ Cyrel ® FAST 1000 TD Processor. The thermal, solvent-free Flexographic Plate Processor is the latest addition to the company's product line and is designed to offer productivity, lower environmental footprint and outstanding quality to the Tag & Label and Mid-Web Flexible Packaging markets.  Benefits include a compact footprint, high productivity, and improved user interface for reliable operation.

Cyrel ® Flexographic Solutions will also feature the Esko XPS Crystal Exposure Unit, which utilizes the latest UV-LED technology to maximize the consistent, high-quality performance of the Cyrel ® flexographic plates. The award-winning Cyrel ® Lightning plate family provides quick access times with outstanding print quality, designed from the ground up for UV-LED exposure units.

Additionally, attendees will have the opportunity to experience Cyrel ® University, an online, on-demand training platform designed to dramatically reduce preventable errors in the plate-room while ensuring that top talent stays on the cutting edge. The courses are entirely digital and allow users to quickly get up to speed, accelerating their learning process.

"I am thrilled to join Cyrel ® Flexographic Solutions as we participate in Labelexpo Americas 2024, one of the biggest events in the label and package printing industry,” said Nolan Dzielak, North America Commercial Leader at Cyrel ® Flexographic Solutions. “We look forward to showcasing our latest solutions that cater to the Tag & Label and Mid-Web Flexible Packaging markets, and Cyrel ® University, our unique, online training platform for new hires and industry veterans alike.”

From the DuPont™ Tyvek ® side, in addition to showcasing the unique properties of Tyvek® material, visitors will experience the wide range of applications for Tyvek®-based tags and labels.

Explore Tyvek®’s strength and resistance to water, chemical and tearing, as well as its ability to withstand extreme temperatures and environment conditions at our booth. From medical and pharmaceutical packaging to automotive materials, Tyvek® has proven to be a reliable and versatile choice for a variety of industries. Visitors will have the opportunity to learn more about specifics cases and speak with our Tyvek® experts about leveraging Tyvek® material for their labeling and packaging needs.

From banners that won’t fade or rip regardless of weather, to ski tags that will survive downhill runs all day long, to labels for everything from construction to horticulture to shellfish, if it has to last it should be printed with DuPont™ Tyvek® for Graphics.

Etore Frederici, North America Commercial Leader of DuPont™ Tyvek ® Roll Goods business, added that DuPont is excited to connect with customers at Labelexpo 2024 to discuss how its products and brands can be used to enhance businesses, and looking forward to engaging with visitors to showcase the unique benefits of Tyvek ® .

We invite all attendees to visit the DuPont booth, located in Hall A, Booth 1329. Explore our innovative solutions, learn from our team of industry experts, and discover how you can work with us to grow your business.

About DuPont ™ Cyrel ® Flexographic Solutions

DuPont ™ Cyrel ® Flexographic Solutions is one of the world’s leading flexographic platemaking systems providers and brings together technologies and products for the printing and packaging industry. It offers a wide range of flexographic solutions that optimize the quality, productivity, and sustainability of converters, printers, and tradeshops, resulting in outstanding printed packages that appear to “pop off the shelf.” The Cyrel ® product portfolio includes flexographic plates and sleeves, platemaking equipment for solvent and thermal processing (Cyrel ® FAST), and screens. For more information, visit www.cyrel.com .

About DuPont ™ Tyvek ®

DuPont™ Tyvek ® is a unique nonwoven material made from high-density polyethylene fibers, combining the best properties of paper, film, and fabric. Its exceptional strength, durability, and versatility make it a popular choice for a wide range of applications across various industries. Tyvek ® is a highly printable substrate that offers excellent ink adhesion and vibrant color reproduction, making it an ideal material for printing and packaging solutions. It resists tearing, puncturing, and moisture infiltration, making it suitable for applications that require high levels of protection, safety, and durability. Additionally, Tyvek ® is compatible with various printing techniques, including flexography, offset, and inkjet printing, providing customers with the flexibility to achieve their desired results. For more information about DuPont™ Tyvek ® visit tyvek.dupont.com

About DuPont

DuPont (NYSE: DD) is a global innovation leader with technology-based materials and solutions that help transform industries and everyday life. Our employees apply diverse science and expertise to help customers advance their best ideas and deliver essential innovations in key markets including electronics, transportation, construction, water, healthcare, and worker safety.

#   #   #

Copyright © 2024. DuPont™, the DuPont Oval Logo and all trademarks and service marks denoted with ™, ℠ or ® are owned by affiliates of DuPont de Nemours, Inc., unless otherwise noted.

Tatiana Abib

Global Communications Leader

+55 11 989307992

[email protected]

Liliam Benzi

Press Assessor for DuPont™ Cyrel® Flexographic Solutions

+55 (11) 99989-1597

[email protected]