GB Report. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime

GB Report Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime Project code: HWP200-301 Research date: January 2013 Date: March 2013

WRAP s vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses and individuals to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, develop sustainable products and use resources in an efficient way. Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk Written by: Tim Knight, Geoff King, Sylviane Herren and Jayne Cox Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Report Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by..banbury, WRAP] While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk

Executive Summary This report presents the findings from research commissioned by WRAP to explore consumers current views, attitudes and perceptions of the lifetimes of electrical products, with a particular focus on providing insight into the nature and extent of consumer pull for longer lifetimes. Consumer interest in longer product lifetimes was explored with respect to two different types of electrical products: Household appliances (fridges, washing machines and vacuum cleaners) termed workhorse products since they are typically purchased for a lifetime of heavy and prolonged use Consumer electronics (televisions and laptops) termed up-to-date products since many consumers look to upgrade periodically to the latest technology in a fast-moving market The research was comprised of three main elements: A desk review of previous research into product lifetimes. Six qualitative focus groups and ten accompanied shops with participants who had either recently bought or were intending to buy one of the six products under investigation. A nationally representative survey of 1,104 consumers of household electrical appliances in England and Wales. The findings illustrate that product lifetime is important to consumers particularly for workhorse products such as washing machines, fridges and vacuum cleaners. Although it is not generally a front-of-mind consideration, consumers see a long lifetime as a core requirement of these products and there is a clear interest from consumers in longer lasting products. The research suggests that on average consumers are willing to pay over 30% more for longer-life products that are backed by a longer standard guarantee or warranty. The research shows that there is potential for brands and retailers to improve their market share by effectively communicating longer product lifetime as a means of differentiating their products in the marketplace. Although the consumer purchase journey is highly variable, consumers are likely to be receptive to messaging and information on product lifetime at a number of stages. Which retailers, brands and price ranges do consumers consider when buying household electrical products? Consumers expect to pay, on average, 155 for a new vacuum cleaner, 318 for a new fridge, and 313 for a new washing machine. Well known high-street retailers are widely used by all consumer types, but use of higher and lower end retailers is more polarised. Most consumers would consider buying a well-known brand if they were to purchase one of the products in the next year, and very few spontaneously consider buying an ownbrand. However, there is a significant minority of consumers, particularly younger consumers, who don t have fixed pre-conceptions, and say they would consider buying anything or don t know what brands they would consider. Younger consumers are also, in comparison to other consumers, more likely to base their attitudes to brands on reputation rather than personal experience. When prompted, around a third of consumers say they would be likely to consider buying an own-brand fridge, washing machine or vacuum cleaner. Lower income, younger and single consumers are the most likely to consider buying an own-brand. The main barriers to buying own-brand products relate to the perception that they are less reliable and of a lower quality than branded products. How do consumers research and buy household electrical products? Aspects of the purchase process encourage consumers to only consider products produced by familiar brands in pre-determined price-ranges, and limit the exposure consumers have to products outside these confines. Equally, the criteria consumers use to compare products during the purchase process are not fixed. They can be influenced by information or advice encountered during the process to consider new criteria. New information can also challenge consumers pre-conceptions about brand. This indicates there are opportunities to communicate information on product lifetime and influence the consumer decision-making during the purchase process. Consumers use a range of online and/or in-store information sources during the purchase process, with different sources being used for different purposes, at different points in the process. Consumers rely heavily on product information on retailers websites and in their stores throughout the purchase process, while the use of other sources (e.g. online reviews and shopping assistants) is more mixed. There is no single model of the stages that consumers go through in researching and buying a product, and based on the ten accompanied shops undertaken in this research, consumers tend to take an unplanned and unsystematic approach. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 3

How much do consumers know about product lifetimes and what is their knowledge based on? Consumers do not feel knowledgeable about how long fridges, washing machines and vacuums last, and are not aware of information on how long these products last being available. They use on a combination of general knowledge, sources of knowledge available during the purchase process, and proxies to make assessments about the lifetimes of comparative products. Younger respondents are less likely to have personal experience of how long these products last, and some consumers also have doubts about whether the lifetime of products can be accurately measured. The main source of information consumers think they can access during the purchase process to compare the likely lifetimes of different products are online reviews by other consumers. However, consumers primarily rely on brand, and to a lesser extent price, as proxies for the lifetime, with the expectation that well-known brands and more expensive products will last longer. Manufacturer guarantees or warranties are also seen by consumers as a show of faith by the manufacturer in the lifetime of their products. How important are product lifetimes to consumers? Product lifetimes are not a front-of-mind consideration for most consumers when buying products, but are still held to be important. Often product lifetimes are not expressed directly but are inferred through other, more salient terms such as quality, reliability and durability. When prompted, consumers say they do consider product lifetimes important, and this is consistent across all three workhorse products and for different socio-demographic groups. The importance of lifetime for workhorse products is underpinned by a desire to avoid the expense and inconvenience of repair or replacement if they break down. In comparison, consumers attach less importance to the lifetimes of up to date products. Older consumers and lower income groups, as well as consumers with a less consumption-driven mind-set, appear to place particular importance on product lifetimes. How long do consumers expect products to last and how satisfied are they with current lifetimes? On average, consumers expect vacuum cleaners to last five years, washing machines six years, and fridges to last the longest at eight years. Older consumers, and consumers living alone or without children, expected products to last longer than other consumers, which may reflect the lesser frequency and intensity with which they use these products in comparison to consumers in larger households and with children. Consumers were unlikely to envisage replacing the three workhorse products before the end of their functional life and wanted them to last as long as possible. Equally, the majority said they were satisfied with how long these products currently last, with satisfaction being highest with fridges and lower for washing machines and vacuums. Satisfaction with current lifetimes was linked to how long consumers expected these products to last. Those with high expectations were also generally those who were most satisfied, suggesting previous experiences have shaped both expectations and satisfaction. How strong is the consumer pull for longer product lifetimes strongest and how can it be enhanced? The key barriers to the uptake of products with longer lifetimes are that it is not generally a front-of-mind issue for consumers, the current lack of information and advertising on product lifetimes, and consumers distrust of manufacturers. The key opportunities for increasing the pull for longer lifetimes are the underlying importance of lifetime to consumers, their appetite for more information about product lifetimes, and the malleability of consumers priorities during the purchase process. Clearly communicated product lifetimes identified by participants were Kia cars 7 year guarantee and Ikea in-store product testing demonstrations. Interest in products with longer lifetimes is not a minority issue, confined to a small subset of consumers. Around a half of all consumers would be willing to pay extra for products that are advertised to last longer, and on average they would be willing to pay 10% more. More than eight out of ten consumers would be willing to pay extra for products that are advertised to last longer and have a longer standard guarantee or warranty, and on average they would be willing to pay 30% more. Interest in paying more for a longer guarantee was evident across all price brackets for all three products. Younger consumers are a potential priority for manufacturers and retailers seeking to sell longer life products. They express a high willingness to pay for these, and also have fewer preconceptions about brands than other consumers. Equally, this group represented 12% respondents in the survey, suggesting they make up a relatively small proportion of consumers of these products. Middle-aged families with children also express a higher than average willingness to pay for longer lifetimes, which is key since this research suggests they represent a large market segment, equalling almost a quarter of all consumers of these products. The future uptake of longer life products can be maximised if these are accompanied by longer standard guarantees or warranties both as a means of reassuring consumers about the validity of longer claimed lifetimes and as a potential hook for advertising. Consumers are also likely to respond to advertising which emphasises the existing benefits of longer lasting products, and the provision of trusted information on product lifetimes through mainstream channels. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 4

Contents 1.0 Introduction... 7 1.1 Scope, aims and objectives of the research... 7 1.2 Previous research on product lifetimes... 7 1.3 Overview of methodology and approach... 8 1.3.1 Desk review of previous research... 8 1.3.2 Qualitative focus groups and accompanied shops with consumers... 9 1.3.3 Quantitative survey of consumers... 10 1.4 Interpreting the findings... 10 1.5 Report structure... 11 2.0 Which retailers, brands and price ranges do consumers consider when buying household electrical products?... 12 2.1 Prices ranges... 12 2.2 Retailers... 13 2.3 Brands... 14 3.0 How do consumers research and buy household electrical products?... 19 3.1 What are the general features of the purchasing process consumers go through?... 19 3.2 How do consumers interact with information during the purchase process?... 21 3.3 What stages do consumers go through within the purchasing process?... 22 3.3.1 Case study 1... 23 3.3.2 Case study 2... 26 3.3.3 Case study 3... 28 3.3.4 Case study 4... 30 3.3.5 Case study 5... 33 4.0 How much do consumers know about product lifetimes and what is their knowledge based on? 35 4.1 How much do consumers know, or think they know, about products lifetimes?... 35 4.2 What is consumer knowledge of product lifetimes currently based on?... 35 4.2.1 Sources of general knowledge... 35 4.2.2 Sources of knowledge during the purchase process... 36 4.2.3 Proxies... 36 4.3 How do consumers judge how long electrical products last for?... 37 5.0 How important are product lifetimes to consumers?... 39 5.1 How important is product lifetime to consumers?... 39 5.2 How does the importance of lifetime vary by product type?... 41 5.3 How does the importance of lifetime vary between types of consumer?... 42 6.0 How long do consumers expect products to last and how satisfied are they with current lifetimes?... 44 6.1 How long do consumers expect products to last for?... 44 6.2 Do products currently last as long as consumers want them to?... 46 7.0 How strong is the consumer pull for longer product lifetimes and how can it be enhanced? 50 7.1 What factors currently pull and push consumers to buy products with longer lifetimes?... 50 7.2 What do consumers think needs to change?... 51 7.3 What is the potential for increasing consumer pull for longer lifetimes in the future?... 53 7.3.1 How much are consumers willing to pay for longer product lifetimes?... 53 7.3.2 What factors influence willingness to pay for longer lifetimes?... 55 7.3.3 Which groups of consumers are most and least willing to pay for longer lifetimes?... 58 7.4 Conclusions... 60 7.4.1 What currently holds consumers back from buying products with longer lifetimes?... 60 7.4.2 What are the opportunities for increasing consumer pull for longer lifetimes?... 60 7.4.3 Where are the greatest opportunities for increasing consumer pull for longer lifetimes? 60 7.4.4 What needs to happen to increase consumer pull for longer lifetimes?... 60 Annexes... 62 Specific research questions... 63 Profile of qualitative participants (focus groups and accompanied shops combined)... 64 Topic guides used in qualitative phase... 65 Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 5

Additional Accompanied Shop case-studies and journey maps... 81 Case-study 6... 81 Case study 7... 83 Case study 8... 85 Case study 9... 87 Case-study 10... 89 Profile of quantitative survey respondents... 91 Quantitative survey questionnaire... 92 Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 6

1.0 Introduction This report presents the findings from research commissioned by WRAP to explore consumers current views, attitudes and perceptions of the lifetimes of electrical products, with a particular focus on providing insight into the nature and extent of consumer pull for longer lifetimes. The research was undertaken to inform WRAP s work to influence electrical retailers and manufacturers of household electrical products to manufacture and sell longer life products (thereby reducing the amount of electrical waste to landfill, the embodied carbon emissions and the risks to resource scarcity). The overall objective is to reduce the environmental impact of household electrical products by encouraging suppliers and manufacturers to optimise product design, thereby extending the lifetime of household electrical products. 1.1 Scope, aims and objectives of the research The research employed an iterative approach, in which the scope was adapted and refined as the findings from each project phase emerged. At the outset the focus was on exploring consumers views, attitudes and perceptions towards the lifetimes of five household electrical products: washing machines, fridges, vacuum cleaners, televisions and laptops. However, following the completion of the first two elements of the research (a desk review of previous research and qualitative research with consumers) the scope was narrowed to just washing machines, fridges and vacuum cleaners. This was on the basis that both the desk review and qualitative research found that consumer pull for televisions and laptops with longer lifetimes is currently low, with limited opportunity for manufacturers or retailers to build on or increase this pull in the short term. The overarching objectives of the research were to explore: Consumers perceptions, definitions and expectations of product lifetimes for each product type The extent to which consumers want longer lifetimes for each type of product And for products where there is expressed consumer pull for longer lifetimes: how this pull is defined Within this there were also 17 specific research questions, which are provided in the annexes of this report. Consumer interest in longer product lifetimes was explored with respect to two different types of electrical products: Household appliances (fridges, washing machines and vacuum cleaners) termed workhorse products since they are typically purchased for a lifetime of heavy and prolonged use Consumer electronics (televisions and laptops) termed up-to-date products since many consumers look to upgrade periodically to the latest technology in a fast-moving market 1.2 Previous research on product lifetimes This research builds on previous studies on consumer attitudes to product lifetimes; with both WRAP 1 and Defra 2 having recently published findings from studies in this area. The first element of this project was a desk review of previous research, including, but not confined, to these studies. The findings from the desk review are summarised below and also referred back to at relevant points throughout the report. Consumer understanding of product lifetime Findings from the previous Defra study on product lifetimes provide the basis for a conceptual framework to describe how product lifetime creates value for consumers. Value is seen to arise from meeting each consumer s needs for function, emotional fulfilment and social identity and status. The balance between these three benefits varies for products that are described as up-to-date, workhorse and investment products. Long lasting products are valued more in workhorse and investment categories, but reliability remains important for up-to-date products. TVs and laptops are considered up-to-date products; fridges, washing machines and vacuum cleaners are considered to be workhorses. More detailed insight was needed from this research on how the lifetime value equation is expressed for WRAP s five target products and therefore specific opportunities for producers to tap into latent consumer demand. 1 WRAP (2010) Consumer attitudes to sustainable electrical products, by MEL; WRAP (2012) Understanding the opportunities to increase reuse and repair, by Oakdene Hollins, Brook Lyndhurst and Tim Cooper 2 Defra (2011) Public understanding of product lifetimes, by Brook Lyndhurst Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 7

Expectation and experience of product lifetime Indications are that expected product lifetimes are falling and that many consumers feel locked in to a process of frequent updating. Expectations of how long products will be kept are under five years for vacuum cleaners and laptops, and five to ten years for TVs, washing machines and fridges (Defra, 2011). Up-to-date products are generally replaced before they wear out and consumers are annoyed if they do break down. Workhorses are expected to last a reasonable amount of time, depending on price paid, and will be repaired if the value of their anticipated future life exceeds repair costs and hassle. Gaps in evidence included quantitative data on satisfaction with product lifetimes and socio-demographic variations in expectations and experience, including for specific product types. Product lifetime and purchase choice Prior to this research there was no clear evidence available on the level of demand for longer life products, either revealed or latent demand. The strength of product lifetime attributes as an influence on purchase preference is not identifiable from existing evidence, although how long a product lasts is typically part of the bundle of most important factors cited by consumers. Consumers appear rarely to evaluate product lifetime as a stand-alone component of value. Product lifetime is not perceived as an environmental issue by consumers. There is a small amount of evidence that (some?) consumers are sceptical of the value of longer life products, and may play safe by sticking with well-known brands or ones they have bought in the past. It is generally difficult for consumers to make accurate evaluations of product lifetime and they often rely on proxies as guides, and these proxies are often unreliable. It is also possible that consumers do not consciously deliberate all the options but instead rely on unconscious feelings and mental short-cuts with respect to how long products might last. There were gaps in the evidence on how different product attributes are evaluated and traded-off against each other, including price, quality, brand, durability and reliability. Consumer access to information on product lifetime The current availability of consumer information on product lifetime is poor. Proxies used instead tend to include price (high), brand (premium), appearance and perceptions of quality. Guarantees and warranties are also used as signals of product lifetime, though these may be an unreliable guide. Some consumers refer to online information, word of mouth sources, or retail staff but the extent to which this happens specifically for product lifetime information is not known. Few specific examples of marketing longer product lifetime were identified in the timescale of the review. More detailed insight was needed from this research on how consumers interested in product lifetime access information and where they perceive the most significant gaps to be. 1.3 Overview of methodology and approach The research was comprised of three main elements: Desk review of previous research Qualitative focus groups and accompanied shops with consumers Quantitative survey of consumers The specific objectives, methodology and approach adopted in each element is summarised below. 1.3.1 Desk review of previous research The specific objectives of the review were: to draw out the key messages relevant to the aims and objectives of this research; to identify the key evidences gaps that needed to be addressed by the later qualitative and quantitative elements of this research; and to ensure this research built on rather than duplicated previous research. The short amount of time available for the review dictated that the most appropriate methodology was a narrative literature review. This type of review relies upon evidence sources known to the research team and client, supplemented by readily accessible further sources, but is subject to certain limitations. Compared to a systematic review or Rapid Evidence Assessment, for example, evidence is collated on the basis of what is readily known or identifiable, rather than through a documented search strategy with defined search terms and boundaries, and scoring of sources for relevance against set inclusion criteria. A risk of bias therefore has to be acknowledged in terms of what evidence was identified and what is included in the review. The risk was Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 8

mitigated in this case by referring to sources that were themselves based on wider review or synthesis of the literature, though a risk of exclusion bias remains. In order to inform the design of the subsequent elements, a small number of questions were also employed on an omnibus survey. The headline results are summarised below: 85% of respondents to the survey said they had responsibility in their household for buying fridges, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, TVs or laptops 36% said it was their sole responsibility; 49% that it was generally a joint decision 20% were expecting to buy one of the products in the next year 33% said they researched and bought these products in-store, 17% did so entirely online, while 29% did their research online and bought in-store Two of the key insights from the results were that purchasing these products is often a joint decision, and that consumers research and buy products using different combinations of online and in-store methods. These were subsequently reflected in the design of the qualitative research, described below. 1.3.2 Qualitative focus groups and accompanied shops with consumers The specific objectives of the qualitative element of the research were to gain a deeper understanding of consumers views, attitudes and perceptions towards the lifetimes of the products in question. The accompanied shops in particular also provided the opportunity to build up a detailed picture of the processes that consumers go through in purchasing these products, how they interact with product information, and how product lifetimes do or don t feature in their decision-making. Six focus groups were undertaken with consumers who had either bought one of the household electrical products under investigation in the previous 12 months or were intending to in the next 12 months. The groups were attended by 9-10 participants and lasted for around an hour and a half each. Three of the groups were undertaken with recent/future purchasers of workhorse products (fridges, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners) and three with recent/future purchasers of up to date products (TVs and laptops). The groups were also recruited to represent consumers who primarily researched and bought products online, in-store or a combination the two, and with a mix of sole and joint decision-makers. A total of 59 consumers took part in the focus groups. Ten accompanied shops were undertaken with consumers who were intending to buy one of the products in the next 12 months, two for each of the five product types. Researchers accompanied the participants as they went through the process of looking for information about, and choosing between, different products. Observational notes were taken during the shops, which lasted for between an hour and two and a half hours, and a short 30 minute interview was conducted with the participants immediately after the shop. Four of the accompanied shops were with consumers who went through the process online, four with consumers in-store and two with consumers who did so online and in-store. In addition, six of the shops were undertaken with individual consumers and four with couples (i.e. joint decision-makers). A total of 14 consumers took part in the accompanied shops. The focus groups and accompanied shops were undertaken in three fieldwork areas, selected in order to represent consumers living in areas with different levels of affluence and urban density: Watford (2 focus groups, 4 accompanied shops) Manchester (2 focus groups, 3 accompanied shops) Cardiff (2 focus groups, 3 accompanied shops) The sample of individual participants was also recruited to represent consumers of different ages, genders, levels of household income and other socio-demographics. The sample profile is provided in the annexes of the report. The topic guides that were used to facilitate the focus groups and accompanied shop interviews are provide in the annex of this report. All focus groups and interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and analysed within an analytical framework designed for this purpose. The framework was structured around the project s seventeen specific research questions, under which the qualitative data was sorted, grouped and summarised. While the accompanied shops contributed considerable insight to the project, they also had some limitations. One of these was the extent to which they were able to capture the full purchasing journey. While participants were recruited on the basis that they were intending to buy one of the products in the next 12 months, they were not put under any obligation or pressure to make their purchase in the time the researcher spent with them during the accompanied shop. This meant that the shops primarily provided insight on the purchasing journey up to be not including their final selection and purchase of a product. Participants had generally narrowed-down their selection to a small number of products but said there was a further stage or stages they intended go through before making their final purchase (e.g. consulting friends or doing more research on the products). In Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 9

the time-limited interviews that were conducted immediately after the accompanied shop, it was possible establish what the participants thought these final stages would be, but not ultimately to observe them. Another potential limitation of the accompanied shops was brought to light in the focus groups. Participants in the groups sometimes drew a distinction between urgent purchases, typically triggered by the sudden breakdown of a product, and less urgent purchases, typically made when a still-functioning product was being replaced. Inevitably the accompanied shops tended towards the second, non-urgent, category, meaning it was not possible to explore how consumers use of information and decision-making may vary when the process is more timepressured and urgent. 1.3.3 Quantitative survey of consumers The specific objectives of the survey were to quantify findings from the previous elements of the research, with a focus on quantifying consumer pull for longer lifetimes overall and between different consumer and product types. The survey was administered by telephone by ICM Research with an achieved sample of 1,104 respondents in England and Wales. No booster was applied to the number of survey interviews conducted in Wales, meaning the results cannot robustly be reported at this level. A priority for the survey was ensuring the achieved sample was as representative as possible of consumers of the products in question. This had to be balanced with the difficulty and expense of identifying a sample of this size who all had recent experience of purchasing the three workhorse products. With these two considerations in mind, the process for undertaking the survey was as follows. Random digit dialling was used to contact potential respondents. They were asked the following screening question: In your household, do you have any responsibility for buying electrical items, for example vacuum cleaners, fridges or washing machines?. All potential respondents who gave an affirmative answer to this question were invited to take part in the survey. Because of the phrasing of the screening question, it is possible that some of the respondents who took part in the survey were not responsible for buying one or more of the workhorse products. Consequently, it is most accurate to describe the survey sample as being consumers of household electrical products rather than consumers of washing machines, vacuum cleaners and fridges. In order to ensure the survey results were nationally representative of consumers of household electrical products, ICM also ran the screening question on their nationally representative omnibus survey to verify the socio-demographic profile of consumers, and results from the omnibus were used to weight the survey results accordingly by age, gender, region and SEG. The sample profile is provided in the annexes of the report. The questionnaire was developed in conjunction with WRAP, and the key themes it covered were: Which retailers, brands and price ranges consumers consider when by products The relative importance of product lifetimes to consumers Consumers expectations for how long products currently last for Consumers willingness to pay for products with longer lifetimes Socio-demographics The length of the survey interview was limited to 15 minutes, which did place some constraints on the number and complexity of questions it was possible to include in the questionnaire. This meant it was not possible to quantify and test all of the findings from the previous phases of the project, only those identified as priority by WRAP (see bullet points above). It also meant there was a limit to the depth of questioning possible around any single issue. For example, respondents were asked about their willingness to pay for products which lasted twice as long as currently, but it was not possible to also explore how their willingness to pay might vary for a product that lasted, say, 10% or 25% longer. Notwithstanding this, the survey provided considerable insight, and effectively addressed a number of key questions about product lifetimes not broached by previous research. The full questionnaire is included in the annexes to this report. Significance testing has been applied to the survey results at the 95% confidence interval, corresponding to p- values below 0.05. Statistically significant differences between the results for different subgroups of respondents in the survey sample are highlighted in the report. Differences that are not statistically significant should be treated as indicative only, in that that may be the result of sampling error rather than a true difference in the whole population. Where results do not sum to 100%, this is due to respondents being able to provide more than one response, rounding, or the fact that responses with a low count have been excluded. 1.4 Interpreting the findings Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 10

The results from each element of the research were analysed independently before they were brought together in a series of meetings both internally within the research team and in a synthesis workshop with WRAP. Overall there was a high level of consistency across the results from each element, but also some points of difference. This reflected certain differences in how the qualitative and quantitative data was collected (and who from), which are explained and illustrated in the table below: Differences in data collection Prompted v Unprompted questioning The qualitative elements in the research provided the opportunity to explore attitudes to product lifetimes unprompted. It was not explicitly introduced into the discussion by the researcher at the start of the focus groups or accompanied shops. The subject was only introduced once participants unprompted attitudes had been explored. The quantitative survey collected data primarily on prompted responses, that respondents gave in answer the questions which explicitly included lifetime or how long it lasts for in their wording. Examples of design effects Without prompting, qualitative participants rarely spontaneously cited product lifetime as an important consideration. They talked more readily about the importance of product attributes such as brand, quality and reliability. However, what emerged was that lifetime was closely bound up with these other attributes. When product lifetime was explicitly introduced into the discussion by the researcher, participants said they did consider it important. Quantitative respondents, responding to prompted questions about product lifetime, also attributed it a high degree of importance. Differing levels of purchasing experience Qualitative participants were recruited on the basis that they had bought one of the products under investigation in the previous year or intended to in the next year. Less rigid screening criteria were used in the quantitative element. Respondents were eligible for the survey if they said they had responsibility for buying electrical items, for example vacuum cleaners, fridges or washing machines in their household, irrespective of whether they had bought one in the previous year or intended to in the next. Qualitative participants generally displayed higher levels of awareness of product brands and prices than quantitative respondents. Observed vs. Reported behaviour The bulk of the qualitative and quantitative elements were based on what respondents reported about their own behaviour. However, observational data on participants behaviour was also collected through the accompanied shops. Participants generally reported a more rational, ordered and systematic approach to researching and purchasing products than was observed. In order to aid the interpretation of the findings, and with the above in mind, it is made clear throughout the report which methodological element individual results are based on, the nature of the questioning used, and whether it was observed or reported. 1.5 Report structure Chapter Two of the report presents the evidence from the research on where, from who, and for how much respondents said they would purchase the products under investigation. Chapter Three explores the evidence collected on how consumers go about researching and purchasing products. Chapter Four reports the findings on consumer knowledge and understanding of product lifetimes. Chapter Five addresses the importance of lifetime to consumers relative to other product attributes. Chapter Six explores consumers expectations about how long products last and their satisfaction with current lifetimes. Chapter Seven draws conclusions from the research about the nature and extent of consumer pull for longer product lifetimes, and how this can be enhanced. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 11

2.0 Which retailers, brands and price ranges do consumers consider when buying household electrical products? Key findings Consumers expect to pay, on average, 155 for a new vacuum cleaner, 318 for a new fridge, and 313 for a new washing machine. Well known high-street retailers such as Currys-PC World are widely used by all consumer types, but use of higher and lower end retailers is more polarised. Most consumers would consider buying a well-known brand if they were to purchase one of the products in the next year, and very few spontaneously consider buying an own-brand. However, there is a significant minority of consumers, particularly younger consumers, who don t have fixed pre-conceptions, and say they would consider buying anything or don t know what brands they would consider. Younger consumers are also, in comparison to other consumers, more likely to base their attitudes to brands on reputation rather than personal experience. When prompted, around a third of consumers say they would be likely to consider buying an own-brand fridge, washing machine or vacuum cleaner. Lower income, younger and single consumers are the most likely to consider buying an own-brand. The main barriers to buying own-brand products relate to the perception that they are less reliable and of a lower quality than branded products. This chapter discusses the findings collected on where, from who, and for how much respondents said they would purchase the products under investigation. This was explored primarily through the quantitative element of the project. Although they do not, on their own, directly address the objectives of the research, they are important in providing the context within which consumer attitudes to product lifetimes can be understood. 2.1 Prices ranges The survey asked respondents how much they would expect to spend on a new fridge, washing machine and vacuum cleaner if they were to buy one in the next year. Although other elements of the research (see section 4.1) illustrate that consumers may shift from their original price range as they progress through the purchasing process, the responses to this question provide a reasonable starting point for classifying and comparing how much consumers are likely to spend on the three products in question. Figure 2 How much do consumers expect to spend on household electrical products? 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Washing machine (n=1,104) Fridge (n=1,104) Vacuum cleaner (n=1,104) Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 12

Figure 3 How much, on average, do consumers expect to spend on household electrical products? Mean expected spend Vacuum cleaner 155 Fridge 318 Washing machine 313 Most (i.e. 80%) of consumers expected to spend between 51 and 300 on a new vacuum cleaner, while a similar proportion expected to pay between 151 and 500 for a washing machine. The distribution of expected spend on fridges is slightly wider, with 80% of responses falling between 101 and 500. The mean scores also illustrate a clear differentiation between how much consumers expect to spend on vacuum cleaners as opposed to fridges and washing machines, i.e. about half the amount on average. Around 10% of respondents said they either didn t know or weren t sure how much they would expect to spend on the three products. There was not an opportunity to explore the reasons for this in the survey but the qualitative findings suggest this may be a reflection of how much recent experience consumers have of buying the products. It was not a requirement in the recruitment of the focus groups that participants had recent experience of buying all three of the workhorse products. Consequently some participants had not bought one of the products for a number of years (or had never bought one, in the case of some younger participants). These participants often expressed uncertainty about how much such products would cost. Responses to this question were analysed by the socio-demographic characteristics of survey respondents. As might be expected, respondents with higher household incomes, on average, expected to spend more on the three product types than those with lower household incomes. These differences are statistically significant. Figure 4 How much, on average, do different consumers expect to spend on household electrical products? Vacuum cleaner (n=1,104) Age Children in Household income household 0-20,001-40,001+ 18-29 30-49 50-64 65+ 0 1-2 20,000 40,000 142 154 184 136 158 160 151 151 165 Fridge (n=1,104) 267 313 407 348 367 295 240 287 384 Washing machine (n=1,104) 299 314 339 268 327 324 305 310 326 The above also illustrates that middle-aged respondents, as well as those who have children in the household, generally expected to spend more on average than other respondents. However, this was not consistent across the three product types. Respondents aged 18-29 expected to spend almost as much as those aged 30-49 on a new fridge, and more than those in older age-groups. The findings from the qualitative elements of the research suggest at least one explanation for this. Whereas vacuum cleaners and washing machines were valued by participants primarily or solely for their functionality, fridges were also valued partly for their style and fashion. This finding indicates (but doesn t prove) that more image conscious, younger consumers may expect to pay more for a fridge that can meet these additional needs. 2.2 Retailers Survey respondents were also asked which retailers they would consider buying a fridge, washing machine or vacuum from if they were to buy one of the products in the next 12 months. The following chart displays the most frequently mentioned retailers for each of the three product types. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 13

Figure 5 Which retailers do consumers consider buying household electrical products from? Currys-PC World Comet John Lewis Argos Local/independent shop The cheapest retailer found in a web search / on a price comparison site Unspecified online retailer The cheapest retailer on high street / in shopping centre / near where I live Major electrical retailers Vacuum cleaner (n=1,104) Fridge (n=1,104) Washing machine (n=1,104) Tesco Amazon Asda 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% These results suggest a fairly consistent pattern across the three product types, albeit with some variation between vacuum cleaners and the other two products. Respondents were less likely to consider buying a vacuum cleaner from Currys-PC World, Comet or John Lewis and more likely to do so from Argos, Amazon and also supermarkets such as Tesco and Asda. This may reflect the lower amount of money respondents expect to spend on vacuum cleaners compared to washing machines and fridges (see previous section), and the particular association the different retailers with selling high or low value products. Overall, a high proportion of respondents of all ages, household incomes and sizes said they would consider buying products from the major specialist electrical retailers, namely Currys-PC World and Comet. Equally, there were some statistically significant differences in retailer preferences at what might crudely be termed the higher (e.g. John Lewis) and lower (e.g. Argos) ends of the market. Specifically: higher income, married and older respondents were more likely to consider buying the three product types from John Lewis, while lower income, single and younger respondents were more likely to consider buying the three product types from Argos, and to a less extent supermarkets. The following table also illustrates that consumers who would consider shopping at Argos and supermarkets also expect to spend less, on average, than those who would consider shopping at Currys-PC World and John Lewis. This is based on combining the answers respondents gave to separate questions in the survey about how much they would expect to spend on the products and where they would consider buying them. Figure 6 How much, on average, do consumers expect to spend - by retailer? Vacuum cleaners (n=1,104) Fridges (n=1,104) Washing machines (n=1,104) Supermarkets Argos Currys-PC World John Lewis 133 133 162 182 238 253 323 383 261 269 304 387 2.3 Brands One of the objectives of the research was to explore the relationship between brand and product lifetime, and in particular consumer attitudes to retailer own-brand products in comparison to products produced by independent brands. For ease of use, these two categories are simply referred to as own-brand or brand products in this Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 14

section and throughout the remainder of the report. Four questions were included in the quantitative survey to explore this, the first of which was an open-ended question about which brands of washing machines, fridges and vacuum cleaners consumers would consider buying. The following chart illustrates the most frequently cited responses for each product type. Figure 7 Which brands would consumers consider buying? Dyson Vax/Dust Devil Henry Samsung Whirlpool Miele Beko Candy /Hoover Electrolux/AEG/Zanussi Vacuum cleaner (n=1,104) Fridge (n=1,104) Washing machine (n=1,104) Bosch/ Siemens Indesit/Hotpoint 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Although not displayed above, there was a very small subsample of respondents who named a specific ownbrand such as Logik or Prestige, as well as some who simply said an own-brand or a Tesco/Argos/etc ownbrand. This compares with GfK retail data that report an 18% market share for trade brand and exclusive vacuum cleaners, a 7% share for washing machines and a 20%-26% share for cooling and freezers. Even when combined, this group only represented 2% of the sample for each of the product types. This was too small to allow any robust analysis of the characteristics of this group in comparison to the rest of the sample. In order to aid the analysis, all responses to this question were also grouped into four categories, as displayed below. Figure 8 Which brands do consumers consider buying - grouped? Brand 79% 62% 76% Retailer own-brand 'Anything' / Depends on the price / best deal 2% 2% 2% 12% 21% 15% Vacuum cleaner (n=1,104) Fridge (n=1,104) Washing machine (n=1,104) Don't know 7% 16% 8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 15

Aside from the small size of the combined own-brand category, the most striking feature of the above results is the proportion of respondents who named neither a brand nor own-brand. Between 19%-37% said anything, it depends on the price/best deal or don t know. These proportions were highest for fridges. Further analysis revealed that a higher proportion of young respondents gave an open-ended response of this kind than older respondents, across all three product types. Again, the findings from the qualitative research indicate this is a reflection of how much prior experience consumers have of buying the products in question. In one of the few statistically significant gender differences found in the research, male respondents were also more likely to say that they would consider buying anything or didn t know what brands they would consider buying than female respondents. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents giving this kind of a response when compared by household income. Figure 9 What proportion of consumers would consider buying anything, it depends on the best deal/price or don t know? Vacuum cleaner (n=1,104) Fridge (n=1,104) Washing machine (n=1,104) Age Gender Household Income 18-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Male Female 0-20,000 20,001-40,000 40,001+ 28% 18% 20% 24% 26% 16% 22% 19% 17% 47% 34% 35% 34% 41% 32% 32% 32% 33% 35% 21% 19% 21% 25% 20% 18% 20% 19% A follow-up question explored why respondents considered buying the brands they named in the previous question. Figure 10 Why do consumers consider buying a particular brand or brands? Have owned these brands before (or someone else they know has) 41% Association with reliability / long lasting products 31% Brand reputation / Trust Association with quality 21% 23% Good value for money Cheap price 11% 14% Recommended by someone 7% Like how it looks Energy efficiency Which reviews/depends on Which report Guarantee/length of guarantee Don't know 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 16

Overall, and for most respondent types, the most common response was have owned these brands before (or someone else they know has). However, a lower proportion of 18-29 year olds gave this reason (29% compared to the average across all respondents of 41%), and they were much more likely to give Brand reputation/trust as a reason (40% compared to 23%). These differences are statistically significant. This suggests that not only are younger consumers less brand aware than older consumers, those that that do consider buying specific brands are also more likely to do so on the basis of reputation rather than personal experience of the brand or brands in question. In order to further explore consumer attitudes to own-brand products, the survey included an additional question which specifically asked how likely respondents would be to consider buying an own-brand fridge, washing machine and vacuum cleaner. Overall, the responses to this question suggest a greater willingness to consider buying own-brand products than the spontaneous ones to the previous question. Figure 11 What proportion of consumers are likely to consider buying own-brand electrical products? Vacuum cleaner (n=1,104) 9% 23% 10% 21% 37% Fridge (n=1,104) 9% 30% 12% 22% 26% Washing machine (n=1,104) 9% 29% 13% 24% 25% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very likely Quite likely Neither likely or unlikely Quite unlikely Very unlikely The above illustrates that attitudes to buying own-brand fridges, vacuum cleaners and washing machines were similar across the different products, with around a third of all respondents quite or very likely to consider buying an own-brand product and just under a half quite or very unlikely to do so. Lower income and younger respondents were more likely to consider buying own-brands than other consumers. Figure 12 What proportion of different consumers are likely to consider buying own-brand electrical products? Vacuum cleaner (n=1,104) Household income Age 0-20,000 20,001-40,000 40,001+ 18-29 30-49 50-64 65+ 44% 31% 25% 38% 30% 31% 32% Fridge (n=1,104) 48% 43% 34% 44% 38% 40% 36% Washing Machine (n=1,104) 40% 40% 34% 45% 35% 38% 37% Respondents who said they would consider shopping at supermarkets and Argos were also more likely to consider buying an own-brand product than other respondents. Figure 13 What proportion of different consumers are likely to consider buying own-brand electrical products? Vacuum cleaner (n=1,104) Fridge (n=1,104) Retailers Argos Supermarkets Currys-PC World John Lewis 36% 37% 30% 25% 46% 49% 41% 43% Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 17

Washing Machine (n=1,104) 49% 50% 38% 46% The survey also asked respondents who had said they were unlikely to consider buying an own-brand fridge, washing machine or vacuum cleaner why this was. Figure 14 Why are some consumers unlikely to consider buying own-brand electrical products? I think it would be unreliable / less reliable than a well-known brand I think it would be poor quality/worse quality than a well-known brand I would never consider buying an ownbrand product I don't think it would last very long / as long as a well-known brand Stick to brand I know/ brand loyalty I think it would break down a lot /more than a well-known brand Not well known/lack of reputation/track record I don't think it would have the same/as many features as a well-known brand I'd be embarrassed to own an ownbrand product Vacuum cleaner (n=635) Fridge (n=537) Washing machine (n=542) Don't know 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% These results indicate that resistance to buying own-brand products is underpinned by negative perceptions about their reliability, quality and, to a slightly lesser extent, their lifetime. These results were fairly consistent across all consumer types, with those in larger households and/or with children in the household being particularly likely to cite reliability or lifetime as reasons for why they were unlikely to consider buying ownbrands. It was beyond the remit of this research to produce a segmentation model of consumers. However, the findings discussed in this chapter illustrate of how intentions towards buying these products vary between different consumer types. This classification of consumers is returned to in later chapters of the report in order to explore how attitudes to, and pull for, longer lifetimes vary between consumers with different baseline purchasing intentions. The overall picture is that consumers are not polarised radically between one extreme set of intentions or another. While younger, single and lower income consumers are more likely to shop at lower-end retailers, have smaller budgets, and be more likely to consider buying own-brands, there are also consumers without these characteristics who share similar intentions. Although the differences between different consumer types highlighted here are statistically significant, this is not the same as saying they are fundamentally different. In most cases the scale of these differences are relatively modest. For example, lower income consumers are more likely to consider buying own-brands, but not twice as likely, even when compared to the highest income group. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 18

3.0 How do consumers research and buy household electrical products? Key findings Aspects of the purchase process encourage consumers to only consider products produced by familiar brands in pre-determined price-ranges, and limit the exposure consumers have to products outside these confines. Equally, the criteria consumers use to compare products during the purchase process are not fixed. They can be influenced by information or advice encountered during the process to consider new criteria. New information can also challenge consumers pre-conceptions about brand. Consumers use a range of online and/or in-store information sources during the purchase process, with different sources being used for different purposes, at different points in the process. Consumers rely heavily on product information on retailers websites and in their stores throughout the purchase process, while the use of other sources (e.g. online reviews and shopping assistants) is more mixed. There is no single model of the stages that consumers go through in researching and buying a product, and based on the ten accompanied shops undertaken in this research, consumers tend to take an unplanned and unsystematic approach. Having discussed the general intentions and attitudes consumers have towards purchasing these products, this chapter explores the evidence collected on how consumers actually go about researching and buying them. This provides further context to understanding the current role of lifetimes in consumers choice of products, and the barriers and opportunities to increasing consumer pull for longer lifetimes in the future. Previous research reviewed in the first phase of this project highlighted that consumers purchasing decisions cannot be assumed to be the result of a purely rational decision-making process. Consumers may not consciously deliberate all the options but instead rely on unconscious feelings and mental short-cuts. The findings presented here confirm this, and provide further insight into how features of the choice architecture which consumers go through can actively influence the decisions they make about which products they purchase. 3.1 What are the general features of the purchasing process consumers go through? The table below summarises the general features of the purchasing process identified in the research, and the effects these were observed to have on how participants researched and bought the products in question. This is based primarily on findings from the accompanied shops but also incorporates insights gained from the focus groups. Given the small qualitative sample, it was not possible to explore in-depth how the purchase process may vary for different consumer types. These are the key general features of the process which the research suggests are common, to a greater or lesser extent, to all consumer types. Figure 15 General features of the purchasing process Feature Perception that there is too much choice Effects Faced with a shop, or website, full of electrical products, participants in the accompanied shops typically used one or two criteria to narrow their choice, and make the process more manageable. Only looking at brands I know/have heard off was common, as was overlooking or excluding products outside the price range the consumer was willing to spend. Interestingly, participants generally had a lower price limit as well as a higher one. And whereas some were later led to consider products which exceeded their original top limit (see below), none in the sample gave consideration to products below their original bottom limit. These effects were strongest for participants purchasing online. The ability to quickly filter searches, which most participants made use of, meant products outside preconceived brand and price expectations remained invisible to the participants. There was also an observed bias towards the first, or first few, search results with later results often being ignored or overlooked. Consumers purchasing in-store were generally presented with a smaller number of products than those purchasing on-line, meaning they felt under less pressure to immediately discount products from consideration. An initial scanning walk down the aisles was common when they Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 19

entered a shop, which generally took in all products on display. However, brand and price were typically then used to narrow their attention to a smaller number of products. Perception there is too much information Faced with product specifications that include information on a number of attributes, participants initially compared products on the basis of just one or two of these attributes. This was a means by which they could simplify the process and also narrow their search further to a smaller number of products. This was observed across both the online and in-store accompanied shops. The importance of different product attributes is not fixed Participants were asked about what product attributes were a priority for them at the start of the process. While these were generally the attributes they initially used to narrow their search, it was also clear that as they went through the process these attributes could become supplanted or accompanied by other product attributes the consumer had not cited as a consideration at the start. This often appeared to be triggered by the product information they encountered. Instances of this were observed in both online and in-store accompanied shops. For example, one participant looking for a new washing machine noticed the environmental rating of one model in its online specification, and then went on to compare the rates of other models he looked at. There were other examples where information about the additional features of a model had then led the participant to only consider other models which also had these features. Brand perceptions are not (entirely) fixed There was at least one example (see case-study 5 below) of a participant who was influenced to consider buying a brand she had initially discounted. This was on the strength of information and advice provided by a sales assistant. Consumers willingness to pay can shift during process Some participants did consider products that exceeded their original budget, and said they were likely to buy these nonetheless. When probed for the reasons for this, either they attributed it to their lack of prior knowledge about how much the products cost, or they justified the additional expense on the grounds of the extra features and/or functionality they felt they would be getting. This was observed across both the online and in-store accompanied shops. Comparing attributes of different products is only one aspect of the process A large proportion of the purchase process (in some cases the bulk of the time observed) was spent comparing prices for the same product sold by different retailers, rather than comparing different products. Participants, including some higher income ones, talked about wanting to get the best deal, suggesting that getting the best product may be partly crowded out by this imperative. One other implication of this is that the retailer s website or shop that consumers initially visit to obtain information about products is not necessarily where they will ultimately purchase it. For example, some participants explicitly said that although they were searching on one retailer s website, they didn t expect to ultimately buy the product from that retailer. This was frequently observed in the online shops, although most of the in-store participants also said that they would visit other stores or go online to compare prices before making their purchase. The above suggests that two contrasting conclusions can be drawn about how consumers buy these products: Firstly, aspects of the purchase process encourage consumers to only consider products produced by familiar brands in pre-determined price-ranges, and limit the exposure consumers have to products outside of these. But secondly, there is also a degree of malleability in consumers decision-making as they go through the process. Specifically, the information they encounter during the process can influence the product attributes they consider and use to inform their purchasing decisions, and even their preconceptions about brand. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 20

3.2 How do consumers interact with information during the purchase process? Given the potential importance of information, this was explored further through the both the quantitative and qualitative elements of the research. Survey respondents were asked where they would generally look or ask for information about household electrical products before buying them. As the preliminary omnibus survey results (see section 1.3) identified, consumers either research and purchase products online, in-store or through a combination of the two. This was reflected in the responses to this question, which comprised a range of online and in-store information sources. Figure 16 Sources of information used during the purchase process Online - product information on retailer websites 30% Online - customer review sites 22% Just Online or 'On the internet' In shops - from a shop assistant Online - product information on independent sites Advice from friends, family or colleagues Online - Which? website 17% 16% 16% 15% 13% Online - consumer forums Just in a shop or 'in shops' In shops - on the product/packaging In shops - accompanying information Which? Magazine Don't look or ask for information 9% 7% 7% 6% 5% 3% Don't know 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% The findings from the qualitative research shed further light on when and for what purpose consumers used these different sources during the purchase process: Product information on retailer sites. These sites were typically the first port of call for participants shopping online, and were heavily used throughout the process. Product searches were filtered by brand, price or another product attribute at the outset. Searches typically generated 20+ results. While the product information for the first few of these was viewed, it was rare for the participant to view all results. In-store product information. This was used by all in-store participants. Price (usually in a larger font) was always used, but shoppers also looked at the other printed information provided on the product. This information was generally less extensive, covering fewer product attributes than the information provided online. The product itself. This was also heavily used in-store, and to a lesser extent online. As well as the aesthetics of the product, participants in-store were better able to gauge other attributes such as screen size, weight, and the robustness of materials. Although participants felt able to make some judgements based on the appearance of a product viewed online, several also felt they needed to see it in the flesh before making their final decision to purchase. Product information on price comparison sites. These sites were heavily used during the process, typically once the participant had identified a product, or a small number of competing products, they liked. Although the focus was on finding where they could buy the products for the lowest amount, participants could also encounter or notice additional information on product attributes when using these sites, which influenced their decision-making. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 21

In- store staff. Seeking and/or receiving information from this source was mixed, but could be influential. Focus group participants were quite dismissive of shopping assistants, saying they lacked product knowledge and were primarily interested in persuading consumers to buy a more extensive product and/or pay for an extended warranty 3. In the accompanied shops, use of in- store staff was variable. Some participants sought information from staff but in some cases advice was sought when no assistants were available. Participants valued the input from sales staff in helping to understand technical information and differentiate between products. Which? magazines and website. Which? was uniformly respected and trusted by participants, but in practice, usage of its magazines and website during the purchase process was lower than that of other sources. This was partly because most participants weren t members of Which?, restricting the amount of information they could easily access, and partly because of the abundance of product information through other sources, i.e. retailer websites. Online reviews/forums. Use of these in the accompanied shops was limited, although this may partly be a reflection of the fact that (as explained in chapter one) it wasn t generally possible to capture the whole purchasing process in the time the researchers spent with the participants. Focus group participants reported higher use of online reviews and forums, saying that they would typically access them towards the end of the process, once they had narrowed their choice down to a small number of products. Participants were motivated to use this source to find out more about the reliability and/or durability of the product from other consumers, in non-technical language, and based on first-hand experience. They expressed a strong preference for reviews and forums hosted on independent websites rather than retailer websites. 3.3 What stages do consumers go through within the purchasing process? Participants generally didn t see themselves as going through different stages when they were researching and buying a new product. But based on the observations made during the accompanied shops it was possible to identify certain distinct stages in the process, which could be differentiated from one another. These are illustrated below. 1. Preconceptions: Conscious or subconscious opinions e.g. around brands or aesthetics. 2. Decision to replace: E.g. is an urgent replacement needed? Was the previous one too big/small/out of date? Landing 3. Scan: Browse of the product landscape. 4. Narrowing down: Criteria acquired and developed through the first three phases are applied 5. Deeper info search: E.g. closer look at product info or speaking to an expert. New criteria emerge. 6. Further narrowing: A new set of criteria or attributes are applied to a subset of products. 7. Comparison and evaluation: A shortlist of products are compared directly with each other. 8. Final selection: One product emerges as favourite. May be followed by price or retailer comparison, or reassurance (e.g. reading consumer reviews). This provides a broad model for how consumers progress through the purchasing process, but it should not be assumed that all consumers will go through every one of these stages or do so in the order presented above. In the accompanied shops the process was rarely planned or systematic. Participants were observed to variously jump between stages, miss ones out entirely, and double-back to previous stages. The implications of this for increasing consumer pull for longer lifetimes are returned to in chapter 8. 3 The exception to this were John Lewis sales assistants who were universally praised for their product knowledge and for not trying to sell consumers an extended guarantee or warranty. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 22

The following five case-studies and journey maps illustrate how participants who took part in the accompanied shops interacted with information and progressed through some or all of these stages during the purchase process. Case-studies and journey maps for the other five accompanied shops are provided in the annexes of the report. 3.3.1 Case study 1 A couple, both 41-years old, who were looking to get a new vacuum cleaner. Since the wife had an operation a few months ago her husband has had to lug the current (Dyson) vacuum cleaner up two flights of stairs (they have a loft conversion) when she is doing the cleaning. As a result she wants a second vacuum cleaner in the house for the upper two floors which needs to be lightweight. Despite being lightweight, they were still hoping that it would be powerful, and they looked specifically for a compact bagless/cylinder vacuum cleaner made by a well-known brand, ideally priced below 200. Though the couple discuss most purchases together, the wife is primarily responsible for practical household items, while the husband takes charge of buying gadgets such as phones, tablets and laptops. The wife therefore did the online searching before they headed out to Currys. Though she will not spend more than a week between starting researching things and completing the final purchase, she had already had a quick preliminary search the day before the accompanied shop, to see what cylinder vacuum cleaners she could find. This led to the discovery that some vacuum cleaners had special suction and filter capabilities that are beneficial to allergy sufferers: as they have a cat and the wife is allergic to cat hair (and dust), this is something she is interested in. She initially searched for cylinder vacuum cleaners on Google, before entering the Currys website. Both Currys and Comet sites had come up on previous searches, and they often look on both sites because they will also visit both stores which are not far apart at a local retail park. On the Currys site she used a list on the left hand side of the page to refine the search selecting bagless only. She then systematically selected bagless vacuum cleaners by brand (though only those that she is interested in) and had a look at each brand s offerings. She briefly considered looking on review sites before going back to the Currys site and refining the search to: bagless, and 100-150. That search left only four models and the first (Hoover) one clicked on met all criteria as it also was light and good for allergy sufferers. The model number was pasted into Google and the Google shopping results were viewed, revealing that it could be purchased for half of the price online as it could be from Currys. This price differential initially unsettled them, but after reading very positive reviews on very.co.uk, further searches were only in order to ascertain which might be the best/cheapest place from which to purchase the product. The online search completed, they got in the car and drove to Currys. After a very brief assessment of the products available in the store they head over to the Hoover-branded section and found the model that they were interested in. This model was compared to the other Hoover vacuum cleaners next to it and the information provided was reviewed and comparison of weight, capacity and suction power took place. Then, after actually physically interacting with the products, their preferences changed towards another model:...within a few minutes of being in the shop... my husband said that it [the model selected on the internet] looked rather plastic-y. That initially didn t put me off, I was still swaying towards it, until [I saw] the features that I hadn t considered which aren t listed on the internet anywhere, such as the easy release of the dirt. At the end of the shop, the more robust-feeling, larger capacity, easier to empty, vacuum cleaner was chosen. It was not purchased then and there as the couple were first going to go back to the internet to compare prices and possibly look at some consumer reviews. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 23

Stage Consumer journey and information viewed Attributes considered No. of products considered Preconceptions Lots of preconceptions around brand, and a recognisable (and specialist) brand is an important factor Desire to get something powerful Would not consider a vacuum cleaner with a bag Brand, Power Decision to replace Not a replacement not urgent The vacuum cleaner is for the upstairs floors so needs to be lightweight As it s not the primary vacuum cleaner they have a fairly strict budget (< 200) Weight, Price Landing Google search for cylinder hoovers Enter the Currys website Narrowing down Used Currys website facility to narrow search to bagless. Then searched for bagless models by brand. Bagless, Price Scan Bagless vacuum cleaners were viewed (very briefly but systematically) by brand: Hoover, Dyson, Miele and Vax models were considered. Other brands were ignored, while Samsung and Bosch models were viewed for interest, but not considered as not from specialist vacuum cleaner manufacturers. Brand, Price, Aesthetic s Around 20 models viewed in total Further narrowing The Currys tool was used again to narrow the search: bagless and between 100-150. This leaves four potential models. Price, Bagless Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 24

Scan These four products, from two brands, are briefly scanned. Brand, Price, Aesthetic Search field narrowed to four models s Deeper information search One product selected and its information viewed. Found to be good for allergy sufferers (wife is allergic to dust and cat hair). The model is light, powerful, well within the original budget ( 129) Cable length, which had been mentioned as a desirable, found to be good. The model number was noted and price comparison and consumer reviews were sought Good for allergy sufferers, Weight, Price, Cable length Lots of time spent looking at one product Landing Drive to Currys/PC World Scan Before heading over to the model they selected there was a deliberate, but very brief look around at what other brands were offering. Findings from the earlier initial scan online was confirmed (of the other well-known bagless brands, Dyson was expensive, and Vax models were less attractive that the Hoover model they were interested in). The four Hoover models were considered briefly Brand, Price, Aesthetic s Around 10-15 models viewed, but only Hoovers considered in any depth Comparison and evaluation While the wife was comparing information on the chosen model to those nearby, the husband was considering a nearby model. The original model was lighter, but deemed too plastic-y by the husband. The wife became convinced after they tested the release mechanisms and found the new contender had an easy-release (which would reduce her exposure to dust). Aesthetics, Weight, Capacity, Power, Release mechanism, Feel Two products head to head Final selection The model will be purchased online, subject to final price checks and a scan of consumer reviews. Price Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 25

3.3.2 Case study 2 A 60-year old married man who was considering buying a new washing machine. His family s existing washing machine was still in working order and this was not urgent purchase. He typically searches online to seek good deals (though this is usually whilst at work) and he uses this information to inform his wife s final purchasing decisions. He is largely motivated by finding something reliable and of a decent quality. I am not that passionate about it [searching for a washing machine] but I want to make sure we get the best deal. I would use my logic to help. But at the end of the day she [his wife] makes the choice, all I can do is point out things where she might like the look of it and not worry about the service side. He initially searched on Google for new washing machine and clicked on a sponsored link to the Currrys-PC World website. He then used the options on the website to narrow the search to the price band 300-400, leaving him with 21 results. He clicked on the first of these, a Bosch, as he thought it was a quality brand, and had a look at the product information, including capacity, spin speed and environmental rating (though he found this to be confusing). The participant then went to the Which? website to investigate the same Bosch model further. He looked at other information before noting that warranty was two years, which he described as not great. The next chunk of the search was taken up looking for the same product, but with a longer warranty. The first stop was the John Lewis website as he had heard they offered standard five year warranties. He found, however, that the Bosch came with a two year basic warranty with the option of a five year service plan for an additional 120 something he suggested he would be willing to pay. Further comparisons were between retailers and looking at both price and warranty length. Currys, Comet and John Lewis all came out the same, with the Bosch at 380 and with a basic two year warranty. A quick search was done on the Which? website to find products with a five year warranty included, but all that was found was a Miele that was too expensive (at over 700). Having settled on the Bosch as a possibility, he wanted a few other models that he could compare it against when he and his wife visit a store. A quick search in the same price range on the Which? site threw up a couple of other models one was ruled out as it was not available in John Lewis, the other because it only came with a one year warranty. A search at a higher price range found a Siemens with a two year warranty. This was also noted for comparison in the store. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 26

Stage Consumer journey and information viewed Attributes considered No. of products considered Preconceptions Determined to get a good deal Seeking something of a good quality and reliable Quality. reliability Decision to replace Not an urgent purchase Landing Google search for new washing machine Clicked on the link to Currys website Narrowing down Used Currys website facility to narrow search to the price band 300-400, leaving 21 results Only the top one of these results is viewed Price Only viewing one product Deeper information search For the top result, the product information (including capacity, spin speed, and environmental rating) is assessed Further information is sought on the same model using Which? website Capacity, spin speed, env. rating Only viewing one product Additional information search Attempts to find longer warranties on the same product search on John Lewis website Still only considering the one model, comparisons were made between retailers on price and length of warranty offered. Price, length of warranty Only considering one product Deeper information search Search on Which? website for a product with a five year warranty deemed too expensive. Length of warranty An additional product is briefly considered Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 27

3.3.3 Case study 3 A 34-year old mother, looking for a laptop for her 12-year old daughter s Christmas present. Her daughter had seen adverts for Windows 8 on the TV and liked the look of it, so the search was for a Windows compatible laptop, not a Mac (which is what the mother would have picked as she uses them at work). The laptop also needed to be easy to use so that the mother could also use it (the daughter would not have any issues), and she was hoping to pay 300 or less as she had bought a laptop a couple of years ago for 250. She was apprehensive at first, and saw the purchase as a big deal. The accompanied shop happened in Currys-PC World as she does not like to buy online, and there was no particular strategy in place for the search. Initial browsing involved walking down several aisles and spending time playing with laptops that stood out. This seemed largely to be due to appearance and colour - red, blue and white laptops had all been looked at. Brand was also important, Toshiba and HP laptops were considered, while unheard of brands such as Lenovo were ignored. As the participant liked a couple of laptops over 300 almost immediately and so fairly quickly resigned herself to blowing her original budget target. Q: We talked at the start about what you were looking for, and you said you might have a price range up to 300, has that changed? W: It has sort of gone, yes, completely now! The laptops that had stood out in the initial scanning were revisited, both to check the accompanying information and to experience using the laptop the games app was clicked on a few laptops, and the touchpad assessed for feel. The most important information available next to the products seemed to be how many songs or photos the laptop could store, and this was compared between models. It was clearly useful to have this translation of storage capacity into something to which people can relate, as opposed to just listing a number of gigabytes. After revisiting a few models, the participant seemed set on a white Toshiba laptop. She was not necessarily conscious of the reasons why this model had stood out to her. Q: Why is it that you ve got that particular one in mind now? W: I don t know really. When I first looked at it, it was all right, OK, but then having looked at all the other ones, I have set my heart on that one now. I fell in love with it really! Quite sad! After giving it a bit more thought she was able to articulate some of the reasons that made that particular model more attractive than the others in the store. I think just the look of it. And then having a quick go of it there, I liked the screen size, the picture quality looked really good on it, the colour of the pictures, and just the whole style of it was really nice. And I liked the keypad on it as well. Despite this admiration for the laptop, the purchase was some way off. Discussions were still to be had with her partner, and her daughter will be brought to the shop to make the final selection. While walking around the store the participant also picked up a Tech Guide and a Computer and Gadget Guide, both of which she intended to read to increase her knowledge of laptops before making the final purchase. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 28

Stage Consumer journey and information viewed Attributes considered No. of products considered Preconceptions Daughter has seen adverts for Windows 8 and wants it. Has a budget in mind around 300 or less, based on previous purchase. Up to date, Price Decision to replace Not a replacement product not urgent Landing Currys/PC World Scan Walked down several aisles browsing. Laptops that stood out (largely due to colour, while unheard of brands were ignored) were played with briefly. A couple of laptops over 300 were liked almost immediately and it was acknowledged the original budget target may be exceeded. Brand, Price, Aesthetics Over 20 laptops viewed Deeper information search The laptops that stood out in the first round were revisited each was looked at more closely and played with again. Some information was viewed storage capacity of songs and photos was seen as important for her daughter Two information brochures were picked up for later reading Aesthetics, Touch, Storage capacity A shortlist of four or five were revisited Comparison and evaluation The shortlist eventually whittles down to two almost identical white Toshiba laptops based largely on aesthetics. These laptops were compared against one another for storage and other spec, but the outstanding favourite was chosen largely on the basis of aesthetics and feel. Aesthetics, Touch, Storage capacity Two products head to head Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 29

3.3.4 Case study 4 A couple in their 60s who were looking for an integrated washing machine. It was not an urgent search as the current machine was still in working order. The wife wanted the new washing machine to have at least 1400rpm, and ideally the same (1600rpm) as she has now. This is important to her because she likes to have the washing as dry as possible when it comes out of the machine, both so she doesn t have to put the dryer on for too long, and also so the house does not get a damp atmosphere which could affect their - or their grandchildren s - health. She also wanted a shorter length of wash cycle as the current default was 2.5 hours. There was a suggestion that they would avoid buying a washer/dryer as they were more likely to break. The husband gets Which? magazine delivered to the house and reads it regularly, and he had noticed a league table of washing machines in a recent edition and had made a few notes. This gave him a basic idea of what to look for. This was supplemented by an online search (something the husband usually does alone) which involved a Google search for washing machines and then having look around the Tesco and Comet sites. This look primarily involved consideration of prices and spin speeds, but was not limited to integrated models - a decision they later regretted. No particular models or brands were noted during the search, and the husband said that, despite his research, the decision making was really up to his wife anyway as she is the one that uses the washing machine. The couple then went the shops. This is something the wife will normally do alone or with friends, but since she had recently broken her arm, her husband was driving and therefore also in attendance. Though they arrived in the shop quite confident they could find something, the Comet they visited only had a selection of five integrated washing machines. Nevertheless, the wife looked at the energy efficiency ratings (she claims to be very environmental ) and the spin speeds to see if any were suitable. Most were A-rated, but all had spin speeds of 1200rpm, so the decision was taken to drive to Currys. Currys also had a limited selection, and the first couple of models viewed also had spin speeds of 1200rpm, at which point the wife was beginning to despair. Then they spotted a Whirlpool washing machine that was A++ rated, had a spin speed of 1400rpm, and a quick wash setting, for 399. This felt like progress, and this was to be their favourite model of the day. It was compared against a Bosch washing machine that was A rated ( not as good ), had the same spin speed, but also had a half load function which really appealed to the wife s environmental motivations. The reason the Bosch remained second favourite was because it was more expensive though if it had a 1600rpm spin speed the price would not have mattered because it also had the half load function. Both of these model numbers were taken down in order to do some more research at home, such as finding out how long the wash programmes were. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 30

Stage Consumer journey and information viewed Attributes considered No. of products considered Preconceptions Ideas of which brands are desirable. Brand Decision to replace Current model has long wash cycles. The existing washing machine does have a good spin speed new models would ideally match this as it is important. Needs to be integrated machine. Length of cycle, Spin speed. Integrated Landing Which? magazine. Deeper information search The husband receives Which? magazine every month and read an edition which ranked washing machines. Despite the depth of information available, beyond increased brand awareness, little filtered through to the rest of the search. Brand Read article on the top 50 washing machines Landing Google search washing machine. Enter Tesco website from sponsored link. Scan Look around Tesco and Comet sites for washing machines, mainly looking at spin speed. No notes were taken the research process is almost a hobby for the husband. Despite being a crucial criterion, no searching was done for integrated washing machines. Spin speed Browsing of models on Tesco and Comet websites Landing Drive to Comet. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 31

Deeper information search Only five integrated washing machines available. All were looked at for energy efficiency ratings something that had now become an important factor - and spin speeds. As no spin speeds were suitable they decided to search elsewhere. Spin speed, Energy efficiency Five integrated washing machines were viewed in store Landing Drive to Currys/PC World. Deeper information search After dismissing a couple of models, one was found with a good energy efficiency rating and spin speed. After further investigation it was found to have a quick wash setting. Spin speed, Energy efficiency, length of cycle Six integrated washing machines were viewed for product information Spin speed, Comparison and evaluation This model was used as a comparator against the next machine that they found and a variety of features were pitched against one another. Energy efficiency, length of cycle, Price, Two products compared head to head Brand, Half load function Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 32

3.3.5 Case study 5 A 23-year old female looking for a new TV. She had recently moved into a new house and was looking for a TV for herself for the first time. She was prepared to spend somewhere in the region of 1000 and was hoping to find something up to date, ideally Panasonic or Samsung, and possibly with 3D capabilities. Beyond that, she had no real idea what she was looking for, describing herself as open minded. Browsing in the store was the first step in the search process, and she had not done any kind of research in advance. The accompanied shop took place in the participant s local Currys-PC World. The first 10 minutes were spent looking up and down a few aisles, scanning brands and prices. No more than a few seconds was spent at any one TV, but one particular model was noted: it was a brand she liked, had 3D capability, and was within her original price range. The shopper then accepted an offer of help from a shop assistant. The first thing asked of the assistant was whether a brochure was available she was informed that brochures are now exclusively online. Then the assistant asked what she intended to use the TV for, and engaged her in a conversation and demonstration that changed the complexion of the whole search. Initially information was given which changed her perception of a few leading brands. Then, after a particular TV had caught her eye and some time was spent with the assistant running through its features, the original budget became more flexible and internet connectivity became an important feature. I knew that I wanted a 3D TV so I just looked around and when I spoke to someone I got that and a few other bits that I didn t really think of before. I probably didn t think I would have a clue still, but when I spoke to the sales guy it just gives you a better idea of what is out there and what you can get for your money. Product lifetimes did not actively feature at all in this shopping experience, though the shopper later suggested that less well known brands were not included in her considerations. Maybe their own brand I wasn t that keen on... they won t last, it is just because they are cheap, so they are good for the moment sort of thing, but I wouldn t expect them to last as long. Maybe with a more well-known brand I would think hopefully it is either easier to repair or it is going to last longer. The shopper next planned to do some research online and look at reviews of particular models. She also said she would speak to her housemates about the TV before returning to a shop to make the final purchase. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 33

Stage Consumer journey and information viewed Attributes considered No. of products considered Preconceptions Open minded about the type of TV purchased Has an idea of which brands she wants to buy Has a rough budget Wants something up to date Price, Brand, Size, 3D Decision to replace Not an urgent purchase going shopping just to get an idea of what is available Landing Visit to local Currys/PC World Scan As she walked down the aisles, a few seconds were spent looking at the TVs, the brand, and their price tags. One model which met the initial criteria was noted for future reference Price, Brand, Size, 3D Over 30 TVs viewed, one product noted for later consideration Deeper information search A particular LG model caught her eye because it looked good. A conversation was then struck up with the shop assistant, and he imparted information that affected her views on brand. She had previously thought LG were a cheaper brand, but was convinced by the shop assistant that they were comparable with other brands she HAD initially focused her search on. The assistant demonstrated its features including 3D capabilities and the fact that it had internet connectivity. Internet connectivity was seen as attractive as it allows use of apps (like on a phone) and has access to catch up TV (include BBC iplayer). Price, Brand, 3D, Internet conn. Lots of time spent looking at one product Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 34

4.0 How much do consumers know about product lifetimes and what is their knowledge based on? Key findings Consumers do not feel knowledgeable about how long fridges, washing machines and vacuums last, and are not aware of information on how long these products last being available. They use on a combination of general knowledge, sources of knowledge available during the purchase process, and proxies to make assessments about the lifetimes of comparative products. Younger consumers are less likely to have personal experience of how long these products last, and some consumers also have doubts about whether the lifetime of products can be accurately measured. The main source of information consumers think they can access during the purchase process to compare the likely lifetimes of different products are online reviews by other consumers. However, consumers primarily rely on brand, and to a lesser extent price, as proxies for the lifetime, with the expectation that well-known brands and more expensive products will last longer. Manufacturer guarantees or warranties are also seen by consumers as a show of faith by the manufacturer in the lifetime of their products. This chapter details the findings from the research on how knowledgeable consumers think they are about how long products last, and the sources they use to judge this. 4.1 How much do consumers know, or think they know, about products lifetimes? Previous research, reviewed in the first stage of the project, indicated that consumers have low levels of knowledge about how long household electrical products last for. This was strongly reinforced by the findings from the focus group and accompanied shop participants. Participants didn t feel they possessed this knowledge, and although they were able to make estimates of how long the different products would last for, they generally expressed little confidence in the accuracy of these. As such, levels of knowledge were not tested further through the quantitative survey. The qualitative participants attributed their lack of knowledge to a perceived absence of information on the lifetime of the products. In addition, some questioned whether the lifetimes of the products in question could accurately be measured either because how long they last was down to luck or how frequently/intensely individual products were used. Despite all the above, there was one piece of knowledge that most participants felt they had and were confident in stating: that electrical products aren t being built to last as long as they were in the past. Underlying this was a distrust of the manufacturers of these products, which in some cases extended to the suspicion that they were being built to breakdown after a predetermined period of time. While these perceptions have been noted in previous research, it was striking how ingrained they appeared to have become amongst the participants in this research. 4.2 What is consumer knowledge of product lifetimes currently based on? Qualitative participants were asked what, in the perceived absence of information about product lifetimes, they used to judge how long products would last for. Their responses can broadly be broken down into three categories: general knowledge ; knowledge they could acquire during the process of researching and buying one of the products; and proxies. 4.2.1 Sources of general knowledge These included participants own prior experience of owning these products, which was cited as the principle means they had of estimating the lifetimes of current products. However, some participants (particularly younger ones) were contemplating buying one of these products for the first time, meaning they did not have this personal experience to call on. Other participants also acknowledged that while they had this experience, it was likely to be out of date and an unreliable guide to current products on the market. This applied particularly to workhorse products which may have been purchased as long as 10 years previously. This also chimes with the findings presented in chapter one, about consumers variable levels of brand awareness, particularly amongst younger consumers. The other main source of general knowledge was the experiences of people the participants knew namely family, friends and colleagues. One limitation some participants reported with this source was that the experience Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 35

of others may not be a good guide to the lifetime of a product, because of different patterns and intensities of usage. For example, how long a product had lasted a family in a large household was not thought to be a good guide to how long it might last someone living on their own, and vice versa. The final potential source of general knowledge considered in the research was advertising by manufacturers or retailers about the lifetimes of their products. None of the participants in the research reported having seen or heard this type of advertising for the electrical products in question. However, several focus group participants were aware of advertising concerning the lifetimes of other product types. Kia s advertising of the longer guarantees it was offering for its cars was one example, while Ikea s advertising of how their products were tested was another. Reactions to both of these examples were positive, and the implications of this for enhancing consumer pull for household electrical products with longer lifetimes is returned to in the final chapter. 4.2.2 Sources of knowledge during the purchase process These included online reviews, sales assistants and the physical appearance and feel of a product. As discussed in the previous chapter, actual usage of these sources during the purchase process appeared to be mixed. And when consumers were observed, or talked about, using these sources, it was not necessarily with the aim of accessing information about product lifetimes. No participants recalled seeing information about how long a product would last on retailer websites or in shops. 4.2.3 Proxies What emerged clearly from the qualitative elements of the research was the reliance of consumers on proxies not just to judge the lifetime of different products but also to judge a range of other attributes such as reliability and quality. The three main proxies for lifetime that emerged were brand, price and guarantees/warranties. These are each discussed in turn, and in some depth given the role they play, below. Brand as a proxy for lifetime As a general rule, participants in the qualitative research believed that products produced by reputable brands would last longer than both lesser brands and own-brands. If you got a certain brand you [have] a better chance of it lasting, and for a decent length of time. Manchester, Workhorse products, Male Equally, some doubts were raised in the focus groups about the extent to which product lifetimes did actually differ between different brands. Although these doubts were most frequently expressed in relation to laptops and TVs, at least one focus group participant expressed similar sentiments with regards to workhorse products. Half the stuff comes out of the same factories anyway. Watford, Workhorse products, Female However, almost unanimously shared across the entire sample were low expected lifetimes of store own-brands across all product types. This opinion was held by participants with experience of buying these own-brand products (whose experiences of their lifetime were generally negative) and those without this experience. This was reinforced by the survey results reported in section 2.3, which illustrated that concerns about the reliability and lifetime of own-brand products were two of the main reasons why consumers were unlikely to consider buying them. Price as a proxy for lifetime You get what you pay for was recurrent phrase in qualitative research, and participants, mostly but not exclusively older ones, accepted as a general principle that more expensive products were likely to last longer than very cheap ones. If you pay a lot of money for something you would expect it to have better parts in it, wouldn t you, and it s going to last longer. Watford, Workhorse products, Male Equally, when probed, participants often questioned the association between price and lifetime above the very cheap threshold. They felt they would primarily be paying for additional features rather than longer lifetimes, and that different price models by the same brand would have the same lifetime. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 36

You just get more gadgets on the higher end one, so it s screwed the same way just more stuff. Watford, Workhorse products, Male Some participants even speculated high price models would not last as long as lower price models, on the basis that because they had more features there was more to go wrong. However, this appeared to primarily be a perception rather than an experience they had personally had. Guarantees/Warranties as a proxy for lifetime Superficially, the length of the standard guarantee or warranty for a product appeared to be a strong proxy for product lifetime. When prompted, most participants did believe that this was a good indicator of how long a product was going to last. Manufacturer guarantees and warranties in particular were seen as a show of faith by the manufacturer in their products. There was also evidence from the focus groups and accompanied shops that some participants did actively look for information on guarantees / warranties during the process of researching and buying a product. However, participants most often compared the length of guarantees offered by different retailers for the same model, rather than for different models. What became clear was that participants were primarily attracted to long guarantees / warranties by the reassurance that products would be quickly repaired or (ideally) replaced if they broke down. If you ve got a warranty you don t really mind how long it s supposed to last as long as you re covered. I don t think we consciously make a decision or consider how long we re going to need it or how long it s going to last. Cardiff, Workhorse products, Male As this quote illustrates, long guarantees / warranties could effectively be seen as a substitute for longer lifetime, which may render expected lifetime less rather than more important in consumers choice of product. 4.3 How do consumers judge how long electrical products last for? In the quantitative survey these findings were tested by asking respondents how they would judge the lifetimes of two competing products they were considering buying. General knowledge, sources of knowledge within the purchase process, and proxies all feature among the responses given. Figure 17 How do consumers judge how long electrical products last for? Brand Online reviews Previous experiences Advice from friends, family or colleagues Length of guarantee / warranty Price Advice from shop staff Accompanying information (in store) How it looks Other online information Online forums How it feels Not possible to judge / You can't tell Don't know how to judge this 2% 2% 4% 7% 6% 6% 6% 7% 13% 12% 10% 10% 23% 25% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 37

Perhaps the two most striking features of the survey results are the importance of brand, overall and in comparison to other proxies for lifetime; and also the importance of online reviews, which emerge as the most widely cited source consumers were likely to access during the purchase process. These results should still be treated with a degree of caution. Respondents were being asked how they would judge product lifetimes if they were choosing between two models. The first-hand observations from the accompanied shops would indicate that there is an even greater reliance on proxies than the survey results suggest. There were few examples where participants actively sought out sources of information on how long products last during the purchase process, and used them for this purpose. The sense was that by narrowing their product search to specific brands and/or price ranges at the outset they had already, consciously or unconsciously, made a judgement about the likely lifetime of the products they were considering. This was supported by the comments of participants in the interviews conducted after the accompanied shops. They often said that they had focused their search on particular brands partly (but not wholly) because they expected them to last longer or be more reliable. The survey results also suggest that nearly a quarter of consumers would use online reviews to judge the lifetime of two competing products, and respondents in the qualitative research also cited it as one of the main means they had of making such an assessment. The one caveat to this is that, as reported in the previous chapter, respondents said they generally read online reviews towards the end of the purchase process once a shortlist of products had been identified. The implications of this are that by this point in the process consumers have already generally filtered out products outside their brand and/or price expectations. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 38

5.0 How important are product lifetimes to consumers? Key findings Product lifetimes are not a front-of-mind consideration for most consumers when buying products, but are still held to be important. Often product lifetimes are not expressed directly but are inferred through other, more salient terms such as quality, reliability and durability. When prompted, consumers say they do consider product lifetimes important, and this is consistent across all three workhorse products and for different socio-demographic groups. The importance of lifetime for workhorse products is underpinned by a desire to avoid the expense and inconvenience of repair or replacement if they break down. In comparison, consumers attach less importance to the lifetimes of up to date products. Older consumers and lower income groups, as well as consumers with a less consumption-driven mind-set, appear to place particular importance on product lifetimes. This chapter presents the findings from the research on how important product lifetimes are to consumers, and also its relationship with other product attributes that consumers consider important. 5.1 How important is product lifetime to consumers? Findings from the qualitative elements of the research strongly suggested that product lifetimes are not a frontof-mind consideration for most consumers. The terms lifetime and even how long it lasts were rarely used spontaneously by participants, if at all. However, several terms they did use were, after probing, clearly related to lifetime. The strength of this relationship varied in some cases being very strong, to the extent that they were almost direct equivalents, but in others being somewhat more tenuous: Reliability Durability/robustness Functionality/ that it works or does the job Brand Quality Value / Value for money Guarantee / warranty The most direct equivalent for lifetime used to mean both not breaking down and lasting a long time A close second to reliability, although generally used to mean not breaking down For some respondents also used to mean that it works or does the job without breaking down Lifetime was one of a number of attributes respondents bundled together under brand, including quality, reputation, functionality, fashion. Often used interchangeably with brand, in which lifetime was one of a similar bundle of attributes. A composite factor, in which how long a product would last without breaking down was one side of equation with price. The most ambiguous proxy, within which lifetime may be a subsidiary consideration see section 3.4 Focus group participants were also asked to rank the relative importance of different factors. In practice, the results were messy. Participants rarely arrived at a consensus within the groups, and there were also variations in the factors identified between the different focus groups. With this in mind, the following results are imprecise and do not amount to a strict ranking of factors in order of importance. These are rather the groups of attributes that participants across the six focus groups most commonly cited as important for each product type: Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 39

Figure 18 Attributes that focus group respondents consider in important by product type Washing machines Fridges Vacuum cleaners Laptops TVs Brand Price Size Value Quality Spec Robustness Reliability Warranty Brand Value Price Looks Quality Size Features Price Value Quality Brand Doing the job Reliability Power/ performance Size Weight Price Quality Brand Speed Performance Spec Weight Size Battery life Usability After-sales technical support Price Brand Screen size Spec Picture quality Looks/style Compatibility As highlighted above, the most direct proxies for lifetime were only ranked amongst the most important factors for washing machines and vacuum cleaners, while more indirect proxies such as brand, value and/or quality were cited for all product types. However, other findings from the research show that product lifetimes are important to consumers. Indeed, once the issue was raised in focus groups, respondents became quite passionate about the importance of lifetimes for some products. The survey results also indicate that, when prompted, how long it will last for was seen as important more important even than other attributes such as brand and price. Within the survey, respondents were asked to rate the importance of a series of attributes on a scale of one to ten, for each of the three products. The results are displayed below. Figure 19: How important are different product attributes to consumers? Fridge Vacuum cleaner Washing machine Reliability Quality How long it will last for Price Size Length of guarantee Features Brand How it looks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean score out of 10 (1 is Not at all important, 10 is Extremely important) (n=1,104) The survey also provided the opportunity to test the extent to which product lifetime was bound up with other product attributes they cited as important spontaneously. These other attributes were deliberately included in the survey so their relative importance could be tested against, and correlated with, product lifetime. The Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 40

following table shows the correlation coefficients between the scores out of ten respondents gave for how long it lasts and the scores they gave for these other attributes. Figure 20: Correlation 4 between scores for how long it will last for and score for other attributes Length of Brand Reliability Quality Price Size guarantee/ warranty How it looks Features Washing machines 0.234 0.447 0.393 0.207 0.2 0.324 0.125 0.157 Vacuum cleaners 0.241 0.553 0.531 0.375 0.238 0.442 0.254 0.29 Fridges 0.259 0.584 0.483 0.331 0.199 0.445 0.193 0.308 This demonstrates that, consciously or unconsciously, consumers do associate product lifetimes with reliability, quality and length of guarantee/warranty. 5.2 How does the importance of lifetime vary by product type? How long a product lasts was scored highly across the three workhorse products in the survey, with over 80% of consumers scoring it at eight out of ten or higher, with no statistically significant differences in their mean scores. Figure 21: Importance of product lifetimes scores by product (n=1,104) Fridge Vacuum cleaner Washing machine Score 1-4 1% 2% 1% Score 5-7 12% 16% 11% Score 8-10 86% 83% 88% Mean score 8.9 8.7 8.9 These results suggest little differentiation between how important consumers think products lifetimes are for the three products. Equally, discussion in the focus groups suggested there were certain factors which did have a bearing on how important lifetimes were for different products. The price of the product - Participants said they were more likely to consider lifetime an important factor when buying more expensive products such as washing machines, fridges and TVs. Of course it is important, if you are spending 500 or 600 on a fridge, you don t want it to only last two or three years do you? Watford, Workhorse products, Female The perceived susceptibility of the product to break down - Washing machines, vacuum cleaners and laptops were thought to be more susceptible to breaking down than TVs and fridges. Some participants indicated that this influenced them to give greater thought to product lifetimes when buying these products. A fridge sits there and it s a simple system A washing machine works harder. Cardiff, Workhorse products, Female The anticipated disruption resulting from break down - Linked to the above, some products, notably washing machines and laptops (if they were being used for work purposes), were thought to result in a great deal of disruption when they broke down. Participants said the prospect of this kind of disruption did influence them to consider the lifetime of those particular products important. 4 The table shows correlation coefficients. A correlation coefficient of 1 suggests a perfect positive relationship (e.g. that everyone gave identical scores for how long it lasts and the other variable). A coefficient of 0 suggests there was no relationship between people s scores for how long it will last for and the other variable. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 41

There s also that nightmare scenario when they break. When the washing machine breaks you ve got to go and get another one With a vacuum cleaner you don t really care if it breaks. Cardiff, Workhorse products, Female The desired lifetime of the product - For products which were not currently thought to last as long as participants wanted (e.g. washing machines and vacuum cleaners), product lifetime was more likely to be cited as an important factor. The opposite was true for products (e.g. TVs and laptops) which were already seen to match or exceed participants desired lifetimes. I probably won t look at the life of the product because it s going to go out of date within two or three years. Watford, Up to date products, Male Although these factors did not appear to be reflected in the ratings participants gave for the importance of lifetime for the three workhorse products, they are returned to in the discussion of how much consumers were willing to pay for longer lifetimes in chapter 8. 5.3 How does the importance of lifetime vary between types of consumer? Product lifetime was important across all socio-demographic groups represented in the survey. When asked to score how important different factors were when purchasing a product there were no significant differences in the scores between age groups, or consumers of different working status. Though there were no significant differences between scores discussed previously, older consumers have an expectation that products will last longer, and seemed to be most concerned in the groups about societal trends in disposing of products before they break. Consumers in higher income households were likely to score how long a product lasts lower than others 5, and it was more important for social groups DE compared with AB. Figure 22: Importance of product lifetimes mean scores by income and socio-demographic group 10 Washing machines Vacuum cleaners Fridges 9 8 7 6 5 0-21K 21K- 41K 41K+ AB C1 C2 DE Household income Social class One explanation for this provided by the qualitative research was that lower income consumers may attach greater importance to product lifetimes due to financial considerations. Lower income focus group participants were the most likely to talk about longer product lifetimes specifically in terms value or value for money. I ve got other people to think of and I ve not got the money just to throw away. I need something that s going to last Manchester, Workhorse products, Female 5 The differences between the 41k+ household income group and other income groups is statistically significant for both vacuum cleaners and fridges. For washing machines it is significantly lower than only the 21-41K group. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 42

This is not to say that lifetime is unimportant for higher income consumers though. All groups scored how long it will last highly in the survey, and the anticipated disruption caused by a breakdown was something that all qualitative participants said they wished to avoid. Consumers in households of different sizes also assigned product lifetime similar importance, though as discussed previously, respondents living in large households, particularly with children, expected to use products more frequently and intensely, and for products to be more at risk of damage by young children. Consequently they were more likely in the focus groups, than participants living on their own, to cite product lifetime as a factor they considered when buying a new product. There was also a distinct subgroup in the focus groups, not easily defined by age, gender or income, who appeared to attach importance to product lifetime more as an expression of their underlying mind-set than anything else. They expressed discomfort with replacing products that were still meeting their functional needs and saw themselves as flying in the face of consumer culture. I see that my needs are basic for most things, I don t need the latest thing I don t really care about what other consumers think, I just look for what my needs are. We live in such a terribly driven world and my needs are perfectly met right now. Adding a few more features isn t going to make that much difference to my actual life. Watford, Up to date products, Female When probed, they either attributed this mind-set to their upbringing and the example set to them by their parents, or their general outlook on life. It was not possible to include the kind of attitudinal questions necessary to identify and learn more about the characteristics of these individuals in the survey. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 43

1 or under 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 and over Median: 8 6.0 How long do consumers expect products to last and how satisfied are they with current lifetimes? Key findings On average 6, consumers expect vacuum cleaners to last five years, washing machines six years, and fridges to last the longest at eight years. Older consumers, and consumers living alone or without children, expected products to last longer than other consumers, which may reflect the lesser frequency and intensity with which they use these products in comparison to consumers in larger households and with children. Consumers were unlikely to envisage replacing the three workhorse products before the end of their functional life and wanted them to last as long as possible. Equally, the majority of consumers said they were satisfied with how long these products currently last, with satisfaction being highest with fridges and lower for washing machines and vacuums. Satisfaction with current lifetimes was linked to how long consumers expected these products to last. Those with high expectations were also generally those who were most satisfied, suggesting previous experiences have shaped both expectations and satisfaction. This chapter presents the evidence from the research on how long consumers expect the three workhorse products to last, and how satisfied they currently are with this expected lifetimes. 6.1 How long do consumers expect products to last for? Survey respondents were asked how long they expected the three products to last before they break down and cannot be easily repaired. The mean average number of years respondents expected these products to last was about six years for vacuum cleaners, about seven years for washing machines, and almost nine years for fridges. However, these mean figures mask a wide range of individual expectations. For instance, one in seven consumers (14%) thought that fridges would last 15 years or more, while 4% of consumers thought that fridges would last three years or less. Meanwhile almost a third of consumers (31%) thought that vacuum cleaners would last three years or less, with around 6% expecting them to last at least 15 years. The mean averages are also skewed upwards by the few consumers who expected that products would last a very long time, e.g. 25 or 40 years. Looking at the median average instead may therefore be a better reflection on average expectations. Figure 23: Expected lifetime of fridges 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Fridge (n=1,104) Years 6 Median average. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 44

1 or under 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 and over Median: 5 1 or under 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 and over Median: 6 Figure 24: Expected lifetime of washing machines 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Washing machine (n=1,104) Years Figure 25: Expected lifetime of vacuum cleaners 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Vacuum cleaner (n=1,104) Years Statistically significant differences were found in the product lifetime expectations between consumers of different ages and consumers with different household incomes. Older consumers expect the products to last longer, on average, as did those on larger incomes. This is illustrated for washing machines below. Similar variations were found for both vacuum cleaners and fridges. Figure 26: Expected lifetime of washing machines by socio-demographics Total Age Household income 18-29 30-49 50-64 65+ 0-21,000 21-41,000 Over 41,000 Under 4 years 10% 12% 12% 8% 7% 7% 13% 8% 4 to 6 years 45% 58% 50% 47% 30% 41% 49% 58% 7 to 9 years 17% 11% 18% 16% 19% 20% 13% 16% 10 to 15 years 25% 18% 18% 27% 37% 29% 23% 17% Over 15 years 3% 1% 2% 2% 7% 3% 1% 1% Mean (yrs) 7.14 6.22 6.44 7.04 8.74 7.37 6.48 6.41 Median (yrs) 6 5 5 6 8 7 6 5 Though differences between age groups were not fully explored in the focus groups, these results support previous research 7 which found that older respondents were more likely to have longer product lifetime expectations. 7 Brook Lyndhurst (2010) Public Understanding of Product Lifetimes - Final Report Part 1. Defra, EV0520 Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 45

Years There were also statistically significant differences between consumers who lived in smaller households, and with no children, compared to those in large households and with children. Figure 27: Mean expected lifetime of products by household composition 12 10 8 6 4 Washing machines Vacuum cleaners Fridges 2 0 1 2 3-4 0 1-2 People in household Children in household This, and supporting evidence from the qualitative research, indicates that expected lifetime is linked to how frequently and intensely products are used. The implications of this for enhancing consumer pull for longer lifetimes are returned to in the final chapter. 6.2 Do products currently last as long as consumers want them to? The starting point for exploring this question in the research was the conclusion reached in the previous Defra study into product lifetimes that consumers experiences of product lifetime emerges from a combination of: How long consumers expect a product to last before it breaks and needs to be replaced (which may further depend on their attitudes to repairs); How long they wan to keep a product before they feel it needs to be updated, whether for reasons of technology, fashion or social status. As a general rule, this was found to hold true in this research. However, what also emerged was a slightly more nuanced picture in which there were distinctions between these two extremes. The following table illustrates this by extending the lifetime metaphor, and providing four working definitions of how consumers in the qualitative research experienced product lifetimes. How long consumers expect a product to last before it breaks and needs to be replaced Death by natural causes Lifetime ends at the point when the functionality of the product has completely been lost either abruptly or after attempts to halt decline through repair. Euthanasia Lifetime ends at the point when the functional performance of the product is perceived to be in decline and repair is perceived to be only likely to provide a temporary halt to this decline. Product is said to be on its last legs. Early retirement Lifetime comes to an end at the point when the product is still as functional as when it was built but has been overtaken by other products with greater functionality. How long they wan to keep a product before they feel it needs to be updated Premature death Lifetime ends when the product is still largely or fully meeting the consumer s functional requirements but has ceased to meet their other non-functional needs (e.g. in terms of its appearance). Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 46

It was also clear that how consumers experience of lifetime differs across the five product types that were initially under investigation, with some of the above definitions being more relevant for certain products than others. These are summarised below, with the darker coloured boxes indicating the greater frequency with which these reasons for replacement were cited. Although the two up to date products were later excluded from the research they are included here by way of comparison with the three workhorse products. Figure 28 How the lifetimes of different products come to an end Natural causes Euthanasia Early Retirement Premature death Washing machines Fridges Vacuum Cleaners Generally seen to work or not work and only replaced when functionality lost. Few reports of fridges failing to function entirely. Often only replaced when functionality completely lost. Occasionally replaced when showing signs of wear and tear but still functioning. Replaced when door handles or seals on door are damaged. Fridge still works but less effectively. Not picking up as well as it had in past. Replaced on grounds of looks and fashion. Fridge is on show. Laptops TVs Complete loss of functionality when laptop dies due to virus or physical damage. Laptop getting slower over time. Laptop not getting slower but seen as increasingly slow in comparison to newer, faster models. Commonly replaced for a TV with a larger screen. Replaced on grounds of technology, looks and fashion. Replaced on the grounds of technology, looks and fashion. Reflecting the above, there was a general consensus amongst participants in the qualitative research that they wanted washing machines and vacuums to last longer than they did currently. As products, they were valued primarily or exclusively for their functionality, and were only likely to be replaced when this functionality was in noticeable decline (euthanasia) or had been lost completely (natural causes). I d like it to last forever but it s not going to Manchester, Workhorse products, Female The thought of having a new vacuum cleaner every four years because it runs a bit quicker or because it looks a bit smarter doesn t really count with me. Cardiff, Workhorse products, Male The picture for fridges was more mixed. While some participants also talked about wanting a fridge to last forever, there were those who could envisage wanting to replace them on the grounds of looks or fashion (premature death), even if they were still functioning. They were also commonly seen to last a long time already, which appeared in the focus groups to dilute participants appetite for even longer lifetimes. These differences between the products were reflected in the survey, with more consumers satisfied with how long fridges last, and fewer consumers dissatisfied, compared with the two other products. Figure 29: Current satisfaction with product lifetimes Vacuum cleaner (n=1,104) 29% 41% 11% 13% 6% Fridge (n=1,104) 39% 45% 8% 5% Washing machine (n=1,104) 28% 46% 12% 10% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very Satisfied Quite satisfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Quite dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 47

Percentage of age band Percentage satisfied or very satisfied The survey results are somewhat surprising for other reasons, however. They show that the majority of consumers appear to be satisfied with how long these products currently last. Cooper and Mayers (2000) reported that 45% of householders thought appliances did not last long as they would like 8. This seemed to match up with what was found in the qualitative elements of this research, where notable dissatisfaction was expressed with the currently lifetimes of washing machines and vacuums, for the reasons highlighted above. Some of this difference might be explained by the design of the research. Focus group discussions had already touched on the subjects of product lifetimes and replacing products before talking about their satisfaction, and most were able to share stories of when a product had broken while still in use. The quantitative survey had deliberately steered clear of giving away the core subject matter, so at the time the question was asked there had been no priming. There would also have been less time to recall negative experiences. A further point to note is that Quite satisfied is not a resounding endorsement of current lifetimes, and could be taken to imply that longer lifetimes would be preferred. The survey found that consumers who expect products to last longer are more likely to be satisfied with how long they last, and these differences are statistically significant. This is contrary to the possibility that consumers with lower expectations are more likely to be satisfied, and instead that positive (and negative) previous experiences have shaped both expectation and satisfaction simultaneously. So, for example, owning a fridge that has lasted a long time is likely to predispose you to be both satisfied and have high expectations for how long fridges last in general. Figure 30: Satisfaction with lifetimes by lifetime expectations 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Under 4 years 4 to 6 years 7 to 9 years 10 to 15 years Over 15 years Lifetime expectations Washing machines Fridges Vacuum cleaners As discussed above, older consumers expected products to last longer, and they were also more likely to be satisfied with how long the products last. Figure 31: Satisfaction with the lifetimes of washing machines by age 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied 18-29 30-49 50-64 65+ 8 Cooper, T. and Mayers, K. (2000) Prospects for Household Appliances. E-Scope. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 48

Percentage 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' The fact that nearly a third (30%) of 18-29 year olds said they were neither satisfied or dissatisfied with current product lifetimes also echoes other findings from the research (see chapter 2) which point to the comparative lack of experience younger consumers have of owning these products in comparison to other consumers. Respondents living in larger households and with children were also less likely to be satisfied with how long these products currently last, although this was only true of vacuum cleaners and washing machines, not for fridges. One explanation for this provided by the qualitative findings is that participants in larger households reported using washing machines and vacuum cleaners more frequently and intensely that those who lived alone and/or without children in the household. In contrast, fridges were viewed as a more passive household item, not used particularly intensely by any participants. Figure 32: Satisfaction with lifetimes by household composition 9 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3-4 0 1-2 Washing machines Vacuum cleaners Fridges People in household Children in household There were no statistically significant differences in satisfaction with lifetimes between consumers who would be likely or unlikely to consider buying own-brands, or between consumers who considered shopping at different retailers. There were also no clear differences in satisfaction with lifetimes between consumers expecting to pay different amounts for products. Figure 33: Satisfaction with lifetimes by expected spend on products 10 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 200 or less 201 to 300 301 to 400 401 to 500 501 or more 100 or less 101 to 150 151 to 200 201 or more 150 or less 151 to 200 201 to 300 301 to 400 401 or more Spend preferences: washing machines (n=990) Spend preferences: vacuum cleaners (n=1014) Spend preferences: fridges (n=977) Satisfied (net) Dissatisfied (net) 9 Households with five or more people and households with three or more children have been removed due to small sample sizes. 10 Households with five or more people and households with three or more children have been removed due to small sample sizes. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 49

7.0 How strong is the consumer pull for longer product lifetimes and how can it be enhanced? Key findings The key barriers to the uptake of products with longer lifetimes are that it is not generally a front-of-mind issue for consumers, the current lack of information and advertising on product lifetimes, and consumers distrust of manufacturers. The key opportunities for increasing the pull for longer lifetimes are the underlying importance of lifetime to consumers, their appetite for more information about product lifetimes, and the malleability of consumers priorities during the purchase process. Clearly communicated product lifetimes identified by participants were Kia cars 7 year guarantee and Ikea instore product testing demonstrations. Interest in products with longer lifetimes is not a minority issue, confined to a small subset of consumers. Around a half of all consumers would be willing to pay extra for products that are advertised to last longer, and on average they would be willing to pay 10% more. More than eight out of ten consumers would be willing to pay extra for products that are advertised to last longer and have a longer standard guarantee or warranty, and on average they would be willing to pay 30% more. Interest in paying more was evident across all price brackets for all three products. Younger consumers are a potential priority for manufacturers and retailers seeking to sell longer life products. They express a high willingness to pay for these, and also have fewer pre-conceptions about brands than other consumers. This group made up 12% of respondents in the survey, and as the profile of this research has been designed to be as representative as possible of the consumers of household electrical products this group are likely to make up a relatively small proportion of consumers of these products. Middle-aged families with children also express a higher than average willingness to pay for longer lifetimes, which is key since this research suggests they represent a large market segment, equalling almost a quarter of all consumers of these products. The future uptake of longer life products can be maximised if these are accompanied by longer standard guarantees or warranties both as a means of reassuring consumers about the validity of longer claimed lifetimes and as a potential hook for advertising. Consumers are also likely to respond to advertising which emphasises the existing benefits of longer lasting products, and the provision of trusted information on product lifetimes through mainstream channels. This chapter presents and interprets evidence from the research on the barriers and opportunities to consumers buying products with longer lifetimes, and the scope for increasing consumer pull for longer lifetimes in the future. 7.1 What factors currently pull and push consumers to buy products with longer lifetimes? The following table summarises the key barriers and opportunities to increasing consumer pull for longer lifetimes, drawing on the findings presented in the previous chapters of the report. BARRIERS Knowledge: Lack of information on product lifetimes consumers currently rely on imperfect sources of information and proxies such as brand and price. Absence of advertising a missed opportunity to communicate information and make lifetimes more salient to consumers. OPPORTUNITIES Interest in seeing information despite their doubts about the feasibility of accurately measuring it, participants did express a desire to see this kind of information. Positive attitudes to advertising on lifetimes for other product types for example participants said advertising by Kia of the long guarantees it Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 50

Belief that lifetimes can t be accurately predicted a further barrier to consumers seeking out and trusting information on lifetimes. Decision-making: Product lifetimes are not a front-of-mind issue that consumers go into the purchasing process consciously thinking about. Narrow consideration of brand/price ranges at the start of the purchasing process participants generally only considered products within pre-determined brand/price ranges, which may be a barrier to new products with longer lifetimes entering the market. Narrow consideration of attributes they also initially only looked for product information on a small number of attributes, with information relevant to likely lifetimes only sought towards the end of the process. offered for its cars had placed the issue of lifetimes on their radar and made them think more about buying a car with a longer lifetime/warranty. Underlying importance of lifetime when prompted to think about it, consumers do consider lifetime one of the most important attributes for workhorse products. Ability of information to influence which attributes consumers consider during the purchasing process, and how they think about these attributes. The research suggests that there are opportunities to establish product lifetime as a hook for consumers to recognise and use to select products. Consumers perceptions of brands are not entirely fixed, and can be quickly revised by consumers on the basis of new information they encounter during the purchase process. Wider Influences: Distrust of manufacturers evident through the perception that products aren t being built to last as long as they have in the past. Consumers positive reactions to manufacturer guarantees and warranties - which are viewed as a show of faith by the manufacturer in the lifetimes of their products. 7.2 What do consumers think needs to change? Participants in the qualitative elements of the research were asked what would need to change in order for them to buy electrical products with longer lifetimes in future. Their spontaneous suggestions can be grouped under the following four headings: More/better information Advertising Communication of long-term financial benefits Longer standard guarantees / warranties However, before describing these it should be noted that as participants discussed and explored these spontaneous suggestions, their requirements became progressively more demanding. Specifically, most participants felt the first three measures would only influence them to buy electrical products with longer lifetimes if they were also accompanied by longer standard guarantees/warranties for the products concerned. This appeared to be underpinned by the general mistrust towards manufacturers noted already. Participants were unwilling to take manufacturer claims about the lifetimes of their product at face-value, and wanted the protection of knowing a product would be replaced or repaired at no cost to them if its claimed lifetime was not achieved. More/better information Participants generally recognised their own lack of knowledge about how long household electrical products last and expressed a desire for more information to be provided on this during the purchasing process. Suggestions included providing this information as standard within product specifications, physically on the products in shops, and through sales assistants. There was also a requirement/expectation that such information would be based on independent product testing (e.g. by Which?). It was also felt that information on lifetimes would have to account for different levels of usage of the product in question, for example through quantifying the hours of use or number of uses, or providing figures for how many years a product would last for an average family. If you ve got a brand that says this is going to last twice as long as this other brand...this washing machine does 100,000 washes and the X cheap brand does 50,000 washes, then you can say OK well I m going to pay that. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 51

Cardiff, Workhorse products, Male Participants also wanted any new information on how long products would last to be jargon-free and nontechnical. Advertising As noted already, no participants in the research were aware of electrical products having been advertised on the basis of their expected lifetime. Equally, awareness of advertising by Ikea and Kia for other product types was high, and some participants felt similar advertising for longer lasting electrical products would encourage consumers to think about buying these products. A number of different suggestions were made as to what message or messages such advertising should seek to convey. This included illustrating how the product had been tested (as Ikea have done for their furniture) or simply communicating that products were being sold with a longer guarantee or warranty (as Kia have done for their cars). Other suggestions included advertising how products had been physically designed to last longer. It has got to say, well this is going to last longer, because in the back of our unit we have got three fans and most units have only got two. Watford, Workhorse products, Male There were also suggestions that advertising should be based on personal testimonies by owners of the product in question, or alternatively should try to tell a generational story of the ongoing life of the product as children grow up within a household. Communication of long-term financial benefits While the savings that could be made through buying a product with a longer lifetime were generally acknowledged by participants, there was also some recognition that consumers may need help to appreciate what these potential saving are, and how paying more for a product with a longer lifetime could save them money in the long term. You d have to work out how much you ve spent on those items in so many years to work out if it s cost effective. Cardiff, Workhorse products, Female If you can get across that it s going to save money, that's a massive thing. Cardiff, Workhorse products, Male This was thought to be a tangible potential selling point for consumers buying products which they expected to keep and not replace on the grounds of fashion or for the latest technology, i.e. workhorse products. Longer standard guarantees / warranties This emerged as a game-changer for participants both as a change which would motivate them to buy products with longer lifetimes on its own, and as a necessary accompaniment to the other changes they described. If Panasonic said everything you buy now is guaranteed for 10 years, everyone would buy it. Manchester, Up to date products, Male Equally, participants also had a series of requirements they would want longer guarantees or warranties to satisfy. They felt that these would have to come from the manufacturer, and ideally a well-established one. Despite the example of Kia, some participants said they would still be unwilling to buy an electrical product with a significantly longer guarantee/warranty if it was offered by a lesser-known brand. If there was going to be some sort of guarantee for me then it would need to be a brand that I knew. I wouldn t go and get a lifetime guarantee from a company that s just entered the market because you don t know if they re going to be around in three or four years time. Watford, Workhorse products, Male Participants also expressed a strong preference for longer guarantees or warranties that would enable them to have the product in question replaced rather than repaired if it did break down. In addition, they wanted other aspects of current guarantees/warranties that they didn t like to be addressed. For example, some participants had experiences of being denied a replacement product under guarantee on the grounds of what they deemed a Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 52

technically or clause within the small print, and there was a general desire expressed for greater transparency with regard to guarantees and warranties. 7.3 What is the potential for increasing consumer pull for longer lifetimes in the future? In order to test this, the quantitative survey posed respondents a series of questions in which they were asked how much more they would be willing to pay for a washing machine, vacuum cleaner or fridge that was advertised as lasting twice as long as their current expected lifetime. For example, a respondent who had said earlier in the survey that they expected fridges to last six years, was asked how much more they would be willing to pay for a fridge that lasted twelve years. In light of the conclusions from the qualitative research, respondents were also asked a follow-up question, in which a longer advertised lifetime was also accompanied by a longer standard guarantee/warranty. In the previous example, the respondent was also asked how much more they were willing to pay for a fridge that lasted twelve years and also had a twelve year standard guarantee/warranty. In interpreting the subsequent findings it is important to acknowledge that this was a generous proposition to respondents, and not necessarily one manufacturers and retailers may be able to offer to consumers in the shortterm. The questions were also fundamentally hypothetical in nature, and it should be acknowledged that questions of this kind have been found 11 to overstate the willingness to pay of individuals confronting similar scenarios in the real-world environment. Nonetheless, the results to these questions in the survey provide considerable insight into the potential scale of consumer pull for longer lifetimes, the importance of guarantees/warranties, and variations across different consumer types. 7.3.1 How much are consumers willing to pay for longer product lifetimes? The following charts present the results for the survey questions in which respondents were asked their willingness to pay for products with longer advertised lifetimes but not a longer standard guarantee or warranty. Around a half of respondents said they would be willing to pay more for a fridge, washing machine or vacuum with a longer advertised lifetime. Figure 34 What proportion of consumers are willing to pay more for products with longer advertised lifetimes? Washing machines Fridges Vacuum Cleaners Nothing more 47% More 53% Nothing more 50% More 50% Nothing more 52% More 48% Amongst respondents who were willing to pay more, the majority said they would be willing to pay between 1-10% and 11-20% more. 11 Competition Commission, (2010), Review of Stated Preference and Willingness to Pay Methods Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 53

Figure 35 How much more are consumers willing to pay for products with longer advertised lifetimes? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nothing more 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% Washing Machines (n=1,104) Fridges (n=1,104) Vacuum Cleaners (n=1,104) Over 100% The following chart presents the findings when respondents were asked their willingness to pay for products with longer advertised lifetimes and a longer standard guarantee or warranty. More than four out of five respondents said they would be willing to pay more, with only a minority not being willing to pay any more. Figure 36 What proportion of consumers are willing to pay more for products with longer advertised lifetimes and longer standard guarantees/warranties? Washing machines Fridges Vacuum Cleaners More 87% More 82% More 81% Nothing more 13% Nothing more 18% Nothing more 19% Amongst respondents who were willing to pay more, the majority said they would be willing to pay between 1-10% and 41-50% more. Figure 37 How much more are consumers willing to pay for products with longer advertised lifetimes and longer standard guarantees/warranties? 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Nothing more 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% Over 100% Washing Machines (n=1,104) Fridges (n=1,104) Vacuum Cleaners (n=1,104) Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 54

These findings clearly indicate that consumer pull for longer product lifetimes is enhanced when a longer advertised lifetime is accompanied with a longer standard guarantee or warranty. This is apparent for all three of the workhorse products. The scale of the difference this makes is further illustrated by comparing how much more, on average, consumers are willing to pay for longer lifetimes with and without longer guarantees or warranties. Figure 38 How much more, on average, are consumers willing to pay for products with longer advertised lifetimes with and without a longer standard guarantee/warranty? Vacuum cleaner (n=1,104) 10% 28% Fridge (n=1,104) 12% 30% Without longer guarantee/warranty With longer guarantee/warranty Washing machine (n=1,104) 13% 33% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% If the responses of those who said they would pay nothing more are removed, and the analysis is just based on those who were willing to pay more, these means are consistently higher. For example, 39% more for washing machines with a longer guarantee/warranty, and 37% and 35% for fridges and vacuum cleaners respectively. Overall, these results suggest that the addition of a matching longer guarantee or warranty greatly increases consumer pull for products with longer lifetimes. This is true for each of the three products, although consumer pull with and without a longer guarantee or warranty appears to be greatest for washing machines. Why? Evidence from the qualitative research discussed in the previous chapter indicated that there were four factors which determined how important lifetimes were for different product types: how much they cost, how susceptible they are to breaking down, the level of disruption they cause when they do break down, and the extent to which they currently last as long their owners want them to. Although these were not reflected in the importance scores survey respondents gave for product lifetime (which were equally high for all three products) they do appear to be reflected here in their relative willingness to pay. For example, consumers expect to spend twice as much on a new washing machine as a new vacuum (see chapter 2), they perceive them to be more susceptible to breaking down than fridges, and out of the three products, consumers are least satisfied with how long washing machines currently last. 7.3.2 What factors influence willingness to pay for longer lifetimes? More detailed analysis was undertaken to explore whether, and if so how, willingness to pay differed across the sample of consumers who took part in the survey. Not all the results of this analysis are presented here, only those which provide further insight into where the greatest pull for longer lifetimes may lay. The analysis was also focused on willingness to pay for both longer advertised lifetimes and longer guarantees/warranties, given the significantly greater pull for this in comparison to longer advertised lifetimes alone. The following chart illustrates the socio-demographic characteristics that were found to predispose certain consumers to a greater willingness to pay for longer lifetimes. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 55

Age Household income Housing tenure People in household Children in household Figure 39 How much more, on average, are consumers willing to pay for longer lifetimes by sociodemographics 2+ 1 0 3+ 2 1 Renters Owners 41K+ Vacuum cleaners (n=1,104) Fridges (n=1,104) Washing machines (n=1,104) 21K- 41K 0-21K 65+ 50-64 30-49 18-29 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% On average, consumers aged 65 and over are less willing to pay for longer lifetimes than other age groups, and this difference is statistically significant for each of the three product types. The results also indicate that the youngest age group are more willing to pay for longer lifetimes than middle-age consumers, although these differences are not statistically significant. The other most clearly defined influence on consumers willingness to pay is household composition. On average, consumers in larger households, and those with children were willing to pay more on average than consumers in smaller households without children, and several of these differences are statistically significant for all three products. Consumers with lower household incomes and those who rent rather than own their home, are also willing to pay more on average than other consumers, although these differences were not generally statistically significant. The willingness to pay of different consumers was also analysed by the attitudes and expectations they had towards current product lifetimes. Perhaps surprisingly, there was no clear relationship between how satisfied consumers say they are with current lifetimes and their willingness to pay for longer lifetimes. Those who were dissatisfied were not, on average willing to pay more for longer lifetimes than those who were satisfied across the three product types. Even amongst consumers who say they are satisfied with how long these products currently last, there is still a substantial receptiveness to products that last longer than this. However, there does appear to be a relationship between how long consumers expect products to currently last and their willingness to pay for longer lifetimes. Respondents who expect products to longer are generally less willing to pay for longer lifetime, at least above a certain threshold. For example, respondents who expect washing machines to last seven years or more express progressively lower levels of willingness to pay for longer lifetimes. Differences illustrated for washing machines and vacuum cleaners below are statistically significant. Equally, respondents with very low expectations for how these products currently last (e.g. under 4 years for fridges) don t fit this pattern and have relatively low willingness to pay for longer lifetimes for all three products. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 56

Figure 40 How much more, on average, consumers are willingness to pay for longer lifetimes by how long consumers currently expect products to last 40% 30% 20% 10% Washing machines 0% Under 4 years 4 to 6 years 7 to 9 years 10 to 15 years Over 15 years Expected lifetime 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Fridges Under 4 years 4 to 6 years 7 to 9 years 10 to 15 years Over 15 years Expected lifetime Vacuum cleaners 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Under 4 years 4 to 6 years 7 to 9 years 10 to 15 years Over 15 years Expected lifetime Willingness to pay for longer lifetimes was also analysed by what consumers said about where, who from and for how much they would consider purchasing the three products. Overall, those who expected to spend the most on the products were also willing to pay more on average for longer lifetimes, although in the main these differences were not statistically significant. Figure 41 illustrates that interest in paying more money for a longer guarantee holds across all price brackets for all three products. Figure 41 Willingness to pay for longer lifetimes by how much consumers expected to spend on products 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 200 or less 201 to 300 301 to 400 401 to 500 501 or more 150 or less 151 to 200 201 to 300 301 to 400 401 or more 100 or less 101 to 150 151 to 200 201 or more Washing Machines (n=1,104) Fridges (n=1,104) Vacuum Cleaners (n=1,104) Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 57

There were also variations when the consumers willingness to pay was compared by where they considered buying these products. Specifically, consumers who consider shopping at Argos and supermarkets expressed a greater willingness to pay for longer product lifetimes than those who consider shopping at John Lewis, with high street retailers such as Currys-PC World sitting somewhere in the middle. These differences are statistically significant for fridges. Figure 42 Willingness to pay for longer lifetimes by where consumers consider buying products 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% Fridge (n=1,104) Vacuum Cleaner (n=1,104) Washing Machine (n=1,104) 10% 5% 0% John Lewis Currys-PC World Argos Supermarkets The implications of these findings are that consumers who shop at John Lewis and/or expect to spend a large amount may believe they are already shopping, and paying, for products with long lifetimes. Finally, there were no clear differences, statistically significant or otherwise, between the willingness to pay for longer lifetimes and how likely respondents were to consider buying an own-brand. These findings present a detailed picture, in which a number of characteristics, attitudes and purchasing intentions, which different individual consumers may possess singly or in combination, influence their willingness to pay more for longer lifetimes. The following section draw these findings together and summarises the nature and extent of the pull for longer lifetimes for four distinct consumer groups. 7.3.3 Which groups of consumers are most and least willing to pay for longer lifetimes? The groups described in this section do not amount to a segmentation model of consumers, with further in-depth research being required to develop such a model. The groups are primarily differentiated by age, and in some cases also by the presence or absence of children in the household, as these are the two primary sociodemographic characteristics that influence willingness to pay for longer lifetimes., The proportion of the respondent sample that each group comprised are specified and since the sample is designed to be as representative of consumers of household electrical products as possible, these findings give an indication of the potential size of the opportunity that each group represents for increasing the uptake of longer life products.. Young consumers (age 18-29) Between 93% and 95% of this group said they would pay more for a longer lifetime and longer guarantee/warrantee, the highest of any age group. Their mean willingness to pay for longer lifetimes was between 36% more for vacuums and fridges and 39% more for washing machines, the highest of any age-group. The household circumstances of this age group are mixed. 14% live on their own and a third live with one other person, but equally a third have at least one child in their household. They are also more likely than other agegroups to have a low or medium household income and be renters rather than own-occupiers. Their expectations for how long products will currently last are the lowest of any age-group. In terms of their purchasing intentions, they expect to spend less on washing machines and vacuum cleaners than average but more on fridges. Equally, not all in this age-group were able to say how much they expected to spend on these products. They appear to be significantly less knowledgeable about the prices and brands of the products on the market, potentially owing to their lack of prior experience of buying and/or owning them. They Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 58

are more likely than other age groups to say they would consider buying these products at Argos or supermarkets. They are also the most likely of any group to consider buying an own-brand product. In conclusion, a number of factors indicate this group should be a priority for manufacturers and retailers seeking to expand the market for longer lasting products. Not only do they have low existing expectations, they also express a high willingness to pay, and appear more open-minded and less brand orientated than other consumers. However, one caveat to this is that this group represented only 12% respondents in the survey, and therefore likely a relatively small proportion of consumers of these products. Middle-age family consumers (age 30-49) with children in household Between 84% and 90% of consumers in this group said they would pay more for a longer lifetime and longer guarantee/warrantee, which was higher than the average across all consumers. Their mean willingness to pay was between 29% more for vacuum cleaners and 37% more for washing machines, above the average across the sample. All consumers in this group have children in the household, and nearly two-thirds (64%) have two or more. They have a mixture of low, medium or high incomes. While they are more likely to be owner-occupiers than renters, over a quarter (28%) do rent. Their expectations for how long products will last are consistently lower, by about a year for all three products, than the average across all consumers - which the findings discussed previously in the research suggest is likely to reflection how frequently and intensely they use these products. For example, focus group respondents with a young family talked about using their washing machine on a daily basis, whereas single respondents and those without children reported using theirs much less often. With this in mind, the potential disruption caused by household product, particularly a washing machine, was also a particular concern for this group. In terms of their purchasing intentions, most consider buying products at Currys-PC World, while a higher proportion than average also consider shopping at Argos. The majority would spontaneously consider buying a brand, although just over a third (36%) would be willing to consider buying an own-brand when prompted. They expect to spend more than the average on all three products types, which may reflect the fact that they are already, to some extent, trying to buy longer product lifetimes through the purchase of brands in higher price ranges. In conclusion, although the stated willingness to pay of this group is lower than Young Consumers, it is still above average for all three product types, and higher than the others consumer groups considered here. They also represented a significant proportion (23%) of respondents in the survey. Singles and older couples (age 30-49 and 50-64) without children in household This is a somewhat broad group, which in a full segmentation model would likely be subdivided into smaller more distinct subgroups. Nonetheless, for the purpose of this analysis they do illustrate the difference that not having children in a household makes. This is the main characteristic that differentiates them from the group discussed above, and this can be seen to be reflected in their generally lower willingness to pay for longer lifetimes. Between 82% and 89% of consumers in this group said they would pay more for a longer lifetime and longer guarantee/warrantee. Their mean willingness to pay was between 29% more for vacuum cleaners and 33% more for washing machines. They have a similar income profile to middle age families and a similar proportion are owner-occupiers. Their purchasing intentions are also very similar in terms of retailers and brand, with exception that they do not expect to pay as much for any of the three products. In this respect they are close to the average for all consumers. In conclusion, this group are less willing to pay for longer lifetimes than either middle-age family consumers or younger consumers. However, this group represented 34% of survey respondents, and therefore are likely to make up a significant proportion of consumers of these products and should not be entirely overlooked. Old, retired consumers (age 65+) Between 76% and 79% of consumers in this group said they would pay more for a longer lifetime and longer guarantee/warrantee, which was lower than any other age-group. Their mean willingness to pay was between 24% more for vacuum cleaners and 34% more for washing machines, also the lowest of all the age-groups. The reasons for this appear to relate to their household circumstances and their personal experiences of owning these products. In terms of the first of these, a high proportion of consumers in this age group either live on their own (44%) or with one other person (45%), and very few have children in their household. Previous research also suggests that older consumers are more likely than younger ones to take steps to extend the lifetimes of household product, for example by getting them repaired. Reflecting this, chapter six illustrated that respondents in this age-group had above average expectations about how long these products will last for, implying they may see limited value in paying for (even) longer lifetimes. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 59

In terms of their purchasing intentions, this age group expect to spend about the average for the three products, but are more likely than younger respondents to shop at John Lewis rather than Argos or supermarkets, and are less likely than average to consider buying own-brands. In conclusion, although the this age group are likely to represent nearly a quarter of consumers of household electrical products their low willingness to pay for longer lifetimes suggests they should not be the primary target for measures looking to increase the uptake of longer lasting products. 7.4 Conclusions This section draws together the key insights from the research and considers the implications of these for how manufacturers and retailers can tap into and increase consumer pull for longer lasting products. 7.4.1 What currently holds consumers back from buying products with longer lifetimes? There are a small number of common barriers that currently prevent or discourage consumers from buying products with longer lifetimes. Despite its underlying importance to consumers, product lifetime is generally not a front-of-mind consideration at the start of the purchase process. Consumers don t feel knowledgeable about product lifetimes and aren t aware of information they can access to compare products on this basis during the purchase process. They assume that by buying well-known brands and paying more they are buying products with a long lifetime, but recognise brand and price are not an infallible guide to how long products will last. There is also some scepticism about whether the lifetimes of different products can accurately be compared, and a reluctance to accept manufacturer or retailer claims about the lifetimes of their products at face value. 7.4.2 What are the opportunities for increasing consumer pull for longer lifetimes? The findings from the research indicate there are significant opportunities to market and sell products with longer lifetimes to consumers. Consumers consider lifetime to be one of the most important product attributes when they are buying a fridge, washing machine or vacuum cleaner. Interest in products with longer lifetimes is not a minority issue, confined to a small subset of consumers. Around a half of consumers say they are willing to pay extra for products that are advertised to last longer, and this rises to over eight out of ten consumers when this is accompanied by a longer standard guarantee or warranty. 7.4.3 Where are the greatest opportunities for increasing consumer pull for longer lifetimes? While interest in longer lifetimes is evident across different consumer types, there are characteristics which appear to predispose certain consumers to be more willing to pay for these than others. Younger consumers express a high willingness to pay for longer lifetimes and are a potential priority for manufacturers and retailers seeking to expand the market for longer lasting products. They also have fewer preconceptions about brands than other consumers, suggesting they may be particularly receptive to own-brands or new brands entering the market with longer lifetimes. Families with children in the household are another potentially important group for manufacturers and retailers to consider. They use these products more frequently and intensely than other consumers, and are highly motivated to avoid the disruption of a product breaking down and needing to be replaced. This is reflected in their high willingness to pay for longer lifetimes. The survey suggests they also represent a large market segment, equalling almost a quarter of all consumers of these products. 7.4.4 What needs to happen to increase consumer pull for longer lifetimes? In order for the opportunities for increasing consumer pull for longer lifetimes to be realised, the findings from this research suggest three things need to happen. The provision of longer standard guarantees or warranties is likely to be central to maximising consumer pull for longer lifetimes. Consumers highly value the reassurance these provide, as evident from the significant uplift in willingness to pay when a longer standard guarantee or warranty is offered. This presents opportunities both for new brands entering the market to establish a reputation for longer lasting products, and for existing brands to strengthen their existing reputation in this area. Product lifetimes need to be brought to the front of consumers minds. This implies some form of advertising will be necessary both as a means of ensuring lifetime is a conscious consideration at the start of the purchase process and increasing consumers receptiveness to information on lifetimes they encounter during the process (see below). Longer standard guarantees or warranties are one potentially potent hook for such advertising. A frequently cited example in the research was that of Kia. Respondents talked about how the longer warranties they advertised for their cars had changed their perceptions of Kia, and also increased their Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 60

general interest in the warranties that other car manufacturers offer. In addition, any advertising could usefully seek to communicate and emphasise the added value that consumers already associate with longer lifetimes. For example, consumers desire to avoid the hassle associated with a product breaking down came across strongly in the research, and has particular salience for those in larger households with children. In addition, information on product lifetimes needs to be more visible during the purchase process to enable consumers to make informed choices and not revert to imperfect proxies such as brand and price. Consumers can be, and are, influenced by the information they encounter during the purchase process and say they want more easily accessible information on how long products will last to enable them to compare products on this basis. Because of the different routes consumers take through the purchasing process, there is no single stage, information source or touch point for the provision of this kind of information. The main source of information consumers currently use during the purchase process to assess product lifetimes is online reviews. Although there may be value in further facilitating and promoting the use of this source, its key limitation is that consumers generally access it late in the process, once they have narrowed their choice down to a small number of products. In order to have most impact, information on product lifetimes will need to be provided through mainstream sources such as online and in-store product specifications which are widely used by respondents at different stages in the purchase process. It will also need to be delivered in a format that is easily understood by consumers; that allows them to make direct product comparisons; and, is based on rigorous product testing ideally by an independent body consumers trust. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 61

Annexes Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 62

Specific research questions How is product lifetime defined, assessed or estimated by consumers for each product type? Meaning and relevance of terms: value for money, reliability, functionality, durability, quality? Which elements of these terms can be interpreted as product lifetime? Which product attributes matter to consumers and are used as proxies for product lifetime (e.g. reliability, lifetime to first repair, lifetime to first breakdown, lifetime to when a product is beyond repair? What other proxies are used for product lifetime? What is the experienced, expected and desired product lifetime for each household electrical product type and why? Which products typically match these expectations and which do not? For which of the five key product types does the reality of product lifetime exceed the expectation and vice versa? How do these perceptions influence which type of product / brand of each product type is purchased? What are the associations between branded / non-branded goods and product lifetimes? What are the associations between price point and expected lifetime or reliability? Does this simply correlate with brand expectations, or is this a separate factor for consumers? How do consumer perceptions and expectations vary by consumer type are some consumers more willing to pay for longer lifetime? Existing good and bad examples of how product life is communicated to consumers? For which products (if any) is product lifetime a factor/could be a factor in purchasing decisions? For which products is a longer lifetime important? For which is it less important? Why/what are the motivations? What are the barriers? What are the benefits and disadvantages? Current knowledge levels about product information on lifetimes? Availability and interest in information on product lifetimes? Influence on which products are purchased? Pre-purchase and point of purchase? Where do consumers look for information (e.g. extent to which they consult Which? (to identify Best Buys or review tables of brand reliability), Amazon purchaser reviews and similar web sites, or product reviews in trade magazines? Is product lifetime a consideration at the pre-purchase stage? What would convince consumers to purchase longer life products of each product type, if anything? What are the key barriers? How could these be overcome? Are there any barriers to the purchase of longer life products which cannot easily be overcome? How do product warranties, guarantees and repair services link / interact with perceptions of product lifetimes? What is the effect of the manufacturer/retailer inclusive guarantee versus purchasing an extended warranty? How can longer life products offer consumers value, compared to shorter life products? Do consumers perceive this value? What information do they look for to identify such value? Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 63

Profile of qualitative respondents (focus groups and accompanied shops combined) Gender male 34 Product category workhorse 38 female 39 up-to-date 35 Age 18-29 12 Social class AB 29 30-49 41 C1 31 50-64 16 C2 11 65+ 4 DE 2 Household income 0-21,000 11 Research and purchase method 21,001-41,000 40 online and in-store 28 41,001+ 22 online and online 17 in-store and in-store 28 Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 64

Topic guides used in qualitative phase Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetimes Focus Groups (WORKHORSE version) Aims To understand the current role of product lifetimes in the purchase of electrical products. Specifically: How people buy electrical products and what decision-making processes they go through What factors are most important in choices of what electrical products to buy How important product lifetimes are in comparison to other factors How people currently understand product lifetimes and how knowledgeable they are about them And, to explore potential opportunities for increasing the importance of longer product lifetimes in the purchase of electrical products in the future. Coverage The focus of this group should specifically be on the purchasing of the following electrical products: Vacuum cleaners Fridges Washing machines The focus should also be exclusively on the purchase of these products new rather than second hand or used. Respondents will have been recruited on the basis that they have recently bought or are considering buying one of these three products new. Reiterate the focus on these product types at the start of the group. Within each section of the guide, probe for any differences in the views, attitudes and behaviours respondents report towards these three product types. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 65

Time Instructions Purpose of section 5 mins Introduction Introduce yourself and Brook Lyndhurst Toilets, fire drills, mobile phones Purpose of groups: o We re here this evening to talk about how and why people buy electrical products, and we re specifically interested in fridges, vacuum cleaners and washing machines. Explain the need for honesty Healthy debate no answer is right or wrong, want to understand their views Will ask that people don t speak over each other and to allow each other the time to speak o recorder can t pick up what s happening if everyone talks at once Do want to hear about everyone Confidential, but recorded o voice recording used as back-up o get permission to record Before we get started, I d just like to go round the table and ask you to give me your first name and tell everyone a little bit about who you live with and what you do. 20 mins Section 1 How people buy electrical products (and the decision-making process you go through) Introduction and ground rules 5 mins I d like to start off by asking you to think about the last time you bought either a vacuum cleaner, fridge or washing machine. Just talk to the person next to you for a few minutes and tell them: Whether it was a vacuum cleaner, fridge or washing machine What make/model/brand it was What was the main reason you chose that make/model/brand instead of others on the market. Icebreaker to get group thinking about actual products and actual experiences of buying these. Ask everyone to briefly feed back on what their partner said. 10 mins OK thanks for that. I d now like to ask everyone about how you go about buying these types of Exploration of how respondents Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 66

products. Do people generally look for any information or ask for advice before you buy these types of product? Why? Why not? And for those who said you look or ask for information, what are the main sources you use? The internet? [probe for use of Which-style comparison sites, retailer sites (eg. John Lewis), manufacturer sites (eg. Panasonic), other sites] Looking in shops? [probe for the type of shops you look, and whether you ask salespeople for info or just look at product info] Ask other people? [probe for who these are, eg. family, friends, colleagues etc.] Other sources? [probe for what these are, eg. TV progs, ads, magazines, etc.] research and buy electrical products, including their use of information Probe for any differences by product type, ie. fridges, vacuums and washing machines. Why do people use these sources? How trustworthy/accurate do you think different sources of information are? Do people use a combination or just one? What specific types of information do people look for? Does this vary at all by product type, ie. fridges, vacuums and washing machines? Overall, what does everyone think about the information available for these types of products? Not enough or too much? The right/wrong kind of information? Who or what source has most influence on your choice? 5 mins Do people generally decide what you re going to buy themselves or is this more of a joint decision with someone else? Why is that? Brief exploration of the decisionmaking process respondents go through. How long does it generally take you to choose a vacuum cleaner, fridge or washing machine? I mean from the point when you decide you want a new one to when you make your choice of which model/make to buy. Please try and think back to your actual experiences of buying one of these products. Does it vary at all for different types of product? Why? Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 67

Does it vary according to other factors? If so, what factors? Did you have an idea of the brand/key features/price of what you wanted to buy at the start of the process? How many makes/models did you consider or compare during the process? Did you narrow these down over time? If so, how? How did you come to make your final choice of product? Was the product you bought the same or different to what you envisaged buying at the start? Why? Why not? [if not fully explored above, check again with the group for any variations by product type, ie. fridges, vacuums and washing machines] 10 mins Section 2 Why people choose which electrical product to buy (and the relative importance of different attributes) 10 mins OK I d now like us to talk about what factors you take into account when you re deciding which fridge, vacuum cleaner or washing machine to buy. If people just want to call these out I will write them on a post-it note and stick them on the wall. What do you mean when you say X/Y/Z? Is X different to Y? If so, how? Are there any of these factors we can group together? If so, which ones? Which do people think are the most important? Which are less important? [aim to reach some kind of consensus across the group of the ordering of factors] Why do people think X/Y/Z are the most important factors? Why people think X/Y/Z are less important factors? Detailed exploration of the relative importance of different product attributes in respondents choice of make/model. Do not prompt explicitly on product lifetimes in this section but note any mentions of it and of any other attributes that may serve as a proxy, eg. durability, reliability, brand reputation etc. And would you change the order of these for, say, fridges as opposed to vacuum cleaners or washing machines? What are the most and least important factors for fridges? Why? What are the most and least important factors for vacuum cleaners? Why? What are the most and least important factors for washing machines? Why? Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 68

[IF STRUGGLING FOR TIME, COVER BRIEFLY:] Do people think there are any trade-offs between the different factors we ve been talking about? [try to get responses spontaneously but if necessary prompt:] For example, people have said durability and price are both important, do you think you have to pay extra for a fridge/vacuum/washing machine which is more durable? Are there any other trade-offs people can think of? How do people choose which make/model to buy in these circumstances? Eg. do you compromise slightly on both factors? base your choice on the most important factor? why? 15 mins Section 3 The current role of product lifetimes in peoples choice of electrical product I d now like to ask you in more detail about a factor that some of you have touched on already, and that is how long electrical products actually last for. Again, we re specifically thinking about fridges, washing machines and vacuums. Is this something people think about at all when you are choosing one of these products? To gauge the relative importance of product lifetimes in comparison to other factors, and its relationship with these other factors If it is, why? [Probe for what is behind this, eg.:] Avoiding the cost of replacement Avoiding the hassle of replacement Avoiding or reducing the need for repair (eg. perceptions around reliability, how often and how easy they will be to repair) Environmental factors? If it s not, why not? [Probe for what is behind this, eg.:] The greater importance of other factors? Lack of information on how long products will last? Assumption that there is little variation between different makes/models? If we were to put it on a post-it note, where would people place it in relation to the other factors that we ve already got stuck on the wall? Would you group it with any of the other factors [eg. durability etc.] or is it different? Why? How important is it in comparison to the other factors? Why? Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 69

And how important is it for, say, fridges as opposed to vacuum cleaners or washing machines? How important is it for fridges? Why? How important is it for vacuum cleaners? Why? How important is it for washing machines? Why? Do people think there are any trade-offs between how long a product is going to last and the other factors we ve been talking about? For example, people have said price is important, do you think you have to pay extra for a fridge/vacuum/washing machine that will last longer? Are there any other trade-offs between how long a product will last and other factors? How do people choose which make/model to buy in these circumstances? Eg. do you compromise slightly on both factors? base your choice on the most important factor? why? [if not fully explored above, check again with the group for any variations by product type, ie. fridges, vacuums and washing machines] 20 mins Section 4 Peoples current understanding and knowledge of the lifetimes of electrical products 10 mins How long would you normally expect to use these types of products for before you replace them? Fridges? Vacuum cleaners? Washing machines? To explore how respondents conceptualise and differentiate the lifetimes of these electrical products. What generally prompts or causes you to replace these types of products? Do you replace products before they have stopped working? Why? Why not? Do you generally take steps to repair products when they stop working? Why? Why not? How long, on average, do people think these types of products actually last for? By last for I mean how long before they stop working and can t be easily repaired. Fridges? Vacuum cleaners? Washing machines? Do you think this is long enough? Why? Why not? Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 70

For those of you who think this isn t long enough, how long would you like them to last? Do people think how long products last varies at all between different makes and models? Why? Why not? [probe for any perceived differences between:] Different brands? o Are there specific brands you associate with longer/shorter lifetimes? o High-street vs. own brands? Top of the range vs. mid and low range models by the same brand? Models using different technologies or with different design features? Do people think how long products last varies at all by how much they cost? Why? Why not? How much do you think you d have to pay for a product with a longer lifetime? [Ask for a rough figure for:] o A fridge with a longer lifetime? o A washing machine with a longer lifetime? o A vacuum with a longer lifetime? How does this compare to what you d normally pay for one of these products? 10 mins Overall, how knowledgeable do you feel about how long these types of products last for? Why do you/don t you feel you are knowledgeable? What is your existing knowledge about how long these products last based on? Personal experiences? Information you ve seen or heard? Reputation? To explore what respondents knowledge and perceptions of the lifetimes of these products is based on, the role of proxies and their use of other information on product lifetimes. How do people judge how long a product is going to last before they buy them? [probe specifically for the use of proxies] How good or bad a guide do you think these are to how long a product will last? Why? [if not explored above] What do people think about warranties or guarantees for these types of products? Do you look at the length and/or conditions of these when you are choosing a product? Why? Why not? Do they influence how long you think the product is going to last? Why? Why not? Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 71

If a longer guarantee is offered for a product, does this influence you to purchase that product or not? If not, why not? How good or bad a guide do you think they are to how long a product will last? Why? What is the trustworthiness of the guarantee proxy? Have people looked or asked for information on how long these types of product last when you ve been choosing one to buy? [remind people what they said in section 1 about the information they used] Why? Why not? For people who have looked for information What source or sources did you use? Why? At what point in the process did you look for this information? How easy/difficult was it to find? What was the content of the information and the language it used? Did it make sense to you? How accurate/trust-worthy do you think this information is? What impact did it have on your choice of make/model? Why? For people who haven t looked for information How easy/difficult do you think it would have been to find? Where do you think you could have found this information? If this information had been more readily available, would it have had any impact on your choice of make/model? Why? Why not? [If not explored above:] Have people come across any advertising which has directly or indirectly talked about how long these types of products will last? How was this presented or communicated? What information was being conveyed? [ie. was it about product lifetime or a proxy, eg. durability] What was the product being advertised? Did it have any impact on their choice of make/model? Why? Why not? [if not fully explored above, check again with the group for any variations by product type, ie. fridges, vacuums and washing machines] Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 72

15 mins Section 5 Opportunities for increasing importance of product lifetimes in the future To finish off the discussion I d like to ask what everyone thinks about buying electrical products with longer lifetimes in the future. First of all, has anyone actually bought a fridge, vacuum or washing machine because it had a longer lifetime in the past? What product was it? Why did you buy it? What were your experiences of it? (ie. how long did it last?) How did it affect your attitude to buying products with longer lifetimes in the future? This is a question for everyone, what do people feel about products with longer lifetimes? What kind of images or words spring to mind? How would having a product with a longer lifetime make you feel about the product itself? Does this vary at all for different product types, ie. fridges, vacuums and washing machines? To explore consumer pull for longer lifetimes and generate suggestions about what would influence consumers to buy products with longer lifetimes in the future. Probe for any differences by product type, ie. fridges, vacuums and washing machines. And why, if at all, do you think you would want to buy a fridge, vacuum or washing machine with a longer lifetime? What, if anything, are the benefits of having a product with a longer lifetime? How could it add value to the product from your perspective? Does this vary at all for different product types, ie. fridges, vacuums and washing machines? What would deter you from buying a fridge, vacuum or washing machine with a longer lifetime? What, if anything, are the downsides of having a product with a longer lifetime? Does this vary at all for different product types, ie. fridges, vacuums and washing machines? What would need to change in order for you to buy, or buy more, products with longer lifetimes in the future? Only use prompts when spontaneous responses have been fully explored. [If necessary prompt with:] Is it about the products themselves? Do there need to be more products with longer lifetimes on the market? Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 73

Is it about the cost of products with longer lifetimes? Do these need to be the same price as products with shorter lifetimes? If people are willing to pay a higher price for products with longer lifetimes, how much more? Is it about the guarantees or warrantees that products with longer lifetimes have? Do these need to be longer? Do the conditions of these need to be less restrictive/more generous (e.g. free repair)? Is it about other features of products with longer lifetimes? (eg. appearance? image?) Do products with longer lifetimes need to look or be designed differently to how they currently are? Is it about the information available on products with longer lifetimes? Does there need to be more information about how long products will last? Does there need to be different kinds of information? Does the prominence/availability of this information need to be increased? Does this information need to come from different sources? Is it about how these products are marketed/advertised? How should products with longer lifetimes be marketed to consumers? Finally, out of all the ideas that people have talked about, which one would most influence you to choose a fridge, washing machine or vacuum with a longer lifetime the next time you buy one? [if not fully explored above, check again with the group for any variations by product type, ie. fridges, vacuums and washing machines] 5 mins Section 6 - Wrapping up Summarise discussion Ask whether anyone has any other comments/questions Explain what is being done with the research Thank and close Final reality check of major themes/areas of discussion during group. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 74

Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetimes Accompanied Shops (in store) Time Instructions Purpose of section Overview To understand the current role of product lifetimes in the purchase of electrical products. Specifically: How people buy electrical products and what decision-making processes they go through What factors are most important in choices of what electrical products to buy How important product lifetimes are in comparison to other factors How people currently understand product lifetimes and how knowledgeable they are about them And, to explore potential opportunities for increasing the importance of longer product lifetimes in the purchase of electrical products in the future. 5 mins Introduction Introduce yourself and Brook Lyndhurst Explain how the shop will work: o It s really important that you do whatever you would usually do: so if you would usually speak to the shop staff, or usually check information on your phone, or whatever it might be, please don t let me put you off. o It will be really helpful if you can think out loud explain what you are thinking. o I might ask a few questions during the shop while you re thinking about things, and we ll have a chat at the end. Explain the need for honesty - no answer is right or wrong, want to understand their views. If you don t want to answer a particular question that is completely fine. Introduction and ground rules Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 75

Confidential, but recorded o voice recording used as back-up o get permission to record Any questions? At the start of/during the shop Understanding the process so far What type of product are you going to be looking for today? Have you done anything already in terms of looking or asking for information? If so, what sources have you used? What information have you already got? Brief check of what product they are looking for, whether they ve already started looking, and their thoughts at the outset. What are your thoughts/feelings before you start shopping? What are your initial feelings (eg. optimistic, concerned?) How do you intend to go about choosing what to buy? How clear an idea do you have at this stage of what you are looking for (eg. in terms of brand, features, price?) What are the key attributes you will be looking for? During the shop Understanding the shopping process [Where possible, collect the following information through observation and spontaneous comments by respondent rather than direct questions:] The shop or shops they visit What s the first shop they go in? Why? What other shops do they go in? How many shops? How long do they spend in each? Detailed exploration of the decision-making process respondents go through, with a specific focus on differentiating any stages within the process and understanding how their use of information informs the process. The products they look at How many products do they look at? Initially, and at different points in the shop Which products do they look at? Eg. is it just products in a certain price range or brand, or more random than that? What are their reactions to the products they look at? What do they like/dislike about Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 76

different products? Their use of information How do they look or ask for information on products during the shop? What specific kinds of information do they look/ask for? How satisfied or dissatisfied are they with the information they get? Do they feel they understand it? Do they find it useful? Do they trust it is accurate? Is there any information they want but can t find? How does the information affect their thinking or feelings towards what you might buy? [At different points in the shop, prompt if necessary:] Their thoughts/feelings about what they are going to buy How certain or uncertain they feel about what they are going to buy? How many make/models they are considering? What attributes or criteria they use to narrow down their search? How they re feeling (eg. excited, confused, overwhelmed, satisfied?) After the shop (30 minute interview) Talk me briefly through your shopping experience and the kinds of decisions you ve been making: How do you feel now? How was in comparison to how had planned or intended? We talked before about your expectations [researcher to briefly summarise] what, if anything, went differently from how you imagined it would be? Why do you think that was? To get their reflections on how the shop went and gauge the relative importance of product lifetimes in comparison to other factors. Did you choose a make/model by the end? If yes, why did you choose the model/make that you did? How does it compare to what you had in mind at the start? What were the main factors that determined your choice [probe for relative influence of price, quality, functionality etc.] Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 77

If no, why couldn t you decide? (If not mentioned earlier) Is how long the product lasts something you thought about at all when you were choosing the product? Why? Why not? How important is in comparison to the other factors you ve talked about? Why? Do you think there were any trade-offs between how long you felt the product was going to last and the other factors we discussed during the shop? How long would you normally expect to use this type of products for before you replace it? What generally prompts or causes you to replace these types of products? Do you replace products before they have stopped working? Why? Why not? Do you generally take steps to repair products when they stop working? Why? Why not? To explore how respondents conceptualise and differentiate the lifetimes of these electrical products. How long, on average, do you think this product (XX) lasts for? By last for I mean how long before they stop working and can t be easily repaired. Do you think this is long enough? Why? Why not? Did you consider whether how long the product lasts varies at all between different makes and models? Why? Why not? Do you think that how long products last varies at all by how much they cost? Why? Why not? How much do you think you d have to pay for a product with a longer lifetime? How does this compare to what you d normally pay for one of these products? Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 78

Overall, how knowledgeable do you feel about how long these types of products last for? Why do you/don t you feel you are knowledgeable? What is your existing knowledge about how long these products last based on? Personal experiences? Information you ve seen or heard? Reputation? To explore what respondents knowledge and perceptions of the lifetimes of these products is based on and their use of information about product lifetimes. Are there any other ways you could judge how long products are going to last? [probe specifically for the use of warranties or guarantees as a proxy] How good or bad a guide do you think these are to how long a product will last? Why? To finish off the discussion I d like to ask what you feel about products with longer lifetimes? What kind of images or words spring to mind? How would having a product with a longer lifetime make you feel about the product itself? And why, if at all, do you think you would want to buy a (X) with a longer lifetime? What, if anything, are the benefits of having a product with a longer lifetime? How could it add value to the product from your perspective? What would deter you from buying a (X) with a longer lifetime? What, if anything, are the downsides of having a product with a longer lifetime? What would need to change in order for you to buy, or buy more, products with longer lifetimes in the future? To explore consumer pull for longer lifetimes and generate suggestions about what would influence consumers to buy products with longer lifetimes in the future. Only use prompts when spontaneous responses have been fully explored. [If necessary prompt with:] Is it about the products themselves? Do there need to be more products with longer lifetimes on the market? Is it about the cost of products with longer lifetimes? Is it about the length and/or conditions of guarantees or warrantees that products with longer Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 79

lifetimes have? Is it about other features of products with longer lifetimes? (eg. appearance? image?) Is it about the information available on products with longer lifetimes? Is it about how these products are marketed/advertised? Finally, out of all the ideas that you have talked about, which one would most influence you to choose a XXX with a longer lifetime the next time you buy one? Wrapping up Thank for taking part Ask whether they have any other comments/questions Explain what is being done with the research and the next steps Payment of incentive (and sign-off sheet) Thank and close Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 80

Additional Accompanied Shop case-studies and journey maps Case-study 6 A couple, both 30 years old, who were going to buy a new TV. Their current TV is almost 10 years old and feels out of date and small. They were aiming for the new TV to have: a 40 screen; be from a well known brand (Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba); thin; with an LED screen; be HD ready; and with freeview included. They expected to pay around 400 and had read online that if you paid 10 per inch (of the screen size) you were getting a good deal. They had done no specific search for this TV, but both had recently researched TVs to buy a smaller one for another room. The husband enjoys doing online research and has spent hours in the past looking for the best deal whenever they are buying something. The purchasing process is taken very seriously by the couple, as they intend to keep the TV in their lounge for at least the next five years a direct reference to product lifetimes. The first place they looked online was an independent website: http://www.hotukdeals.com/ 12, which they had used before a lot for other products. They found a deal for a Panasonic TV (on sale at Comet) near top of list for 499. This TV met most of their criteria except it was plasma rather than LED something they would be willing to compromise if they secure a good deal. The TV also has internet connectivity which was seen as a nice to have feature. The product code, price and features are noted on piece of paper. More TVs were looked at on this site a couple in some detail. Though the wife suggested she would want to find out the cheapest place to buy the Panasonic, the husband was determined to find more models and conducted a second wave of internet research on the Sainsbury s, Tesco and John Lewis websites. Interested primarily in price and screen size, the husband wrote down the details of five or six different models all manufactured by big brands and with roughly with same spec as the earlier Panasonic model. The husband then started comparing information (including screen resolution) on these models in more detail. Time was also spent looking for an explanation of diff between LED, LCD and plasma screens. The earlier Panasonic model remained a favourite, because of the reputation of the brand and because of the extra features. The husband was therefore convincing himself that the original budget may be extended. The wife was still keen to search for a cheap price on Google but the husband continued to search with a look at Richer Sounds because of an endorsement in Which? and the Comet website. Nothing of interest was found so they finally searched for the cheapest price for the Panasonic. The wife was also keen to read reviews on the model, though the husband thought did not think it necessary, such was his trust in the brand. Their next stage would be to go to Comet and John Lewis to look at the Panasonic and some other models. The Panasonic would be used as a benchmark to compare other models with, as it was seen as a good deal. 12 People post a deal they ve found online and give a temperature rating for how hot it is. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 81

Stage Customer journey and information viewed Attributes considered No. of products considered Preconceptions Something up to date - thin, LED, HD ready, with freeview included, and with a large (40 ) screen. Want a product from a well known brand (Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba). Expect to pay around 400 Price, Screen size, Up to date Decision to replace Current TV old but has lasted. Expect to keep current TV for at least five years, so it requires thought and time in the purchasing process. Landing hotukdeals website Scan Look around hotukdeals site, finding one model for further viewing. Further scanning of Sainsburys, Tesco and John Lewis websites Deal, Price, Brand, Screen size Deeper information search Looking into product specifications in more detail. Brand, Screen resolution Deeper information search Looking at price comparison, potential retailers and reviews for one particular product. One product considered in detail Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 82

Case study 7 A 70-year old male who was looking for a vacuum cleaner. His current Dyson vacuum cleaner is about 10 years old, and it was felt it was on its last legs. He expected to spend around 250, but admitted to not knowing much about the current market. He wanted to look in a shop as he wanted to physically see vacuum cleaners and be able to ask shop assistant for further information. He visited a local Comet store and walked around, looking all of the vacuum cleaners on display. As he was particularly interested in Dyson models, he noted down details (price, discount and product code) on a piece of paper for a couple of Dysons. The fact that Dyson have free 5 year guarantees was also noted. Details of four or five other vacuum cleaners were noted, all a similar price to the Dysons. These were only from brands he had heard of (Bosch, Hoover, Electrolux, Morphy Richards), and cheaper models were ignored because you get what you pay for. Brightly coloured, garish, ones were also ignored. Though the length of guarantees was not written down, he recalled most of them having a two year warranty. Warranties were an important factor for the participant. The next steps would be to maybe look in the Argos catalogue to see what they have in there. Then he and he wife would go round to a few shops to see whether they have the same models and how the prices compare. His wife would also need to like the look of the model and how it works. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 83

Stage Customer journey and information viewed Attributes considered No. of products considered Preconceptions Favours well known brands, particularly Dyson Has an idea of price Price, Brand Decision to replace Current model is Dyson happy to get the same brand again Brand Landing Comet Scan Wander around looking at all vacuum cleaners in the store Brand Over 20 browsed on display Deeper information search Looking into product specifications in more detail for around five products Brand, Price, Discount, Aesthetics Notes taken about five models Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 84

Case study 8 A 45-year old female searching for a new laptop for her son. The laptop was to be for his coursework at university, but he was also likely to use it for games. It did not need to be particularly special and the priority was to get good value for money she expected to spend up to 500. She always researched and bought products online, and had previously bought a laptop for her daughter. For this search, she first visited the Comet site, because she used it before. She brought up a page of laptops and clicked on an HP one first to have a quick look at the price and specification, but eventually decided the screen was not big enough. She next looked at a more expensive HP which did have bigger screen, and then added the webpage to her favourites. She then tried to find reviews about the laptop, but she was unable to find any through entering the product code into a Google search, leaving her frustrated. She then went on to the PC World website and sorted laptops by price from low to high. She looked through a few in her price range that were by recognised brands. Initial comparisons are by price and screen size, but she then also turns her attention to the size of the memory. She finds some of the information and technical language confusing. Despite being somewhat confused, the participant does understand what a gigabyte is, and how much memory her son is likely to need. Though it is noted that all of the laptops have ample memory, she still seems to favour those laptops with largest memory. The final search stop is the QVC site, as she has bought other stuff from them. She looks at a few laptops and is compared memory, screen size and price. Having found nothing new of interest, she types the model number of the second HP (with the bigger screen) into Google specifically to look for where she could buy it cheapest. Part of the reason that she was interested in this model is because she saw HP as a respected brand. The brand was also linked directly to the reliability and reparability of the product. She was, however, not close to a purchase at the end of the shop. Her next step would be to get partner s advice. She also had plans to look for an independent review of products online, and wanted to find out more about certain features (including battery life). Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 85

Stage Customer journey and information viewed Attributes considered No. of products considered Preconceptions Price range in mind. Appeared to be open minded towards different brands initially. Price Decision to replace Not replacing an existing laptop not an urgent search Landing Comet website Initial selection Two laptops were picked, seemingly at random and some of the specifications considered: the first had a screen size deemed too small. Price, Screen size Two products initially selected for more detailed look Deeper information search Unsuccessful attempt to read reviews about the second model. Reviews sought for one model Narrowing down Search on the PC World website, narrowed to a price bracket. Only considering recognised brands. Price, Brand Only viewing one product Comparison and evaluation Initial comparison by price and screen size. Later the size of the memory emerges as a factor. Price, Screen size, Memory Looking at a few products simultaneously Comparison and evaluation Similar comparisons of a few products (by price and screen size and memory) on the QVC site. Price, Screen size, Memory Looking at a few products simultaneously Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 86

Case study 9 A middle aged couple looking for a fridge. Their current fridge freezes over even when the temperature is turned down, and being outside of the original guarantee - was not deemed good-looking enough to warrant repair. The fridge handles had snapped off and they had found that replacement handles were expensive and instead had to glue the handles back on to the fridge. They were going to take the opportunity to get a fridge with a bigger capacity and possibly an ice dispenser. The couple had done no previous research and visited John Lewis because: they assumed that fridges came with a five year guarantee; they trusted the after-sale service; and it was felt that the shop staff were more knowledgeable than elsewhere (and not paid on commission). They also decided on shopping in-store as they like the idea of being able to speak to someone face to face, and being able to touch the products. Initial searching in the store involved having a quick look at a few fridges made by recognised brands, looking briefly at both the label and the inside of the fridge. Size was the starting point, and appearance and the presence of an ice maker were also in the mix of things they were looking for. Interestingly, one Miele fridge was rejected because it had fancy handles that they thought would be difficult to replace. They quite liked the appearance of one of the own-brand models, so they asked the assistant who the manufacturer was. On hearing it was Electrolux, this model was also rejected as their fridges were seen as cheaper. The shop ended without a model being selected. Though they had a couple in the back of their minds, they were disappointed with number of fridges on show in John Lewis and intended to view a wider range at other stores. The salesperson had given the wife a few brochures, which she intended to look at. Nonetheless, the plan remained to buy from John Lewis eventually because of their five year guarantees. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 87

Stage Customer journey and information viewed Attributes considered No. of products considered Preconceptions Willing to pay for quality Only trust certain brands Quality, Brand Decision to replace Want a large fridge Size Landing Visit to John Lewis Scan Walk around the store looking at fridges (made by recognised brands), taking into account size. The look of the fridge, and whether it has an ice maker emerge as further considerations. Brand, Size, Ice maker, Aesthetics Deeper information search One fridge was seen as attractive, but it was an own brand model. As they were wary about the brand, help was sought from a shop assistant to find out the original manufacturer. The manufacturer was deemed to have a bad reputation and interest in the product ended. Brochures were given to the couple by the assistant Brand One product considered, then rejected Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 88

Case-study 10 A 48-year old husband and father of two, who was considering purchasing a new fridge. Both the integrated fridge in his kitchen and the fridge in his garage were over 10 years old, and so both were in line for replacement. Both had started to get faulty and he did not consider it safe to continue using them for much longer. At least one fridge had been repaired before (after it started freezing up) because it was covered by a service agreement. He was most interested in replacing the fridge in the garage and buying an American Style fridge with an ice dispenser. After some initial searching however, his wife told him that the kitchen fridge was more important as it was used to keep the essentials, and his attentions turned to integrated fridges. Before the search turned to integrated fridges, however, he had begun to browse the Currys and Comet websites to start getting an idea of what large fridges were available. Interestingly, he and his wife were signed up to several voucher sites (including: wowcher, vouchercloud, groupon, dealcloud, kgb deals) and some time was also spent investigating whether any offers were currently running on fridges. This is usually his wife s domain as she had to log him into the relevant email account, and he admitted that he did not recall seeing any offers on fridges in the past. It is clearly the way that other things are bought for the household and had permeated his shopping habits. The participant claimed not to be very excited about the search for a fridge, and actually once attentions had turned to integrated fridges it took no more than a 10 minute online search to find one that he was happy with. With integrated fridges being hidden away behind a door, nothing about the appearance was a concern, so he searched for the same brand as the existing model and found that it was not as expensive as he had expected. Though he had a few problems with the fridge, because it was 11 or 12 years old this was to be expected, and he had no issues with the brand (Indesit). Following the research, the participant planned to measure the current fridge to make sure the dimensions of the new model were the same, speak to his wife about what he had found, and have a quick search online for reviews and other offers. Though how long a product lasts did not get mentioned explicitly during the interview, the participant later suggested that, by paying for particular brands he was taking steps to avoid early replacement. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 89

Stage Customer journey and information viewed Attributes considered No. of products considered Size, Preconceptions Likes American style fridges with ice dispensers Aesthetics, Features Decision to replace Two fridges in the house need replacing one integrated fridge in the kitchen, and one in the garage. During the research it is decided that the integrated fridge should be the priority. Size Landing Google search for Currys Scan Initial look through the Currys and Comet websites to see what is available in terms of American style large fridges Brand, Price Size, Aesthetics, Features Over 20 fridges briefly viewed on websites these were not integrated models though Discount/ voucher search The interviewee and his partner are signed up to several discount sites, and some time is spent checking if offers are available. (Unfortunately the internet becomes slow and hampers the search) Price Narrowing down Once the decision is made to replace the integrated machine, the interviewee looks online with the intention of finding a similar integrated Indesit machine, with the assumption that it will be the same size. Brand, Size One product targeted Final selection The model is found to be an acceptable price, and because it is hidden away, no other features are considered. The interviewee is happy that he is getting a like for like replacement and will look to buy the Indesit model, after measurements and online checks. Price, Size Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 90

Profile of quantitative survey respondents 13 Gender male 49% Working status working 63% female 51% not working 9% student 1% Age 18-29 12% retired 27% 30-49 39% 50-64 25% Social class AB 29% 65+ 24% C1 28% C2 21% Household income 0-21,000 29% DE 23% 21,001-41,000 37% 41,001+ 34% Tenure owner-occupied 74% private rented 12% Household size 1 22% social rented 14% 2 33% 3+ 45% Marital status single 17% married 52% Children in household 0 68% cohabiting 14% 1-2 27% separated/divorced 3+ 5% /widowed 18% 13 Based on weighted data. Excludes don t know/refused responses. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 91

Quantitative survey questionnaire Screener ASK ALL In your household, do you have any responsibility for buying electrical items, for example vacuum cleaners, fridges or washing machines? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE Yes, it's solely my responsibility 1 GO TO Q1 Yes, I have some responsibility but it s generally a joint decision between me and someone else 2 GO TO Q1 No THANK AND CLOSE Retailer, Brand and Price Preferences ASK ALL, FOR EACH PRODUCT TYPE 1. If you were going to buy a new [...] in the next 12 months, which retailer or retailers would you consider buying it from? SPONTANEOUS DO NOT READ OUT. CODE FIRST 5 RESPONSES. Amazon 1 Argos 2 Asda 3 Comet 4 Co-op 5 Currys-PC World 6 Dixons 7 Homebase 8 John Lewis 9 Local/independent shop 10 Marks & Spencer 11 Next 12 Sainsburys 13 Tesco 14 Code Washing machine Fridge Vacuum cleaner The cheapest retailer found in a web search or on a price comparison site The cheapest retailer on high street / in shopping 15 16 Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 92

centre / near where I live The place where I can get 17 the longest guarantee Major electrical retailers 18 Unspecified online retailer 19 Other, specify 20 ASK ALL, FOR EACH PRODUCT TYPE 2. What brand or brands of [...] would you consider buying? SPONTANEOUS DO NOT READ OUT. CODE FIRST 5 RESPONSES. Code Washing machine Fridge Vacuum cleaner Beko 1 Bissell 2 Bosch/ Siemens 3 Candy /Hoover 4 Challenge 5 Dyson 6 Electrolux/AEG/Zanussi 7 Essentials 8 Glen Dimplex 9 Henry 10 Indesit/Hotpoint 11 LG 12 Liebherr 13 Logik 14 Miele 15 Mikomi 16 NEFF 17 Panasonic 18 Prestige 19 Proline 20 Samsung 21 Sandstrom 22 Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 93

Sebo 23 Smeg 24 Vax/Dust Devil 25 Whirlpool 26 Argos Value / Argos 27 own-brand Currys own-brand 28 Tesco own-brand 29 Asda own-brand 30 Marks & Spencer ownbrand 31 John Lewis own-brand 32 A retailer own-brand 33 A German brand 34 Anything 35 Not sure / Don t know 36 Other, specify 37 ASK ALL 3. For these kinds of products, why is it that you would consider buying the particular brands you ve mentioned? SPONTANEOUS. MULTI CODE. Code Association with quality 1 Association with reliability / long lasting products 2 Like how it looks 3 Good value for money 4 Cheap price 5 Brand reputation / Trust 6 Have owned these brands before (or someone else they know has) 7 Recommended by someone 8 Other, specify 9 Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 94

ASK ALL, FOR EACH PRODUCT TYPE 4. And how much would you expect to spend on a new [...]? SPONTANEOUS. SINGLE CODE. [If responses do not fit into bands, please select the most appropriate and then confirm this with respondent] Code Washing machine Fridge Vacuum cleaner 0-50 1 51-100 2 101-150 3 151-200 4 201-300 5 301-400 6 401-500 7 501-600 8 601-700 9 701-800 10 801-900 11 901-1,000 12 > 1,001 13 Not sure 14 ASK ALL, FOR EACH PRODUCT TYPE 5. You may have mentioned these already, but how likely would you be to consider buying a retailer own-brand [...]? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE Code Washing machine Fridge Vacuum cleaner Very unlikely 1 Quite unlikely 2 Neither likely or unlikely 3 Quite likely 4 Very likely 5 IF ANSWER CODE 1 or 2 FOR Q5, ASK FOR EACH PRODUCT TYPE: 6. You said you would be unlikely to consider buying a retailer own-brand [...]. Why is that? SPONTANEOUS DO NOT READ OUT. MULTIPLE CODE Code I don t think it would last very long / as long as a wellknown brand 1 I think it would break down a lot /more than a wellknown brand 2 I think it would be poor quality/worse quality than one 3 made by a well-known brand I don t think it would be unreliable / less reliable than a 4 Washing machine Fridge Vacuum Cleaner Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 95

well-known brand I don t think it would look as good/nice as one made by 5 a well-known brand I don t think it would have the same/as many features as 6 one made by a well-known brand I d be embarrassed to own an own-brand product 7 I would never consider buying an own-brand product 8 Other, specify 9 ASK ALL 7. Where, if at all, would you generally look or ask for information about these kinds of products before you buy them? SPONTANEOUS. MULTI CODE Code Don t look or ask for information 1 Online product information on retailer 2 websites Online product information on 3 independent sites Online consumer forums 4 Online consumer review sites 5 Online Which? website 6 Just Online or On the internet 7 In shops on the product/packaging 8 In shops accompanying information 9 In shops from a shop assistant 10 Just in a shop or in shops 11 Advice from friends, family or colleagues 12 Advice from independent expert 13 Which? Magazine 14 Other specialist magazine 15 Advertising (incl. TV, radio, magazine) 16 Argos catalogue 17 Other, specify 18 Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 96

Importance of lifetime I d now like you to think about the factors that are important to you when you are buying a new washing machine, fridge or vacuum cleaner. ASK ALL 8. How important are the following when you are buying a washing machine, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is Not at all important, and 10 is Extremely important? READ OUT STATEMENTS. SINGLE CODE. ROTATE START POINT. Not at all important Extremely important Brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Reliability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Price 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How long it will last for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Length of guarantee / warranty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How it looks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Features 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ASK ALL 9. How important are the following when you are buying a vacuum cleaner, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is Not at all important, and 10 is Extremely important? READ OUT STATEMENTS. SINGLE CODE. ROTATE START POINT. Not at all important Extremely important Brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Reliability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Price 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How long it will last for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Length of guarantee / warranty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How it looks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Features 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Power 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ASK ALL 10. How important are the following when you are buying a fridge, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is Not at all important, and 10 is Extremely important? READ OUT STATEMENTS. SINGLE CODE. ROTATE START POINT. Not at all important Extremely important Brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Reliability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Price 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How long it will last for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Length of guarantee / warranty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How it looks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Features 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 97

Lifetime Expectations For each of the products we ve been talking about, I d like to ask you how long you think these products generally last for. By last for I mean how long before they breakdown and can t be easily repaired. [IT IS IMPORTANT FOR RESPONDENTS TO GIVE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION IF NECESSARY REASSURE THEM THAT IT CAN JUST BE A GUESS] ASK ALL, FOR EACH PRODUCT TYPE 11. How long, on average, do you think [...]s generally last for? Please can you give a specific number of years, it doesn t matter if this is just a guess. SPONTANEOUS DO NOT READ OUT. SINGLE CODE. Code Washing machine Fridge Vacuum cleaner Under a year/1 year 1 2 years 2 3 years 3 4 years 4 5 years 5 6 years 6 7 years 7 8 years 8 9 years 9 10 years 10 11 years 11 12 years 12 13 years 13 14 years 14 15 years 15 16 years 16 17 years 17 18 years 18 19 years 19 20 years 20 21 years 21 22 years 22 23 years 23 24 years 24 25 years 25 Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 98

26 years 26 27 years 27 28 years 28 29 years 29 30 years 30 ASK ALL, FOR EACH PRODUCT TYPE 12. And how satisfied or dissatisfied would you say you are with how long [...]s generally last for, on the following scale? Again, by last for I mean how long before they breakdown and can t be easily repaired. READ OUT. SINGLE CODE. Code Washing machine Fridge Vacuum cleaner 1 Very 1 Dissatisfied 2 Quite 2 dissatisfied 3 Neither 3 satisfied or dissatisfied 4 Quite 4 satisfied 5 Very Satisfied 5 ASK ALL 13. Imagine that you are shopping for electrical products like these, and have narrowed your search down to two models. How would you judge which of the models will last longer? SPONTANEOUS. MULTI CODE. Code Brand 1 Price 2 Length of guarantee / warranty 3 How it looks 4 How it feels 5 Accompanying information (in store) 6 Advice from friends, family or colleagues 7 Previous experiences 8 Advice from shop staff 9 Don t know how to judge this 10 Online reviews 11 Online forums 12 Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 99

Other online information 13 Not possible to judge / You can t tell 14 Other, specify 15 Washing machines I d now like you to imagine you were buying a washing machine. [NB if questioned, this is the sort of washing machine that they would consider buying if they were searching now]. [IF RESPONDENTS GIVE THEIR ANSWER IN s TO ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, EXPLAIN THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO JUST GIVE A PERCENTAGE, EG. I D PAY 10% MORE ] ASK ALL 14. You said before that you thought washing machines generally last for around [Q11 code] years. How much more, if anything, would you be willing to pay for a washing machine that was advertised as lasting [Q11 code x 2] years and had a [Q11 code x 2] year standard guarantee or warranty? SPONTANEOUS. SINGLE CODE. [If responses do not fit into bands, please select the most appropriate and then confirm this with respondent] Code Nothing more 1 1-10% more 2 11-20% more 3 21-30% more 4 31-40% more 5 41-50% more 6 51-60% more 7 61-70% more 8 71-80% more 9 81-90% more 10 91-100% more 11 >100% or More than double 12 ASK ALL 15. And how much more, if anything, would you be willing to pay for a washing machine that was advertised as lasting [Q11 code x 2] years but did not have a [Q11 code x 2] year standard guarantee or warranty? SPONTANEOUS. SINGLE CODE. [If responses do not fit into bands, please select the most appropriate and then confirm this with respondent] Code Nothing more 1 1-10% more 2 11-20% more 3 21-30% more 4 31-40% more 5 41-50% more 6 51-60% more 7 61-70% more 8 71-80% more 9 81-90% more 10 91-100% more 11 >100% or More than double 12 Fridges I d now like you to imagine you were buying a fridge. [NB if questioned, this is the sort of fridge that they would consider buying if they were searching now]. Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 100

[IF RESPONDENTS GIVE THEIR ANSWER IN s TO ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, EXPLAIN THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO JUST GIVE A PERCENTAGE, EG. I D PAY 10% MORE ] ASK ALL 16. You said before that you thought fridges generally last for around [Q11 code] years. How much more, if anything, would you be willing to pay for a fridge that was advertised as lasting [Q11 code x 2] years and had a [Q10 code x 2] year standard guarantee or warranty? SPONTANEOUS. SINGLE CODE. [If responses do not fit into bands, please select the most appropriate and then confirm this with respondent] Code Nothing more 1 1-10% more 2 11-20% more 3 21-30% more 4 31-40% more 5 41-50% more 6 51-60% more 7 61-70% more 8 71-80% more 9 81-90% more 10 91-100% more 11 >100% or More than double 12 ASK ALL 17. And how much more, if anything, would you be willing to pay for a fridge that was advertised as lasting [Q11 code x 2] years but did not have a [Q11 code x 2] year standard guarantee or warranty? SPONTANEOUS. SINGLE CODE. [If responses do not fit into bands, please select the most appropriate and then confirm this with respondent] Code Nothing more 1 1-10% more 2 11-20% more 3 21-30% more 4 31-40% more 5 41-50% more 6 51-60% more 7 61-70% more 8 71-80% more 9 81-90% more 10 91-100% more 11 >100% or More than double 12 Vacuum cleaners I d now like you to imagine you were buying a vacuum cleaner. [NB if questioned, this is the sort of vacuum cleaner that they would consider buying if they were searching now]. [IF RESPONDENTS GIVE THEIR ANSWER IN s TO ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, EXPLAIN THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO JUST GIVE A PERCENTAGE, EG. I D PAY 10% MORE ASK ALL 18. You said before that you thought vacuum cleaners generally last for around [Q11 code] years. How much more, if anything, would you be willing to pay for a vacuum cleaner that was advertised as lasting [Q11 code x 2] years and had a [Q11 code x 2] year standard guarantee or warranty? SPONTANEOUS. SINGLE CODE. [If responses do not fit into bands, please select the most appropriate and then confirm this with respondent] Code Nothing more 1 1-10% more 2 11-20% more 3 21-30% more 4 31-40% more 5 Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 101

41-50% more 6 51-60% more 7 61-70% more 8 71-80% more 9 81-90% more 10 91-100% more 11 >100% or More than double 12 ASK ALL 19. And how much more, if anything, would you be willing to pay for a vacuum cleaner that was advertised as lasting [Q11 code x 2] years but did not have a [Q11 code x 2] year standard guarantee or warranty? SPONTANEOUS. SINGLE CODE. [If responses do not fit into bands, please select the most appropriate and then confirm this with respondent] Code Nothing more 1 1-10% more 2 11-20% more 3 21-30% more 4 31-40% more 5 41-50% more 6 51-60% more 7 61-70% more 8 71-80% more 9 81-90% more 10 91-100% more 11 >100% or More than double 12 Socio-Demographics INTERVIEWER ENTER GENDER OF RESPONDENT Code Female 1 Male 2 ASK ALL 20. Which of the following age groups do you fall into? READ OUT, SINGLE CODE Code 18-24 1 25-29 2 30-39 3 40-49 4 50-59 5 60-64 6 65+ 7 ASK ALL 21. And do you/are you...? READ OUT, SINGLE CODE Code Working full time (30+ hrs a week) 1 Working part time (8-29 hrs a week) 2 Not working but seeking work or 3 temporarily unemployed/sick Not working/not seeking work 4 Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 102

Retired 5 Student 6 ASK ALL 22. And are you currently...? READ OUT, SINGLE CODE Code Single 1 Married (Including Civil Partnership) 2 Cohabiting 3 Separated 4 Widowed 5 Divorced 6 ASK ALL 23. Which of these applies to the house or flat you live in? READ OUT, SINGLE CODE Code Owned outright (without mortgage) 1 Owned with a mortgage or loan 2 Rented from the council 3 Rented from someone else 4 Rent free 5 Rented from housing association 6 Owned outright (without mortgage) 7 ASK ALL 24. How many people currently live at your house or flat, including you? READ OUT, SINGLE CODE Code 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5+ 5 ASK ALL 25. How many children under the age of 16 live at your house or flat? READ OUT, SINGLE CODE Code 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5+ 6 ASK ALL 26. To which of these ethnic groups do you consider you belong...? READ OUT, SINGLE CODE Code British Irish Other white background White and black Caribbean White and black African White and Asian Another mixed background Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 103

Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Another Asian background Caribbean African Another black background Other ASK ALL 27. What is the combined annual income of your household, prior to tax being deducted? SPONTANEOUS, SINGLE CODE. [If unable to give precise figure, please assign to most appropriate category]. Code Up to 7,000 7,001 to 14,000 14,001 to 21,000 21,001 to 28,000 28,001 to 34,000 34,001 to 41,000 41,001 to 48,000 48,001 to 55,000 55,001 to 62,000 62,001 to 69,000 69,001 to 76,000 76,001 to 83,000 83,001 or more Refused ASK ALL Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime 104

www.wrap.org.uk/eproducts