Purchase constraint analysis: An alternative perspective for marketers

  • Lawrence R. Lepisto
  • William J. Hannaford


The task of the marketer is to facilitate the exchange with consumers. This exchange process can be inhibited if consumers face constraints to the purchase. The focus of the marketer should be not only product attributes but also any constraining factors in the purchase environment. This article provides a framework to identify and discuss these purchase constraints. The constraints facing the consumer could be: marketing, cultural, social, personal, or structural constraints. In addition to the traditional dichotomy of controllable and uncontrollable constraints, it is suggested there are constraints that may not be uncontrollable but may be semicontrollable. A purchase constraint matrix is constructed to outline the constraints and is followed by the implications to marketing managers and researcher.


Marketing Consumer Behavior Product Attribute Structural Constraint Alternative Perspective 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. “Liquor Marketers See Growth Potential,”Advertising Age, Vol. 49, No. 5 (January 30, 1978), pp. 1, 39–41, 58–59.Google Scholar
  2. Bartels, Robert,Comparative Marketing: Wholesaling in Fifteen Countries, (Homewood, Ill: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1963), pp. 301–304.Google Scholar
  3. Belk, Russell W., “Situational Variables and Consumer Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, (December 1975), pp. 157–164; Sandell, Rolf Gunnar, “Effects of Attitudinal and Situation Factors on Reported Choice Behavior,” Vol. 5 (November 1968), pp. 405–408; Wicker, Allen W., “Processes Which Mediate Behavior-Environment Congruence,”Behavioral Science, Vol. 17 (1972), pp. 265–277.Google Scholar
  4. Dillon, Thomas, “Forget Wants, Needs, Listen to Consumer Problems,”Marketing News, Vol. 11, (June 2, 1978), p. 6.Google Scholar
  5. Engel, James F., David T. Kollat, and Roger D. Blackwell,Consumer Behavior, (Hinsdale, Illinois: Dryden Press, 1973).Google Scholar
  6. Haire, Mason, “Projective Techniques in Marketing Research,”Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14 (April, 1950), pp. 649–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Howard, John A. and Jagdish N. Sheth,The Theory of Buyer Behavior, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969), pp. 139–141.Google Scholar
  8. Light, Larry, “Light Says Problem Research Will Give More Benefits Than Benefit Research,”Marketing News, Vol. 9, (September 26, 1975), p. 12.Google Scholar
  9. McInnes, William, “A Conceptual Approach to Marketing,” in Reavis Cox, Wroe Alderson and Stanley J. Shapiro,Theory in Marketing, (Homewood, ill: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1964), pp. 51–67.Google Scholar
  10. Rosenberg, M.J., “Cognitive Structure and Attitudinal Affect,”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, (1956), pp. 367–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tauber, Edward M., “Reduce New Product Failures: Measure Needs as Well as Purchase Interest,”Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 (July 1973), pp. 61–70; Tauber, Edward M., “How Market Research Discourages Major Innovation,”Business Horizons, (June, 1974) pp. 22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence R. Lepisto
    • 1
  • William J. Hannaford
    • 2
  1. 1.Central Michigan UniversityUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin-Eau ClaireEau ClaireUSA

Personalised recommendations