ABSTRACT
The discourse of price as a key element of marketing mix is now well established in the marketing literature. This is commonly associated with the fact that it is the only element that yields revenue out of all of the marketing mix factors, while others represent costs (Armstrong et al., 2017). Indeed, price is crucial to a firm’s marketing strategy and overall profitability. Fundamentally, the discussion of price covers a myriad of issues including costs, pricing objectives, competition, perceived value, customers’ reaction to price as a marketing stimulus and many others. The main focus of pricing strategy has been stated as maximising the profit of the sellers by capturing the heterogeneous product valuation of the customers and accounting for competition and cannibalisation (Kim et al., 2009). It is important to state that the significance of price is not limited to the business organisations offering their goods and services to fill the needs in the marketplace but also relates to consumers using these goods and other stakeholders such as government and non-government agencies. For instance, Khan et al. (2012) show that public health pricing instruments like taxation could be used to reduce the consumption of energy-dense food and possibly the predominance of obesity among young consumers in the US. While this finding is US related, it is logical to contend that the postulation will have a wider relevance in the society beyond the context of this study. By and large, economic activities linking pricing strategies of marketers, consumers’ income, and how consumers react to the issues is a focal subject in the marketplace dynamics. Similarly, this is a potent topic when considered in the context of young consumer behaviour. As a relevant example, family income has been a major influence in various areas of children’s development and well-being. In a study by Gibb et al. (2012) on childhood family income and life outcome in adulthood, it was found that low family income during the childhood stage of life could 139be linked to a range of economic and educational disadvantages in adulthood. This is not surprising as income creates opportunities for purchases, some of which are goods, services and experiences that are beneficial for children’s upbringing. For instance, children consume several food items, wear clothes, shoes, attend amusement parks, benefit from the services of hairstylists and a host of many others. Gbadamosi (2012) categorises these products into routine products and special products. According to Gbadamosi (2012), the routine products, as indicated by their name, are consumed frequently and tend to be relatively cheaper when compared to the special products that are only consumed once in a while. Clearly, some of these market offerings could be gender specific, age related or known in various other possible categorisations. Meanwhile, in this day and age, children in households are becoming increasingly involved in some of the consumption-related roles and some of these include pricing issues. So, given that the impact of pricing and consumers’ interpretation of price and value of market offerings can be different across different consumer groups, this chapter focuses on young consumers’ understanding of value and how these are linked to income and the symbolic aspect of brands. Meanwhile, research on children as consumers is growing (e.g. Ji, 2002, 2008; Cook, 2008, 2010; Marshall, 2010 and others) because both academics and practitioners now recognise that the young consumer segment is attractive for businesses and is relatively un-researched. For example, in such disciplines as consumer culture and consumer behaviour, little is known about children as consumers. The young consumer segment can be seen as distinctive and valuable and if a greater understanding could be gained of how young consumers perceive and understand consumerism and elements of the marketing mix, it will be enriching from both the academic and practitioner’s perspectives (Berey and Pollay, 1968; Leigh and Gabel, 1992; McNeal, 1999).
