GB534 Unit 7 Consumer Interview Summary Example

"It Didn't Fit the Car," Four Times: A Unit 7 Consumer Interview Summary on a Returned Stroller

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

GB534: Consumer Behavior

Unit 7 Consumer Interview Summary

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The interviewee, the stroller brand and every detail are composite and illustrative; bracketed items mark facts a student would supply from their own interview. The methods and sources cited are real.

The Interview's Frame

Interviewee: a composite parent of a [four-month-old], aged [early thirties], living in [Aurora, Colorado].

Length and mode: [38] minutes by [video call].

Protocol: nine prepared questions with follow-ups, from how the stroller was chosen to how the return was decided.

Consent: the interviewee agreed to be recorded and quoted without being named.

The Protocol

The questions moved from general to specific, following McCracken (1988) on long interviews: start with broad questions that let the respondent tell the story in their own terms, then use planned prompts to explore topics the respondent raises or avoids. The nine questions covered how the family came to need a stroller; how they chose this model; who was involved; what using it was like in the first weeks; when they first considered returning it; what finally decided the return; what they bought instead; how they felt about the return; and what the brand could have done differently.

What Was Said

The interviewee described choosing the stroller after reading reviews and visiting a store with their partner, liking its smooth ride and sturdy feel. In the first weeks, they used it on neighborhood walks and were happy with it. When asked when they first considered returning it, they said about two weeks before the deadline.

Asked what decided the return, the interviewee said the stroller did not fit the car. Asked a follow-up about what happened when they tried to fit it, they said again that it did not fit the car. Asked whether they had measured the trunk before buying, they said they had not, and that it did not fit the car. And asked what the brand could have done differently, they said the brand should have made clear it would not fit the car.

The answer never changed, but the questions that produced it kept getting closer to subjects the interviewee did not take up.

Three Subjects the Replies Stepped Around

Weight and lifting. When asked about using the stroller in the first weeks, the interviewee mentioned in passing that their partner "always ended up being the one to get it in and out." The interviewee did not return to this when asked directly about the car.

The partner's preference. Asked who was involved in the choice, the interviewee said the decision was mostly theirs, but later mentioned that the partner had "liked the other one better from the start," a lighter compact model. The replacement stroller, bought after the return, was that compact.

Price. Asked how they felt about the return, the interviewee said they were relieved and added that they had "seen it on sale for less" a week after buying it. Asked whether the sale affected the decision, they said no and returned to the trunk.

Interpreting the Pattern

The trunk explanation is plausible and may be true: the stroller's folded depth is close to the limit of many sedans' trunks. But it is also a socially comfortable reason, one that blames the product rather than the household's choice. Hoyer et al. (2018) note that consumers sometimes give the most acceptable reason for a decision rather than the full one. The three avoided subjects suggest other forces: a heavy stroller that one partner had to manage, a disagreement in which the other partner's preference eventually won, and a feeling of having overpaid.

Oliver (1980) described satisfaction as the result of comparing performance with expectations. The interviewee's expectations seem to have shifted after purchase: the partner's view and the sale price may have lowered the stroller's perceived value, making the trunk problem decisive rather than tolerable.

How the Interviewer Handled the Repetition

The interviewer did not challenge the trunk answer directly, which could have made the interviewee defensive. Instead, the follow-ups returned to the subjects the interviewee had raised in passing, using the interviewee's own words: "You mentioned your partner usually lifted it. What was that like?" The interviewee answered briefly and moved back to the trunk each time. McCracken (1988) recommends this kind of gentle return to topics a respondent touches and leaves, because direct confrontation tends to end disclosure. The approach preserved the relationship but left the three subjects only partly explored, which is why the summary treats them as signals rather than findings.

Implications for the Brand

Show trunk fit before purchase, with folded dimensions and a list of cars it fits, which addresses the stated reason.

Involve both partners, for example with in-store demonstrations aimed at couples, since the partner's earlier preference resurfaced.

Address price regret, for example with a price-match policy during the return window, which could reduce returns driven by a later sale.

Limits

One interview cannot establish why customers return strollers. The interpretation of avoided subjects is the interviewer's, and the interviewee might disagree with it. The next step would be a short survey of returning customers that asks about weight, partners' views and price directly.

References

Hoyer, W. D., MacInnis, D. J., & Pieters, R. (2018). Consumer behavior (7th ed.). Cengage.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Sage.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405