Use This or You’ll Lose That: Investigating Appropriate Psychological Theories to Market the Bogallme Tracking System.

Dublin Core


Use This or You’ll Lose That: Investigating Appropriate Psychological Theories to Market the Bogallme Tracking System.


Elizabeth Wardman




The Bogallme Tracking System is an anonymous ‘Lost and Found’ system which uses stickers with QR codes printed on them to facilitate the return of lost items. It is thought that the main motivations behind the purchasing of these stickers are fear appeal and loss aversion, as people fear losing their possessions and will do whatever they can to prevent this from occurring. This study aimed to investigate whether this is the case using focus groups consisting of primarily students - the target audience for this specific product. The research also explored Rogers’ (1962; 1976) Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DOI) in relation to this product as well as opinions regarding the product and brand. Findings suggested that all three of the above theories are relevant and useful in the development of this product and can be used to create an efficient marketing campaign whilst creating scope for further research which would benefit the development of the brand and product.


Qualitative (Thematic Analysis)


Sixteen participants took part in this study. Participants were recruited via opportunity sampling through various social media platforms and word of mouth. The age of participants ranged between 20 and 23. This age range was selected due to a market segmentation suggesting that over 50% of QR code users were aged between 18 and 34 and that 18 to 24 year olds were 36% more likely to scan them (14 Million Americans Scanned QR Codes on their Mobile Phones in June 2011., n.d.)
The focus groups loosely followed a discussion guide (See Appendix D) which asked general questions corresponding to the product, brand and incentives as well as questions related to Fear, Loss Aversion and Diffusion of Innovations theory. The majority of questions within the Discussion Guide were open-ended as they encourage participants to express their views and opinions in full (Turner, 2010) and allow for any further elaboration. During the focus group participants were shown three potential names for the brand (Scannit, GlobalQR and the brand name Bogallme) and an example of the Diffusion of Innovations Model (Figure 1). Participants were each given prototypes of the product that they tested during the group and were allowed to keep these at the end of the study.
Focus Groups
Focus groups were used as the method of data collection for this study. Although focus groups cannot provide data as rich as that of individual interviews, they can allow for group discussions. These group discussions and interactions allow for comparisons between participant experiences and opinions which could otherwise only be inferred after proceedings with individual interviews (Morgan, 1997).
This study consisted of two focus groups which lasted approximately 60 minutes each. Within each focus group, eight participants sat facing one another around a circular table. After reading the information sheet and signing the consent forms, the focus group started with introductory questions to make participants feel more comfortable and able to voice their opinions. After this brief period, participants were asked questions which followed the discussion guide (See Appendix D), however elaboration was allowed and encouraged. Each participant was encouraged to answer all questions and to contribute to discussions as much as possible. Participants were also made aware that they did not have to answer anything that made them feel uncomfortable. Debrief sheets were handed out to participants at the end of each group and any further questions were answered.
Both of the focus groups were audio recorded on an Edirol R-09HR recorder and then transferred to a computer so that they could be deleted from the device. Recordings were then transcribed verbatim using the app Audacity, with each participant being given an anonymous ID in case of withdrawal. From these transcriptions, thematic analysis was conducted using the software NVivo, which identified and inferred themes and opinions in order to draw conclusions regarding the discussed theories of Fear, Loss Aversion and Diffusion of Innovations. Other themes and inferences also came to light which will be outlined in the Results section.


Lancaster University


There were several overarching themes present in both focus groups which relate to the three discussed theories (Fear, Loss Aversion and DOI Theory) and the proposed areas for exploration, along with new themes which were not previously considered. In response to the second objective relating to participant motivations to buy and use the product, the main theme of ‘motivations’ was created to investigate motivations to buy and use the product. Under this theme came the categories ‘fear’, ‘loss aversion’ and ‘adoption’. Following this, further sub-categories were created for each category which each included ‘effective’ and ‘ineffective’. The ‘adoption’ category under this main theme also included the further sub-categories ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’. The category ‘explicit’ was based on what participants said outright whereas the ‘implicit’ category was based on inferences and implications from the discussion. The next main theme was created in relation to the first objective which aimed to explore brand and product opinions and was named ‘brand ideas’ and contained the categories ‘name’, ‘product idea’, ‘incentives’ and ‘other opinions’. For the final and arguably most significant objective, the main theme of ‘development’ was created which contained the categories ‘audience’, ‘barriers’ and ‘ideas’ which aimed to assist in making informed suggestions as to how to proceed with product development.
Brand Name
The opinions relating to the brand name were very clear: participants did not like it. After being presented with three options of a possible brand name with no previous knowledge not one participant deemed ‘Bogallme’ appropriate for the product. Not one participant worked out that the word ‘Bogall’ was an anagram of the word ‘Global’ and the majority of participants chose the name ‘Scannit’ as the most appropriate for both the product and the brand. Many participants also had trouble in pronouncing the brand name correctly and it was pointed out in the first group that some individuals may have trouble reading it.
“It’s not compatible with my dyslexia that one! Not at all.” (PL: Age 22)
“The other two also worked like internationally, you’d have to think about that as even as people who speak English we didn’t get that.” (SD: Age 22)
Participants in both groups suggested that the name seemed quite childish and was trying too hard to be ‘down with the kids’ instead of being marketed at their age range. Another general consensus regarding the brand name was that it sounded similar to ‘Boggle’, the famous children’s board game, which again gave it a childish theme.
“It’s like the game Boggle you used to play when you were a kid.” (GP: Age 22)
Overall, it seems apparent that the brand name could have detrimental effects for the future development of the product.
Product Idea
Despite the brand name, after reading the product description, participants liked the concept of the product and agreed that it was something that they would use.
“I need this in my life (laughs)” (EG: Age 22)
The suggested uses for the stickers included: phones, keys, laptops, passports, luggage and notebooks. Participants said they were more likely to use the service in its current state (using Safari or another web browser) as opposed to downloading an app. However, some participants did have concerns surrounding the legitimacy of the product and would be wary when asked to fill in their details on the website. In terms of pricing, ideas of how much participants would pay for one sticker ranged from £1 to £10 with some participants suggesting that they would prefer to pay for a subscription service. The suggested subscription service consisted of paying a yearly fee for a certain number of stickers.
“Yeah you could subscribe for like a year and you get five stickers and you could use it on whatever you want” (RD: Age 22)
Despite this suggestion, many participants still disliked the idea of a subscription service and compared it to services such as Amazon Prime which continues to charge you if you forget to cancel it. As participants were all students or graduates, most liked the idea of paying per sticker best as it was affordable and not tying. However, another subscription idea came to light when participants were discussing potential problems with people forging the stickers. It was suggested that a subscription would include unlimited stickers and you would instead be paying to use the service as a whole. This would stop people from forging stickers because it would not be necessary once payment had already been made.
“Unless, if you do have a subscription then surely you’d be paying the same amount anyway no matter how many… so why would anyone copy theirs.” (GP: Age 22)
The issue of forging was quite a prominent topic within the second focus group. They suggested a variety of ways to overcome this: customisable stickers, laminated stickers and the creation of a unique QR code similar to that of Snapchat or Messenger. The idea of customisation was also popular in the first group. Several participants from this group said that they wouldn’t put the sticker on their mobile phone as it is currently for aesthetic reasons. They did however state that if the stickers came in different colours or were customizable, that they would be much more likely to purchase the product.
“I’d say make them customisable. If you could design your own stickers that would be… To match your phone case you could be like ‘ooh I’ll have it black with rose gold’ and then it would match and look cute” (GP: Age 22)
These participants did still agree that they would put the stickers on items other than phones, such as keys and passports, as it is not as important to participants for these items to be aesthetically pleasing. Stemming from this, the use of the stickers for travelling purposes was discussed in detail. Participants in the first group all agreed that it would be a useful addition to travelling supplies as the stickers could be placed on passports and luggage items. This was a very popular idea with the group for a number of reasons. Firstly, a passport doesn’t have the same sell-on value as a mobile phone, so you’d be much more likely to have it returned to you. Another suggested reason was the speed of having the item returned to you. If you are travelling across several different countries and using many different transportation methods, it may be difficult to continue without documents such as your passport and so a speedy return is very important. The final reason was that people often buy new products and innovations for when they travel due to excitement.
“You’re just looking for stuff to buy when you’re going travelling as well, like ‘what do I need, what do I need’ so yeah I think that would work quite well.” (KR: Age 23)

Fear and Loss Aversion
When asked how they would feel if they lost an item, most participants described feelings of stress and anxiety along with anger. Not all participants had the experience of losing an important item, but all at least had a friend or family member who had had this experience. Participants suggested that the feelings they experience when losing something would make them want to return an item and that they would be more likely to return an item of personal over financial value.
One of the main advantages of the product was discussed when participants compared the product to insurance. It was suggested that the product was a cheaper alternative that, although return is not guaranteed, is better than no back-up at all. In terms of product development, these findings suggest that there is potential to work with an insurance company to effectively market the Tracking System.
“It’s kind of like an insurance isn’t it? Like for your phone so… I’d pay like a tenner if it was a one off because people pay, I don’t know, I think mine…well I don’t pay insurance lol but I think it’s like sixty pounds” (AB: Age 22)
The time-saving of the product compared to insurance also produced positive comments about the product as it was explained how long it takes for an item to be replaced through insurance and how much effort this can be.
“Also, insurance is like an effort, like you have to file a claim and then it takes ages for them to get it back but if you could just like message someone you like might get it today. It’s easier” (TM: Age 20)
Another comparison to insurance was made in terms of the personal value of possessions. When discussing phones, participants pointed out that they’d prefer their original phone returned over a new phone of the same model as their original phone has all their photos, music and original settings on it which can often be difficult to retrieve if lost.
“(Be)cause you’ve got your photos and everything…like everything is set up on your phone in the way you like it. I hate setting up a phone when you first get it and you have to download everything and set it back up again.” (GP: Age 22)
Participants in the first group felt so strongly about the insurance aspect of the product that one attendee suggested that the brand partner up with a phone company and sell the product as an add-on for phone contracts.
“You need to have a partnership with like a phone company or something so when people start getting new phones and upgrades, say you partnership with O2 and you have it as part of your package on your phone or something.” (DF: Age 22)

The majority of participants stated that they would not require an incentive to use the service and to return an item and that empathy alone would be enough. Participants also suggested that the gratitude of the person who had lost the item could contribute towards them returning it. Some suggested that an incentive could add extra persuasion however it was quickly pointed out that there would be issues with monitoring any incentives. Examples of incentives discussed included: a lottery, money, and a points system whereby points could be collected to go towards a discount or a cash reward. Participants admitted that some of them would be likely to abuse the incentive as there would be no way to monitor whether people are actually finding items or are just working together with friends to make some money or have more chance in a lottery. Overall it was decided that any incentive would either be abused or would not encourage someone who was unlikely to return the item to return it.
“Yeah it would’ve been such a good idea saying five returns gets you a free sticker but people literally will just get each other’s items and be like oh” (BC: Age 22)
However, it is quite naïve of participants to expect all individuals to return items via the service with no incentive. They made good points surrounding the potential abuse of incentives, yet the use of incentives is not something that should simply be ignored because of this potential hurdle. It would be best to suggest plausible alternatives, such as the individual who lost the item having to pay an incentive to the returner in order to retrieve their item.
When presented with the Diffusion of Innovations Model, all participants initially suggested that they would personally be in the centre of the model between Early and Late Majority or in the Late Majority. However, after asking what stage they thought they were at across different innovations such as iPhones and Apps this altered somewhat. From broader discussion it could be inferred that most participants would fit in the ‘Early Majority’ stage of the model as they would be more likely to buy the product if they could see it used successfully by someone else, but they also usually try new innovations earlier than the majority.
“I was probably an early majority. I’d say I’m between early and late majority.” (GP: Age 22)
“Yeah, I’d have to hear people like using it well, like see people all around using it” (RH: Age 22)
When questioned as to the type of person that would be situated in the first two stages of the model, there was a variety of answers. In the first group the most popular answer was people in an older age group, with many participants describing the habits and behaviours of their fathers.
“I actually feel like older people like my dad or someone, he’d totally buy into this” (EG: Age 22)
They suggested that due to the simplicity of the product and its purpose, this would be the first market to espouse. Many were surprised by their own responses to this question as they initially assumed that the product would be more popular with a younger audience. The second group also agreed on an older audience, with suggestions of ‘overprotective mothers’ buying the product to protect their children’s’ possessions. The second group also indicated that, whilst they didn’t think that students would be the Innovators or Early Adopters, businesses targeting students would still be very interested in the product.
“I think anyone who’s in the student-y industry. I reckon you could quite easily do this with like nightclubs. Anything to do with students people would want to get involved with.” (BC: Age 22)




Frances Jackson


There is no license suggested for this work as far as the research is aware.


Leslie Hallam




Qualitative interview data






Elizabeth Wardman, “Use This or You’ll Lose That: Investigating Appropriate Psychological Theories to Market the Bogallme Tracking System.,” LUSTRE, accessed January 25, 2021,