Business Research and Communication Immunogold Labeling System

Question: Describe about the Business Research and Communication for Immunogold Labeling System. Answer: Introduction The label against animal testing is necessary because it clearly defines a product and states whether it is or not. Some customer buy goods or services merely because they need it or have seen it being published (Young-Hwan and Byong-Hun, 2001). On the other hands, some customers are so curious about their safety hence judge products based on the labels (Nolan, Kamrath, and Levitt, 2012). For such group of buyers, when label against animal testing is not clear or states otherwise, they dont make any purchase. There are many reasons why customers are so keen on labels against animal testing, the main one being a health risk (VERSTEEG, 2015). Therefore, the label against animal testing influences the consumers behavior of willingness to pay in one way or another. Hypothesis This section of the paper defines three hypothesis statements regarding the research. In the line of business, these hypothesis intends to highlight the importance of animal labeling test, as demonstrated by consumers willingness to pay. They state the effects if animal label testing on the customer sustainability consciousness. Animal labeling assures customers that the product is free from any health risk According to this hypothesis, the product is labeled accordingly by stating the components and ingredients used to prepare the product (SCHADOW, 2009). This specification is important because it makes customers aware of the product in that; if one has an allergy towards the specified ingredients, then he or she will not benefit from the animal product (Soares et al., 2014). At the same time, if the specified ingredients and origin coincide with the customers interns, the buyer will go ahead and buy the product (Marin, 2014). Therefore, the label against animal testing influence the consumers behavior of willingness to pay Animal labeling is important influences customers desire to buy because it enables saving. In details, when products are abled, the client is familiarized with the availed product (Hrinya, 2015). Therefore, when the customer already has the specified product at home or in the store, he or she will not buy the product. At the same time, when the product is missing or has run short, the consumer will be willing to pay for the product. Therefore, the label against animal testing influences the users behavior of willingness to pay. Animal labeling also guides the buyer on how to use the product. About this, when the customer intended to use the product in a given way and the labeling states otherwise, the buyer will not be willing to buy the product. However, if the usage prescription coincides with the customers intentions and capabilities, the latter will be ready to pay (Vlachos, Arvanitoyannis, and Tserkezou, 2016). Therefore, the label against animal testing influence the consumers behavior of willingness to pay Literature review The label against animal testing is widely used in the market today. First, it is the safety and standard regulations of products. Secondly, it is very helpful for the well-informed customers and the business as a whole (IMMUNOGOLD LABELING SYSTEM. 2004). Many concepts are specified while labeling a product. Such factors include ingredients, usage, safety, content, quality, and quantity (West et al., 2014). Apparently, these components of labeling appeal in different ways to various customers. For example, when a given label as indicated specific quantity, only the interested customers will be willing to pay for that particular product. In cases where labeling has specified the ingredients, buyers who are allergic to the given ingredients will not pay for the product. On the other side, the customers who are fit enough to use the product without experiencing any arm will be willing hence, pay. Labeling also defines what a product is (Safety labeling updates and new warnings, 2002). T herefore, the consumer will compare what is being offered and what is already there at the store. Here, the customer will only be willing to pay for the products that are insufficient in his or her store. Lastly, labels also define how a product can be used. Therefore, the customer will only be willing to pay for the products that he knows how to use. Research Objective This research purposes to review the influence of the label against animal testing on the consumers behavior of willingness to pay. Therefore, the objectives of the paper is to find out: The impact of product labeling on consumers. Ways in which consumers react to product labeling, and The components of labeling against animal testing. Research aim Currently, most customers are well informed about the products offered in the market. This nature has influenced their willingness to pay for the products. Some of the ways in which the labeling affect the consumers willingness are vital as far as health in concerned. Apparently, labeling is also governed by the safety and the standards ethics. As the is giving a review of the influence of the label against animal testing on the consumers behavior of willingness to pay, the following aims are intended to be achieved; The safety side of the labeling against animal testing (Arnandis-Chover et al., 2012). How useful is labeling in respect to the product use, and How labeling helps in saving. Research Design and Methodology This research aimed at obtaining fast hand data regarding the effect of the label against animal testing influence on the consumers behavior of willingness to pay. To this respect, relevant subjects such as consumers, distributors, and business owners will be interview through open structured questions. The participants will participate online where questionnaires and surveys with both open-ended and close-ended questions will be provided. The survey questions will be will follow the structure shown below. Data collection As mentioned earlier, the data collection methodology used in this research online questionnaires, where questions were posted online and relevant buyers, suppliers, and business owners were invited to respond to. Sample and sampling process The focus groups included in the research process were a range of customers from different socioeconomic backgrounds, business owners, and suppliers. They participated actively by providing information willingly. Analysis techniques The analysis of the data collected through these methodologies allows relevant information to be gathered regarding the impact of the cage-free labeling of the products on the sustainability consciousness of the consumers. The analysis technique used for the research are compared to the answers provided to the survey questions by the customers with a set of expected answers and recording their respective the label against animal testing influence the consumers behavior of willingness to pay. Findings The results of the survey were as follows; Animal labeling assures customers that the product is free from any health risk. Animal labeling is important influences customers willingness to buy because it enables saving. Animal labeling also guides the buyer on how to use the product. References Arnandis-Chover, T, Morais, S, Tortajada-Genaro, L, Puchades, R, Maquieira, , Berganza, J. and Olabarria, G 2012. Detection of food-borne pathogens with DNA arrays on disk. Talanta, 101, pp. 405-412. IMMUNOGOLD LABELING SYSTEM. 2004. Science, 303, 5664, p. 1687. Hrinya, G. 2015. Beauty and PERSONAL CARE LABELS', Label Narrow Web, 20, 3, pp. 64-68. Marin, J. 2014. Where Did This Come From? Country of Origin Marking Labeling', Managing Imports Exports, 1, 55, pp. 2-3. Nolan, K, Kamrath, J, and Levitt, J. 2012. Lindane Toxicity: A Comprehensive Review of the Medical Literature. Pediatric Dermatology, 29, 2, pp. 141-146, Academic Search Premier. SCHADOW, G 2009. Structured Product Labeling Improves Detection of Drug-intolerance Issues. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16, 2, pp. 211-219. Safety labeling updates and new warnings. 2002. Formulary, 37, 12, p. 614. Soares, S, Amaral, J, Oliveira, M. and Mafra, I. 2014. Quantitative detection of soybean in meat products by a TaqMan real-time PCR assay. Meat Science, 98, 1, pp. 41-46. Vlachos, A, Arvanitoyannis, I. and Tserkezou, P. 2016. An Updated Review of Meat Authenticity Methods and Applications. Critical Reviews in Food Science Nutrition, 56, 7, pp. 1061-1096. VERSTEEG, R. 2015. Product Liability and Commercial Law Theories Relating to Concussions. Journal Of Business Technology Law, 10, 1, pp. 73-111. West, S, Harris, K, Haneklaus, A, Savell, J, Thompson, L, Brooks, J, Pool, J, Luna, A, Engle, T, Schutz, J, Woerner, D, Arcibeque, S, Belk, K, Douglass, L, Leheska, J, McNeill, S, Howe, J, Holden, J, Duvall, M. and Patterson, K. 2014. Nutrient Database Improvement Project: The influence of USDA Quality and Yield Grade on the separable components and proximate composition of raw and cooked retail cuts from the beef chuck', Meat Science, 97, 4, pp. 558-567. Young-Hwan, A. and Byong-Hun, A. 2001. Eco-labeling and non-product-related process and production method. Environmental Economics Policy Studies, 4, 3, p. 167.