Positioning Multiple Benefit Products: What's the Tradeoff?

I just read about a fascinating new study in the Journal of Consumer Research by Arthur Chernev at Kellogg's School of Business that is relevant to our positioning conversation. The question is whether consumers evaluate multiple benefit products more or less positively than single-minded benefit products. This issue is a common one, just think of the number of commercials that continue with "but wait!! There's more!!" The research attempted to address questions like, 'Does an iPod play music better than an iPhone?' and 'Does a standalone printer make higher quality printouts than an all-in-one printer/fax/copy machine?' and 'Does a laundry detergent promising great cleaning power remove stains better than a laundry detergent that promises both great cleaning power and enhanced protection against fading?'

Through series of studies across five CPG (Consumer Package Goods) categories such as toothpaste, vitamin supplements, cold remedies, shaving cream and detergent, the authors conclude that the Master of One strategy is more compelling to consumers than the Jack of All Trades Strategy. Chernev found that a product specializing in a single attribute is perceived to be superior in that attribute relative to an all-in-one product having multiple features. The wrinkle is that a higher price for the all-in-one products can overcome the undermining effect of multiple benefits. Chernev found that the perceived attractiveness of the all-in-one option can be increased by placing it at a higher price than that of the competing specialized options.

Click here to read more about how the study was done. Does this resonate with your experience? Aside from increasing the price, can marketers increase the performance credibility of all-in-one products? Or should they simply not even try?