Search results

More than ever, businesses need to assemble and offer multiple products combined into a single offer, a practice known as bundling. The purpose of this paper is to describe how to bundle effectively through analyzing the value of bundle components and the specialized market purpose of a bundle.

In working with many different clients, statistical techniques have helped us draw an interesting conclusion: most bundles—though not all—share a similar structure or taxonomy. At the heart lies the core or anchor element; this is the product or service driving the inquiry. Wrapped around that are those elements which strongly complement the core. The next layer up consists of products or services seen as convenient for the core, but may not always be cost‐effective to include. The final layer of a bundle often turns out to be additions with negative value. These are either substitutes for other bundle components (buyers generally hate being forced to buy two redundant products), or components which have such low relevance to the core that they clutter the value message.

This article examines two dangers to effective bundling: mismatching the various elements of a bundle, and mispricing the offer. We find there are four marketing mistakes which typically stem from mismatches and mispricing: failing to create bundles for special purposes; making bundles too big; using tiering instead of bundles; and failing to innovate on bundle definition.

There is a science to bundles, but it is not widely known or practiced. This science grows in importance as bundling becomes more important, and bundle components become more diverse. Today most bundling is done through judgement and ad hoc initiatives. Frequently such an approach fails to develop an effective bundle, or effectively communicate the value of the bundle. Understanding the taxonomy of a bundle, and the value elements, will allow more diverse and effective product and service combinations.

The purpose of this paper is to present adaptive culture structuration, a new approach for theorizing and analyzing culture change and for creating an “adaptive cultural structurated learning environment”.

Incorporating a case study in the financial sector the paper explores 12 employees' narrated accounts of living through a culture change initiative. A constructivist, interpretive, qualitative research study followed grounded theory principles. Organizational documentation provided secondary data. Semi structured interview data were analyzed using content analysis, constant comparison and theoretical sensitivity and were managed by ATLAS.ti software.

Three themes emerged: respondents' investment of self, accepting the culture change initiative and its values; employees' epistemic analyses of the embedded value promises including experiencing a critical incident that interrupted managers' enactment of values; employees' resulting “received practice” which represented the enacted (versus the espoused) values and was not visible to managers.

An adaptive culture structurated learning environment fosters a relationship of “negotiated practice” instead of “received practice” between managers and employees in the constitution of corporate culture change. In this space, employee interpretations and assessments, which may otherwise remain hidden from managers and thereby prevent workplace learning opportunities, can be drawn upon, shared meaning co-produced and psychological contract issues explained.

While much has been written on espoused culture change, this is the first theoretical model to examine the process from an employee perspective through an adaptive culture structurated lens.

I MUST SAY, I was astonished to read in the editorial in the November issue of Assistant librarian the bald declaration that AL ‘is broke’. I mean, whatever will the printers think?

Investigates pricing behaviour in the retail grocery industry, analysing pricing at the micro level of a London submarket. Looks at the extent and effect of recommended resale prices on grocery items. Compares the average expenditure between stores on a given set of items. Examines differences in pricing between counter‐service and self‐service outlets and also the pattern of special offers. Suggests that there must be a move towards prevention of an oligopoly situation in order to market efficiently.

This paper lays out the uses of demand curves, both for profit optimization, strategy, tiering and list price setting. This tool is also useful in public policy, such as extending health‐care coverage. It describes how to build a demand curve, and draw useful conclusions.

This paper provides examples of actual demand curves, and how they have been used for new product development, and in out‐maneuvering competitors. Examples are drawn from a number of industries, such as telecom, information services, insurance and electronics, and show how supply and demand are not static, but are highly interactive.

Companies and legislators are not familiar with the demand curves, despite its long history of use in academia. As a result of unfamiliarity with this tool, companies often make costly mistakes in estimates of new product uptake and volumes. If instead of demand curves they rely on price elasticities, companies deprive their senior management of a tool that suggests strategic responses to competitive situations. Surprisingly, many companies have never actually developed a demand curve for their markets.

This article allows managers have not actually seen a real demand curve to see one, and understand what this tool could do for them. It gives examples of new product development and tiering to address multi‐price level markets. In addition, it suggests how public policy makers should focus on shaping supply and demand, rather than imposing floors or ceilings on prices for health‐care coverage. Price ceilings today are responsible for widespread gaps in health care coverage. Finally, the literature on demand curves fails to show how supply and demand are highly interactive.

To investigate the area of price endings to determine which groups of consumers are more likely to use odd‐endings as opposed to round‐endings.

A questionnaire was developed that tested respondents' use of odd‐endings as opposed to round‐endings dependent on classification by gender and age. Respondents were required to estimate the price they would be expected to pay in stores for six products. This methodology enabled the researchers to generate a large sample size and to encourage accuracy of response.

The main finding was that there was a difference between gender groups; women were more likely to respond with odd‐endings than men and hence segmenting the market is the way forward when investigating price endings.

The research only considers segmentation by gender and age. Further research needs to be undertaken to fully understand the consumer responses.

Although the difference between 99 cents and a $1.00 is small, for high volume items this can have a significant impact on gross profit and margins, particularly for low value items. If retailers understand which groups of consumers were more likely to be attracted to the round‐endings they could use this knowledge to determine the most effective prices.

This research follows on from a price trial conducted into price endings and is the second phase of an investigation into whether odd‐endings are effective. It proposes a theory that has been empirically tested and points the way forward for future research in this area.