Search results1 – 10 of 11
The paper proposes investigating the timing of consumer requests for price‐matching refunds, the relationship between the refund timing and consumer repeat store purchase…
The paper proposes investigating the timing of consumer requests for price‐matching refunds, the relationship between the refund timing and consumer repeat store purchase and the reasons for buying from the price‐matching store when a lower competitive price is found before purchase.
In Study 1, qualitative research (consumer interviews) was conducted; Study 2 uses a shopping simulation in which the timing of consumer refund‐seeking behavior is observed, and Study 3 involves a consumer survey in which information on consumer refund‐seeking behavior at real stores is gathered.
The paper finds that consumers request price‐matching refunds more frequently at the time of purchase than after the purchase. Seeking (and receiving) the price‐matching refund is associated with higher repeat store purchase behavior than not having had a refund‐seeking experience. Key reasons for buying from the price‐matching retailer when a lower competitive price is found before purchase include convenience, tangible extras, and store reputation/service quality.
A student convenience sample was used. In Study 2, fictitious stores were used. In Study 3, the timing of refund seeking may have been different on other (not reported) occasions. Ability to seek the refund was not accounted for.
The majority of the retailer's price‐matching cost will come from issuing at‐the‐time‐of‐purchase refunds, when consumers possess more bargaining power. A positive refund‐seeking experience may create a more loyal customer. In addition to being a low‐price signal, price‐matching policies can serve as signs of retailers' customer orientation.
This research fills the gap in understanding the consumer price‐match refund‐seeking behavior and offers practical implications for retailers employing price‐matching guarantees.
The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast two types of shopping aids, that is, research‐supporting and solution‐oriented shopping aids, and examine their…
The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast two types of shopping aids, that is, research‐supporting and solution‐oriented shopping aids, and examine their effectiveness, considering both consumer and situational factors.
Expanded selection and additional detailed information are chosen to illustrate research‐supporting shopping aids, and personalized product recommendations and product ratings are used as examples of solution‐oriented shopping aids. This conceptual paper proposes that usage of shopping aids has an effect on the purchase likelihood and decision satisfaction and focuses on studying the moderating role of consumer product knowledge and time pressure. The thesis is that congruence between the type of a shopping aid and consumer characteristics, such as product knowledge, or situational characteristics, such as time pressure, should enhance the effectiveness of shopping aids.
The research propositions in this paper delineate how the use of retail shopping aids should affect the consumer's purchase likelihood, decision satisfaction, decision confidence, and evaluation costs, under the moderating influence of product knowledge and time pressure. Overall, knowledgeable consumers and less time‐pressed consumers should benefit from research‐supporting shopping aids (i.e. expanded selection and additional product information), whereas novice consumers and time‐pressed consumers should benefit from solution‐oriented shopping aids (i.e. personalized product recommendation and product ratings).
Retail shopping aids are designed to offer sales assistance for consumers to handle the obstacles to purchase completion. However, past efforts to install retail shopping aids have seen mixed results. This conceptual paper advocates that consideration of consumer characteristics and situational factors is necessary to understand the effects of shopping aid usage. This paper thus contributes to the understanding of solutions to purchase decision deferral and the determinants of decision satisfaction, and has practical implications for retailers regarding providing retail shopping aids to facilitate purchase completion and shopping experiences.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate consumer perceptions of personal risk and benefits of digital piracy behavior as determinants of one's justification for such…
The purpose of this paper is to investigate consumer perceptions of personal risk and benefits of digital piracy behavior as determinants of one's justification for such behavior and the consequent future piracy intention. Temporal effects of rationalization in shaping future piracy intent are also addressed.
A conceptual model was developed using counterfeiting and piracy literature. Data were gathered via mail and online survey of adults in five European Union countries. The model was tested on pooled sample using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling.
Rationalization mediates the relationship between perceived benefits and piracy intention, but not between perceived risk and intention. Both perceived risk and benefits affect piracy intent, with risk reducing it and benefits increasing it. Rationalization of past behavior increases future digital piracy intent.
Risk measure was limited to technical problems, thus future studies should examine a wider scope of risk dimensions. The cross‐sectional design of the study also creates some limitations. A longitudinal methodology could provide a better insight into sequencing of rationalization.
Marketing communications should increase public awareness of risks and reduce perceived piracy benefits to reduce future piracy intent. Public persuasion activities should counter the arguments consumers use to rationalize their piracy behavior.
This research fills in a void in knowledge on how expected consequences drive rationalization techniques, particularly with respect to future piracy intent. A realistic data set drawn from adult population in five countries is used, enhancing external validity.