E-Ürün Karşılaştırmanın Tüketici Karmaşasına Etkisi: Elektronik Ürünler Örneği

Abstract

Tüketiciler genel olarak ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için çeşitli seçenekler arasından tercih yapmaktadırlar. Ancak bunu yaparken alternatifler arasında en yüksek düzeyde fayda elde edecekleri mal ve hizmetleri tercih etmeye çalışmaktadırlar. Bu tercih sürecinde çeşitli araştırmalar içerisine girmekte ve alternatifleri değerlendirmektedirler. Bu çalışma elektronik ürün satın almak isteyen tüketicilerin e-ürün karşılaştırma sitelerinden faydalanma durumlarını ve satın alma karar süreçlerine olan etkilerini belirlemek için yapılmıştır. Nicel araştırma yöntemi seçilmiş olup çalışma için ihtiyaç duyulan verilerin toplanması için anket yöntemi seçilmiş ve anket uygulaması sonucunda 474 geçerli anket verisi elde edilmiştir. Toplanan verilere PLS-SEM analizi uygulanmıştır. Analizlerin sonucunda e-ürün karşılaştırma sitelerinin kullanıldığı ve tüketici karmaşasının azaltılmasına pozitif yönlü etkilerinin olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışmanın sonucunda elektronik ürün satın almak isteyen tüketicilerin yaşadığı karmaşıklığın azaltılmasında e- ürün karşılaştırmasının pozitif yönde anlamlı etkisinin olduğu görülmüştür. E-ürün karşılaştırma sitelerinin katılımcıların içine düşeceği kargaşayı azalttığı görülmüştür.

Keywords

• Tüketici Karmaşası
• E-Ürün Karşılaştırma
• Elektronik Ürün
• Satın Alma Karar Süreci

Supporting Institution

Araştırmanın ortaya konulmasında herhangi bir mali destek alınmamıştır.

Ethical Statement

Bu makale Araştırma ve Yayın Etiğine uygundur. Beyan edilecek herhangi bir çıkar çatışması yoktur. Araştırmanın ortaya konulmasında herhangi bir mali destek alınmamıştır. Makale yazım ve intihal/benzerlik açısından kontrol edilmiştir. Makale, “en az iki dış hakem” ve “çift taraflı körleme” yöntemi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Makalede kullanılan ölçek için yazar(lar) tarafından ölçeğin orjinal sahibinden izin alındığı beyan edilmiştir. Yazar(lar), dergiye imzalı “Telif Devir Formu” belgesi göndermişlerdir. Bu araştırmanın yapılması ile ilgili olarak Batman Üniveritesi Etik Komisyonundan 13/03/2024 tarih ve 2024/02-28 sayılı “Etik İzni Belgesi” alınmıştır.

The Effect of E-Product Comparison on Consumer Confusion: The Example of Electronic Products

Abstract

Consumers generally choose from various options to meet their needs. While doing this, they try to choose the goods and services that will provide them with the highest level of benefit. During this selection process, they engage in various research activities and evaluate alternatives. This study was conducted to determine whether consumers who want to buy electronic products benefit from e-product comparison sites and their effects on their purchasing decision processes. The quantitative research method was chosen, and the Survey method was used to collect the data needed for the study, and as a result of the survey application, 474 valid survey data were obtained. PLS-SEM analysis was applied to the collected data. As a result of the analysis, it was seen that e-product comparison sites were used and had positive effects on reducing consumer confusion. It has been observed that e-product comparison sites reduce the confusion that participants may fall into. As a result of the study, it was seen that e-product comparison had a positive and significant effect in reducing the complexity experienced by consumers who want to purchase electronic products. It has been observed that e-product comparison sites reduce the confusion that participants may fall into.

Keywords

• Consumer Confusion
• E-Product Comparison
• Electronic Product
• Purchasing Decision Process

Supporting Institution

No financial support was received for the conduct of the research.

Ethical Statement

This paper complies with Research and Publication Ethics, has no conflict of interest to declare, and has received no financial support. The article has been checked for spelling and plagiarism/similarity. The article was evaluated by "at least two external referees" and "double blinding" method. For the scale used in the article, it is declared by the authors that permission was obtained from the original owner of the scale. The author(s) sent a signed "Copyright Transfer Form" to the journal. Regarding the conduct of this research, an “Ethics Permission Certificate” dated 13/03/2024 and numbered 2024/02-28 was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University of Batman.

References

1. ALTUNIŞIK, Remzi, COŞKUN, Recai, BAYRAKTAROĞLU, Serkan ve YILDIRIM, Engin (2012), Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri, Sakarya Yayıncılık, Adapazarı, 7. Baskı.
2. BARTLETT, James E., KORTLIK, Joe W. ve HIGGINS, Chadwick C. (2001), “Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research, Information Technology”, Learning and Performance Journal, S.19(1), ss.43-50.
3. BARNES, David, CLEAR, Fintan, DYERSON, Romano, HARINDRANATH, G., HARRIS, Lisa ve RAE, Alan (2012), “Web 2.0 and Micro‐Businesses: An Exploratory Investigation”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, S.19(4), ss.687-711.
4. BRENGMAN, Malaika, GEUENS, Maggie ve PELSMACKER, Patrick De (2001), “The Impact of Consumer Characteristics and Campaign Related Factors on Brand Confusion in Print Advertising”, Journal of Marketing Communications, S.7(4), ss.231-243.
5. CAHILL, Dennis J. (1995), “We Sure as Hell Confuse Ourselves, But What About the Customers?”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, S.13(4), ss.5-9.
6. CHAFFEY Dave ve ELLIS-CHADWICK, Fiona (2016), Digital Marketing, Pearson Education Limited Press, Harlow (UK), Sixth Edition.
7. CHAUHAN, Vishakha ve SAGAR, Mahim (2021), “Consumer Confusion: A Systematic Review and Research Directions”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, S.38(4), ss.445-456.
8. CHRYSSOCHOIDIS, George (2000), “Repercussions of Consumer Confusion for Late Introduced Differentiated Products”, European Journal of Marketing, S.34(5/6), ss.705-722.

9. COHEN, Jacob (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Publisher, Mahwah – New Jersey (US).
10. EKİZLER, Hüseyin (2020), “Tüketici Karmaşası - Bilişsel Uyumsuzluk İlişkisinde Satış Personeli ile Etkileşimin Düzenleyici Rolü: Teknoloji Mağazaları Örneği”, Journal of Research in Business, S.5(2), ss.127-146.
11. FORNELL, Claes ve LARCKER, David F. (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error”, Journal of Marketing Research, S.18(1), ss.39-50.
12. FOXMAN, Ellen R., MUEHLING, Darrel D. ve BERGER, Phil W. (1990), “An Investigation of Factors Contributing to Consumer Brand Confusion”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, S.24(1), ss.170-189.
13. FOXMAN, Ellen R., BERGER, Phil W. ve COTE, Joseph A. (1992), “Consumer Brand Confusion: A Conceptual Framework”, Psychology & Marketing, S.9(2), ss.123-141.
14. HALL-PHILLIPS, Adrienne ve SHAH, Purvi (2017), “Unclarity Confusion and Expiration Date Labels in the United States: A Consumer Perspective”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, S.35, ss.118-126.
15. HAIR, Joseph F., BLACK, William C., BABIN, Barry J., ANDERSON, Rolph E. ve TATHAM, Ronald L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson Prentice Hall Publisher, Upper Saddle River – New Jersey.
16. HAIR, Joseph. F., HULT, G. Tomas M., RINGLE, Christian M. ve SARSTEDT, Marko (2022), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publisher, Thousand Oaks – California (US), 3rd Edition.
17. HENSELER, Jörg, RINGLE, Christian M. ve SARSTEDT, Marko (2015), “A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Varience-Based Structural Equation Modelling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, S.43, ss.115-135.
18. İNTERNET ARAŞTIRMALARI KOORDİNATÖRLÜĞÜ (2023), “Türkiye Dijital 2023: Türkiye’nin Nüfus, İnternet, Sosyal Medya, Mobil, E-Ticaret ve Dijital Pazarlama Göstergeleri”, İnternet Araştırmaları Koordinatörlüğü Kurumsal Web Sayfası, https://www.guvenliweb.org.tr/dosya/HQTLP.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 14.05.2024).
19. KELLER, Kevin Lane ve STAELIN, Richad (1987), “Effects of Quality and Quantity of Information on Decision Effectiveness”, Journal of Consumer Research, S.14(2), ss.200-213.
20. KILINÇ, Kazım (2021), “Dijital Pazarlamada Karanlık Sosyal Medyanın (Dark Social Media) Yükselişi”, Dijital Gelecek Dijital Dönüşüm 2 (Ed. İnci Erdoğan Tarakçı, Bora Göktaş), Efe Akademi Yayınları, İstanbul, ss.131-151.
21. LIPIÄINEN, Heini Sisko Maarit ve KARJALUOTO, Heikki (2015), “Industrial Branding in the Digital Age”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, S.30(6), ss.733-741.
22. MALHOTRA, Naresh K., JAIN, Arun K. ve LAGAKOS, Stephen W. (1982), “The Information Overload Controversy: An Alternative Viewpoint”, Journal of Marketing, S.46(2), ss.27-37.
23. MATZLER, Kurt, STIEGER, Daniel ve FULLER, Johann (2011), “Consumer Confusion in Internet-Based Mass Customization: Testing a Network of Antecedents and Consequences”, Journal of Consumer Policy, S.34, ss.231-247.
24. MITCHELL, Vincent-Wayne ve PAPAVASSILIOU, Vassilios (1999), “Marketing Causes and Implications of Consumer Confusion”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, S.8(4), ss.319-342.
25. MITCHELL, Vincent-Wayne, WALSH, Gianfranco ve YAMIN, Mo (2005), “Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion”, Advances in Consumer Research, S.32, ss.143-150.
26. MOON, Sun-Jung, COSTELLO, John P. ve KOO, Dong-Mo (2017), “The Impact of Consumer Confusion from Eco-Labels on Negative Wom, Distrust, and Dissatisfaction”, International Journal of Advertising, S.36(2), ss.246-271.
27. POIESZ, Theo B. C. ve VERHALLEN, Theo M. M. (1989), “Brand Confusion in Advertising”, International Journal of Advertising, S.8(3), ss.231-244.
28. RINGLE, Christian M., WENDE, Sven ve BECKER, Jan-Michael (2022), “SmartPLS 4. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS”, SmartPLS Kurumsal Web Sitesi, https://www.Smartpls.com (Erişim Tarihi: 14.05.2024).
29. SAS (2022), “Digital Marketing”, SAS Kurumsal Web Sayfası, http://www.sas.com/tr_tr/insights/marketing/digital-marketing.html (Erişim Tarihi: 06.02.2022).
30. SCARDAMAGLIA, Amanda ve DALY, Angela (2016), “Google, Online Search and Consumer Confusion in Australia”, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, S.24(3), ss.203-228.
31. SCHEIBEHENNE, Benjamin, GREIFENEDER, Rainer ve TODD, Peter M. (2010), “Can There Ever be too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload”, Journal of Consumer Research, S.37(3), ss.409-425.
32. SCHWEIZER, Markus, KOTOUC, Alexander J. ve WAGNER, Tillmann (2006), “Scale Development for Consumer Confusion”, Advances in Consumer Research, S.33(1), ss.184-190.
33. SHARMA, Anuradha, PANDHER, Jagwinder Singh ve PRAKASH, Gyan (2023), “Consumer Confusion and Decision Postponement in the Online Tourism Domain: The Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, S.6(2), ss.1092-1117.
34. SPROLES, Elizabeth Kendall ve SPROLES, George B. (1990), “Consumer Decision‐Making Styles as a Function of Individual Learning Styles”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, S.24(1), ss.134-147.
35. SARSTEDT, Marko, RINGLE, Christian M., HAIR, Joseph F. (2017), “Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Emodelling”, Handbook of Market Research (Ed. Christian Homburg, Martin Klarmann, Arnd Vomberg), Springer Publisher, Heidelberg, ss.1-40.
36. TURNBULL, Peter W., LEEK, Sheena ve YING, Grace (2000), “Customer Confusion: The Mobile Phone Market”, Journal of Marketing Management, S.16(1-3), ss.143-163.
37. WALSH, Gianfranco, HENNIG-THURAU, Thorsten ve MITCHELL, Vincent-Wayne (2007), “Consumer Confusion Proneness: Scale Development, Validation, and Application”, Journal of Marketing Management, S.23(7-8), ss.697-721.
38. WALSH, Gianfranco ve MITCHELL, Vincent-Wayne (2010), “The Effect of Consumer Confusion Proneness on Word of Mouth, Trust, and Customer Satisfaction”, European Journal of Marketing, S.44(6), ss.838-859. https://www.ama.org/pages/what-is-digital-marketing/ (Erişim Tarihi: 12.01.2022).
39. YILDIZ, Erkan (2021), SmartPLS ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Reflektif ve Formatif Yapılar, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2. Baskı.
40. ZHANG, Kem Z., ZHAO, Sesia J., CHEUNG, Christy M., ve LEE, Matthew K. (2014), “Examining the Influence of Nline Reviews on Consumers' Decision-Making: A Heuristic–Systematic Model”, Decision Support Systems, S.67, ss.78-89.