KİŞİYE ÖZEL FİYAT TEKLİFİNDE KULLANILAN MESAJ ÇERÇEVELEMENİN İNTERNET ÜZERİNDEN SATIN ALMA KARAR SÜRECİNE ETKİSİ

Abstract

Yapılan araştırmada, kişiye özel fiyat teklifinin içeriğinde kullanılan farklı mesaj çerçevelemelerinin, internette, satın alma sürecine etkisi araştırılmıştır. Satın alma süreci küme teorisi çerçevesinde tanımlanmıştır. Araştırmada veri toplama yöntemi olarak saha deneyi kullanılmıştır. Örneklem büyüklüğü 589 kişidir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre; tüketicinin dikkate alınanlar kümesi oluşmadan önce sunulan kişiye özel fiyat teklifinde olumlu mesaj çerçeveleme kullanılması, teklifte bulunan ürünün dikkate alınanlar kümesine girme ve satın alınma ihtimallerini anlamlı derecede artırmaktadır. Bunun tersine, olumsuz mesaj çerçevelemenin ise dikkate alınanlar kümesi oluştuktan sonra tüketiciye önerilen teklif içeriğinde kullanılması satın alma sürecinde ürünün değerlendirilme ve satın alınma ihtimalini artırmaktadır.

Keywords

• Kişiye özel fiyat uygulaması, İnternette pazarlama, mesaj çerçeveleme, deneysel tasarım

THE EFFECT OF MASSAGE FRAMING USED IN THE CONTENT OF PERSONALIZED PRICE OFFER ON THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS ON THE INTERNET

Abstract

As the Internet appears in our lives as a new channel for marketing and sales, the buying behavior of consumers is reshaped according to the channel. Since Internet provides the convenience of data collection about consumers, it enables marketers to discover new applications aimed to influence the decision making process of consumers. This study amasses the subjects of decision making process on the Internet, personalized price and message framing. The aim of the study is to investigate the effect of different message frames used in the content of personalized price offer on decision making process on the Internet. The data was collected with a four-week field experiment conducted on the Internet. A sample size of 589 has been reached. Pearson chi-square and logistic regression analysis were used to analyze data. According to the results, if personalized price is offered to the consumer with positive message frame before the formation of consideration set, possibility of the product to be considered and purchased increases. In contrast, usage of negative message frame in the offer, presented after the formation of consideration set results in the same behavior. The results of the study are especially important for internet retailers. Increasing the effect of personalized price with the correct timing of message framing enables internet retailers both to close a sale and customer satisfaction, at the same time

Keywords

• Personalized price application,marketing on Internet,message framing,experimental design

References

1. Andrews, R.L. ve Srinivasan, T.C. (1995), “Studying Consideration Effects in Emprical Choice Models Using Scanner Panel Data”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, 30-41.
2. Bailey, A.A. (2001). “Consideration Sets and Brand Positioning: A Social Cognition Perspective”, Doktora Tezi, The University of Iowa.
3. Bardakçı, A. (2004), “Kitlesel Bireyselleştirme Uygulama Yöntemleri”, Akdeniz Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, Sayı:8, 1–17.
4. Bettman, J.R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.
5. Churchill, G.A. Jr. (1991), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, 5. baskı, The Dryden Press Int. Edt., Orlando.
6. Çelebi, E. (2009), “Kriz, Mağazaları İnternete Taşıyor, Alışveriş 700 Milyon Dolara Koşuyor”, Hürriyet, 16 Şubat.
7. Dawes, P.L. ve J. Brown (2003), “Factors Affecting the Size of the Awareness, Consideration and Choice Set: A study of UK Undergraduate Students Choosing a University”, Working Paper, University of Wolverhampton, Telford, Shropshire.
8. Dawson-Owens, H.L. (2005), “The Role of Consumer Level Variables on Consumer Consideration Set Size and Composition”, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

9. Greenwald, A.G. ve Leavitt, C. (1984), “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels”, Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 581-592.
10. Gruca, T.S. (1989), “Determinants of Choice Set Size: An Alternative Method for Measuring Evoked Sets”, Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 515-521.
11. Hauser, J.R. ve Shugan, S.M. (1983), “Defensive Marketing Strategies”, Marketing Science, 2 (4), 319-360.
12. Hauser, J. R. ve Wernerfelt, B. (1990), “An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets”, Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (March), 393-408.
13. Ho, S.Y. ve Tam, K.Y. (2005(1))“An Emprical Examination of the Effects of Web Personalization at Different Stages of Decision Making”, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 19 (1), 95-112.
14. Ho, S.Y. ve Tam, K.Y. (2005(2)), “Web Personalization as a Persuasion Strategy: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective”, Information Systems Research, 16 (3), 271-291.
15. Howard, J. A. (1963), Consumer Behavior:Application of Theory, McGraw-Hill, N.Y.
16. Imhoff, C., L. Loftis ve Geiger, J. (2001), Building the Customer-Centric Enterprise, Data Warehousing Techniques for Supporting Customer Relationship Management, John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY.
17. Kardes, F. R., G. Kalyanaran, M. Chandrashekaran, M. ve Dornoff, R. J. (1993). “Brand Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer Choice, and the Pioneering Advantage”, Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 62-73.
18. Kotler, P. (1994), Marketing Management: Analysis,Planning, Implementation and Control. 8. baskı, Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Inc.
19. Kumar, P. (1997), Dynamic Hierarchical Bayesian Models of Consideration and ChoiceIssues and Estimation, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, State University of New York, Buffalo.
20. Kurtuluş, K. (2008), Pazarlama Araştırmaları (Genişletilmiş ve Gözden Geçirilmiş 9. Basım), Filiz Kitabevi, İstanbul.
21. Levin, I. P. ve Geath, G.J. (1988), “How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product”, Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (December), 374-378.
22. Ligth, M. ve Maybury, M.T. (2002), “Personalized Multimedia Information Access”, Communications of the ACM, 45 (May), 54-59.
23. Loeb, Shoshana (1992), “Architecting Personalized Delivery of Multimedia Information”, Communications of the ACM, 35 (12), 39-47.
24. Lussier, D.A. ve Olshavsky, R.W. (1979), “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Brand Choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (2), 154-165.
25. Maheswaren, D., D.M. Mackie ve Chaiken,S. (1992), “Brand Name as a Heuristic Cue: The Effect of Task Importance and Expectancy Confirmation on Consumer Judgements”, Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (4), 317-336.
26. Manber, U., Patel, A. ve Robison, J. (2000), “Experience with Personalization on Yahoo!”, Communicationsof the ACM, 43 (8), 35–39.
27. Murthi B.P.S. ve Sarkar, S. (2003), “The Role of the Management Sciences in Research on Personalization”, Management Science, No. 49, 1344-1362.
28. Pierrakos, D., G. Paliouras, C. Papatheodorou ve Spyropoulos, C. (2003), “Web Usage Mining as a Tool for Personalization: A Survey”, User Modeling and UserAdapted Interaction, 13 (4), 311-372.
29. Ratchford, B.T. (1982), “Cost-Benefit Models for Explaining Consumer Choice and Information Seeking Behavior”, Management Science, 28 (2), 197-212.
30. Sheridan, J.E., M.D. Richards ve Sloeum, J.W. (1975), “Comparative Analysis of Expectancy and Heuristic Models of Decision Behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 361-68.
31. Shugan, S.M. (1980), “The Cost of Thinking”, Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (2), 99- 111.
32. Simonson, I. (2005), “Determinants of Customer Responses to Customized Offers: Conceptual Framework and Research Propositions”, Journal of Marketing, 69, 32- 45.
33. Spiller, L.D. ve Baier, M. (2010), Contemporary Direct and Interactive Marketing, 2. baskı, Pearson Prentice Hall, London.
34. Starmer, C. (2000), “Developments in Non-Expected Utlitiy Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice Under Risk”, Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (2), 332-382.
35. Swaminathan, V. (2003), “The Impact of Recommendation Agents on Consumer Evaluation and Choice: The Moderating Role of Category Risk, Product Complexity, and Consumer Knowledge”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1/2), 93–101.
36. Varian, H.R. (1996), “Differential Pricing and Efficiency”, FirstMonday. 1 (2), August 5th.
37. Varian, H.R. (2003), “Economics of Information Technology”, Working Paper, University of California at Berkeley.
38. Wind, J. ve Rangaswamy, A. (2001), “Customerization: The Next Revolution in Mass Customization”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15 (1), 13-32.