EFFECT OF PERSONALIZED PRICE ON DECISION MAKING PROCESS ON INTERNET
Abstract
The article addresses the personalized price offer, a variable that may have a significant influence on decision making, within the scope of consideration set theory. Specifically, it aims to investigate the cause and effect relationship between presence of personalized price offer and decision making process on the Internet. A field experiment is conducted on retailing Web site of a leading mobile phone distributor in Turkey. Data is analyzed with Pearson chi-square and logistic regression analysis. It was found that, whereas the presence of personalized price offer increases the chance for a product to be included in consideration set and selected as final choice, no significant relationship is found between the presence of a personalized price offer and the inclusion of the product in customer’s choice set. Findings were similar for the consumers who are on different stages of decision making.
Keywords
Kaynakça
- Andrews, R.L., Srinivasan, T.C. (1995), “Studying Consideration Effects in Empirical Choice Models Using Scanner Panel Data”, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, pp.30-41.
- Chang, K. (1998), “Essays on Heterogeneity in Choice Modeling”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of British Columbia.
- Churchill, G.A., Jr. (1991). Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations. 5th ed., Orlando: The Dryden Press Int. Edt.
- Coates, S.L., Butler, L.T. and Berry, D. C. (2004), “Implicit Memory: A Prime Example for Brand Consideration and Choice”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, pp.1195–1211.
- Dhar, R. (1996), “The Effect of Decision Strategy on the Decision to Defer Choice”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 4, pp.265–81.
- Gensch, D.H. (1987), “A Two-Stage Disaggregate Attribute Choice Model”, Marketing Science, 6, 3, pp.223-231.
- Gronhaug, K. (1973), “Some Factors Influencing the Size of the Buyer’s Evoked Set”, European Journal of Marketing, 7, pp.232-241.
- Gruca, T.S. (1989), “Determinants of Choice Set Size: An Alternative Method for Measuring Evoked Sets”, Advances in Consumer Research, 16, pp.515-521.
- Hauser, J.R., Wernerfelt, B. (1990), “An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets”, Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (March), pp.393-408.
- Huber, J., Payne, J.W. and Puto, C. (1982), “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis”, Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June), pp.90–98.
