تأثیر عدم قطعیت تخفیف بر تصمیم به خرید

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

3 عضو هیئت علمی الحاقی، دانشگاه سینگیولاریتی، سانتاکلارا، کالیفرنیا، آمریکا.

4 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

5 استادیار، گروه هوش ماشین و روباتیک، دانشکده مهندسی برق و کامپیوتر، پردیس فنی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

هدف: با توجه به اینکه استفاده از تخفیف‌های غیرقطعی میان کسب‌وکارهای ایرانی روزبه‌روز افزایش می‌یابد، این پژوهش در پی بررسی اثر عدم قطعیت تخفیف بر تصمیم به خرید مشتریان ایرانی است.
روش: در پژوهش حاضر، آزمایش عاملی کامل درون آزمودنی آنلاین طراحی و اجرا شد و در آن 59 نفر در مقابل 72 تصمیم قرار گرفتند. در این تصمیم‌ها از مشارکت‌کنندگان درخواست شد که از بین دو تخفیف نمایش داده شده، گزینه‌ای را انتخاب کنند که ترجیح می‌دهند کالای مدنظرشان را با آن تخفیف بخرند. در طراحی این آزمایش، 9 تخفیف (8 تخفیف غیرقطعی و یک تخفیف قطعی) برای دو کالای پاوربانک (فایده‌باور) و تابلوفرش (لذت‌جویانه) در نظر گرفته شد. تمام مشارکت‌کنندگان با ترتیبی تصادفی در مقابل تمام تصمیم‌ها قرار گرفتند.
یافته‌ها: مخاطبان ایرانی در انتخاب بین دو تخفیف مبتنی بر شانس و مهارت و تخفیف عادی، ریسک‌گریزانه عمل کردند و تخفیف‌های قطعی را ترجیج دادند؛ اما در مواجهه با تخفیف‌های کششی تفاوت معناداری بین انتخاب افراد دیده نشد. در تخفیف‌های مبتنی بر شانس، ترجیح افراد احتمال قوی‌تر برنده‌شدن با تخفیف کمتر در مقایسه با احتمال ضعیف برنده‌شدن با تخفیفی بیشتر بود. در تخفیف‌های کششی، حد بالای تخفیف بیان‌شده تأثیر مثبت و حد پایین تأثیری منفی در افزایش تمایل افراد به انتخاب تخفیف داشت. در نهایت، بین نوع محصول (لذت‌جویانه یا فایده‌باور) در تصمیم‌های افراد تفاوتی مشاهده نشد.
نتیجه‌گیری: بازاریابان در طراحی تخفیف‌های همراه با عدم قطعیت، باید ترجیح افراد به تخفیف‌های قطعی را در کانون توجه قرار داده و با پرداختن به جنبه‌های دیگر این تخفیف‌ها، همچون خلق تجربه سرگرم‌کننده و هیجانی و لذت‌بخش، جذابیت این‌گونه تخفیف‌ها را افزایش دهند. در استفاده از تخفیف‌های کششی، بازاریابان باید به این نکته توجه کنند که حد بالای تخفیف در مقایسه با حد پایین تخفیف، در جذب مخاطب تأثیر بیشتری دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Impact of Discount Uncertainty on the Decision to Buy

نویسندگان [English]

  • Kian Norouzi 1
  • Mohammad Rahim Esfidani 2
  • Thomas Zoëga Ramsøy 3
  • Mohsen Nazari 4
  • Abdol Hossein Vahabie 5
1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Prof, Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3 Adjunct Faculty Member, Singularity University, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
4 Associate Prof, Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
5 Assistant Prof, Department of Machine Intelligence and Robotics, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Objective
Due to the growing uncertain discounts in Iranian businesses, this study seeks to investigate the effect of discount uncertainty on the intention to buy among Iranian customers. Therefore, we initially attempt to compare uncertain discounts (ambiguity in the amount of discount) and certain discounts (a definite amount of discount) focusing on the source of uncertainty. Then, we should examine the effect of the design and introduction of uncertain discounts on the customers' preference. For this purpose, eight uncertain discounts were used, including four odds-based discounts (with probability of winning and different discount rates), three pull-down discounts (with different discount intervals), and one skill-based discount. In the third step, we will examine the effect of product type (utilitarianism and hedonism) on customers' preferences. Consequently, all decisions will be displayed once for a utilitarian product and then for a hedonistic product.
 
Methodology
For this purpose, an online within-subject full factorial experiment was designed and performed, where 59 people were faced with 72 decisions. In order to design this experiment, JavaScript programming language and jsPsych library 1.6 were used. Moreove, the JATOS platform 3.5.3 was employed in order to load the test and generate the link and run it on the server. Then, participants were asked to choose between one of the two types of discounts based on their preferences. Nine discounts (eight uncertain discounts and one certain discount) were used for two products: a powerbank (utilitarian) and tablecloth (hedonism). All participants were randomly assigned to those decisions.
 
Findings
Iranian customers acted based on risk-resisting ideology in choosing between discounts based on chance and skill compared to normal discounts; thus, they preferred certain discounts. However, there is no significant difference between the choice of individuals when facing tensile discounts. In odds-based discounts, people prefer to win less amount of discount compared to the lower chance of winning big discounts. In tensile discounts, the upper margine of the certain discount has a positive effect and the lower margine has a negative effect on the customets’ desire to choose a discount. Therefore, there was no difference between the type of product (hedonistic or utilitarian) in people's decisions.
 
Conclusion
In designing discounts with uncertainty, marketers should consider customers' preferences over certain discounts and attempt to increase the attractiveness of such discounts by addressing other aspects of these discounts, such as creating a fun, exciting, and enjoyable experience. Regarding tensile discounts, marketers should be aware that the upper margine of the discount has a greater impact on customer attraction compared to the lower margine.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Uncertain price promotions
  • Tensile price claims
  • Chance-based price promotions
  • Skill-based price promotions
  • Decision to purchase

مراجع

References
Ailawadi, K. L., Gedenk, K., Langer, T., Ma, Y. and Neslin, S.A. (2014). Consumer response to uncertain promotions: An empirical analysis of conditional rebates. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(1), 94–106. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.08.002.
Alavi, S., Bornemann, T. and Wieseke, J. (2015). Gambled Price Discounts: A Remedy to the Negative Side Effects of Regular Price Discounts. Journal of Marketing, 79(2), 62–78. doi: 10.1509/jm.12.0408.
Alloy, L. B. and Abramson, L. Y. (1988). Depressive realism: Four theoretical perspectives. The Guilford Press.
Becker, S. W. and Brownson, F. O. (1964). What price ambiguity? Or the role of ambiguity in decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 72(1), 62–73.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B. and Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of marketing, 64(4), 65–81.
Curley, S. P. and Yates, J. F. (1985). The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 36(2), 273–287.
Curley, S. P. and Yates, J. F. (1989). An empirical evaluation of descriptive models of ambiguity reactions in choice situations. Elsevier.
Dhar, S. K., González-Vallejo, C. and Soman, D. (1995). Brand promotions as a lottery. Marketing Letters, 6(3), 221–233. doi: 10.1007/BF00995113.
Einhorn, H. J. and Hogarth, R. M. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychological review, 92(4), 433.
Einhorn, H. J. and Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Decision making under ambiguity. Journal of Business, S225–S250.
Gneezy, U., List, J. A. and Wu, G. (2006). The uncertainty effect: When a risky prospect is valued less than its worst possible outcome. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1283–1309. doi: 10.1162/qjec.121.4.1283.
Goldsmith, K. and Amir, O. (2010). Can Uncertainty Improve Promotions? Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1070–1077. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.47.6.1070.
Hock, S. J., Bagchi, R. and Anderson, T. M. (2020). Promotional Games Increase Consumer Conversion Rates and Spending. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(1), 79–99.
Holbrook, M. B. and O’shaughnessy, J. (1982). The Role of n A 0 0 r;motlon i n Advertising. pp. 45–64.
Iyengar, R., Jedidi, K. and Kohli, R. (2008). A Conjoint Approach to Multipart Pricing. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(2), 195–210. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.45.2.195.
Kahn, B. E. and Sarin, R. K. (1988). Modeling ambiguity in decisions under uncertainty. Journal of consumer Research, 15(2), 265–272.
Keren, G. and Wagenaar, W. A. (1988). Chance and skill in gambling: A search for distinctive features. Social Behaviour. John Wiley & Sons.
Lange, K., Kühn, S. and Filevich, E. (2015). Just Another Tool for Online Studies (JATOS): An Easy Solution for Setup and Management of Web Servers Supporting Online Studies. PloS one, 10(6), e0130834.
Laran, J. and Tsiros, M. (2013). An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Uncertainty in Marketing Promotions Involving Free Gifts. Journal of Marketing, 77(2), 112–123. doi: 10.1509/jm.11.0255.
Lee, C.Y., Morewedge, C.K., Hochman, G. and Ariely, D. (2019). Small probabilistic discounts stimulate spending: Pain of paying in price promotions. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 4(2), 160–171.
Lee, J. E. (2019). Plausible versus implausible tensile price claim: Selective accessibility model approach. Psychology & Marketing, 36(1), 57-71.
de Leeuw, J. R. and Motz, B. A. (2016). Psychophysics in a Web browser? Comparing response times collected with JavaScript and Psychophysics Toolbox in a visual search task. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 1–12.
Licata, J. W., Biswas, A. and Krishnan, B. C. (1998). Ambiguity and exaggeration in price promotion: perceptions of the elder and nonelder consumer. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(1), 56–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.1998.tb00400.x.
Mazar, N., Shampanier, K. and Ariely, D. (2017). When retailing and las vegas meet: Probabilistic free price promotions. Management Science, 63(1), 250–266. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2328.
Narayanan, S. and Manchanda, P. (2009). Heterogeneous learning and the targeting of marketing communication for new products. Marketing science, 28(3), 424–441.
Qiu, L., Cranage, D. & Mattila, A.S. (2016). How anchoring and self-confidence level influence perceived saving on tensile price claim framing. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 15(2), 138–152. doi: 10.1057/rpm.2015.49.
Raghubir, P., Inman, J. J. and Grande, H. (2004). The three faces of consumer promotions. California Management Review, 46(4), 23–42.
Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological bulletin, 114(3), 510.
Roberts, J. H. and Urban, G. L. (1988). Modeling multiattribute utility, risk, and belief dynamics for new consumer durable brand choice. Management Science, 34(2), 167–185.
Tan, H., Akram, U. and Sui, Y. (2019). An investigation of the promotion effects of uncertain level discount: evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, (March). doi: 10.1108/APJML-05-2018-0191.
Tversky, A., Sattath, S. and Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological review. American Psychological Association, 95(3), 371.
Yao, Q., Chen, R. and Zhao, P. (2013). Precise versus imprecise promotional rewards at small probabilities: Moderating from purchase value and promotion budget. European Journal of Marketing, 47(5–6), 1006–1021. doi: 10.1108/03090561311307065.
مدیریت بازرگانی
دوره 13، شماره 3
1400
صفحه 791-813

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار