Search results

Based on the concept of information salience, the research investigates the factors that might drive potential differences in consumers' preferences between offers framed as free with purchase or as a bundle.

Four experiments examined how participants' preferences for bundled offers or free-with-purchase offers varied as a function of the perceived benefits to be obtained from the supplementary products (studies 1a and 1b) and identified participants' sensitivity to the price of the supplementary component as a mediator of the framing effect of a promotional offer (study 2) and the provision of information facilitating the drawing of comparisons as the boundary condition constraining the effectiveness of a free-with-purchase offer (study 3).

Results show that a bundled offer is preferable to a free-with-purchase offer when the supplementary product provides a high-level rather than a low-level benefit and identify price sensitivity as an underlying mechanism behind the observed effect. Furthermore, consumers' sensitivity to the value of the focal product in the deal brought to their attention by comparative information makes a fair charge for a relatively unattractive component the preferable offer.

While much of the existing published research on bundled offers focuses on the assigning of discounts to individual products in the bundle, this study adds to the body of knowledge by showing that variation in perceived benefits is the key driver of different responses to a free-with-purchase offer versus a bundled offer.

The purpose of this paper is to test inferred bundle saving versus loss aggregation as explanations of consumer evaluations of bundles. Inferred bundle saving posits that consumer impressions of bundles are anchored in the daily economic reality that collections of goods as bundles are usually marketed at a discount to the same collection not bundled. Loss aggregation theory posits that consumers perceive an aggregation of prices as being less than the sum of its parts because they perceive prices as losses, and losses have a concave value perception; that is a small loss is perceived as large relative to its physical amount.

Previous research has shown that inferred bundle saving is a plausible alternative to loss aggregation. This research tests the two theories against each other in three experimental studies where they make opposite predictions. A meta‐analysis of the first two studies provides added evidence.

The predictions of inferred bundle saving were supported over the predictions of the loss aggregation prediction.

Additional experimental studies are recommended to further test the proposed theory and its boundaries.

The presentation of a bundle to consumers sends a powerful message that “here lies a bargain.” In the absence of other information, consumers will form a favorable impression of the offering just because it is a bundle (and therefore must be a good buy). If the bundle is known to be undiscounted, then consumer reaction to the bundle is negative. Firms that offer bundles should ensure that their total message is consistent with savings of cash, or add consumer value through convenience/time saving.

The everyday observation that consumers expect a bundle to equal a saving has been ignored in favor of more complex theories of consumer behavior in many previous studies. The study presents results that favor the simpler theory.

The paper seeks to propose and test a theory of the psychological impact of price bundling that is derived from bundling's economic impact. It is called the inferred bundle saving hypothesis. In the absence of explicit information about bundle savings, consumers infer a bundle saving when presented with a bundle offer. It is suggested that inferred bundle saving provides a simple, parsimonious explanation for pre‐ and post‐purchase bundle effects.

The theory is tested in two laboratory studies that employ partial replications of two prior price bundle studies.

The results show that the inferred bundle saving effect is robust in both product and service contexts, and can potentially explain the bundle effects found in these two studies.

Additional experimental studies are recommended to further test the proposed theory.

First, contrary to convention, it is not always optimal for firms to integrate price information in a single bundle price. Second, firms may sometimes use the price‐bundling format to signal a bundle saving without actually offering one. Third, firms can manage consumption and expected refund of bundles by manipulating consumer perception of bundle saving.

It is intuitive that consumers expect a bundle saving. However, this paper is the first to establish empirically the existence of this inferred bundle saving and demonstrate its potential as a theoretical explanation for various bundle effects. The research challenges the extant view that price bundling per se always enhances consumer pre‐purchase evaluation. Moreover, it connects economic and psychological research, as well as pre‐ and post‐purchase analysis, of bundle effects.

Considering the rapid adoption of social media among consumers and organizations, this study intends to examine the impact of online bundle promotions and contextual interactions on impulse buying as consumers encounter them synchronously. Hence, a research model is proposed with the integration of perceived transaction value, perceived acquisition values, top reviews information, impulse buying tendency and emotional intelligence following the stimulus-organism-response framework, promotional framing effect, and theory of selective attention.

Data were collected from the active social media members of organization pages and selling groups by utilizing the self-administered questionnaire. This study employed the partial least squares structural equation modeling to evaluate the data of 358 individuals.

Results reveal the positive impact of targeted constructs on the urge to buy impulsively with complementary partial mediation of impulse buying tendency. Besides, emotional intelligence dissuades users' impulse buying tendencies, but unexpectedly, its moderating effect is insignificant. Further, importance-performance map analysis highlights the highest importance of impulse buying tendency and better performance of perceived transaction value for the urge to buy impulsively.

This research is one of the early studies to explore the influence of social media advertising and contextual social factors (e.g. bundle offers and top reviews information) on impulse buying with the moderation of emotional intelligence and mediation of impulse buying tendency. This research is imperative for scholars and managers with pertinent suggestions to arouse impulse buying.

This paper aims to examine three important questions: What would be the effects of pricing at the lower end of a wide vs narrow latitude of price acceptance (LPA) on consumer choice of the bundle? How would the nature of a bundle frame (i.e. discount on bundle vs discount on components) and discount frame (i.e. discount as absolute off vs discount as percentage off) influence the preference given to a price level that is at the wide or narrow end of the LPA? Would the effect be significantly different if the bundle components were complementary vs if they were non-complementary?

The authors carried out two studies using between-subject experimental design. In Study 1, the authors used 2 (LPA: wide/narrow) × 2 (complementarity: yes/no) × 2 (bundle frame: together/separate) design, and in Study 2, the authors replaced bundle frame with discount frame (i.e. absolute off/percentage off).

The authors find that the LPA effect is likely to outweigh the complementarity effect; however, a combined effect of complementarity and bundle frame is stronger than the LPA effect. Also, for a wide (narrow) LPA product bundle, absolute off (percentage off) discount frame is more attractive.

Managers should use bundling strategy with complementary products having wider LPA. In case of wide LPA and complementary products, both together and separate frame could be the best bundling strategy while in case of narrow LPA and complementary products, together frame could be the best bundling strategy.

The main contribution relates to the role LPA plays in consumer evaluation of a bundle offer and its interaction with complementarity and discount frame. The authors apply the range hypothesis principles (i.e. price-attractiveness judgments are based on a comparison of market prices to the endpoints of a range of evoked prices) in the bundling context and extend the earlier work in the area of complementarity and discount frame.

Using a classification of benefits and costs of promotional offers along three routes – economic, informational and affective – this paper aims at evaluating, from the consumer's point of view, the relative perceptual disadvantages of separate‐item bundles compared to pre‐wrapped bundles.

The marketing literature and a qualitative study based on 18 consumers permits the identification of the relative perceived costs and benefits associated with separate‐item bundles and for hypotheses to be derived. An experiment on a sample of 120 adult consumers was then set up to test these hypotheses.

The findings suggest that consumers associate separate‐item bundles with higher economic benefit but also with higher inspection costs. From a more global perspective, there is no loss of interest in separate‐item bundles compared to pre‐wrapped bundles.

Focusing the research on separate‐item bundles clarifies the way consumers evaluate promotions. Its qualitative phase gives support to the relevance of an “informational route”, beyond the traditional utilitarian and hedonic routes. Its quantitative phase confirms the importance of cognitive biases in consumers' perceptions of promotions.

The numerous advantages of separate‐item bundles for manufacturers and retailers and their attraction to consumers should lead to an increasingly intensive use in promotional campaigns. Besides, the quality of in‐store communication is the most important factor of the success of separate‐item bundles, which provides the opportunity to propose meaningful recommendations for practitioners.

If the strengths and weaknesses of separate‐item bundles have already been studied from a managerial point of view, to the authors' knowledge, no research has focused on separate‐item bundle efficiency from the consumer's point of view.

More than ever, businesses need to assemble and offer multiple products combined into a single offer, a practice known as bundling. The purpose of this paper is to describe how to bundle effectively through analyzing the value of bundle components and the specialized market purpose of a bundle.

In working with many different clients, statistical techniques have helped us draw an interesting conclusion: most bundles—though not all—share a similar structure or taxonomy. At the heart lies the core or anchor element; this is the product or service driving the inquiry. Wrapped around that are those elements which strongly complement the core. The next layer up consists of products or services seen as convenient for the core, but may not always be cost‐effective to include. The final layer of a bundle often turns out to be additions with negative value. These are either substitutes for other bundle components (buyers generally hate being forced to buy two redundant products), or components which have such low relevance to the core that they clutter the value message.

This article examines two dangers to effective bundling: mismatching the various elements of a bundle, and mispricing the offer. We find there are four marketing mistakes which typically stem from mismatches and mispricing: failing to create bundles for special purposes; making bundles too big; using tiering instead of bundles; and failing to innovate on bundle definition.

There is a science to bundles, but it is not widely known or practiced. This science grows in importance as bundling becomes more important, and bundle components become more diverse. Today most bundling is done through judgement and ad hoc initiatives. Frequently such an approach fails to develop an effective bundle, or effectively communicate the value of the bundle. Understanding the taxonomy of a bundle, and the value elements, will allow more diverse and effective product and service combinations.

The purpose of this study is to examine consumer behaviors toward a bundle of tickets and lodging using two different message framing: (1) scarcity framing for a high demand event, the All-Star Game, and (2) discount framing for a lower demand event, an MLB mid-week game.

Data were collected through two online surveys of 836 sport consumers in total on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and were analyzed using a mix of analysis of variances (ANOVAs) and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

Consumers are likely to buy products separately in a scarce situation. When discounts are offered as benefits of choosing a bundle, consumers with high willingness to pay (WTP) have higher purchase intentions (PI) and perceived value toward cumulative discounts.

This is the one of few studies that investigate (1) price bundling of products from two disparate industries where consumer demands fluctuate, (2) the effects of scarcity in a bundle, and (3) all possible discount messaging in a bundle.

When offering product/service bundles to customers, marketers must decide how best to configure the bundles such that consumers do not find the bundle‐choice particularly difficult. This paper examines perceived decision difficulty in selecting from a menu of bundles, where the bundles vary on the number of component services, the number of unique services between competing bundles, and their perceived similarity. It is found that larger bundles make decisions more difficult, more unique services between the competing bundles increases decision difficulty for small, but not large, bundles and similar bundles pose greater choice difficulty than dissimilar bundles. Implications of the results are discussed.

The underlying thesis of this paper is that consumers will infer that the costs of production of a product that is offered free are low, and this will reduce the price they are willing to pay for the product when it is a stand‐alone offering.

Two laboratory experiments examine how consumers respond to products that have been offered as “free gifts with purchase” of another product.

Study 1 shows, that when an economically identical offer is framed as a joint bundle (Buy X and Y for $), compared with when it is framed as a “Buy one, get one free” offer, consumers are willing to pay less for the product offered “free.” Study 2 shows that, when a product is given away “free,” then consumers are willing to pay less for it as a stand‐alone product, especially when the original promotional offer does not include the price of the free gift.

Results imply that the design and communication of consumer promotions affect the price consumers are willing to pay for a product.

Managerial implications for the design and communication of consumer promotions are discussed.

The paper adds to the growing body of research that shows that a price promotion has more than just an economic effect; it also has an informational effect through which it affects consumer responses.