Quality, value, satisfaction, trust, a

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ecent existing research (Sivakumar and Raj 1997). Brand loyalty is defined as the cumulative proportion of purchases devoted to the brand until the current purchase occasion (Sivakumar and Raj 1997). Family size and income are ordinal variables that capture family income and size. Finally, the price differential (for the tradeoff variable) is the difference in actual paid prices. RESULTS The estimation results for the models are reported in Table 1. The coefficients are of the appropriate sign and the relevant variables contribute significantly toward explaining brand choice. Model fit can be assessed by comparing the loglikelihoods or U 2 . Nested models could be compared by using a likelihood ratio test. In nested models, twice the difference in loglikelihood between two models is distributed as chi squared with degrees of freedom given by the difference the numbers of model parameters. ___________________ Table 1 about here ___________________ The model incorporating the tradeoff variable did significantly better than the model not incorporating it. Therefore, the tradeoff variable improves the fit considerably. It is interesting to note that after incorporation of the tradeoff variable, the inclusion of price does not improve model fit significantly. Hereafter, we will only discuss model M4. These computations are provided in Table 2. ___________________ Table 2 about here ___________________ A measure of asymmetry is needed for the proposed logit choice model to test the analytical results derived earlier. Mela, Gupta, and Lehmann (1997) and Sivakumar and Raj (1997) respectively note that cross elasticity may not be an appropriate measure for depicting price effects in general and asymmetry in particular. They note that a measure of interbrand movement or its variant is needed to accurately understand asymmetry (i.e., asymmetry favors H if the movement from L to H for a given price reduction by H is more than the movement from H to L for the same price reduction by L). Therefore, to measure the extent of asymmetry, we need to compare movements for equal price changes by H and L respectively. Based on the general approach suggested by Mela, Gupta, and Lehmann (1997) and 182
Sivakumar and Raj (1997), inter-brand movements can be derived analytically as we demonstrated earlier in the theory development. However, analytical derivations are based on infinitesimal calculus. While useful to theorize, in order to get an idea of actual movements and also to see whether it works with real numbers, we need to construct realistic scenarios. Therefore, share changes are computed by incorporating various values in the utility functions and making suitable assumptions to ensure that the market share and other key market characteristics are kept close to reality as possible. These computations presented in Table 2 demonstrates that between any pair of high-low tier brands (i.e., H1 and L, H2 and L, and H3 and L), the results derived earlier holds good. Note that the asymmetry holds good for all combinations irrespective of their market share. Also, to avoid overcrowding of the table, some of the intermediate calculations discussed below are not given in the table but the final results are. Evidence for Asymmetric Quality Tier Competition. Result 1 derived from the conceptual framework implies that the competition between a high quality brand and a low quality brand is asymmetric, consistent with the predominant research findings in marketing. For example, Table 2 indicates a movement of 6.26 market share points from L to H1 when H1 reduces its price by 20 cents and a movement of 3.78 market share points from H1 to L when L reduces its price by 20 cents. Clearly asymmetry favors H1 and the asymmetric advantage amounts to 2.48 market share points. The asymmetric advantage of H2 over L is 0.53 and that of H3 over L is 0.70. Role of Price Differential. Ceteris paribus (i.e., for a given quality differential), increasing the price differential was hypothesized to result in smaller asymmetric advantage for high quality brands (H2). Table 2 illustrates the asymmetry for the base scenario and the scenario in which the price differential is increased 10 cents. The larger price differential results in an asymmetry (favoring H1 over L) of 1.58 market share point versus asymmetry of 2.48 market share points in the base case (a difference of 0.9), confirming result 2. Similar results hold for competition between H2 and L and that between H3 and L. Role of Quality Differential. Ceteris paribus (i.e., for a given price differential), increasing the quality differential was hypothesized to result in greater asymmetric advantage for high quality brands (Result 3). Table 2 illustrates the asymmetry for the base scenario and the scenario in which the quality differential is 183
Page 1 and 2:
Volume 2 Contents: A Global Examina
Page 3 and 4:
A Global Examination Of Relationshi
Page 5 and 6:
and to measure them simultaneously
Page 7 and 8:
customers’ total consumption expe
Page 9 and 10:
From product perceived quality towa
Page 11 and 12:
cumulative, or a combination of the
Page 13 and 14:
trust4 -.68 commit1 .59 commit2 .51
Page 15 and 16:
we observed that the least correlat
Page 17 and 18:
outside of the consumption experien
Page 19 and 20:
REFERENCES Anderson Eugene W., Forn
Page 21 and 22:
Holbrook Morris B. Consumer Value:
Page 23 and 24:
APPENDIX 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEM
Page 25 and 26:
An Empirical Examination of Retail
Page 27 and 28:
This paper is organized in the foll
Page 29 and 30:
Human and cognitive effort has been
Page 31 and 32:
Seiders, Berry, and Gresham (2000)
Page 33 and 34:
The four dimensions of retail conve
Page 35 and 36:
2000). In-store shoppers receive th
Page 37 and 38:
process resulted in slightly differ
Page 39 and 40:
examine the dimensionality of these
Page 41 and 42:
Seiders, Berry, and Gresham’s (20
Page 43 and 44:
used, and the respondents were all
Page 45 and 46:
Enis BM, Roering KJ. Product classi
Page 47 and 48:
Table 1 Dimensions of Convenience G
Page 49 and 50:
Table 3 Retail Convenience Scale Re
Page 51 and 52:
Table 5 Correlations, Means, and St
Page 53:
Error! Figure 1 Retail Convenience
Page 56 and 57:
and Novak, 1996; Hammond, McWilliam
Page 58 and 59:
and Hirschman, 1982, p 132). These
Page 60 and 61:
interpretations of, all factors par
Page 62 and 63:
the hedonic aspects of the online s
Page 64 and 65:
satisfaction (Oliver, 1980; Westbro
Page 66 and 67:
H6). It involves performing a multi
Page 68 and 69:
Differences between the “shopping
Page 70 and 71:
(Hypothesis 5) and online shopping
Page 72 and 73:
demonstrates the importance of meas
Page 74 and 75:
Dabholkar, Pratibha A. Incorporatin
Page 76 and 77:
Mano Haim Elliott Michael T. Smart
Page 78 and 79:
Zeithaml V., Parasuraman A. Malhotr
Page 80 and 81:
1. Introduction Like inseparability
Page 82 and 83:
specific attributes. Dealing with p
Page 84 and 85:
2.2. Perceived Difficulty of Evalua
Page 86 and 87:
and mentally intangible a product/s
Page 88 and 89:
2.4.1. Knowledge and Intangibility
Page 90 and 91:
category, we included both generic
Page 92 and 93:
goods exhibit higher levels of phys
Page 94 and 95:
5.1. Intangibility: Brand and Gener
Page 96 and 97:
greater involvement with the purcha
Page 98 and 99:
with generality, may also affect co
Page 100 and 101:
Berry LL, Clark T. Four ways to mak
Page 102 and 103:
Laroche M, Bergeron J, Goutaland C.
Page 104 and 105:
Questionnair es Questionnaire 1 Que
Page 106 and 107:
Table 3 Results of factor analysis
Page 108 and 109:
Table 4 Summary of results 108
Page 110 and 111:
Table 5 Stepwise multiple regressio
Page 112 and 113:
Table 8 Stepwise multiple regressio
Page 114 and 115:
114
Page 116 and 117:
Intangibility Physical intangibilit
Page 118 and 119:
net income of 94% and 119%, respect
Page 120 and 121:
this, it is not surprising that eBa
Page 122 and 123:
frequently referred to as feedback
Page 124 and 125:
An auction participants’ feedback
Page 126 and 127:
The objective of study one was to i
Page 128 and 129:
excerpts that were selected and fus
Page 130 and 131:
Consumers believed that sellers wit
Page 132 and 133: negative feedback could be me,” a
Page 134 and 135: idder should read the praises too b
Page 136 and 137: first study focused on one class of
Page 138 and 139: Rothkopf, Joydeep Srivastava, Rami
Page 140 and 141: Industrial Economics. 50:3. 337-349
Page 142 and 143: http://www.laxshopper.com/index.htm
Page 144 and 145: 144
Page 146 and 147: Firstly, the consumer is supposed t
Page 148 and 149: For the psycho-sociology of environ
Page 150 and 151: To analyse appropriation strategies
Page 152 and 153: The second strategy is the most ela
Page 154 and 155: From the appropriation perspective
Page 156 and 157: To test these hypotheses we selecte
Page 158 and 159: Glace Glace Chart 4. Spatial config
Page 160 and 161: Chart 5b. Spatial configuration of
Page 162 and 163: No differences between the three di
Page 164 and 165: appropriation strategies adopted by
Page 166 and 167: A matrix of space management can th
Page 168 and 169: Holbrook M.B. (1999), Introduction
Page 170 and 171: Asymmetric Quality Tier Competition
Page 172 and 173: Wisniewski (1989) proposed a theory
Page 174 and 175: alternatives prior to the choice de
Page 176 and 177: decrease in tradeoff when L reduces
Page 178 and 179: As Bronnenberg and Wathieu (1996) u
Page 180 and 181: Those conceptually based utility fu
Page 184 and 185: increased by 10% (conceptually the
Page 186 and 187: REFERENCES Allenby GM. A unified ap
Page 188 and 189: Table 1. Estimation Results _______
Page 190 and 191: Q U A L I T a H H’ x b PRICE 190
Page 192 and 193: MODELING THE IMPACT OF INTERNET ATM
Page 194 and 195: Eroglu et al (2001) proposed a typo
Page 196 and 197: playfulness (enjoy visiting Web sit
Page 198 and 199: H2: When consumers surf the Web, th
Page 200 and 201: significantly explain attitude towa
Page 202 and 203: Involvement toward an ad based on v
Page 204 and 205: usefulness and the resourcefulness
Page 206 and 207: 3.2.2.2. Involvement The final comp
Page 208 and 209: environmental cues on purchase beha
Page 210 and 211: 6. Test of Hypotheses [Insert table
Page 212 and 213: Cacioppo, Schumann, 1983; Petty and
Page 214 and 215: Pelsmacker et al, 1998). ATTI is li
Page 216 and 217: improvements are brought into navig
Page 218 and 219: Cho, C.H.: How Advertising Works on
Page 220 and 221: Liu, C. and Arnett, K.P. Exploring
Page 222 and 223: Rose, G., Khoo, H. and Straub, D.W.
Page 224 and 225: Table 1: Results of Confirmatory Fa
Page 226 and 227: Table 2: Full Structural Model Fit
Page 228 and 229: EXPB� INV H7b NS 0.080 0.062 0.00
Page 230 and 231: 230
Page 232 and 233:
MAPPING RETAILING ENTREPRENEUR DECI
Page 234 and 235:
Attempts to use a framework to find
Page 236 and 237:
attempts resulting in failure are n
Page 238 and 239:
included in this sentence would be
Page 240 and 241:
Detailed causal maps are needed in
Page 242 and 243:
Start-up. Details of the stream of
Page 244 and 245:
more successful when they avoid big
Page 246 and 247:
Axelrod, Robert (1976), "The Cognit
Page 248 and 249:
1. Brian Shore starts several + 2.
Page 250 and 251:
+ 1. B.S. ‘Maximizes use of fryin
Page 252 and 253:
degree of importance consumers plac
Page 254 and 255:
initial use of the word “convenie
Page 256 and 257:
In the decision-making process, tim
Page 258 and 259:
at home 24 hr/7 days a week (Hofack
Page 260 and 261:
Figure 1 about here ---------------
Page 262 and 263:
the organization and design of the
Page 264 and 265:
ehavior courses participated as bot
Page 266 and 267:
convenience is different for the tw
Page 268 and 269:
should seek to establish a similar
Page 270 and 271:
obtained a small sample size of onl
Page 272 and 273:
Dunn DT, Thomas CA, Lubawski JL. Pi
Page 274 and 275:
Table 1 Dimensions of Convenience G
Page 276 and 277:
Table 3 Retail Convenience Scale Re
Page 278 and 279:
Table 5 Correlations, Means, and St
Page 280 and 281:
Error! Figure 1 Retail Convenience
Page 282 and 283:
Customer-to-customer interaction is
Page 284 and 285:
Second, we need to find out the opt
Page 286 and 287:
esponse to the behavior of other cu
Page 288 and 289:
ewards (Swinyard 1993). A customer
Page 290 and 291:
Values may be defined as beliefs th
Page 292 and 293:
find out the optimal combination of
Page 294 and 295:
Taguchi recommends the use of signa
Page 296 and 297:
epresent higher tolerance of incomp
Page 298 and 299:
estaurant where they can escape inc
Page 300 and 301:
Three significant interaction terms
Page 302 and 303:
McGrath, Mary Ann, Otnes, Cele, (19
Page 304 and 305:
Table…2 Tests of Between-Subjects
Page 306 and 307:
Figure…2 (a) Combination of L4 Ta
show all

Quality, value, satisfaction, trust, a

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?