使用报价数量限制的陷阱

Jay P. Carlson
{"title":"使用报价数量限制的陷阱","authors":"Jay P. Carlson","doi":"10.1080/09593969.2020.1864657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Retailers may wish to foster high, but not excessively high, consumer purchase quantities of a product. Purchase quantity limits can be used to try to walk that fine line. Two commonly used approaches that retailers use to express purchase quantity limits – offer quantity limits and unit quantity limits – are studied in a setting where a product is offered for a discounted price. An example of a unit quantity limit (UQL) is ‘Limit 2,’ which simply restricts the consumer to a maximum purchase of two units of the discounted product. An offer quantity limit (OQL) of ‘Limit 2 Offers,’ for example, allows the consumer to take advantage of the presented price deal a maximum of two times. Since the price information may specify two or more units, the maximum number of units consumers are allowed to purchase when an OQL is present cannot be determined solely from the number included in the OQL verbiage – the price information must also be considered. A pilot experimental study and main experiment provide evidence strongly suggesting that consumers misunderstand OQLs. The fallacy would harm retailers desiring to stimulate high consumer purchase quantities from a promotion that includes a restriction. Specifically, consumers intend to purchase fewer units when confronted with an OQL rather than an equivalent UQL when one of the two restrictions is imposed on a multiple unit price promotion. This effect is attenuated when the numeric value of the OQL is not a multiple of the units in the price information. The present research is the first to examine how consumers react to OQLs relative to UQLs.","PeriodicalId":47139,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research","volume":"4 1","pages":"358 - 374"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A pitfall of using offer quantity limits\",\"authors\":\"Jay P. Carlson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09593969.2020.1864657\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Retailers may wish to foster high, but not excessively high, consumer purchase quantities of a product. Purchase quantity limits can be used to try to walk that fine line. Two commonly used approaches that retailers use to express purchase quantity limits – offer quantity limits and unit quantity limits – are studied in a setting where a product is offered for a discounted price. An example of a unit quantity limit (UQL) is ‘Limit 2,’ which simply restricts the consumer to a maximum purchase of two units of the discounted product. An offer quantity limit (OQL) of ‘Limit 2 Offers,’ for example, allows the consumer to take advantage of the presented price deal a maximum of two times. Since the price information may specify two or more units, the maximum number of units consumers are allowed to purchase when an OQL is present cannot be determined solely from the number included in the OQL verbiage – the price information must also be considered. A pilot experimental study and main experiment provide evidence strongly suggesting that consumers misunderstand OQLs. The fallacy would harm retailers desiring to stimulate high consumer purchase quantities from a promotion that includes a restriction. Specifically, consumers intend to purchase fewer units when confronted with an OQL rather than an equivalent UQL when one of the two restrictions is imposed on a multiple unit price promotion. This effect is attenuated when the numeric value of the OQL is not a multiple of the units in the price information. The present research is the first to examine how consumers react to OQLs relative to UQLs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"358 - 374\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2020.1864657\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2020.1864657","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

零售商可能希望提高消费者对某种产品的购买量,但不能过高。购买数量限制可以用来达到这一目标。零售商用来表示购买数量限制的两种常用方法——提供数量限制和单位数量限制——在产品以折扣价提供的情况下进行了研究。单位数量限制(UQL)的一个例子是“限制2”,它简单地限制消费者最多购买两个单位的折扣产品。例如,“限购2次”的报价数量限制(OQL)允许消费者最多两次利用所提供的价格交易。由于价格信息可能指定两个或更多个单位,因此当OQL存在时,消费者允许购买的最大单位数量不能仅从OQL措辞中包含的数量来确定-价格信息也必须考虑在内。一项初步实验研究和主要实验提供了强有力的证据表明消费者误解了oql。这一谬论将损害零售商的利益,他们希望通过包含限制的促销活动来刺激消费者的高购买量。具体来说,当面对OQL而不是同等的UQL时,当两个限制中的一个被强加于多单位价格促销时,消费者倾向于购买更少的单位。当OQL的数值不是价格信息中单位的倍数时,这种影响会减弱。目前的研究首次考察了消费者对oql和uql的反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A pitfall of using offer quantity limits
ABSTRACT Retailers may wish to foster high, but not excessively high, consumer purchase quantities of a product. Purchase quantity limits can be used to try to walk that fine line. Two commonly used approaches that retailers use to express purchase quantity limits – offer quantity limits and unit quantity limits – are studied in a setting where a product is offered for a discounted price. An example of a unit quantity limit (UQL) is ‘Limit 2,’ which simply restricts the consumer to a maximum purchase of two units of the discounted product. An offer quantity limit (OQL) of ‘Limit 2 Offers,’ for example, allows the consumer to take advantage of the presented price deal a maximum of two times. Since the price information may specify two or more units, the maximum number of units consumers are allowed to purchase when an OQL is present cannot be determined solely from the number included in the OQL verbiage – the price information must also be considered. A pilot experimental study and main experiment provide evidence strongly suggesting that consumers misunderstand OQLs. The fallacy would harm retailers desiring to stimulate high consumer purchase quantities from a promotion that includes a restriction. Specifically, consumers intend to purchase fewer units when confronted with an OQL rather than an equivalent UQL when one of the two restrictions is imposed on a multiple unit price promotion. This effect is attenuated when the numeric value of the OQL is not a multiple of the units in the price information. The present research is the first to examine how consumers react to OQLs relative to UQLs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
41
期刊最新文献
New technology and in-store service encounters: an analysis of coping practices and work experiences among frontline employees How in-store sensor technologies can help retailers to understand their customers: overview on two decades of research Exploring the use of innovation measurement in retail organisations: a multiple case study Are you afraid of shopping? consumers’ adaptive responses under crises Green products wrapped and delivered: consumer’s preference for sustainable e-commerce practices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1