Search results

Abstract
To remain competitive in a connected world, offline retailers have responded with integrating digital in-store technologies into their physical servicescapes. Often, the introduction of multichannel connecting services like click & collect or order from or return to store are first steps.
Shopper-facing advanced technologies can be key to creating a different physical shopping experience for consumers and delivering benefits to retailers such as improved traffic, conversion and baskets or streamlined operational cost. In general, consumers consider retailing technologies as useful. However, shoppers assess the fairness of the exchange about procedures, outcome and treatment and the value of the technology they receive compared to what the retailer gets. Also, satisfaction, trust and privacy concerns are relevant for customers. Retail managers need to ensure the functionality and safety of their application and take consumer concerns seriously. Also, they need to address privacy concerns and build trust, if they want proximity marketing to deliver on its promise of increasing basket size or attracting new shoppers.

Traditional practice prominently presents offers (e.g., "50% Off") followed by a quantity ("When you buy two"), duration ("Today only"), or other conditional restriction as a scarcity appeal to increase urgency. Placing a hurdle to clear before purchase eligibility presents the good news of the offer followed by the bad news of the restriction.We propose and test a sales promotion framework for admission-based experiences showing that leading with the bad news first (the restriction) followed by the good news (the discount) is consistent with consumer news order preferences and changes perceptions of the deal. Our first study confirms consumer preference for bad news before good news in general and ticket offers in particular. The next two studies examine the process by which leading with the bad news (of the restriction first, discount later) increases the salience of the deal (% off). This in turn makes the customer feel in greater control over the offer, thereby making the deal appear to be fairer and more attractive, leading to increased purchase intentions. A fourth study in the field shows presenting the restriction followed by a discount improves click-through and potential revenue compared to presenting the identical offer with the discount preceding the restriction.

Abstract
While budgeting in advance is seen as a good practice to control spending, this research shows that budgeting too early for a specific purchase may increase spending. We argue that as the temporal separation between budget setting and actual purchase increases, consumers become more willing to overspend because of what we term "budget depreciation." Consumers adapt to the reference point set by the budget such that, over time, the budgeted level becomes the status-quo spending. Thus, as more time passes, pain of payment from the budgeted amount decreases, and the willingness-to-spend increases. Across a secondary dataset of real estate purchases, one field study, and three experiments, we find evidence that consumers who set a budget in the distant (vs. near) past are more likely to overspend relative to their budget. The effect emerges for single purchase occasions rather than a category of purchases over multiple occasions. It emerges because of the hypothesized pain-of-payment process (e.g., effect is stronger among tightwads, who feel greater pain from spending; effect is mitigated under budget reassessment, which prevents pain adaptation). Our work contributes to the mental budgeting literature by invoking a role for temporal separation and draws a novel connection to prior work on payment depreciation.

Abstract
Consumers' judgments of the magnitude of benefit that a product provides increase their likelihood of purchasing it, and their judgments of the magnitude of harm that accrues from purchasing a product decrease their likelihood of purchasing it. When assessing the magnitude of a product's potential outcome, consumers often encounter information about its probability of occurring. Ten studies demonstrate that this information biases consumers' product decisions. Consumers both expect and perceive larger-probability outcomes to be larger in magnitude—even when they receive identical and objective information about the outcome's actual magnitude. This bias emerges because people believe that larger probabilities emanate from more powerful causal antecedents, and in turn expect more powerful antecedents to produce larger outcomes. Moreover, this bias shapes consumers' product decisions. Of course, it is rational for people to prefer products that promise high-probability benefits and to avoid products that produce high-probability harms. But consumers irrationally overweight this probability information because it distorts their judgments of the magnitude of products' benefits and harms, and this distortion biases their purchase decisions.