Suchergebnisse

Abstract
In de Langhe, Fernbach, and Lichtenstein (2016), we argue that consumers trust average user ratings as indicators of objective product performance much more than they should. This simple idea has provoked passionate commentaries from eminent researchers across three subdisciplines of marketing: experimental consumer research, modeling, and qualitative consumer research. Simonson challenges the premise of our research, asking whether objective performance even matters. We think it does and explain why in our response. Winer and Fader argue that our results are neither insightful nor important. We believe that their reaction is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of our goals, and we show that their criticisms do not hold up to scrutiny. Finally, Kozinets points out how narrow a slice of consumer experience our article covers. We agree, and build on his observations to reflect on some big-picture issues about the nature of research and the interaction between the subdisciplines.

Abstract
This research documents a substantial disconnect between the objective quality information that online user ratings actually convey and the extent to which consumers trust them as indicators of objective quality. Analyses of a data set covering 1272 products across 120 vertically differentiated product categories reveal that average user ratings (1) lack convergence with Consumer Reports scores, the most commonly used measure of objective quality in the consumer behavior literature, (2) are often based on insufficient sample sizes which limits their informativeness, (3) do not predict resale prices in the used-product marketplace, and (4) are higher for more expensive products and premium brands, controlling for Consumer Reports scores. However, when forming quality inferences and purchase intentions, consumers heavily weight the average rating compared to other cues for quality like price and the number of ratings. They also fail to moderate their reliance on the average user rating as a function of sample size sufficiency. Consumers' trust in the average user rating as a cue for objective quality appears to be based on an "illusion of validity."

Abstract
The use of advertised reference price promotions, such as "regularly $119.99, sale price $39.99," is ubiquitous in the marketplace. Thirty years of research supports the conclusion that advertised reference prices (e.g., $119.99) exert an influence on consumers' responses to offer prices (e.g., $39.99) via their assimilative influence on consumers' internal reference prices. The present research provides an enriched account of this assimilation process. Specifically, three studies show that increasing the overlap in information made accessible by the advertised reference price and information made accessible by the offer price increases the influence of the information primed by the advertised reference price on the construction of the internal reference price. Consequently, the offer price is considered more attractive. The identification of this process provides insight into additional variables that moderate the influence of advertised reference prices on downstream deal evaluations. Implications for theory, practice, and public policy are discussed.