본 연구는 조절초점이 다른 소비자들이 최대가격 및 최소가격 할인광고에 대하여 어떻게 반응하는지 고찰하였다. 실험결과, 먼저 기존연구에서 보고된 바와 같이, 최소가격 할인광고보다는 최대가격 할인광고를 실시한 소매점에 대하여 소비자들은 전반적으로 절약을 더 많이 할 수 있을 것이라 지각하였고, 거래의 가치를 더 크게 평가하였으며, 보다 우호적인 거래태도를 보였고, 구매하려는 의향을 더 지닌 것으로 밝혀졌다. 하지만, 동일한 가격할인 광고에 대한 반응은 소비자의 조절초점에 따라서 다르게 나타났다. 즉, 이상을 추구하고 모험적인 특성을 가진 향상초점 소비자들은 보수적이고 위험에 민감하며 안전을 중시하는 방어초점 소비자들보다 최대가격 할인광고에 더욱 긍정적으로 반응하였다. 반면, 최소가격 할인광고의 경우 방어초점 소비자들이 더욱 우호적으로 평가하였다. 이러한 조절초점의 차별적 효과는 가격할인의 준거로서 경쟁자가격이 사용되었을 때에는 명확하게 나타났지만, 과거가격이 준거로 사용된 광고에서는 나타나지 않았다. 이러한 효과가 발생하는 심리적 기제로서는, 가격할인의 목표가 달성되었을 때 예상되는 기쁨과 이와 연관된 위험에 대하여 향상초점과 방어초점 소비자들이 다르게 지각하기 때문인 것으로 제시되었다. 즉, 최대가격 할인광고의 목표가 달성되었을 경우에는 방어초점보다 향상초점 소비자들이 더욱 큰 기쁨을 느끼고, 최소가격 할인광고에 대해서는 향상초점보다 방어초점 소비자들이 더욱 큰 기쁨을 느낄 것으로 예상하였다. 반면, 지각된 위험과 관련하여서는 최대가격 할인광고에 대하여 향상초점보다 방어초점 소비자들이 더욱 큰 위험을 지각하였고, 최소가격 할인광고에 대해서는 오히려 방어초점보다 향상초점 소비자들이 더욱 큰 위험을 지각하는 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로, 본 연구결과가 가격할인 및 할인광고 전략수립에 어떤 이론적․실무적 시사점을 제공하는지 논의되었다.
Considering the effectiveness and prevalence of price discount to attract customers to visit a retail store and/or make a purchase, numerous studies have been conducted on the topic from a diversity of perspectives. However, little is known about the role of motivational factors in the effects of price discount. The purpose of this research is to investigate how consumers’ regulatory focus will affect their responses toward price discount advertisements in the retail setting.
Specifically, we focus on tensile price claims, which use ambiguous semantic cues in presenting price discount information (Mobley, Bearden, and Teel 1988; Biswas and Burton 1994). Previous research reports the superior effects of maximal price claims (e.g., “Save up to 40 %”) over minimal price claims (e.g., “Save 10% or more”) on consumers’ perceived savings, perceived value of the deal, attitude toward the deal, and purchase intention. This research proposes that these effects will be moderated by consumers’ regulatory focus. That is, promotion-focused consumers will respond more positively to the maximal tensile price claims than prevention-focused consumers, whereas prevention-focused consumers will show more positive responses toward the minimal tensile price claims than promotion-focused consumer. This is likely because consumers with promotion focus tend to focus more on ideals and aspirations, whereas consumers with prevention focus tend to focus more on safety and potential risk. Furthermore, the reference used in the ad is expected to play an important role (Kahneman and Tversky 1979). If the price of a competitor is used as reference (competitive reference; e.g., 20% discount more than competitor), consumers will find it easier and more useful to make a store decision because both pieces of price information are contemporary and self-sufficient. In contrast, for past price of the store as reference, its truthfulness need to be verified. In addition, if consumers want to make more accurate decision, it still requires them to check on competitors’ prices. Thus we predict the following:
Hypothesis 1: For the maximal price claims, consumers with promotion focus will show more positive responses than those with prevention focus, whereas for the minimal price claims consumers with prevention focus will show more positive responses than those with promotion focus. However, the interaction effect will be more prominent when the competitor’s price is used as reference compared to when the past price of the retailer is used as reference.
We propose that the predicted effects will be attributable to the different perceptions of prevention- and promotion-focused consumers about tensile price claims on the two dimensions of hedonic values and perceived risks. To test this underlying mechanism, we posit the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2-1: When the goal of the maximal price claims is accomplished, consumers with promotion focus will perceive a higher degree of hedonic value than those with prevention focus. On the other hand, when the goal of the minimal price claims is accomplished, consumers with prevention focus will feel happier than those with promotion focus. However, this interaction effect will be more pronounced when the competitor’s price is used as reference compared to when the past price of the retailer is used as reference.
Hypothesis 2-2: For the maximal price claims, consumers with prevention focus will perceive higher risks than those with promotion focus, whereas for the minimal price claims, consumers with promotion focus will perceive higher risks than those with prevention focus. However, this interaction effect will be more pronounced when the competitor’s price is used as reference compared to when the past price of the retailer is used as reference.
To test the hypotheses, a 2 (tensile price claims: maximal vs. minimal) x reference (past vs. competitor) x regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) between-subjects full-factorial experiment was conducted with 198 student subjects. We produced four types of print advertisement in which tensile price claims and references were manipulated; “up to maximum 40% discount from past price”, “up to maximum 40% discount from competitor' price”, “discount from minimum 10% or more compared to past price”, “minimum 10% discount or more compared to competitor's price”. We manipulated regulatory focus of the participants by adopting Liberman, Molden, Idson, and Higgins (2001)’s priming method.
Dependent variables were perceived savings (‘make me not save – make me save more’, ‘make customers not save – make customers save a lot’, ‘very low discount – very high discount’), perceived value of the deal (‘buying clothes from advertised store is very valuable’, ‘suggested discount rate is very economical’, ‘buying from advertised store is a good decision’, ‘the discount rate of advertised store is acceptable’, ‘advertised store sells clothes by cheap price’), attitude toward the deal (‘favorable - unfavorable', ‘bad - good', ‘poor - excellent'), purchase intention (‘willing to visit another store’ and ‘willing to purchase in the advertised store’). Two variables for the proposed mechanism were included: Hedonic value was measured on ‘not happy at all – very happy’, ‘not convenient at all – very convenient’, ‘never lucky – very lucky,’ and perceived risk was on ‘worry about quality’ and ‘it may have disorder on function’.
The MANOVA and ANOVA analyses produced significant three-way interactions of tensile price claims, regulatory focus, and reference. To examine the nature of the interactions, a series of the planned contrasts were performed. As expected in Hypothesis 1, for all dependent variables, the interaction between tensile price claims and regulatory focus was significant when a competitor’s price was used as reference. However, when the past price of the retailer was presented as reference, the interaction effect was not found. Specifically, for maximal price claims, promotion-focused consumers responded more positively than prevention-focused consumers, whereas for minimal price claims prevention-focused consumers showed more positive responses than promotion-focused consumers. However, the moderating effects of regulatory focus were manifested only when the competitor's price was used as reference, but were not reported when the past price of the retailer was used as reference. As to the underlying mechanism, the three-way interaction was significant for both hedonic value and perceived risk. The mediation tests and sobel tests confirmed the mediating role of hedonic value and perceived risk (marginal and partial).
The findings of this research contribute to the literature as one of the few attempts to examine price discount from a motivational perspective (e.g., regulatory focus). In addition, the more interesting and intriguing finding is that the moderating effect of regulatory focus on consumer responses toward tensile price claims was only found when a competitor was used as reference, not when the past price of the retailer was used as reference. It suggests that consumers do not recognize the information value of the past price as reference in a discriminating way, especially related to their regulatory focus.
This research also offers useful practical implications for marketing managers. First, to maximize the effects of the maximal (vs. minimal) price claims, they should target consumers with high on promotion focus (vs. prevention focus), and can consider providing a customized advertisement in line with consumers’ regulatory focus. Second, the consumption motives of customers may differ by products or brands (e.g., anti-aging cream vs. skin improvement cream; toothpaste for cavity prevention vs. whitening toothpaste). Thus it will be more effective to use maximal (minimal) price claims for promotion-oriented (prevention-oriented) products or brands. In addition, the regulatory focus of consumers who are exposed to the tensile price claims can be temporally primed accordingly. These strategies should be used in along with the competitor reference to maximize their effects.
기회주의적 유통망에 대한 네거티브 관리 전략: 게임이론적 접근
23 페이지
