Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles (한국의류학회지)

The Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles (한국의류학회)
권호 표지

Price Response Function With and Without Choice Set Information in Denim Jeans Market

고려상품군의 유.무에 따른 가격반응함수의 비교연구

  • Published : 2004.10.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study is to suggest a new methodology for calibration of a continuous price response function and to compare the differences in the price response function with and without choice set information. Through the new methodology, the two-staged conjoint analysis, the continuous price response function far jeans market was calibrated. Three steps were required to complete the two-staged conjoint analysis. Step one provided respondents with both a written and a visual description of two different randomly selected styles and colors of denim jeans. In step two respondents were asked to choose the combination of attributes they intended to purchase. Based upon the literature review, these four attributes included: brand, style, price, and color. Respondents were required to assess their purchase intentions for 32 combinations by marking Yes if she/he would purchase a given combination and No if she/he would not purchase a given combination. This allowed for identification of each respondents choice set. Instructions in step three required respondents to rate each combination marked Yes on a scale of 1-100, with one as least likely to be purchased and 100 as most likely to be purchased. This value served as the dependent variable for estimating the parameters in the model. Furthermore, the empirical study shows that there is a difference in price response function with and without choice set information. Therefore, when one calibrates a price response function far a given brand, we can recommend to include choice set information in his/her research.

가격반응함수는 각 가격대별로 판매량의 변화를 추적한 함수이다. 가격에 판매량을 곱하면 판매량이 되고, 여기에 비용을 차감하면 이익이 된다. 따라서 가격반응함수는 상표나 제품의 이익을 최대로 하는 가격을 찾는 바탕이다 컨조인트분석은 고객시각에서 가격반응함수를 도출하는데 신뢰성 높은 방법으로 적극적으로 권해지고 있으나, 고려상표군을 고려하지 못한다는 단점이 지적되어 왔다 이 연구는 고려상표군을 측정할 수 있는 컨조인트분석의 한 변종으로 2단계 컨조인트분석을 개발하여 미국의 한 도시의 청바지 시장에 적용하였다. 그 결과, 고려상표군 정보를 가진 가격반응함수와 그렇지 않은 가격반응함수 간의 특정가격대별 선택확률과 가격탄력성에 차이가 발생함이 발견되었다. 고려상표군 형성이 소비자의 구매의사결정과정의 한 단계임을 고려할 때, 고려상표군 정보를 가진 가격반응함수로 소비자의 가격반응을 추적하는 것이 필요함이 이 연구를 통해 실증되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Beck, J., Hwang, S. & Lee, S. (2003), Evaluating the effect of the size of brand consideration set upon the Guten-bergs monopolistic price interval. Journal of theKorean Society of Clothing and Textile. 27(8), 1004-10l3
  2. Campbell, B. M. (1969). The existence of evoked sets and determinants of its magnitude in brand choice behav-ior, unpublished dissertation. Joint Committee on Grad-uate Instruction, Columbia University, New York, NY
  3. Davis, L. L. (1987). Consumer use of label information in ratings of clothing quality and clothing fashionability. Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 6(1), 8-14
  4. Dardis, B., Spivak, S. & Shih, C. M. (1985). Price and quality differences for imported and domestic men's dress shirts. Home Economics Research Journal, I3, 391-399
  5. Eckman, M., Damhorst, M. L. & Kapolph, S. J. (1990). Toward a model of the in-store purchase decision pro-cess: Consumer use of criteria for evaluating womens apparel. Clothing and Textile Research Journal. 8(2), 13-22
  6. Engel, J. F, Blackwell, R. D. & Miniard, P. W. (1995). Con-sumer Behavior (8th ed.). New York: Dryden Press
  7. Geurts, M. D. & Whitlark, D. (1993). Forecasting market share. Journal of Business Forecasting. 11(4), 17-22
  8. Green, P. E. & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New development with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54, 3-19
  9. Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M. & Agarwal, M. K. (1991). Adaptive Conjoint Analysis: Some caveats and sugges-tions. Journal of Marketing Research. 28. 215-222
  10. Han, S. & Vanhonacker, W. R. (1995). Reference depen-dence and loss aversion in choice set formation and brand selection. Working paper. Hong Kong University of Technology
  11. Hauser, J. R. & Wernerfelt (1990). An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. Journal of Marketing Research. 16(March), pp. 393-408
  12. Howard, J. & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons
  13. Kalyanaram, G. & Little, J. D. C. L. (1994), An empirical analysis of latitude of price acceptance consumer pack-age goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(Decem-ber), pp. 408-418
  14. Kucher, E. & Hilleke, K. (1993). Value pricing through conjoint analysis: A practical approach. European Management Journal, 11(3), 283-290
  15. Kwak, Y., Hong, J. & Beck, J. (2001). The difference in the latitude of price acceptance depending on the size of consideration set. Korean Journal of Marketing, 3(3), 25-45
  16. Kwak, Y. & Lee, J. (2002). Market segmentation with price-dependent quality evaluation in denim jeans mar-ket: Based on conjoint analysis and mixture model. Journal of the Korean Sociery of Clothing and Textile, 26(11), 1605-1614
  17. Kwak, Y., Nam, Y., Kim, Y. & Lee, J. (2002). The optimal timing of markdown: A decision model for jeans mar-ket. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Tex-tile. 26(5), 606-617
  18. Louvier, J. & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice on allocation experi-ments: An approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350-367
  19. Oh, J. & Huh, K. (1995). A Study on the Development of Jeans via Conjoint Analysis. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textile, 19(3), 448-462
  20. Park, C. S. (1994). Conjoint analysis. In Yoo, P. H. (Ed.). Modern Marketing Science. (pp. 121-185). Seoul: Bummunsa
  21. Reibstein, D., Bateson, J. E. G. & Boulding, W. (1987). Conjoint analysis reliability: Empirical findings (Report No. 87-101). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute
  22. Siddarth, S., Bucklin, R. E. & Morrison, D.G. (1995). Making the cut; Modeling and analyzing choice set restriction in scanner data. Journal of MarketingResearch, 32, 225-266
  23. Simon, H. (1989). Price Management. New York; North-Holland
  24. Shocker, A. D., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B. & Nedungadi, P. (1991). Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice issues, models, sugges-tions. Marketing Letters, 2(3), 181-197
  25. Urban, G. L. & Hauser, J. R. (1993). Design and Marketing of New Product (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-tice-Hail
  26. Weiner, J. (1994). Forecasting demand: Consumer electron-ics marketer uses a conjoint approach to configure its new product and set the right price. MarketingResearch: A Magazine of Management & Applications, 6(3), 6-11
  27. Wittink, D. R. & Cattin, P. (1989). Commercial use of con-joint analysis: An update. Journal of Marketing, 53, 91-96
  28. Wittink, D. R., Vriens, M. & Burhenne, W. (1994). Com-mercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical reflections. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11,41-52
  29. Wright, P. (1975). Consumer choice strategy: Simplifying vs. Optimizing. Journal of Marketing Research, I2(Febru-ary), pp. 60-67
  30. Yoo, P. H. (1991). Pricing Policy. Seoul: Pakyoungsa