The Journal of Economics, Marketing and Management (융합경영연구)

International Convergence Management Association (국제융합경영학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

For the Success of Smart Product Bundling: Complementarity Level and Advertising Strategy

  • LEE, Juyon (Institute of Management Research, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2022.02.26
  • Accepted : 2022.02.28
  • Published : 2022.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigates how to successfully promote the smart product bundle by exploring (1) how consumers' adoption intention toward a smart product bundle differs by the complementarity level of the bundled items and (2) how the ad appeal type influences the effect of complementarity level on adoption intention via goal fluency. Research design, data and methodology: This study was a 2 (complementarity level: low vs. high) × 2 (ad appeal type: attribute vs. benefit) between-subjects experiment. The proposed hypotheses were verified using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and bootstrap analysis using PROCESS. Results: This research demonstrated that adoption intention toward smart products increases when the complementarity level of bundled smart items is high. Goal fluency underlies this relationship. Further, attribute versus benefit appeal type moderates the relationship between the complementarity level and goal fluency. Conclusions: Compared with the attribute appeal, benefit appeal leads to higher goal fluency when the complementarity level of the bundled items is low. However, there was no differential impact of appeal type on goal fluency when the complementarity level of bundled items is high. Finally, goal fluency mediated the interaction of complementarity level × ad appeal type on adoption intention.

Keywords

References

  1. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
  2. Barsalou, L.W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11(3), 211-227. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196968
  3. Brewer, M.B., & Crano, W. D. (2000). Research design and issues of validity, Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (pp.3-16), New York: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Chernev, A. (2005). Feature complementarity and assortment in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 748-759. https://doi.org/10.1086/426608
  5. Dahl, D. W., Chattopadhyay, A., & Gorn, G. J. (1999).The use of visual mental imagery in new product design. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 18-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379903600102
  6. De Bellis, E., & Johar, G. V. (2020). Autonomous shopping systems: Identifying and overcoming barriers to consumer adoption. Journal of Retailing, 96(1), 74-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.12.004
  7. Fortune Business Insight (2021a). Internet of Things (IoT) market size, share and COVID-19 impact analysis, by component (platform, solution and services), by end-use industry (BFSI, retail, government, healthcare, manufacturing, agriculture, sustainable energy, transportation, IT & telecom, others), and regional forecast, 2021-2028. Retrieved December 18, 2021, from https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/internet-of-things-iot-market-100307.
  8. Fortune Business Insight (2021b). IoT market to reach $1,854.76 billion by 2028; Microsoft collaborates with Cisco to integrate Azure platform and strengthen growth. Retrieved December 18, 2021, from https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/pressrelease/internet-of-things-iot-market-9155.
  9. Gibbert, M., & Mazursky, D. (2009). How successful would a phone-pillow be: Using dual process theory to predict the success of hybrids involving dissimilar products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 652-660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.05.014
  10. Goodstein, R.C. (1993). Category-based applications and extensions in advertising: motivating more extensive ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1086/209335
  11. Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization process. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60-72. https://doi.org/10.2307/3203341
  12. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [white paper], Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
  13. Hernandez, J. M. C., Wright, S. A., & Rodrigues, F. F. (2015). Attributes versus benefits: The role of construal levels and appeal type on the persuasiveness of marketing messages. Journal of Advertising. 44(3), 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2014.967425
  14. Hoeffler, S. (2003). Measuring preferences for really new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 406-420. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.40.4.406.19394
  15. Hopp, C., Antons, D., Kaminski, J., & Salge, T. O. (2018). Disruptive innovation: conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and research opportunities in the digital age. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 35(3), 446-457. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12448
  16. Jiang, Z., Guan, C., & de Haaji, I. L. (2020). Congruity and processing fluency: An analysis on the effectiveness of the embedded online video advertising. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 32(5), 1070-1088. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2019-0128
  17. Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2010). Price-framing effects on the purchase of hedonic and utilitarian bundles. Journal of Marketing Research. 43(3), 374-385. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.374
  18. Labroo, A., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). Between two brands: A goal fluency account of brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 374-385. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.374
  19. Lamberton, C. P., & Diehl, K. (2013). Retail choice architecture: the effects of benefit- and attribute-based assortment organization on consumer perception and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 393-411. https://doi.org/10.1086/671103
  20. Lattin, J. M., & McAlister, L. (1985). Using a variety -seeking model to identify substitute and complementary relationship among competing products. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(3), 330-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151429
  21. Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.2.151.28665
  22. Lee, Y., & O'Connor, G. C. (2003). New product launch strategy for network effects products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 241-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303031003003
  23. Ma, Z., Gill, T., & Jiang, Y. (2015). Core versus peripheral innovations: The effect of innovation locus on consumer adoption of new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(3), 309-244. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0337
  24. Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 361-367. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172593
  25. Mani, Z., & Chouk, I. (2017). Drivers of consumers' resistance to smart products. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(1-2), 76-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1245212
  26. Martin, I. M., & Stewart, D. W. (2001). The differential impact of goal congruency on attitudes, intentions, and the transfer of brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(4), 471-484. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.4.471.18912
  27. Mathew, V., & Thomas, S. (2018). Direct and indirect effect of brand experience on true brand loyalty: Role of involvement. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 30(3), 725-748. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjml-08-2017-0189
  28. Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1086/209192
  29. Mueller, M. L., Tauber, S. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency to the effect of relatedness on judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(2), 378-384. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0343-6
  30. Noseworthy, T. J., & Trudel, R. (2011). Looks interesting, but what does it do? Evaluation of incongruent product form depends on positioning. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(6), 1008-1019. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0384
  31. Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1981). Familiarity and its impact on consumer decision biases and heuristics. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1086/208859
  32. Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Composite branding alliances: An investigation of extension and feedback effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 453-466.
  33. Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 64-88.
  34. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
  35. Raff, S., Wentzel, D., & Obwegeser, N. (2020). Smart products: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research directions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(5), 379-404. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12544
  36. Ratneshwar, S., Pechmann, C., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Goal-derived categories and the antecedents of across-category consideration. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 240-250. https://doi.org/10.1086/209480
  37. Ratneshwar, S., Barsalou, L. W., Pechmann, C., & Moorem M. (2001). Goal-derived categories: The role of personal and situational goal in category representations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(3), 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1003_3
  38. Reinders, M. J., Frambach, R. T., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2010). Using product bundling to facilitate the adoption process of radical innovations. Journal of Product Innovation and Management, 27(7), 1127-1140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00775.x
  39. Rijsdijk, S. A., Hultnik, E. J., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2007). Product intelligence. Its conceptualization, measurement and impact on consumer satisfaction, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(3), 340-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0040-6
  40. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
  41. Samu, S., H. Shanker, K., & Smith, R. E. (1999). Using advertising alliances for new product introduction: Interactions between product complementarity and promotional strategies. Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252001
  42. Stremersch, S., & Tellis, G. J. (2002). Strategic bundling of products and prices: A new synthesis for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.1.55.18455
  43. Valencia, A., Mugge, R., Schoormans, J. P. L., & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2015). The design of smart product-service systems (PSSs): An exploration of design characteristics. International Journal of Design, 9(1), 13-28.
  44. Van Osselaer, s. M. J., & Janiszewski, C. (2012). A goal-based model of product evaluation and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 260-292. https://doi.org/10.1086/662643
  45. Yan, R., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2011). The profit benefits of bundling pricing of complementary products. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(4), 355-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.04.001
  46. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341-352. https://doi.org/10.1086/208520
  47. Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Dahl, D. W. (2012). Imagination difficulty and new product evaluation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(S1), 76-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00951.x