Do Fit Opinions Matter? The Impact of Fit Context on Online Product Returns

Product fit uncertainty is cited as one of the top reasons for high online product return rates. Fit describes how well a product suits a consumer’s needs. The value of a product drops sharply when it deviates from a customer’s ideal fit. In this study, we focus on ordinal fit, a type of fit attribute that can be ordered on a scale, e.g. the size of apparel, and the difficulty level of courses. By leveraging a change in the product review system at an online retailer, we examine the impacts of two types of fit information – fit valence (an overall evaluation of a product’s ordinal-fit attribute) and fit reference (a reviewer’s ordinal-fit attribute and her choice of the product’s fit attribute) – on returns of apparel goods. Using the lens of advice-taking, we reveal the important role of the context of fit opinions (i.e. fit reference) in facilitating shoppers to better interpret fit valence by enabling effective ordinal-fit adjustment and, consequently, reducing product returns. We employ a predictive analytics framework for counterfactual prediction via the Generalized Synthetic Control method to address endogeneity issues and shed light on the dynamic treatment effect. Our findings indicate that fit valence alone can lower product returns only in a limited situation – when the majority of reviewers agree on the fit valence. In other cases – when either the fit valences are inconsistent or far and few between, it is the combination of fit valence and fit reference that lowers product returns. With the availability of both types of fit information, similar reviewers play an important role in helping improve the accuracy in ordinal-fit adjustments. Yet, albeit less effective, information from reviewers with dissimilar body sizes can also help make useful ordinal-fit adjustments. Besides, shoppers appear to benefit from both positive and negative fit valences, as long as they are aided by fit reference. Our empirical insights are relevant to many situations where ordinal-fit attributes dominate consumers’ product evaluation process. Accordingly, we provide useful implications for online sellers grappling with high product return rates.

[1]  Ilan Yaniv,et al.  The Wisdom of Crowds in Matters of Taste , 2017, Manag. Sci..

[2]  Jianqing Chen,et al.  Product Reviews : Implications for Retailers and Competing Manufacturers , 2013 .

[3]  Yili Hong,et al.  Product Fit Uncertainty in Online Markets: Nature, Effects and Antecedents , 2014, Inf. Syst. Res..

[4]  J. Bai,et al.  Panel Data Models With Interactive Fixed Effects , 2009 .

[5]  Ilan Yaniv,et al.  Receiving Other People's Advice: Influence and Benefit , 2004 .

[6]  Keying Ye,et al.  Applied Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference From Incomplete-Data Perspectives , 2005, Technometrics.

[7]  Pradeep Chintagunta,et al.  The Effects of Online User Reviews on Movie Box Office Performance: Accounting for Sequential Rollout and Aggregation Across Local Markets , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[8]  Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis,et al.  Estimating the Helpfulness and Economic Impact of Product Reviews: Mining Text and Reviewer Characteristics , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[9]  Beibei Li,et al.  Designing Ranking Systems for Hotels on Travel Search Engines by Mining User-Generated and Crowd-Sourced Content , 2011, Mark. Sci..

[10]  Yiqing Xu Generalized Synthetic Control Method: Causal Inference with Interactive Fixed Effects Models , 2016, Political Analysis.

[11]  Angelika Dimoka,et al.  On Product Uncertainty in Online Markets: Theory and Evidence , 2011, MIS Q..

[12]  Ravi Bapna,et al.  Love Unshackled: Identifying the Effect of Mobile App Adoption in Online Dating , 2018, MIS Q..

[13]  Lorin M. Hitt,et al.  Self Selection and Information Role of Online Product Reviews , 2007, Inf. Syst. Res..

[14]  P. Austin,et al.  Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies , 2010, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[15]  Samuel D. Bond,et al.  Word-of-mouth and the forecasting of consumption enjoyment , 2013 .

[16]  Chrysanthos Dellarocas,et al.  The Impact of Online Product Reviews on Product Returns , 2018, Inf. Syst. Res..

[17]  Tom Fawcett,et al.  Data science for business , 2013 .

[18]  Anindya Ghose,et al.  Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets , 2008, Inf. Syst. Res..

[19]  Richard P. Larrick,et al.  Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[20]  W. G. Cochran The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. , 1968, Biometrics.

[21]  K. Lancaster,et al.  Consumer Demand. A New Approach. , 1972 .

[22]  Tammo H. A. Bijmolt,et al.  The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth on Sales: A Meta-Analytic Review of Platform, Product, and Metric Factors , 2016 .

[23]  Andrew Whinston,et al.  The Dynamics of Online Word-of-Mouth and Product Sales: An Empirical Investigation of the Movie Industry , 2008 .

[24]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Design: Creation of Artifacts in Society , 2011 .

[25]  Tammo H. A. Bijmolt,et al.  To Keep or Not to Keep: Effects of Online Customer Reviews on Product Returns , 2016 .

[26]  Ying Liu,et al.  The Value of Multi-Dimensional Rating Systems: Evidence from a Natural Experiment and Randomized Experiments , 2017, Manag. Sci..

[27]  Sang Pil Han,et al.  Battle of the Channels: The Impact of Tablets on Digital Commerce , 2015, Manag. Sci..

[28]  Jeffrey M. Woodbridge Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2002 .

[29]  Jens Hainmueller,et al.  Comparative Politics and the Synthetic Control Method: COMPARATIVE POLITICS AND THE SYNTHETIC CONTROL METHOD , 2015 .

[30]  Ilan Yaniv,et al.  Receiving advice on matters of taste: Similarity, majority influence, and taste discrimination , 2011 .

[31]  Gary King,et al.  Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference , 2007, Political Analysis.

[32]  G. Imbens,et al.  The Propensity Score with Continuous Treatments , 2005 .

[33]  Richard P. Larrick,et al.  Strategies for revising judgment: how (and how well) people use others' opinions. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[34]  Karsten Hansen,et al.  The Option Value of Returns: Theory and Empirical Evidence , 2009, Mark. Sci..

[35]  Paul R Rosenbaum,et al.  Combining propensity score matching and group-based trajectory analysis in an observational study. , 2007, Psychological methods.

[36]  Mohammad S. Rahman,et al.  Product-Oriented Web Technologies and Product Returns: An Exploratory Study , 2013, Inf. Syst. Res..

[37]  The Effectiveness of International Aid: A Generalized Propensity Score Analysis , 2014 .

[38]  Ravi Bapna,et al.  Monetizing Freemium Communities: Does Paying for Premium Increase Social Engagement? , 2016, MIS Q..

[39]  Sunil Wattal,et al.  Show Me the Way to Go Home: An Empirical Investigation of Ride-Sharing and Alcohol Related Motor Vehicle Fatalities , 2017, MIS Q..

[40]  G. Imbens The Role of the Propensity Score in Estimating Dose-Response Functions , 1999 .

[41]  Monic Sun,et al.  How Does the Variance of Product Ratings Matter? , 2010, Manag. Sci..