Product order affects consumer preferences for variety bundles

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of a variety bundle's product display order on consumer preferences. When forming a variety bundle, manufacturers, retailers and advertisers need to decide on the order in which their products are displayed. The authors provide empirical evidence that this apparently trivial display decision can systematically affect consumer preferences. Design/methodology/approach Four experiments were performed with over a total of 1,000 participants. Logistic regressions were conducted on the collected data sets to provide support for the hypothesis and its underlying psychological mechanism. Findings Results showed that product attitudes systematically affect choices among variety bundles that differ only in the order in which their products are displayed. When choosing among flat and horizontal variety bundles, Western consumers preferred the one that had the product they like the most to the left. This phenomenon was observed in different product categories, among left-to-right readers from different Western countries and languages, and with both hypothetical and consequential decisions. The incremental weight given to the first piece of information (i.e. “first” product in the bundle) explains this product order effect. Originality/value Although a significant amount of research has been conducted to understand the factors that affect consumer preferences for product bundles, little attention has been devoted to the role of visual aesthetics. The research addresses this gap, and in so doing contributes both to the marketing and to the visual aesthetics literature. One simple yet key implication of the product order effect documented here is that the value consumers assign to a variety bundle depends on the order in which its products are displayed.

[1]  Dipankar Chakravarti,et al.  Partitioned Presentation of Multicomponent Bundle Prices: Evaluation, Choice and Underlying Processing Effects , 2002 .

[2]  Manjit S. Yadav,et al.  Bundle evaluation in different market segments: The effects of discount framing and buyers’ preference heterogeneity , 1995 .

[3]  M. Yadav How Buyers Evaluate Product Bundles: A Model of Anchoring and Adjustment , 1994 .

[4]  C. Koch,et al.  A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention , 2000, Vision Research.

[5]  K. B. Monroe,et al.  How Buyers Perceive Savings in a Bundle Price: An Examination of a Bundle's Transaction Value: , 1993 .

[6]  Karen B. Schloss,et al.  Visual aesthetics and human preference. , 2013, Annual review of psychology.

[7]  L. Brenner,et al.  Forceful Phantom Firsts: Framing Experiences as Firsts Amplifies Their Influence on Judgment , 2014 .

[8]  Manoj. T. Thomas,et al.  Penny Wise and Pound Foolish: The Left‐Digit Effect in Price Cognition , 2005 .

[9]  Carl F. Mela,et al.  Impact of Bundle Type, Price Framing and Familiarity on Purchase Intention for the Bundle , 1995 .

[10]  Stephen E Palmer,et al.  Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: effects of position and direction on framing single objects. , 2008, Spatial vision.

[11]  I. Neath Distinctiveness and serial position effects in recognition , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[12]  Chris Janiszewski,et al.  The Influence of Price Discount Framing on the Evaluation of a Product Bundle , 2004 .

[13]  Amitava Chattopadhyay,et al.  The Offer Framing Effect: Choosing Single versus Bundled Offerings Affects Variety Seeking , 2014 .

[14]  John C. Mowen,et al.  Visual product aesthetics , 2010 .

[15]  G. d'Avossa,et al.  Cross-cultural effects on the assumed light source direction: evidence from English and Hebrew readers. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[16]  Rebecca W. Hamilton,et al.  When 2 + 2 is Not the Same as 1 + 3: Variations in Price Sensitivity across Components of Partitioned Prices , 2008 .

[17]  G. Tellis,et al.  Strategic Bundling of Products and Prices: A New Synthesis for Marketing , 2002 .

[18]  Anne Maass,et al.  Directional Bias in the Mental Representation of Spatial Events , 2003, Psychological science.

[19]  Darren W. Dahl,et al.  The good, the bad, and the ugly: Influence of aesthetics on product feature judgments , 2010 .

[20]  S. Chokron,et al.  Reading habits influence aesthetic preference. , 2000, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[21]  Sarah Linsen,et al.  Aesthetic preference for spatial composition in multiobject pictures , 2012, i-Perception.

[22]  N. Christenfeld Choices from Identical Options , 1995 .

[23]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  Shelf management and space elasticity , 1994 .

[24]  N. Anderson PRIMACY EFFECTS IN PERSONALITY IMPRESSION FORMATION USING A GENERALIZED ORDER EFFECT PARADIGM. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[25]  V. Mahajan,et al.  The design and pricing of bundles: A review of normative guidelines and practical approaches , 2009 .

[26]  P Bakan,et al.  Visual asymmetry in perception of faces. , 1973, Neuropsychologia.

[27]  Anne Maass,et al.  How Beautiful is the Goal and How Violent is the Fistfight? Spatial Bias in the Interpretation of Human Behavior , 2007 .

[28]  L. Postman,et al.  Short-term Temporal Changes in Free Recall , 1965 .

[29]  JoAndrea Hoegg,et al.  The Future Looks “Right”: Effects of the Horizontal Location of Advertising Images on Product Attitude , 2013 .

[30]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[31]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Divide and Prosper: Consumers’ Reactions to Partitioned Prices , 1998 .

[32]  J I Shaw,et al.  Centrality Preferences in Choices Among Similar Options , 2000, The Journal of general psychology.

[33]  L. Peracchio,et al.  “Curating” the JCP special issue on aesthetics in consumer psychology: An introduction to the aesthetics issue , 2010 .

[34]  M. Pandelaere,et al.  Madonna or Don McLean? The effect of order of exposure on relative liking , 2010 .

[35]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  Does In-Store Marketing Work? Effects of the Number and Position of Shelf Facings on Brand Attention and Evaluation at the Point of Purchase , 2009 .