Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
Korean Academic Society of Business Administration
[ Article ]
korean management review - Vol. 46, No. 1, pp.267-286
ISSN: 1226-1874 (Print)
Print publication date 28 Feb 2017
Received 03 Oct 2016 Accepted 14 Dec 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17287/kmr.2017.46.1.267

특별판 제품의 구매목적과 한정판매 방식이 제품 평가에 미치는 영향

서상윤*
*(주저자) 경남대학교 경영학부 syseo@kyungnam.ac.kr
The Interaction Effect of Scarcity Message and Purpose to Buy on the Special Edition Product’s Evaluation
Sang Yun Seo*
*Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of Business Administration, Kyungnam University, First Author

초록

희소성 메시지의 효과에 대한 이전 연구들은 한정기간판매(LTS) 메시지 보다 한정수량판매(LQS) 메시지가 구매의도에 보다 더 영향을 미친다거나, 효과적임을 주장하였다. 그러나 본 연구에서는 소비자의 특별판 제품 구매 목적에 따라 한정수량판매와 한정기간판매 방식이 구매의도에 미치는 영향은 서로 차이가 있음을 시나리오 실험을 통해서 보여준다. 시나리오 실험은 2(구매목적: 사용목적 vs 수집목적)×2(한정판매 방식: 한정수량 vs 한정기간)로 진행되었으며, 실험 참가자들의 독특성 욕구를 측정하여 독특성 욕구 정도에 따른 조절효과에 대해서도 추가적으로 살펴보았다. 실험결과 특별판 제품을 사용하기 위해 구매하고자 하는 경우 한정기간판매 일 때 보다 한정수량판매일 때 제품 매력도 및 구매의도가 높게 나타났으며, 특별판 제품을 수집하기 위해 구매하고자 하는 경우에는 한정기간판매 방식이 한정수량판매 방식 일 때 보다 제품 매력도 및 구매의도가 높게 나타났다. 그리고 이러한 한정판매 방식과 소비자의 구매목적에 따른 제품 매력도와 구매의도의 상호작용 효과는 소비자의 독특성 욕구에 따라 서로 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다.

Abstract

In this article we examine differences in the impact of scarcity appeal types and purpose to buy a special edition product on consumers with varying levels of need for uniqueness (NFU). We used a 2 (scarcity appeal: limited quantity scarcity vs limited time scarcity) × 2 (purpose to buy: to use vs to collect) × 2 (need for uniqueness: low vs high) between-subjects experimental design for this study. The first two variables (scarcity appeal and purpose to buy) were manipulated using scenarios and NFU was measured. A total of 203 adults (male: 58%, mean age 31.3 years) participated in the experiment. All the participants were randomly assigned to one of the four between-subjects conditions.

As a cover story, the participants were told that they were completing a scenario study. The participants were asked to read the scenario, and then to imagine that they were planning to buy the Rio 2016 olympics special edition running shoes. Two different kinds of scarcity message appealing limited quantity and limited time were created. The wording used to manipulate scarcity condition stated “only 100,000 pairs limited stocks” and “only available during the Rio 2016 olympics”. In addition, purpose to buy the special edition shoes was manipulated by wording statements “to use” or “to collect”. All other elements were held constant across both conditions.

After reading the scenarios, the participants answered the dependent variables along with manipulation check question. Both limited quantity scarcity (hereafter LQS) and limited time scarcity (hereafter LTS) manipulation was checked by one item: “How they feel the competition is strong.” The item had end points of 1 = very weak and 7 = very strong. The dependent variables were measured using two items on a seven-point scale, namely the extent to which the participant considered the special edition running shoes to be attractive and to have purchase intention. After this, the participants answered some questions, following which they completed the NFU scale by Tian, Bearden & Hunter(2001), and other demographic variables. Reliability for the NFU scales were satisfactory (α=.728).

The manipulation check item was tested across scarcity appeal conditions using t-test. Results showed that the perceived competition in LQS and LTS condition was insignificantly different (LQS=5.13, LTS=5.06; t= .347, p < .729). Hence, scarcity manipulation is successful.

A 2 (type of scarcity appeal: LQS vs LTS) × 2 (purpose to buy: to use vs to collect) between-subjects ANOVA was used to examine interaction effect in terms of attractiveness and purchase intention. For attractiveness, the two-way interaction between the scarcity type and purpose to buy was not significant, F (1, 198)=1.184, p > .278. However, for purchase intention, the two-way interaction between the scarcity type and purpose to buy was significant, F (1,198)=5.315, p < .02. Specifically, in order to collect the special edition running shoes, the LTS showed higher purchase intention than the LQS (LTS= 5.20 vs LQS=4.56), while in order to use the special edition running shoes the LQS showed higher purchase intention than LTS (LTS= 4.53 vs LQS=4.88).

In addition, a 2 (scarcity appeal: limited quantity scarcity vs limited time scarcity) × 2 (purpose to buy: to use vs to collect) × 2 (need for uniqueness: low vs high) between-subjects ANOVA was conducted on attractiveness and purchase intention to investigate the moderating role of NFU. All subjects are classified into either the high NFU group or the low NFU group by the midpoint value of 4 point in the NFU scales.

For attractiveness, the three-way interaction effect was marginally significant, F(1,195)= 3.604, p < .059. Specifically, for low NFU individuals, the LQS and LTS showed similar levels of product attractiveness between the types of purpose to buy (to collect: LQS=4.67 vs LTS= 4.65, to use: LQS= 4.49 vs LTS=4.50). However, for high NFU individuals, the LQS showed higher attractiveness than the LTS when buying the special edition in order to use (LQS= 5.85 vs LTS=4.62). While the LTS showed higher attractiveness than the LQS when buying the special edition in order to collect (LQS= 5.14 vs LTS=5.63).

For purchase intention, the three-way interaction was significant, F(1,195)=5.037, p < .026. Specifically, for low NFU individuals, the interaction between types of scarcity and purpose to buy was insignificant (to collect: LQS=4.53 LTS=4.79, to use: LQS=4.56, LTS=4.45), while for high NFU individuals, the interaction was significant (to collect: LQS=4.64 LTS=6.06, to use: LQS=5.85, LTS=4.77).

This research makes theoretical contributions to scarcity message studies by examining the relative effect of limited quantity scarcity message and limited time scarcity message on the special edition product depending on purpose to buy (to use vs to collect). The most significant finding of this study is that the LTS and LQS message have different effects on product’s attractiveness and consumer’s purchase intention across different purpose to buy the special edition product. This study shows that the Aggarwal et al.(2011)’s argument that LQS message is more effective in enhancing consumer’s response than LTS message is acceptable only when consumers buy the special edition product in order to use, however the argument is unacceptable when consumers intend to buy the special edition product in order to collect. In addition to interaction between the types of scarcity appeal and purpose to buy, consumer’s need for uniqueness moderate the interaction effects between these factors on product’s attractiveness and consumer’s purchase intention.

Keywords:

special edition, limited quantity scarcity, limited time scarcity, purpose to buy, need for uniqueness

키워드:

특별판 제품, 한정수량판매, 한정기간판매, 구매목적, 독특성 욕구

Acknowledgments

이 연구결과물은 2016년도 경남대학교 신진교수연구비 지원에 의한 것임

References

  • 이재용·이철성·이호배(2012), “가격할인제품 판매에서의 희소성 메시지 효과 -수량한정 및 시간한정 가격할인을 중심으로,” 경영학연구, 41(6), 1591-1618.
  • 전성률·허종호·김헌동(2004), “희소성 메시지의 유형이 소비자의 구매의도에 미치는 효과에 관한 연구,” 마케팅연구, 19(2), 71-90.
  • Aggarwal, P., S. Y. Jun, and J. H. Huh(2011), “Scarcity Messages: A Consumer Competition Perspective,” Journal of Advertising, 40(3), 19-30. [https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367400302]
  • Aggarwal, P., and R. Vaidyanathan(2003), “Use It or Lose It: Purchase Acceleration Effects of Time-Limited Promotions,” Journal of Consumer Behavior, 2(4), 393-403. [https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.116]
  • Amaldoss, W., and S. Jain(2005), “Pricing of Conspicuous Goods: A Competitive Analysis of Social Effects,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 30-42. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.1.30.56883]
  • Bearden, W. O., and R. L. Rose(1990), “Attention to Social Comparison Information: An Individual Difference Factor Affecting Consumer Conformity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16(4), 461-471. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209231]
  • Belk, R. W.(1985), “Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 265-280. [https://doi.org/10.1086/208515]
  • Berger, J., and C. Heath(2008), “Who Drives Divergence? Identity Signaling, Outgroup Dissimilarity, and the Abandonment of Cultural Tastes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 593−607. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.593]
  • Cheema, A., and A. M. Kaikati(2010), “The Effect of Need for Uniqueness on Word of Mouth,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 553-563. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.3.553]
  • Cialdini, R. B.(2008), Influence: Science and Practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
  • Dowling, G. R., and R. Staelin(1994), “A Model of Perceived Risk and Risk Handling Activities,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 119-134. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209386]
  • Eisend, M.(2008), “Explaining the Impact of Scarcity Appeals in Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 33-40. [https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367370303]
  • Fromkin, H. L., and C. R. Snyder(1980), “The Search for Uniqueness and Valuation of Scarcity: Neglected Dimensions of Value Exchange Theory,” In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis(Eds.), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research(pp. 57-75), New York: Plenum Press. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_3]
  • Fromkin, H. L.(1970), "Effects of Experimentally Aroused Feelings of Undistinctiveness upon Valuation of Scarce and Novel Experiences,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(3), 521-529. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030059]
  • Fromkin, H. L.(1972), “Feelings of Interpersonal Undistinctiveness: An Unpleasant Affective State,” Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6(1), 178-185.
  • Gierl, H., M. Plantsch, and J. Schweidler(2008), “Scarcity Effects on Sales Volume in Retail,” International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18(1), 45-61. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09593960701778077]
  • Gierl, H., and V. Huettl(2010), “Are Scarce Products Always More Attractive? The Interaction of Different Types of Scarcity Signals with Products' Suitability for Conspicuous Consumption,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 225-235. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.002]
  • Grubb, E. L., and G. L. Harrison(1967), “Consumer Self-concept, Symbolism, and Market Behavior: A Theoretical Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 31(4), 22-27 . [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224296703100405]
  • Han, Y. J., J. C. Nunes, and X. Drèze(2010), “Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence,” Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15-30. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.4.15]
  • Jang, W. S., Y. J. Ko,, J. D. Morris, and Y. H. Chang (2015), “Scarcity Message Effects on Consumption Behavior: Limited Edition Product Considerations,” Psychology & Marketing, 32(10), 989-1001. [https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20836]
  • Jung, J. M., and J. J. Kellaris(2004), “Cross-National Differences in Proneness to Scarcity Effects: The Moderating Role of Familiarity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Need for Cognitive Closure,” Psychology & Marketing, 21(9), 739-753. [https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20027]
  • Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch, and R. H. Thaler(1990), “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem,” Journal of Political Economy. 98(6), 1325-1348. [https://doi.org/10.1086/261737]
  • Knetsch, J. L., and J. A. Sinden(1984), “Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value,” Qurterly Journal of Economics, 99(3), 507-521. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1885962]
  • Knetsch, J.(1989), “The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Non-Reversible Indifference Curves,” American Economic Review, 79(5), 1277-1284.
  • Knishinsky, A.(1982), “The Effects of Scarcity of Material and Exclusivity of Information on Industrial Buyer Perceived Risk in Provoking a Purchase Decision,” Ph. D. Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
  • Kron, J.(1983), Home-Psych: The Social Psychology of Home and Decoration, New York: Potter.
  • Ku, H. H., C. C. Kuo, and T. W. Kuo(2012), “The Effect of Scarcity on the Purchase Intentions of Prevention and Promotion Motivated Consumers,” Psychology & Marketing, 29(8), 541-548. [https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20541]
  • Lascu, D. N., and G. Zinkhan(1999), “Consumer Conformity: Review and Applications for Marketing Theory and Practice,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 1-12. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.1999.11501836]
  • Lynn, M., and J. Harris(1997), “The Desire for Unique Consumer Products: A New Individual Differences Scale,” Psychology & Marketing, 14(6), 601-616. [https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199709)14:6<601::AID-MAR5>3.0.CO;2-B]
  • McAlister, L., and A. E. Pessemier(1982), “Variety-Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 311-322. [https://doi.org/10.1086/208926]
  • Moeller, S.(2010), “Characteristics of Services – A New Approach Uncovers their Value,” Journal of Services Marketing, 24(5). 359-368. [https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041011060468]
  • Petty, R. E., D. T. Wegener, and L. R. Fabrigar (1997), “Attitudes and Attitude Change,” Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609-647. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.609]
  • Roy, Rajat, and P. Sharma(2015), “Scarcity Appeal in Advertising: Exploring the Moderating Roles of Need for Uniqueness and Message Framing,” Journal of Advertising, 44(4), 349-359. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1018459]
  • Ruvio, A., A. Shoham, and M. M. Brencic(2008), “Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness: Short-Form Scale Development and Cross-Cultural Validation,” International Marketing Review, 25(1), 33-53. [https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330810851872]
  • Schindler, R. M.(1998), “Consequences of Perceiving Oneself as Responsible for Obtaining a Discount: Evidence for Smart-Shopper Feelings,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(4), 371-392. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0704_04]
  • Simonson, I., and M. S. Nowlis(2000), “The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 49-68. [https://doi.org/10.1086/314308]
  • Simonson, I.(1992), “The Influence of Anticipating Regret and Responsibility on Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 105-118. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209290]
  • Snyder, C. R., and J. R. Endelman(1979), “Effects of Degree of Interpersonal Similarity on Physical Distance and Self-Reported Attraction: A Comparison of Uniqueness and Reinforcement Theory Predictions,” Journal of Personality, 47(3), 492-505. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1979.tb00628.x]
  • Snyder, C. R.(1992), “Product Scarcity by Need for Uniqueness Interaction: A Consumer Catch-22 Carousel?,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 9-24. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1301_3]
  • Stock, A., and S. Balachander(2005), “The Making of a “Hot Product”: A Signaling Explanation of Marketers' Scarcity Strategy,” Management Science, 51(8), 1181-1192. [https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0381]
  • Sundie, J. M., D. T. Kenrick, V. Griskevicius, J. M. Tybur, K. D. Vohs, and D. J. Beal(2011), “Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous Consumption as a Sexual Signaling System,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 664-680. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021669]
  • Swami, S., and P. J. Khairnar(2006), “Optimal Normative Policies for Marketing of Products with Limited Availability,” Annals of Operations Research, 143(1), 107-121. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-006-7375-0]
  • Snyder, C. R., and L. H. Fromkin(1980), Uniqueness: The Human Pursuit of Difference, New York: Plenum. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3659-4]
  • Taylor, J. W.(1974), “The Role of Risk in Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 54-60. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297403800211]
  • Thaler, R.(1980), “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39-60. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7]
  • Tian, K. T., O. W. Bearden, and L. G. Hunter(2001), “Consumers Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50-66. [https://doi.org/10.1086/321947]
  • Verhallen, T. M. M., and H. S. J. Robben(1994), “Scarcity and Preference: An Experiment on Unavailability and Product Evaluation,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 15(2), 315-331. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(94)90007-8]

• 저자 서상윤은 현재 경남대학교 경영학부 마케팅 전공 조교수로 재직 중이다. 경희대학교 경영대학 경영학부를 졸업하였고, 동 대학교에서 경영학석사와 박사를 취득하였다. 박사 학위 취득 이후에는 San Diego State University 박사 후 연수과정과 경희대학교 경영연구원을 거쳐 경남대학교에 부임하였다. 주요연구분야는 Context Effect, Categorization, Segmentation, Conjoint 등이다.