IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v33y2022i3d10.1007_s11002-022-09625-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coordinating supply-related scarcity appeals with online reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Elika Kordrostami

    (Rowan University)

  • Yuping Liu-Thompkins

    (Old Dominion University)

  • Vahid Rahmani

    (Rowan University)

Abstract

Online reviews play an important role in consumer purchase decisions and have received much research attention. However, previous research has typically examined the effects of online review characteristics independent of firm marketing messages. We argue that how much average review rating influences consumers’ decisions depends on the presence of a scarcity appeal and its congruence with review volume information. Through a lab experiment and analyses of real-world data from Amazon.com, we show that claiming a product to have limited supply moves consumers toward more heuristic processing but only when review volume is consistent with the scarcity information. In contrast, when review volume is incongruent with the supply-based scarcity message, the incongruence prompts consumers to process information more carefully and reduces their reliance on review valence.

Suggested Citation

  • Elika Kordrostami & Yuping Liu-Thompkins & Vahid Rahmani, 2022. "Coordinating supply-related scarcity appeals with online reviews," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 471-484, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:33:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11002-022-09625-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-022-09625-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11002-022-09625-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-022-09625-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
    2. Das, Gopal & Mukherjee, Amaradri & Smith, Ronn J., 2018. "The Perfect Fit: The Moderating Role of Selling Cues on Hedonic and Utilitarian Product Types," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 203-216.
    3. Purnawirawan, Nathalia & Eisend, Martin & De Pelsmacker, Patrick & Dens, Nathalie, 2015. "A Meta-analytic Investigation of the Role of Valence in Online Reviews," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 17-27.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Román, Sergio & Riquelme, Isabel P. & Iacobucci, Dawn, 2023. "Fake or credible? Antecedents and consequences of perceived credibility in exaggerated online reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    2. Jungwoo Lee & Cheong Kim & Kun Chang Lee, 2021. "Investigating the Negative Effects of Emojis in Facebook Sponsored Ads for Establishing Sustainable Marketing in Social Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, April.
    3. Könsgen, Raoul & Schaarschmidt, Mario & Ivens, Stefan & Munzel, Andreas, 2018. "Finding Meaning in Contradiction on Employee Review Sites — Effects of Discrepant Online Reviews on Job Application Intentions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 165-177.
    4. Das, Gopal & Spence, Mark T. & Agarwal, James, 2021. "Social selling cues: The dynamics of posting numbers viewed and bought on customers' purchase intentions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 994-1016.
    5. Lee, Alice J. & Ames, Daniel R., 2017. "“I can’t pay more” versus “It’s not worth more”: Divergent effects of constraint and disparagement rationales in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 16-28.
    6. Suwelack, Thomas & Hogreve, Jens & Hoyer, Wayne D., 2011. "Understanding Money-Back Guarantees: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 462-478.
    7. Jong Yoon Lee & Jae Hee Park & Jong Woo Jun, 2019. "Brand Webtoon as Sustainable Advertising in Korean Consumers: A Focus on Hierarchical Relationships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-10, March.
    8. Skarmeas, Dionysis & Leonidou, Constantinos N., 2013. "When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR skepticism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1831-1838.
    9. Mark Groza & Mya Pronschinske & Matthew Walker, 2011. "Perceived Organizational Motives and Consumer Responses to Proactive and Reactive CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 639-652, September.
    10. Aaker, Jennifer L. & Brumbaugh, Anne M. & Grier, Sonya A., 2000. "Non-target Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes," Research Papers 1578, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    11. Pozharliev, Rumen & De Angelis, Matteo & Rossi, Dario & Bagozzi, Richard & Amatulli, Cesare, 2023. "I might try it: Marketing actions to reduce consumer disgust toward insect-based food," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 149-167.
    12. Shan, Wei & Qiao, Tong & Zhang, Mingli, 2020. "Getting more resources for better performance: The effect of user-owned resources on the value of user-generated content," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    13. Simonson, Itamar & Drolet, Aimee L., 2003. "Anchoring Effects on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept," Research Papers 1787, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    14. Gerrath, Maximilian H.E.E. & Usrey, Bryan, 2021. "The impact of influencer motives and commonness perceptions on follower reactions toward incentivized reviews," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 531-548.
    15. Rosbergen, Edward & Wedel, Michel & Pieters, Rik, 1997. "Analyzing visual attention tot repeated print advertising using scanpath theory," Research Report 97B32, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    16. Ryan W. Buell & Michael I. Norton, 2011. "The Labor Illusion: How Operational Transparency Increases Perceived Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1564-1579, February.
    17. Caldieraro, Fabio & Cunha, Marcus, 2022. "Consumers’ response to weak unique selling propositions: Implications for optimal product recommendation strategy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 724-744.
    18. Fennell, Patrick B. & Coleman, Joshua T. & Kuo, Andrew, 2020. "The moderating role of donation quantifiers on price fairness judgments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 464-473.
    19. Joëlle Vanhamme & Valérie Swaen & Guido Berens & Catherine Janssen, 2015. "Playing with fire: aggravating and buffering effects of ex ante CSR communication campaigns for companies facing allegations of social irresponsibility," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 565-578, December.
    20. María del Mar García‐De los Salmones & Andrea Perez, 2018. "Effectiveness of CSR Advertising: The Role of Reputation, Consumer Attributions, and Emotions," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 194-208, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:33:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11002-022-09625-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.