IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/doi10.1086-661893.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

$29 for 70 Items or 70 Items for $29? How Presentation Order Affects Package Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Rajesh Bagchi
  • Derick F. Davis

Abstract

When consumers consider a package (multi-item) price, which presentation order is more appealing, price first ($29 for 70 items) or item quantity first (70 items for $29)? Will this depend on package size (larger [70 items] vs. smaller [7 items]) or unit price calculation difficulty (higher [$29 for 70 items] vs. lower [$20 for 50 items])? Why? Three studies demonstrate how presentation order affects package evaluations and choice under different levels of package size and unit price calculation difficulty. The first piece of information becomes salient and affects evaluations when packages are larger and unit price calculations are difficult (i.e., price-item [item-price] makes price [items] salient, negatively [positively] affecting evaluations). These effects do not persist with smaller packages or easier unit price calculations. Our findings contribute to several literatures (e.g., numerosity, computational difficulty) but primarily to the order effects literature and have implications for measurement and practice (e.g., pricing).

Suggested Citation

  • Rajesh Bagchi & Derick F. Davis, 2012. "$29 for 70 Items or 70 Items for $29? How Presentation Order Affects Package Perceptions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(1), pages 62-73.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:doi:10.1086/661893
    DOI: 10.1086/661893
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/661893
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/661893
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/661893?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:972-988 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Dominique-Ferreira, Sérgio, 2017. "How important is the strategic order of product attribute presentation in the non-life insurance market?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 138-144.
    3. Mario Herberz & Tobias Brosch & Ulf J. J. Hahnel, 2020. "Kilo what? Default units increase value sensitivity in joint evaluations of energy efficiency," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 972-988, November.
    4. Jun Yao & Harmen Oppewal & Di Wang, 2020. "Cheaper and smaller or more expensive and larger: how consumers respond to unit price increase tactics that simultaneously change product price and package size," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 1075-1094, November.
    5. Santana, Shelle & Thomas, Manoj & Morwitz, Vicki G., 2020. "The Role of Numbers in the Customer Journey," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 138-154.
    6. Tingchi Liu, Matthew & Phau, Ian & Teah, Min, 2017. "“First in first out†or “last in first out†: Presentation of information order on evaluation of utilitarian products," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 148-155.
    7. Yang, Bi & Li, Shanshi & Chen, Zhenyu & Mattila, Anna S., 2023. "Consumer responses to time-based sales messages," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. C. Lembregts & M. Pandelaere, 2012. "Are All Units Created Equal?: The Effect of Default Units on Product Evaluations," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 12/812, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    9. repec:oup:jecgeo:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:363-381. is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Manoj Thomas, 2013. "Commentary on behavioral price research: the role of subjective experiences in price cognition," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 3(3), pages 141-145, September.
    11. Hung, Hui-Hsi & Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Yu, Annie Pei-I & Lin, Yu-Ting, 2021. "Consistent price endings increase consumers perceptions of cheapness," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    12. Septianto, Felix & Lee, Michael SW. & Putra, Pragea Geldoffy, 2021. "Everyday “low price†or everyday “value†? The interactive effects of framing and construal level on consumer purchase intentions," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    13. Davis, Derick F. & Bagchi, Rajesh & Block, Lauren G., 2016. "Alliteration Alters: Phonetic Overlap in Promotional Messages Influences Evaluations and Choice," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 1-12.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:jconrs:doi:10.1086/661893. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    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.