IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Consumer Response to Versioning: How Brands’ Production Methods Affect Perceptions of Unfairness

  • Andrew D. Gershoff
  • Ran Kivetz
  • Anat Keinan
Registered author(s):

    Marketers often extend product lines by offering limited-capability models that are created by removing or degrading features in existing models. This production method, called versioning, has been lauded because of its ability to increase both consumer and firm welfare. According to rational utility models, consumers weigh benefits relative to their costs in evaluating a product. So the production method should not be relevant. Anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. Six studies show how the production method of versioning may be perceived as unfair and unethical and lead to decreased purchase intentions for the brand. Building on prior work in fairness, the studies show that this effect is driven by violations of norms and the perceived similarity between the inferior, degraded version of a product and the full-featured model offered by the brand.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by University of Chicago Press in its journal Journal of Consumer Research.

    Volume (Year): 39 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 2 ()
    Pages: 382 - 398

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:ucp:jconrs:doi:10.1086/663777
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jconrs:doi:10.1086/663777. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.