IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/1794.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Determinants of Customers' Responses to Customized Offers: Conceptual Framework and Research Propositions

Author

Listed:
  • Simonson, Itamar

    (Stanford U)

Abstract

Over the past decade, marketers have been challenged by proponents of individual marketing (e.g., one-to-one marketing, mass customization, personalization) to shift from a focus on market segments to making individually customized offers. Specifically, marketers should develop "learning relationships" with their customers, be able to predict the customers' wants, and tailor their offerings to those preferences. Building on current knowledge regarding the manner in which customer preferences are constructed, the present research examines the basic premise of these new approaches and, specifically, the manner in which customers evaluate and respond to offers that are customized to their wants. A conceptual framework and a series of research propositions are presented regarding key determinants of customers' responses to customized offers, including (a) the characteristics of customers' preferences, (b) cues provided by the offer regarding its fit with the customers' preferences, (c) customers' receptivity to offers seen as customized to their preferences, and (d) the specific customized offer's content and format. The theoretical and practical implications of the framework and research propositions are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Simonson, Itamar, 2003. "Determinants of Customers' Responses to Customized Offers: Conceptual Framework and Research Propositions," Research Papers 1794, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1794
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/RP1794.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Heath, Timothy B, et al, 2000. "Asymmetric Competition in Choice and the Leveraging of Competitive Disadvantages," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(3), pages 291-308, December.
    3. Levin, Irwin P & Gaeth, Gary J, 1988. "How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 374-378, December.
    4. Deighton, John, 1984. "The Interaction of Advertising and Evidence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 11(3), pages 763-770, December.
    5. Itamar Simonson & Stephen Nowlis & Katherine Lemon, 1993. "The Effect of Local Consideration Sets on Global Choice Between Lower Price and Higher Quality," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 357-377.
    6. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Timothy B. Heath & Gangseog Ryu & Subimal Chatterjee & Michael S. Mccarthy & David L. Mothersbaugh & Sandra J. Milberg & Gary J. Gaeth, 2000. "Asymmetric Competition in Choice and the Leveraging of Competitive Disadvantages," Post-Print hal-00668916, HAL.
    9. Simonson, Itamar & Kramer, Thomas & Young, Maia, 2003. "Effect Propensity: The Location of the Reference State in the Option Space as a Determinant of the Direction of Effects on Choice," Research Papers 1788, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    10. West, Patricia M, 1996. "Predicting Preferences: An Examination of Agent Learning," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 23(1), pages 68-80, June.
    11. Drolet, Aimee, 2002. "Inherent Rule Variability in Consumer Choice: Changing Rules for Change's Sake," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(3), pages 293-305, December.
    12. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jooa Baek & Jaeseok Lee, 2021. "A Conceptual Framework on Reconceptualizing Customer Share of Wallet (SOW): As a Perspective of Dynamic Process in the Hospitality Consumption Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-11, January.
    2. Anantadjaya, Samuel PD & Nawangwulan, Irma M. & Pramesty, Ignatia Andari & Gunawan, Grace Aditya, 2015. "Measuring Customers’ Intimacy: Evidence From Indonesian Service-Based Companies," Ekonomika, Journal for Economic Theory and Practice and Social Issues, Society of Economists Ekonomika, Nis, Serbia, vol. 61(2), pages 1-18, June.

    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. Simonson, Itamar, 2007. "Will I Like A "Medium" Pillow? Another Look At Constructed And Inherent Preferences," Research Papers 1977r1, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    2. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    3. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    4. Utpal M. Dholakia & Itamar Simonson, 2005. "The Effect of Explicit Reference Points on Consumer Choice and Online Bidding Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 206-217, October.
    5. Simonson, Itamar & Sela, Aner, 2009. "On the Heritability of Choice, Judgment, and "Irrationality": Genetic Effects on Prudence and Constructive Predispositions," Research Papers 2029, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:3:p:213-222 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Mantrala, Murali K. & Levy, Michael & Kahn, Barbara E. & Fox, Edward J. & Gaidarev, Peter & Dankworth, Bill & Shah, Denish, 2009. "Why is Assortment Planning so Difficult for Retailers? A Framework and Research Agenda," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 71-83.
    8. Diels, Jana Luisa & Wiebach, Nicole & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 2013. "The impact of promotions on consumer choices and preferences in out-of-stock situations," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 587-598.
    9. Nicole Wiebach & Jana L. Diels, 2011. "The impact of context and promotion on consumer responses and preferences in out-of-stock situations," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2011-050, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    10. Anyuan Shen & Shuguang Liu, 2016. "Asymmetric dominance and the stability of constructed preferences," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(3), pages 213-222, May.
    11. Davies, Antony & Cline, Thomas W., 2005. "A consumer behavior approach to modeling monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 797-826, December.
    12. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    13. Chunhua Wu & Koray Cosguner, 2020. "Profiting from the Decoy Effect: A Case Study of an Online Diamond Retailer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 974-995, September.
    14. J-J Huang, 2009. "Revised behavioural models for riskless consumer choice," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1237-1243, September.
    15. Dellaert, B.G.C. & Stremersch, S., 2004. "Consumer Preferences for Mass Customization," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2004-087-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    16. Liang Guo, 2016. "Contextual Deliberation and Preference Construction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2977-2993, October.
    17. Karlson Pfannschmidt & Pritha Gupta & Bjorn Haddenhorst & Eyke Hullermeier, 2019. "Learning Context-Dependent Choice Functions," Papers 1901.10860, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    18. Sander, H. & Kleimeier, S., 2004. "Interest rate pass-through in an enlarged Europe: the role of banking market structure for monetary policy transmission in transition countries," Research Memorandum 044, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    19. Calder, Bobby J. & He, Sharlene & Sternthal, Brian, 2023. "Using theoretical frameworks in behavioral research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    20. Kumar Padamwar, Pravesh & Kumar Kalakbandi, Vinay & Dawra, Jagrook, 2023. "Deliberation does not make the attraction effect disappear: The role of induced cognitive reflection," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    21. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.

    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:ecl:stabus:1794. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    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.