IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ems/eureri/1804.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer Preferences for Mass Customization

Author

Listed:
  • Dellaert, B.G.C.
  • Stremersch, S.

Abstract

Increasingly, firms adopt mass customization, which allows consumers to customize products by self-selecting their most preferred composition of the product for a predefined set of modules. For example, PC vendors such as Dell allow customers to customize their PC by choosing the type of processor, memory size, monitor, etc. However, how such firms configure the mass customization process determines the utility a consumer may obtain or the complexity a consumer may face in the mass customization task. Mass customization configurations may differ in four important ways – we take the example of the personal computer industry. First, a firm may offer few or many product modules that can be mass customized (e.g., only allow consumers to customize memory and processor of a PC or allow consumers to customize any module of the PC) and few or many levels among which to choose per mass customizable module (e.g., for mass customization of the processor, only two or many more processing speeds are available). Second, a firm may offer the consumer a choice only between very similar module levels (e.g., a 17” or 18” screen) or between very different module levels (e.g., a 15” or 21” screen). Third, a firm may individually price the modules within a mass customization configuration (e.g., showing the price of the different processors the consumer may choose from) along with pricing the total product, or the firm may show only the total product price (e.g., the price of the different processors is not shown, but only the computer’s total price is shown). Fourth, the firm may show a default version (e.g., for the processor, the configuration contains a pre-selected processing speed, which may be a high-end or low-end processor), which consumers may then customize, or the firm may not show a default version and let consumers start from scratch in composing the product. The authors find that the choices that firms make in configuring the mass customization process affect the product utility consumers can achieve in mass customization. The reason is that the mass customization configuration affects how closely the consumer may approach his or her ideal product by mass customizing. Mass customization configurations also affect consumers’ perception of the complexity of mass customization as they affect how many cognitive steps a consumer needs to make in the decision process. Both product utility and complexity in the end determine the utility consumers derive from using a certain mass customization configuration, which in turn will determine main outcome variables for marketers, such as total product sales, satisfaction with the product and the firm, referral behavior and loyalty. The study offers good news for those who wish to provide many mass customization options to consumers, because we find that within the rather large range of modules and module levels we manipulated in this study, consumers did not perceive significant increases in complexity, while they were indeed able to achieve higher product utility. Second, our results imply that firms when increasing the number of module levels, should typically offer consumers more additional options in the most popular range of a module and less additional options at the extremes. Third, pricing should preferably be presented only at the total product level, rather than at the module and product level. We find that this approach reduces complexity and increases product utility. Fourth, firms should offer a default version that consumers can use as a starting point for mass customization, as doing so minimizes the complexity to consumers. The best default version to start out with is a base default version because this type of default version allows the consumer to most closely approach his or her ideal product. The reason is that consumers when presented with an advanced default may buy a product that is more advanced than they actually need. We also found that expert consumers are ideal targets for mass customization offerings. Expert consumers experience lower complexity in mass customization and complexity has a less negative influence on product utility obtained in the mass customization process, all compared to novice consumers. In general, reducing complexity in the mass customization configuration is a promising strategy for firms as it not only increases the utility of the entire process for consumers, but also allows them to compose products that more closely fit their ideal product.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:ems:eureri:1804
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/1804/ERS%202004%20087%20MKT.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heath, Timothy B, et al, 2000. "Asymmetric Competition in Choice and the Leveraging of Competitive Disadvantages," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 291-308, December.
    2. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    3. 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.
    4. Alba, Joseph W & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 1987. "Dimensions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 411-454, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    7. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    8. Subimal Chatterjee & Timothy B. Heath, 1996. "Conflict and Loss Aversion in Multiattribute Choice: The Effects of Trade-Off Size and Reference Dependence on Decision Difficulty," Post-Print hal-00670460, HAL.
    9. Chatterjee, Subimal & Heath, Timothy B., 1996. "Conflict and Loss Aversion in Multiattribute Choice: The Effects of Trade-Off Size and Reference Dependence on Decision Difficulty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 144-155, August.
    10. McFadden, Daniel & Ruud, Paul A, 1994. "Estimation by Simulation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(4), pages 591-608, November.
    11. Eric J. Johnson & John W. Payne, 1985. "Effort and Accuracy in Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 395-414, April.
    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. Jin, Liyin & He, Yanqun & Song, Haiyan, 2012. "Service customization: To upgrade or to downgrade? An investigation of how option framing affects tourists’ choice of package-tour services," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 266-275.
    2. Bharadwaj, Neeraj & Naylor, Rebecca Walker & ter Hofstede, Frenkel, 2009. "Consumer response to and choice of customized versus standardized systems," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 216-227.

    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. 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).
    2. Eric Johnson & Simon Gaechter & Andreas Herrmann, 2006. "Exploring the Nature of Loss Aversion," Discussion Papers 2006-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    3. Kwon, Kyoung-Nan & Lee, Jinkook, 2009. "The effects of reference point, knowledge, and risk propensity on the evaluation of financial products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 719-725, July.
    4. Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D. & Wilson, Darryl D. & Ross Taylor, A. & Kottemann, Jeffrey E., 2006. "User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 273-285, February.
    5. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Mathies, Christine & Gudergan, Siegfried P., 2011. "The role of fairness in modelling customer choice," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 22-29.
    8. Neumann, Nico & Böckenholt, Ulf, 2014. "A Meta-analysis of Loss Aversion in Product Choice," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 182-197.
    9. Coker, Brent & Nagpal, Anish, 2013. "Building-Up versus Paring-Down: Consumer Responses to Recommendations When Customizing," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 190-206.
    10. 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.
    11. Simonson, Itamar, 2003. "Determinants of Customers' Responses to Customized Offers: Conceptual Framework and Research Propositions," Research Papers 1794, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    12. Chadwick J. Miller & Daniel C. Brannon & Jim Salas & Martha Troncoza, 2021. "Advertising, incentives, and the upsell: how advertising differentially moderates customer- vs. retailer-directed price incentives’ impact on consumers’ preferences for premium products," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 1043-1064, November.
    13. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    14. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    15. Domanski, Adam, 2009. "Estimating Mixed Logit Recreation Demand Models With Large Choice Sets," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Honora Smith & Christine Currie & Pornpimol Chaiwuttisak & Andreas Kyprianou, 2018. "Patient choice modelling: how do patients choose their hospitals?," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 259-268, June.
    17. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    18. van Soest, A.H.O. & Saha, U.R., 2012. "Birth Spacing, Child Survival and Fertility Decisions : Analysis of Causal Mechanismsa," Discussion Paper 2012-018, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    19. Makiko Nakano, 2019. "Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility by Consumers: Use of Organic Material and Long Working Hours of Employees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-16, September.
    20. Maruyama, Shiko, 2014. "Estimation of finite sequential games," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 716-726.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    PC buying; complexity; consumer choice; customization; mass customization; mass customized products; operations research; utility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • M - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ems:eureri:1804. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/erimanl.html .

    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: RePub (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/erimanl.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.