Using Variety-Seeking-Based Segmentation to Study Promotional Response

Abstract

The link between variety seeking and promotional response has been of interest to marketing researchers for quite some time. By segmenting consumers according to their variety-seeking needs, researchers have established some interesting results regarding the variation in promotional response across segments. However, the sole basis for segmentation thus far has been unidimensional (e.g., highand low-variety seekers). This research discusses a unique way to segment consumers based not only on the usual extent (or mean) of variety seeking but also on the intensity (or consistency) of variety-seeking behavior, a new segmentation criterion. The authors conduct an empirical study to test the two-dimensional segmentation scheme and investigate differences in response to a variety of promotions across the segments. The inclusion of the intensity aspect of variety seeking as an additional basis for segmentation has a significant impact on promotional response and offers substantially richer managerial interpretation.

Store environment's impact on variety seeking behavior

“…Deal-prone consumers modify their purchase behavior so as to benefit from the temporary incentives of a promotion (Wakefield and Barnes, 1996). Purchase probabilities increase with the increase in the promotional effort due to greater preference for the promoted product (Trivedi, 1999). Variety seeking allows the consumers to use the promotions strategically and to experiment with different brands over time.…”

“…The variety seeking literature deals with issues such as the determinants of variety seeking (e.g., Van Trijp et al, 1996), models of variety seeking (e.g., McAlister, 1982) and its relationship with marketing phenomena like segmentation (Trivedi, 1999) and market share (Feinberg et al, 1992).…”

Through the Paradigm Funnel: A Conceptual Tool for Literature Analysis

“…Again, three articles are used to illustrate the allocation procedure. The purpose of Trivedi's (1999) paper was to attempt to model variety-seeking buyer behavior based on response to a firm's promotions, using stochastic elements to allow for the fact that the same level of variety may not be sought by customers on each purchase occasion. His primary interest was not in describing behavior (empirical) but in testing the comparative value of a number of analytical methods.…”

“…We should stress that the purf)ose here is not to focus on the "descriptive content" of the segmentation literature Sarabia, 19%;Dalgic and Leeuw, 1994;Danneels, 1996;Hammond, Ehrenberg and Goodhardt, 1996;Dibb andStern, 1995 Jedidi, Kohli andDesarbo, 1996;Cohen and Ramaswamy, 1998;Bayus and Mehta, 1995;Ramaswamy, Chattcrjec and Cohen, 1996;Walker and Damicn, 1999;Ramaswamy, Chatterjcc and Cohen, 1999;Kamakura and Wedcl, 1995;Kamakura and Mazzon, 1991;Desarbo, Ramaswamy and Chatterjee, 1995;Hagerty, 1993;Vriens. Wedel and Wilms, 1996;Krieger and Green, 1996;Allenby, Arora and Ginter, 1998;Chaturvedi, Carroll, Green and Rotondo, 1997;Lastovicka, Murray and Joachimsthaler, 1990;Novak and de Leeuw, 1992;ter Hofstede, Steenkamp and Wedel, 1999;Trivedi, 1999;Bucklin and Gupta, 1998;Bucklin, Gupta and Han, 1995;Allenby andGinter, 1995 Kucukemiroglu, 1999;Kamakura and Novak, 1992;Novak and MacEvoy, 1990;Botschcn, Thelen and Pieters, 1999;van Raaij and Verhallen, 1994;Cooper and Inoue, 1996;Kara and Kaynak, 1997;Schlegelmilch, Bohlen and Diamantopoious, 1996;Tepper, 1994;Firat and Scbuiz, 1997;…”

“…To do this we undertook a content analysis of all 37 articles in the literature review asking the question, "what are Level 1 Articles -Empirical Research 1 Sarabia, 19962 Dalgic and Leeuw, 19943 Danneels, 19964 Hammond, Ehrenberg & Goodhardt, 19965 Dibb and Stern, 1995Level 2 Articles-Methodological Research 6 Jedidi, Kohli and Desarbo, 19967 Cohen and Ramaswamy, 19988 Bayus and Mehta, 19959 Ramaswamy, Chatterjee and Cohen, 199610 Walker and Damien, 199911 Ramaswamy, Chatterjee and Cohen, 199912 Kamakura and Wedel, 199513 Kamakura and Mazzon, 199114 Desarbo, Ramaswamy & Chatterjee 199515 Krieger and Green, 199616 Vriens, Wedel and Wilms, 199617 Chaturvedi, Carroll, Green, Rotondo, 199718 Hagerty, 199319 Allenby, Arora and Ginter, 199820 Lastovicka, Murray& Joachimsthaler, 199021 Novak and de Leeuw, 199222 ter Hofstede, Steenkamp and Wedel, 1999 23 Trivedi, 199924 Bucklin and Gupta 199825 Bucklin, Gupta and Han, 199526 Allenby and Ginter, 1995Level 3 Articles-Theoretical Research 27 Kamakura and Novak, 199228 Novak and MacEvoy, 199029 Kucukemiroglu, 199930 Botschen,Thelen and Pieters, 199931 van Raaij and Verhallen, 199432 Cooper and Inoue, 199633 Kara and Kaynak, 199734 Schlegelmilch, Bohlen and Diamantopolous, 199635 Tepper, 1994 the deep assumptions of segmentation researchers?" Each article in the literature review was examined and one fundamental question asked: is the research-implicitly or explicitly-predicated upon positivist or social constructionist assumptions?…”