4.4 Article

Organizing Products with Complements versus Substitutes: Effects on Store Preferences as a Function of Effort and Assortment Perceptions

Journal

JOURNAL OF RETAILING
Volume 91, Issue 1, Pages 1-18

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jretai.2014.10.003

Keywords

Assortment organization; Decision effort; Substitutes; Complements; Hedonic; Utilitarian

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Retailers often organize at least part of their assortment by displaying complementary products from different product categories together (e.g., a pair of pants with a shirt) rather than grouping items by product type (e.g., a pair of pants with other pants). However, little is known about how retailers should choose between complement-based and substitute-based organizations. The present paper shows that consumers' preferences for such store organizations are a function of the effort and assortment perceptions cued by these organizational formats. Holding the underlying assortment constant, complement-based organizations are always more effortful than substitute-based organizations. This difference in effort can create downward pressure on complement-based store choice. Moreover, the effects of organization format on assortment perception depend on whether consumers hold a hedonic or utilitarian focus. When consumers have a highly hedonic focus, complement-based based stores create more positive assortment perceptions than substitute-based stores. Such positive assortment perceptions can, in turn, raise complement-based store choice. However, as consumers' utilitarian focus increases, substitute-based assortments are seen as both easier and more attractive, leading to a strong advantage in store choice. Our findings provide actionable guidance for retailers considering various store organizations and suggest opportunities for future research. (C) 2014 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available