Shifting
considerations
-
●
Consumer journey consists of distinct contacts (touchpoints)
among the customer and the firm.
○
Customer - initiated
(CIC) OR
○
Firm - initiated
(FIC)
●
Moving in between CICs
→
active consideration stage
→
evaluating possible alternatives
●
Encounters with FIC can influence purchase decisions
Background
●
Customers initiating contacts
with a firm
→prefer it more
over competitors
(Bowman & Narayandas, 2001)●
Consideration stage: only after
exposed to FIC, customers
consider the focal brand
(Li & Kannan , 2014)●
Consumer preferences differ:
Demographics & browsing
(Keaveney & Parasathy, 2001; Konuş et al., 2008; Patterson, 2007)
Literature gap
●
Which segments are more prone
to be influenced by FICs?
●
Can FICs interacting with CICs
lead to a shift in brand
Research questions
Q1: Which of the
touchpoints are of most
value to the firms?
Q3: Can firm initiated
contacts assist in shifting
considerations through
the consumer journey?
Q2: Which online
Literature review
CIC and booking conversions(Murphy et al., 2016; Yang & Ghose, 2010; Keaveney & Parthasarathy, 2001)
● Visits in search engines & websites, branded search terms → predicting bookings
● Customers rely on comparison websites → more likely to convert
FIC and booking conversions
(Ghose & Todri-Adamopoulos, 2016; Manchanda et al., 2006)
● Affiliate, retargeting and banner → increase conversion probability
● Pre-rolls: no effect on conversions
● Email → impact long term
Consideration stage
(Mitra, 1995; Edelman & Singer, 2015)
● Advertising can affect the composition of consideration set
Literature review
Consumers’ characteristics and behavior(Ieva & Ziliani, 2018; Ram & Jung, 1990 ; Bowman & Narayandas, 2001)
● Total number of touchpoints visited
● Average time spent on each touchpoint
● Total time spent on all journeys
● Gender, age, geographic area of residence, education level and income
Interaction between firm- and customer-initiated contacts
(Andler et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016; Ghose & Todri-Adamopoulos, 2016)
● Generic/ branded CICs followed by FICs → positive effect on purchases
● Outcomes of retargeting strategy
● Display (FIC) increase the probability of direct website visit (CIC)
Research Design & Analysis
Segmentation● Ward’s hierarchical analysis
● K-means clustering
Research Design & Analysis
Model testing● Binary logistic regression
● Stepwise approach
● Assumptions checked and violations treated accordingly
● Confusion matrix, McFadden’s pseudo-R2, AIC, TDL
First model: market level
● Effects on any booking
Second model: company level (Shift in brand consideration testing)
Findings & Implications
Market level● All CICs, Email and retargeting → positive effect on any booking ○ Confirm literature
● Prerolls found not significant
● Segment 1 is less likely to purchase compared to segment 4 ○ Less journeys, touchpoints and time spent
Effect of FICs on segments
● Email: Segments 2 and 3 = less likely to purchase compared to 4
○ Segment 4 is considered more interested & prone to convert → brand recall
● Retargeting: Segment 2 = more likely to purchase compared to segment 4
Findings & Implications
Company level● Positive effect on generic touchpoints & competitor website while negative effect on focal brand’s website → Consumers’ journeys clear preferences
Effect of FICs on segments
● Retargeting on segments: Segment 3 = less likely to purchase compared to 4 ○ Segment 4 has more touchpoints & journeys → information cluttered → ○ Retargeting result annoying, while on 3 assist on own conversions. Effect of FICs on CICs
● Email on generic visit → shifted consideration → reminder/ brand recall
● Pre-rolls on competitor website visits → less likely to book
Limitations & Further research
● A vast majority of the interaction effects is insignificant → investigation
● More active characteristics could be used for segmentation
● More than one competitor to be included
