advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Caltech: Shoppers Willing To Pay 50 Percent More In-Store

September 15th, 2010

The researchers discovered this fact by showing junk food, DVDs and Caltech mugs to dozens of student volunteers and asking the subjects to bid on the items. When the subjects only saw pictures or text descriptions of the items, they bid much less than when the items were actually placed in front of them. (The researchers also tried putting the items in front of subjects but behind plexiglass; that also resulted in lower bids.)

In fact, the researchers tried every approach they could to break that pattern—all the way up to feeding their research subjects a tiny bit of the junk food that they were bidding on. Even with that, the bids were still about 50 percent higher when subjects had the item in front of them.

It seems that customers really will behave differently when they can actually reach out and touch products: They’ll pay more. Keeping that in mind can give retailers an advantage when it comes to managing brick-and-mortar stores, as well as online and M-Commerce.

Then there are the actual pricing questions these results raise. Caltech’s Rangel emphasized the experiments don’t demonstrate that, if in-store and online prices are the same, shoppers will conclude they’re paying too much online. And if online prices are so much more than shoppers want to pay, keeping prices the same in both channels may effectively be driving customers away from E-commerce and M-commerce.

That’s a tricky issue to deal with. In light of the way many customers actually shop, it’s hard to imagine that in-store shoppers with smartphones in hand will be willing to pay a higher price for an in-store product than the price they see on their phones or computers.

Then again, that might be an overreaction. A recent Forrester Research report suggests that having different prices online and in-store is no big deal. Most customers simply don’t check prices that obsessively, and they have a lot of brand trust in their local stores.

That finding contrasts with the position that eBay has taken since its purchase of RedLaser, which lets shoppers scan barcodes to see who else is selling the same item online. The auction giant is sure customers will shop in the store and then buy online—very possibly from eBay, assuming they are seeking the lowest price.

Pricing aside, other findings from the Caltech research may be a lot more directly useful for E-Commerce and especially M-Commerce. The Caltech team found that, for items subjects were already familiar with, showing a picture didn’t make an item more attractive than simply naming the product. In other words, there’s no point in filling a phone’s screen with a picture of a DVD or a bag of corn chips. It may make more sense to list additional products instead.

Differences in buying behavior in different channels don’t end with that Caltech research. Travel auction site Priceline recently mined its own customer data to compare its mobile customers with desktop online customers. Priceline found that 82 percent of mobile customers book hotel rooms within one day of arrival, compared with 45 percent of desktop customers.

Maybe that’s just a matter of convenience: Those mobile customers may merely be trying to trade up to a better hotel once they’ve landed in their destination city. But it does underscore the fact that you can’t take the differences between channels for granted—and we’re still finding out what some of those differences are.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.