고객보상프로그램의 비교가능성과 매개물효과

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 매개물효과를 보상프로그램에 적용하여 어떤 상황에서 매개물효과가 증대되는 가를 탐구하였다. 매개물(medium)이란 아이들이 바람직한 행동을 하고 받는 스티커나 고객보상프로그램의 포인트처럼 그 자체로서는 아무런 의미가 없으나 나중에 사탕이나 사은품 같은 원하는 결과물로 교환할 수 있는 일종의 대용화폐를 의미하며, 매개물효과란 단순히 매개물의 제시만으로 대안의 선호가 바뀌는 현상을 의미한다. 본 연구는 매개물효과를 고객보상프로그램에 적용하여, 동일한 보상물이 제공되었음에도 불구하고 제시된 마일리지 또는 포인트의 변화에 따라 보상물의 선호가 달라짐을 검증하였다. 또한 본 연구는 선택 대안(보상물)의 비교가능성이 매개물효과에 영향을 줄 수 있음을 탐구하였다. 구체적으로 본 연구는 1) 보상물 대안의 수가 적은 상황 vs. 많은 상황, 2) 보상물들의 선호 차이가 적은 상황 vs. 큰 상황, 두 가지 상황의 조합에 의한 4가지의 선택상황에서 매개물효과를 분석하였다. 분석결과, 보상물 간의 선호 차이가 적을수록 매개물효과가 증가하는 것으로 나타났고, 대안의 수가 많을수록 통계적으로 유의하지는 않았지만 매개물효과의 크기가 증가하는 것으로 나타났다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study investigated the medium effect applying to customer loyalty program and explored the comparability of alternatives might affect on the medium effect. A loyalty program offers a freebie to bond customers to a company or its products or services. In a typical loyalty program, consumers earn a number of points for every purchase they make and then they can exchange a specified number of points for a desired reward they want to choose. In other words, consumers usually have to exert effort in order to achieve the desired reward, however, the immediate payoff of their effort is not the reward they actually care about. Instead it is merely an instrument, a token, which has no value in itself but can be traded for the reward they care about. The instrument is merely a `medium` between their effort and the desired reward as in the following: effort → medium → reward. Because the medium is inherently worthless consumers should skip it and base their decision solely on the effort → reward relationship. However, the effort → reward relationship typically not direct given, and consumers have to infer it from the relationship between effort → medium and medium → reward. In order to make a reasonable choice, consumers should pay equal attention to these two types of relationship. However they often fail to pay equal attention to these two types of relationship and maximize the not just the effort → reward but also the effort → reward. When consumers are faced with options entailing different outcomes, the presence of a medium can alter what option they choose. That is, consumers choose the option with a bigger medium even though the economic value of the option is not changed by the medium. Previous researcher (Hsee et al. 2003) called this phenomenon "medium maximization (or medium effect)". In this study we manipulated two variables in the empirical study and explored if the variables affect on the medium effect. The manipulated variables are the numbers of reward options (few vs. many) and the magnitude of preference difference between reward options (little vs. much). We manipulated the numbers of reward options with wine and additional KTX (The Korean Train eXpress) discount coupon and controlled the magnitude of preference difference with Korean red wine, Italian red wine, and French red wine. In order to compare the medium effect, we measured the medium effect using the numerical formula which is based on the concept of medium effect suggested by Hsee. et al. (2003). The formula represents how much a medium influence consumers` preferences. To test all the hypotheses, 93 respondents were assigned to one of two groups (control group vs. experiment group). Different from the respondents under the control condition, the respondents under the experiment condition were presented the mediums which were points they could exchange them with the rewards. The all respondents were asked to choose one of two loyalty programs (focused program vs. compared program) in four different conditions [2(the number of reward options: few vs. many) × 2(the magnitude of preference difference between reward options: little vs. much)]. To compare the medium effects among the four experiment conditions we used "bootstrap" and ANOVA analyses. The empirical result shows the medium effect increases when the number of reward options is many and the magnitude of preference difference is little. This research gives some empirical implications to marketers that the medium with higher points will be more helpful to maintain customers than the medium with lower points although the economic values of the options (rewards) are the same. Additionally, it let us know that the comparability of alternatives can increase (or decrease) the medium effect.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김경식, "제품사용지위를 중심으로 한 고객지향적 보상물디자인에 관한 연구" 22 (22): 49-66, 2007

2 박상준, "의사결정자 특성에 기초한 매개물효과 분석" 21 (21): 855-866, 2008

3 김경식, "소비자의 보상물 선택결정에 관한 연구: 소비자의 노력수준을 중심으로" 22 (22): 1-19, 2007

4 이병관, "사소한 속성(Trivial Attribute)은 과연 중요한가?" 한국소비자·광고심리학회 8 (8): 357-378, 2007

5 이석규, "보상물 형태와 제공시기의 상호작용성이 보상물 선호도에 미치는 효과에 관한 연구" 20 (20): 85-102, 2005

6 박상준, "보상물 선호에 있어서 매개물효과와 합의정보효과" 37 (37): 595-604, 2008

7 최혜원, "로열티 프로그램 실패유형이 부정적 감정에 미치는 영향: 고객충성도 제고전략 수립에의 의미" 22 (22): 103-120, 2007

8 예종석, "기업의 충성도 프로그램이 고객의 가치 지각 및 충성도 형성에 미치는 영향" 12 (12): 23-37, 2001

9 박세훈, "고객 지향적인 보상 프로그램의 설계에 관한 연구" 36 (36): 325-353, 2007

10 박세훈, "고객 보상프로그램에서 사용되는 매개수단이 보상물의 선택 행동에 미치는 영향: 포인트와 상품권의 비교" 22 (22): 159-177, 2007

11 Kivetz, Ran, "The Idiosyncratic Fit Heuristic: Effort Advantages as a Determinant of Consumer Response to Loyalty Programs" 40 : 454-467, 2003

12 Hsee, Christopher K., "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives" 247-257, 1996

13 Kivetz, Ran, "The Effects of Effort and Intrinsic Motivation on Risky Choice" 22 (22): 477-502, 2003

14 Slovic, P., "The Construction of Preference" 50 (50): 364-371, 1991

15 Blattberg, Robert C., "Sales Promotion: Concepts, Methods, and Strategies" Prentice Hall 1990

16 Lichtenstein, S., "Response-induced Reversals of Preference in Gambling: An Extended Replication in Las Vegas" 101 : 16-20, 1973

17 Tversky, A., "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions" 59 : S251-S278, 1986

18 Kivetz, Ran, "Promotion Reactance: The Role of Effort-Reward Congruity" 31 : 725-736, 2005

19 McFadden, D., "Modeling the Choice of Residential Location in Spatial Interaction Theory and Residential Location" Ansterdam 75-96, 1978

20 Hsee, Christopher K., "Medium Maximization" 30 : 1-13, 2003

21 Blattberg, Robert C., "Manage Marketing by the Customer Equity Test" 74 : 136-144, 1996

22 Sharp, Byron, "Loyalty Program and Their Impact on Repeat Purchase Loyalty Pattern" 14 : 473-486, 1997

23 Van Osselaer, "Irrelevant Information and Mediated Intertemporal Choice" 14 (14): 257-270, 2004

24 Bolton, Tuth N., "Implication of Loyalty Program Membership and Service Experience for Customerr Retention and Value" 28 : 95-108, 2000

25 Kearney, Terrence J., "Frequent Flyer Programs: A Failure in Competitive Strategy, with Lessons for Management" 7 (7): 31-40, 1990

26 Yi, Youjae, "Effects of Loyalty Programs on Value Perception, Program Loyalty, and Brand Loyalty" 31 (31): 229-240, 2003

27 McFadden, D., "Economic Models of Probabilistic Choice, in Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Economic Application" MIT Press 1981

28 Kivetz, Ran, "Earning the Right to Indulge: Effort as a Determinant of Customer Preferences towards Frequency Program Rewards" 39 : 155-170, 2002

29 Strahilevitz, Michal, "Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell" 24 : 434-446, 1998

30 O'Brein, Louise, "Do Reward Really Create Loyalty" 73 : 75-82, 1995

31 David, Clayton-Smith, "Do It All's Loyalty Programmeand Its Impact on Customer Retention" 6 (6): 33-37, 1996

32 Dowling, Grahame R., "Do Customer Loyalty Program Really Work" 38 : 71-82, 1997

33 Kardes, F. R., "Direction of Comparison, Expected Feature Correlation, and the Set-size Effect in Preference Judgement" 2 (2): 39-54, 1993

34 Tversky, A., "Contingent Weighting in Judgement and Choice" 95 (95): 371-384, 1988

35 Slovic, P., "Compatibility Effects in Judgment and Choice in : Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn" University of Chicago Press 5-27, 1990

36 Anderson, N. H., "Averaging Model Analysis of Setsize Effect in Impression Formation" 75 (75): 158-165, 1967

37 Huber, J., "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis" 9 : 90-98, 1982