Technological advances enable companies to offer information products such as books, music, and movies in electronic formats, in addition to the traditional physical formats. Although one format may appear more useful and be preferred, consumers may be enticed to consider the unique attributes of all formats if they deliver equally well on salient attributes. The authors investigate the impact of usage situations, relative attribute quality levels of the formats and their interactions on the perception of the formats as perfect or imperfect substitutes or complements, and the purchase likelihood of the bundle of formats. The study demonstrates that when formats have equivalent quality on a salient attribute, consumers perceive the formats as more complementary and are more likely to buy the bundle. This happens because consumers consider more usage situations for the formats and view the bundle as providing greater flexibility for future usages.
AakerDavid, and KellerKevin (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), 27–41.
2.
BaronReuben M., and DavidA. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Consideration,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173–82.
3.
BetancourtRoger D., and DavidA. Gautschi (1992), “The Demand for Retail Products and the Household Production Model: New Views on Complementarity and Substitutability,”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 17 (2), 257–75.
4.
BhatC. (1998), “Accommodating Variations in Responsiveness to Level-of-Service Variables in Travel Mode Choice Models,”Transportation Research A, 32 (7), 495–507.
5.
BrownstoneD., and TrainK. (1999), “Forecasting New Product Penetration with Flexible Substitution Patterns,”Journal of Econometrics, 89 (1/2), 109–129.
6.
DayGeorge S., AllanD. Shocker, and RajendraK. Srivastava (1979), “Customer-Oriented Approaches to Identifying Product-Markets,”Journal of Marketing, 43 (January), 8–19.
7.
DharRavi (1997), “Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September), 215–30.
8.
DharRavi, and StevenJ. Sherman (1996), “The Effect of Common and Unique Features in Consumer Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (December), 193–203.
9.
FeldmanJack M., and JohnG. LynchJr. (1988), “Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (August), 421–35.
HoustonDavid A., and StevenJ. Sherman (1995), “Cancellation and Focus: The Role of Shared and Unique Features in the Choice Process,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31 (4), 357–78.
12.
HoustonDavid A., StevenJ. Sherman, and SaraM. Baker (1989), “The Influence of Unique Features and Direction of Comparison on Preference,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25 (2), 121–41.
13.
JankWolfgang, and KannanP.K. (2005), “Understanding Geographical Markets of Online Firms Using Spatial Models of Customer Choice,”Marketing Science, 24 (Fall), 623–37.
14.
KannanP.K., PopeBarbara Kline, and JainSanjay (2009), “Practice Prize Winner: Pricing Digital Content Product Lines: A Model and Application for the National Academies Press,”Marketing Science, 28 (4), 620–36.
15.
KoukovaNevena T., KannanP.K., and BrianT. Ratchford (2008), “Marketing of Digital Products: Product Form Bundling,”Journal of Retailing, 84 (2), 181–94.
16.
LattinJames M., and McAlisterLeigh (1985), “Using a Variety-Seeking Model to Identify Substitute and Complementary Relationships Among Competing Products,”Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (August) 330–39.
17.
RatneshwarS., and ShockerAllan (1991), “Substitution in Use and the Role of Usage Context in Product Category Structures,”Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (August), 281–95.
18.
RatneshwarS., WarlopLuk, DavidG. Mick, and SeegerGail (1997), “Benefit Salience and Consumers' Selective Attention to Product Features,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14 (3), 245–59.
19.
ReveltDavid, and TrainKenneth (1998), “Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices,”The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80 (4), 647–57.
20.
SchmalenseeRichard (1984), “Gaussian Demand and Commodity Bundling,”Journal of Business, 57 (1), S211–30.
21.
ShockerAllan D., BarryL. Bayus, and KimNamwoon (2004), “Product Complements and Substitutes in the Real World: The Relevance of ‘Other Products’,”Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 28–40.
22.
SrivastavaRajendra, AlpertMark, and ShockerAllan (1984), “A Customer-Oriented Approach for Determining Market Structures,”Journal of Marketing, 48 (Spring), 32–45.
23.
StefflreVolney R. (1971), New Products and New Enterprises: A Report of an Experiment in Applied Social Science.Irvine, CA: University of California.
24.
StiglerGeorge J. (1963), “United States v. Loew's, Inc: A Note on Block Booking,”Supreme Court Review, 152–57.
25.
StremerschStefan, and GerardJ. Tellis (2002), “Strategic Bundling of Products and Prices: A New Synthesis for Marketing,”Journal of Marketing, 66 (January), 55–72.
26.
TelserL.G. (1979), “A Theory of Monopoly of Complementary Goods,”Journal of Business, 52 (2), 211–30.
27.
TrainK. (2003), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
VascellaroJessica E., and McBrideSarah (2006), “A Two-Hour Movie (Just to Download),”The Wall Street Journal, (October 11), Section D1.
29.
VenkateshR., and MahajanVijay (1993), “A Probabilistic Approach to Pricing a Bundle of Products or Services,”Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (November), 494–508.
30.
WalshJohn W. (1995), “Flexibility in Consumer Purchasing for Uncertain Future Tastes,”Marketing Science, 14 (2), 148–65.
31.
WaltersRockney G. (1991), “Assessing the Impact of Retail Price Promotions on Product Substitution, Complementary Purchase, and Interstore Sales Displacement,”Journal of Marketing, 55 (April), 17–28.
32.
WendelSonja, and BenedictG.C. Dellaert (2005), “Situation Variation in Consumers' Media Channel Consideration,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (September), 575–84.
33.
WindYoram, DennyJoseph, and CunninghamArthur (1979), “A Comparison of Three Brand Evaluation Procedures,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 43 (2), 261–70.
