• 지능정보연구
• /
• 제21권4호
• /
• pp.53-77
• /
• 2015

국내 모바일 커머스 시장은 현재 소셜커머스가 이용자 수 측면에서 오픈마켓을 압도하고 있는 상황이다. 산업계에서는 모바일 시장에서 소셜커머스의 성장에 대해 빠른 모바일 시장진입, 큐레이션 모델 등을 주요 성공요인으로 제시하고 있지만, 이에 대한 학계의 실증적인 연구 및 분석은 아직 미미한 상황이다. 본 연구에서는 사용자 리뷰를 바탕으로 모바일 소셜커머스와 오픈마켓의 사용자 이용경험을 비교 분석하는 탐험적인 연구를 수행하였다. 먼저 본 연구는 구글 플레이에 등록된 국내 소셜커머스 주요 3개 업체와 오픈마켓 주요 3개 업체의 모바일 앱 리뷰를 수집하였다. 본 연구는 LDA 토픽모델링을 통해 1만여건에 달하는 모바일 소셜커머스와 오픈마켓 사용자 리뷰를 지각된 유용성과 지각된 편리성 토픽으로 분류한 뒤 감정분석과 동시출현단어분석을 수행하였다. 이를 통해 본 연구는 국내 모바일 커머스 상에서 오픈마켓 이용자들에 비해 소셜커머스 이용자들이 서비스와 이용편리성 측면에서 더 긍정적인 경험을 하고 있음을 증명하였다. 소셜커머스는 '배송', '쿠폰', '할인'을 중심으로 서비스 측면에서 이용자들에게 긍정적인 이용경험을 이끌어내고 있는 반면, 오픈마켓의 경우 '로그인 안됨', '상세보기 불편', '멈춤'과 같은 기술적 문제 및 불편으로 인한 이용자 불만이 높았다. 이와 같이 본 연구는 사용자 리뷰를 통해 서비스 이용경험을 효과적으로 비교 분석할 수 있는 탐험적인 실증연구법을 제시하였다. 구체적으로 본 연구는 LDA 토픽모델링과 기술수용모형을 통해 사용자 리뷰를 서비스와 기술 토픽으로 분류하여 효과적으로 분석할 수 있는 새로운 방법을 제시하였다는 점에서 의의가 있다. 또한 본 연구의 결과는 향후 소셜커머스와 오픈마켓의 경쟁 및 벤치마킹 전략에 중요하게 활용될 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

• 마케팅과학연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.68-79
• /
• 2009

The interplay between hedonic and utilitarian attributes has assumed special significance in recent years; it has been proposed that consumption offerings should be viewed as experiences that stimulate both cognitions and feelings rather than as mere products or services. This research builds on previous work on hedonic versus utilitarian benefits, regulatory focus theory, customer satisfaction to address two question: (1) Is the shopping goal at the point of purchase different from the shopping value? and (2) Is the customer loyalty after the use different from the shopping value and shopping goal? We surveyed 345 peoples those who have bought the electronic-goods within 6 months. This research dealt with the shopping value which is consisted of 2 types, hedonic and utilitarian. Those who pursue the hedonic shopping value may prefer the pleasure of purchasing experience to the product itself. They tend to prefer atmosphere, arousal of the shopping experience. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "hedonic" to refer to their aesthetic, experiential and enjoyment-related value. On the contrary, Those who pursue the utilitarian shopping value may prefer the reasonable buying. It may be more functional. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "utilitarian" to refer to the functional, instrumental, and practical value of consumption offerings. Holbrook(1999) notes that consumer value is an experience that results from the consumption of such benefits. In the context of cell phones for example, the phone's battery life and sound volume are utilitarian benefits, whereas aesthetic appeal from its shape and color are hedonic benefits. Likewise, in the case of a car, fuel economics and safety are utilitarian benefits whereas the sunroof and the luxurious interior are hedonic benefits. The shopping goals are consisted of the promotion focus goal and the prevention focus goal, based on the self-regulatory focus theory. The promotion focus is characterized into focusing ideal self because they are oriented to wishes and vision. The promotion focused individuals are tend to be more risk taking. They are more sensitive to hope and achievement. On the contrary, the prevention focused individuals are characterized into focusing the responsibilities because they are oriented to safety. The prevention focused individuals are tend to be more risk avoiding. We wanted to test the relation among the shopping value, shopping goal and customer loyalty. Customers show the positive or negative feelings comparing with the expectation level which customers have at the point of the purchase. If the result were bigger than the expectation, customers may feel positive feeling such as delight or satisfaction and they would want to share their feelings with other people. And they want to buy those products again in the future time. There is converging evidence that the types of goals consumers expect to be fulfilled by the utilitarian dimension of a product are different from those they seek from the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004). Specifically, whereas consumers expect the fulfillment of product prevention goals on the utilitarian dimension, they expect the fulfillment of promotion goals on the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Majahan 2007; Higgins 1997, 2001) According to the regulatory focus theory, prevention goals are those that ought to be met. Fulfillment of prevention goals in the context of product consumption eliminates or significantly reduces the probability of a painful experience, thus making consumers experience emotions that result from fulfillment of prevention goals such as confidence and securities. On the contrary, fulfillment of promotion goals are those that a person aspires to meet, such as "looking cool" or "being sophisticated." Fulfillment of promotion goals in the context of product consumption significantly increases the probability of a pleasurable experience, thus enabling consumers to experience emotions that result from the fulfillment of promotion goals. The proposed conceptual framework captures that the relationships among hedonic versus utilitarian shopping values and promotion versus prevention shopping goals respectively. An analysis of the consequence of the fulfillment and frustration of utilitarian and hedonic value is theoretically worthwhile. It is also substantively relevant because it helps predict post-consumption behavior such as the promotion versus prevention shopping goals orientation. Because our primary goal is to understand how the post consumption feelings influence the variable customer loyalty: word of mouth (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978). This research result is that the utilitarian shopping value gives the positive influence to both of the promotion and prevention goal. However the influence to the prevention goal is stronger. On the contrary, hedonic shopping value gives influence to the promotion focus goal only. Additionally, both of the promotion and prevention goal show the positive relation with customer loyalty. However, the positive relation with promotion goal and customer loyalty is much stronger. The promotion focus goal gives the influence to the customer loyalty. On the contrary, the prevention focus goal relates at the low level of relation with customer loyalty than that of the promotion goal. It could be explained that it is apt to get framed the compliment of people into 'gain-non gain' situation. As the result, for those who have the promotion focus are motivated to deliver their own feeling to other people eagerly. Conversely the prevention focused individual are more sensitive to the 'loss-non loss' situation. The research result is consistent with pre-existent researches. There is a conceptual parallel between necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits and luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha 2007; Higginns 1997; Kivetz and Simonson 2002b). In addition, Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the precedence principle contends luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits higher than necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits. Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha (2007) show that consumers are focused more on the utilitarian benefits than on the hedonic benefits of a product until their minimum expectation of fulfilling prevention goals are met. Furthermore, a utilitarian benefit is a promise of a certain level of functionality by the manufacturer or the retailer. When the promise is not fulfilled, customers blame the retailer and/or the manufacturer. When negative feelings are attributable to an entity, customers feel angry. However in the case of hedonic benefit, the customer, not the manufacturer, determines at the time of purchase whether the product is stylish and attractive. Under such circumstances, customers are more likely to blame themselves than the manufacturer if their friends do not find the product stylish and attractive. Therefore, not meeting minimum utilitarian expectations of functionality generates a much more intense negative feelings, such as anger than a less intense feeling such as disappointment or dissatisfactions. The additional multi group analysis of this research shows the same result. Those who are unsatisfactory customers who have the prevention focused goal shows higher relation with WOM, comparing with satisfactory customers. The research findings in this article could have significant implication for the personal selling fields to increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of the sales such that they can develop the sales presentation strategy for the customers. For those who are the hedonic customers may be apt to show more interest to the promotion goal. Therefore it may work to strengthen the design, style or new technology of the products to the hedonic customers. On the contrary for the utilitarian customers, it may work to strengthen the price competitiveness. On the basis of the result from our studies, we demonstrated a correspondence among hedonic versus utilitarian and promotion versus prevention goal, WOM. Similarly, we also found evidence of the moderator effects of satisfaction after use, between the prevention goal and WOM. Even though the prevention goal has the low level of relation to WOM, those who are not satisfied show higher relation to WOM. The relation between the prevention goal and WOM is significantly different according to the satisfaction versus unsatisfaction. In addition, improving the promotion emotions of cheerfulness and excitement and the prevention emotion of confidence and security will further improve customer loyalty. A related potential further research could be to examine whether hedonic versus utilitarian, promotion versus prevention goals improve customer loyalty for services as well. Under the budget and time constraints, designers and managers are often compelling to choose among various attributes. If there is no budget or time constraints, perhaps the best solution is to maximize both hedonic and utilitarian dimension of benefits. However, they have to make trad-off process between various attributes. For the designers and managers have to keep in mind that without hedonic benefit satisfaction of the product it may hard to lead the customers to the customer loyalty.

• 마케팅과학연구
• /
• 제19권4호
• /
• pp.32-43
• /
• 2009

信任在心理学, 经济学, 社会学中已被广泛研究, 其重要性不仅在市场营销中被强调, 在一般商业原则中也被强调. 供应商和买家之间的关系与过去不同, 过去的关系需要相当大的私人网络优势, 并可能涉及不道德的商业行为. 而在以工业营销成功的为核心的二十一世纪激烈的全球竞争中, 供应商和买家之间的关系是伙伴关系. 在相互合作的高级别信任的基础上, 通过交换的关系, 这会给买家和供应商带来长期的利益, 竞争力增强和交易成本的降低以及其他福利. 尽管现有的研究有信任的重要性, 但是在购买与供应关系中却忽视了信任的作用, 也没有系统地分析信任对关系的影响. 因此, 深入研究, 确定买家和商业服务供应商之间信任和关系绩效之间的联系是绝对需要的. 本研究中的商业服务, 包括那些支持制造业, 正作为下一代经济增长的引擎而吸引着人们的注意. 韩国政府已选择其作为制造业发展的战略领域. 由于商业服务开放市场的需求日趋激烈, 商业服务业的竞争力应该比以往得到更多的提倡. 本研究的目的是探索相互信任对买家和供应商之间的关系绩效的影响. 具体来说, 本研究在商业服务交易中提出了一个关于信任-关系绩效的理论模型, 并实证检验根据模型而提出的假设. 这项研究表明, 研究结果有战略意义. 本研究通过多种方法收集经验数据. 这些方法包括通过电话, 邮件和面试. 作为样本的公司是在韩国供应和购买商业服务的以知识为本的公司. 本研究收集的是二进的基础数据. 每个样本公司对包括购买公司及其相应的供应公司. 并跟踪调查每个公司对的相互信任. 本研究为商业服务的买卖双方提出了信任-关系绩效的模型. 该模型由信任和它的前因和后果. 买家的信任分为对供应公司的信任和对销售人员的信任. 根据Doney 和Cannon (1997)的研究我们在个人水平和组织水平上观察信任. 通常情况下, 买方是信任的受体, 但这项研究我们建议以供应商为观察受体. 因此, 它独特的关注了双边角度的知觉风险. 换言之, 供应商和买家一样, 是信任的主体, 因为交易通常是双边的. 从这个角度来看, 供应商对买家信任和买方对供货商的信赖一样重要. 供应商的信任从某种程度上受它信任的买方公司和买家的影响. 这种使用个人水平和组织水平的信任分类是根据Doney 和Cannon (1997)的研究. 信任影响供应商的选择, 这是一项双向放的工作. 供应商们积极参与供应商选择过程中, 和买家密切的一起工作. 此外, 该过程从某种程度上受每一方信任的合作伙伴的影响. 挑选过程包括一些步骤: 识别, 信息检索, 供应商选择和绩效评价. 作为这一进程的结果, 买家和供应商都进行绩效评估, 并就这些结果为基础, 采取有形或无形的纠正行动. 本研究中使用的关于信任的测量问项是根据Mayer, Davis 和 Schoorman (1995) 以及Mayer和Davis (1999)的研究发展起来的. 根据他们的建议, 有关信任的三个方面的研究包括有能力, 善和完整. 根据商业服务这个背景我们调整了原来的问题. 例如, 如 "他/她的专业能力" 已被改为 "当我们讨论我们的产品时销售人员表现出专业能力. "这项研究使用的测量问项不同于在以往的研究中使用的问项（Rotter 1967; Sullivan和Peterson 1982; Dwyer和Oh 1987. 本研究中有关信任的前因后果的测量问项是根据Doney和Cannon (1997)的研究为基础制定的. 根据商业服务这个背景我们调整了原来的问题. 特别是, 问题被设计为对买家和供应商以解决下列因素: 信誉 (诚信, 客户服务, 良好意愿), 市场地位 (公司规模, 市场份额, 在行业中的地位), 愿意定制（产品, 过程, 交付), 信息共享(专有信息, 个人信息), 愿意保持良好关系, 认为专业, 权威授权, 买方与卖方的相似性, 以及接触频率. 作为信任相应的变量, 我们对关系绩效进行了测试. 关系绩效分为有形的影响, 无形影响, 和副作用. 有形的影响包括财务业绩;无形的影响, 包括关系的改善, 网络开发, 以及内部员工的满意度;副作用包括既不是有形影响也不是无形影响的影响. 我们联系了350对公司, 105对公司答复了我们. 由于不完整我们删除了5对公司, 105对公司被用于数据分析. 用于数据分析的回应率为30%(三百五十零分之一百零五), 高于工业营销的平均回复比率. 至于回复的公司的特点, 大多数的公司运作的商业服务既为买方(85.4%)也为供应商(81.8%). 大部分买家是做消费品贸易(76%), 而供应商的大部分(70%)是做工业品贸易. 这可能意味着买家的过程是购入材料, 部件和组件从而生产消费品成品. 正如他们对他们与合作伙伴关系的长度的报告表示, 供应商比买家有更长的商业关系. 假设1测试买方-供应方特点对信任的影响. 销售人员的专业度(t=2.070, p<0.05)和权威授权(t=2.328, p<0.05)积极影响买方对供应方的信任. 另一方面, 权威授权(t=2.192, p<0.05)积极影响供应方对买方的信任. 对买方和供应方来说, 权威授权的程度对保持对彼此的信任有关键作用. 假设2测试买卖双方关系特点对信任的影响. 买家倾向于信任供应方, 因为供应方总是尽全力联系买方(t=2.212, p<0.05)这种倾向性在供应方方面也表现得很强(t=2.591, p<0.01). 另一方面, 供应商对买方的信任是由于供应商感知买家与自己的相似性(t=2.702, p<0.01). 这一发现证实了Crosby, Evans, 和Cowles(1990)的研究结果. 他们的结果表明供应方和买方通过商务或私务的定期会议来建立彼此的联系. 假设3测试信任对感知风险的影响. 结果表明无论对买方还是供应方, 信任越低, 感知风险就越大(买方: t =-6.621, p<0.01; 供应方: t=-2.437, p<0.05). 有趣的是, 这一趋势已被证明对买方更强. 这种较高水平的感知风险的一个可能的解释是在商业服务交易中买方通常比供应方感知到更大的风险. 为此, 有必要对供应商对买方实施减少风险的战略. 假设4测试信任对信息搜集. 根据结果, 对供应方和买方, 与预期相反, 信任取决于他们合作伙伴的名誉(买方t=2.929, p<0.01; 供应方t=2.711, p<0.05). 这一发现表明, 具有良好信誉的供应商往往是可信的. 以往的经验并没有显示出任何与买家或供应商信任的重要关系. 假设5测试信任对供应方/买方选择的影响. 与买方不同, 当供应方认为以往与买方的交易重要时, 供应方倾向信任买方(t=2.913 p<0.01). 但是, 本研究并没有现实资源忠诚和买方对供应方的信任之间有显著关系. 假设6测试的是信任对关系绩效的影响. 对买方和供应方, 当财务表现被报告提高时, 他们比较信任他们的合作伙伴(买方: t=2.301, p<0.05;供应方: t=3.692, p<0.01). 有趣的是, 这种趋势在供应方比较明显. 类似的, 当竞争力被报告提高时, 买卖双方比较信任他们的合作伙伴(买方t=3.563, p<0.01 ; 供应方t=3.042, p<0.01). 对供应方来说, 当对买方信任时效率和生产力会提高(t=2.673, p<0.01). 其他绩效指标与信任没有显著关系. 这项研究结果有一定的战略意义. 首先和最重要的是, 以信任为基础的交易对供应商和买家而言都是有益的. 根据研究证实, 通过努力建立和保持相互信任可以使财务表现提高. 同样, 可以通过同样的努力提高竞争力. 第二, 以信任为基础的交易能够减少购买情况中的感知风险. 这对供应商和买家都有启示. 人们普遍认为, 在一个高度参与的采购情况中买家感知到更高的风险. 为了减少风险, 以往的研究已建议供应商制定降低风险的策略. 而本研究的特点是从双边角度关注知觉风险. 换言之, 供应商也容易存在风险, 特别是当他们提供的服务, 需要非常先进的技术, 操作和维护. 因此, 购买者和供应商必须一起密切合作解决问题. 因此, 相互信任在问题解决过程中起着关键作用. 第三, 在这项研究中发现, 销售人员有更多的授权, 他或她越被信任. 这一发现从战术角度看是非常重要的. 建立信任是一个长期的任务, 然而, 当互信尚未开发, 供应商能够通过授权销售人员做出某些决定来克服遇到的问题, 这一结论也适用于供应商.