• 지능정보연구
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• pp.87-109
• /
• 2020

현재 육상에서는 유무선 통신의 발전으로 다양한 IT 서비스를 제공받고 있다. 이러한 변화는 육상을 넘어서서 해상에서 항해 중인 선박에서도 다양한 IT 서비스가 제공되어야 하며 육상에서 이용하는 것과 마찬가지로 양방향 디지털 데이터 전송, Web, App 등과 같은 다양한 IT 서비스들의 제공에 대한 요구가 증가될 것으로 예상하고 있다. 하지만 이러한 초고속 정보통신망은 AP(Access Point)와 기지국과 같은 고정된 기반 구조를 바탕으로 네트워크를 구성하는 지상에서는 쉽게 사용할 수 있는 반면 해상에서는 고정된 기반 구조를 이용하여 네트워크를 구성할 수 없다. 그래서 전송 거리가 긴 라디오 통신망 기반의 음성 위주의 통신 서비스를 사용하고 있다. 이러한 라디오 통신망은 낮은 전송 속도로 인해 매우 기본적인 정보만을 제공할 수 있었으며, 효율적인 서비스 제공에 어려움이 있다. 이를 해결하기 위해서 디지털 데이터 상호교환을 위한 추가적인 주파수가 할당되었으며 이 주파수를 사용하여 활용할 수 있는 선박 애드 혹 네트워크인 SANET(ship ad-hoc network)이 제안되었다. SANET은 높은 설치비용과 사용료의 위성 통신을 대신하여 해상에서 IP 기반으로 선박에 다양한 IT 서비스를 제공할 수 있도록 개발되었다. SANET에서는 육상 기지국과 선박의 연결성이 중요하다. 이러한 연결성을 갖기 위해서는 선박은 자신의 IP 주소를 할당 받아 네트워크의 구성원이 되어야 한다. 본 논문에서는 선박 스스로 자신의 IP 주소를 할당 받을 수 있는 SANET-CC(Ship Ad-hoc Network-Cell Connection) 프로토콜을 제안한다. SANET-CC는 중복되지 않는 다수의 IP 주소들을 육상기지국에서 선박들에 이어지는 트리 형태로 네트워크 전반에 전파한다. 선박은 IP 주소를 할당할 수 있는 육상 기지국 또는 나누어진 구역의 M-Ship(Mother Ship)들과 간단한 요청(Request) 및 응답(Response) 메시지 교환을 통해 자신의 IP 주소를 할당한다. 따라서 SANET-CC는 IP 충돌 방지(Duplicate Address Detection) 과정과 선박의 이동에 의해 발생하는 네트워크의 분리나 통합에 따른 처리 과정을 완전히 배제할 수 있다. 본 논문에서는 SANET-CC의 SANET 적용가능성을 검증하기 위해서 다양한 조건의 시뮬레이션을 수행하였으며 기존 연구와 비교 분석을 진행하였다.

• 마케팅과학연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.17-27
• /
• 2009

典型的价格促销是指降低一定数量产品的价格或以相同的价 格获得更多数量的产品, 从而增加价值和创造经济的激励购买. 价格促销经常用来鼓励没有消费过产品或服务的用户试用产品或服务. 因此, 理解价格促销对那些从来没有使用过促销品牌的消费者的此品牌质量认知的影响是很重要的. 然而, 如果消费者通过价格促销获得的产品的质量不好, 促销可能达不到用经济的刺激方法来增加销售的效果. 相反则有可能发生. 具体来说, 通过价格促销消费者产生低的质量的认知会削弱经济的和心理上的激励, 减少购买的可能性. 因此, 对市场营销人员来说理解品牌的价格促销信息如何影响消费者对此品牌的质量的不良认知是非常重要的. 先前的有关价格促销对质量认知的影响的研究有不一致的解释. 一些是关注价格促销对消费者认知的不利影响. 但是其他的研究显示价格促销并没有提高消费者对品牌的不良认知. 之前的研究发现这些不一致的结果和价格促销曝光的时机以及相关的试验得出的质量评估有关. 而且, 消费者是否经历过产品促销都可能会调节这些影响. 一些研究把产品类别的不同作为基本的因素. 本研究的目的是探讨在不同的情况下, 价格促销信息对消费者的不良的质量认知产生的影响. 作者控制了促销曝光的时机, 过去的各种促销形式以及信息发布的方式. 与以往的研究不同, 作者通过控制以前个人使用此产品的经验的潜在调节作用来测试事先设定限制的价格促销的影响. 这样的操作可以解决相关的有可能产生的争议. 这种方法对实际工作方面也是有意义的. 价格促销不仅适用于已存在的目标消费者, 而且可以鼓励没有使用过产品和服务的消费者尝试此产品或服务. 因此, 对市场营销人员来说理解品牌的价格促销信息如何影响消费者对此品牌的质量的不良认知是非常重要的. 如果没有使用过这个品牌的消费者通过价格促销获得的产品的质量不好, 促销可能达不到用经济的刺激方法来增加销售的效果. 相反则有可能发生. 另外, 如果价格促销结束, 购买了这个产品的消费者可能会出现明显的减少再购买行为. 通过文献回顾, 假设1用来探讨消费者通过过去的价格促销获得的质量认知的调节作用. 消费者对没有使用过的品牌的价格促销而产生的质量认知的影响会被此品牌过去的价格促销活动所调节. 换句话说, 消费者会对没有进行过价格促销的没有使用过的品牌产生不良的质量认知. 假设2-1:未使用过的品牌进行首次价格促销的时候, 价格促销的信息发布的方式将影响价格促销的成败. 假设2-2:消费者越不在意价格促销的原因, 越容易对产品的质量产生不良的认知. 通过测试1, 简要地解释了产品和品牌在提供四种价格促销形式之前并解释说明了每种价格促销形式. WAVEX这个虚拟品牌的质量的认知被评估为7. 网球拍被选中的原因是由于选定的产品组必须过去几乎没有价格促销活动来消除促销的平均次数对价格促销信息的影响, 正如Raghubir和Corfman(1999)所提出的. 测试2也用网球拍作为产品组, 主持测试2的管理者与测试1相同. 随着测试1, 选择了对产品组熟悉而对产品不熟悉的受访者. 每个受访者被分配到代表WAVEX价格促销的两种不同信息发布方式的两组中的一组. 在评估WAVEX的质量认知为7以前, 受访者看了每个促销信息. 不熟悉的实验品牌的价格促销对消费者的质量认知的影响被证明为会被以前有过或没有价格促销活动所调节. 与过去的促销行为一致是使品牌评估变得更糟的不良影响的重要变量. 如果此品牌从未进行过价格促销, 价格促销活动会对消费者的质量认知产生不良的影响. 第二, 不熟悉的品牌进行首次价格促销时, 促销信息的发布方式会影响公司促销的成败. 当消费者进行性格归因和情境归因的比较时, 质量认知的不良影响会更大. 与先前主要关注具有或不具有情境/性格归因中良好或不良的动机的研究不同, 本研究的焦点是检验如果公司提出了具有说服性的理由, 即使消费者在价格促销行为中有性格归因, 情境归因也可以被推断出的事实. 这种方法, 在学术方面取得了很大的成果, 意义在于它运用非数学的问题来解释固定和调整过程而不像以前的研究大部分是把它用于数学问题来解释. 换句话说, 根据基本属性错误, 有很大的倾向去性格地归因其他的行为. 当这种情况出现在价格促销时, 我们可以推断出消费者很有可能性格地归因公司的价格促销行为. 反而, 即使在这种情况下, 公司可以调整消费者的锚定性来降低性格归因的可能性. 另外, 不像多数对价格促销的长/短期影响的以往的研究, 只考虑价格促销对消费者的购买行为影响, 本 研究测试对质量认知的影响, 一个影响消费者购买行为的因素. 这些结果在实际工作方面有重要启示. 本研究的结果可以作为新产品有效的提供促销信息的指南. 如果品牌要避免错误的暗示, 比如在施行价格促销战略时被认为是产品的质量不好, 一定要为促销提供清晰合理的理由. 尤其是对那些以前没有进行过价格促销活动的公司来说, 提供明确的理由尤其重要. 不一致的行为可以导致消费者的不信任和焦虑. 这也是无止境的价格战的风险的重要因素之一. 没有事先通知的价格促销会使消费者怀疑, 但不会影响市场份额.

• 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.