Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using variety-seeking-based segmentation to study promotional response

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The link between variety seeking and promotional response has been of interest to marketing researchers for quite some time. By segmenting consumers according to their variety-seeking needs, researchers have established some interesting results regarding the variation in promotional response across segments. However, the sole basis for segmentation thus far has been unidimensional (e.g., high-and low-variety seekers). This research discusses a unique way to segment consumers based not only on the usual extent (or mean) of variety seeking but also on the intensity (or consistency) of variety-seeking behavior, a new segmentation criterion. The authors conduct an empirical study to test the two-dimensional segmentation scheme and investigate differences in response to a variety of promotions across the segments. The inclusion of the intensity aspect of variety seeking as an additional basis for segmentation has a significant impact on promotional response and offers substantially richer managerial interpretation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ansari, Asim, Kapil Bawa, and Avijit Ghosh. 1995. “A Nested Logit Model of Brand Choice Incorporating Variety-Seeking and Marketing Mix Variables.”Marketing Letters 6 (3):199–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bawa, Kapil. 1990. “Modeling Inertia and Variety Seeking Tendencies in Brand Choice Behavior.”Marketing Science 9 (3):263–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Robert W. Shoemaker. 1987. “The Effects of a Direct Mail Coupon on Brand Choice Behavior.”Journal of Marketing Research 24 (November):370–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, Fred, Barbara E. Kahn, and Leigh McAlister. 1992. “Market Share Response When Consumers Seek Variety.”Journal of Marketing Research 29:227–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Givon, Moshe. 1984. “Variety Seeking Through Brand Switching.”Marketing S Science 3:1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guadagni, Peter M. and John D. C. Little. 1983. “A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data.”Marketing Science 2 (3):203–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeuland, Abel P. 1978. “Brand Preference Over Time: A Partially Deterministic Operationalization of the Notion of Variety Seeking.” InProceedings of the Educator's Conference, Series No. 43. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, John. 1984.Econometric Methods. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, Barbara E. and Theresa A. Louie. 1990. “The Effects of Retraction of Price Promotions on Brand Choice Behavior for Variety Seeking and Last Purchase Loyal Consumer.”Journal of Marketing Research 27:279–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and Jagmohan S. Raju. 1991. “The Effects of Price Promotions on Variety Seeking and Reinforcement Behavior.”Marketing Science 10:316–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnamurthi, Lakshman and S. P. Raj. 1991. “An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship Between Brand Loyalty and Consumer Price Elasticity.”Marketing Science 10 (2):172–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattin, James M. 1987. “A Model of Balanced Choice Behavior.”Marketing Science 6:48–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Leigh McAlister. 1985. “Using a Variety-Seeking Model to Identify Substitute and Complementary Relationships Among Competing Products.”Journal of Marketing Research 22:330–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, Joshua. 1989. “Stealing the Right Shoppers.”Forbes, July 10, p. 104.

  • McAlister, Leigh. 1982. “A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety Seeking Behavior.”Journal of Consumer Research 9 (September): 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Michael S. and Minakshi Trivedi. 1996. “The Order of the Brand Choice Process Revisited: Some New Perspectives on Measurement and Data Issues.”Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 14 (2):221–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, Michael L. and William C. Gaidis. 1981. “Behavioral Learning Theory: Its Relevance to Marketing and Promotions.”Journal of Marketing 45 (2):70–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivedi, Minakshi, Frank M. Bass, and Ram C. Rao. 1994. “A Model of Stochastic Variety Seeking.”Marketing Science 13:274–297.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA

    Minakshi Trivedi

Authors
  1. Minakshi Trivedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Minakshi Trivedi is an associate professor of marketing at the School of Management, State University of New York at Buffalo. Her research interests lie in modeling purchase behavior, and game theory. She has published in various journals in cludingMarketing Science, Management Science, and theJournal of Business & Economic Statistics.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Trivedi, M. Using variety-seeking-based segmentation to study promotional response. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 27, 37–49 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399271003

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399271003

Keywords

Search

Navigation