All posts by carlyrelou

Framing product recommendations in online stores


Most online shops feature recommendation bars to make consumers aware of suggested purchases. The way of presenting these suggestions differs significantly from webstore to webstore. Their suggestions are framed in simple terms such as “more …. ” (Ikea), “others also bought” (H&M), “if you like this, your might also be into this” (Urban Outfitters), to more advanced suggestions helping customers to find related products “frequently bought together” (Amazon), or “do more with your purchase” (Best Buy). How effective is the framing of related products of these websites? Does the way it is framed matter? Nearly every webstore has a slightly different name for the recommendation – which seems to point to a specified strategy.

Recommendations of Urban Outfitters of similar products (this is not upsetting since the suggested items are not more expensive or profitable)
Recommendations of Urban Outfitters of similar products (this is not upsetting since the suggested items are not more expensive or profitable)

 In the end, besides helping customers navigate through a dizzying number of products on offer. Whether mentioning it is recommended for them, for the product they have selected or a favorite of other customers, these efforts have the goal to sell more products. They aim at either cross-selling or upselling (Moth, 2012). Cross-selling means that users are shown additional items they can use in combination with the selected product, or that are identical to the selected item. Upselling of products means that a similar product of better quality or with more features is suggested. Whereas cross-selling only drives 0.2 percent of the total number of purchases, upsales drive 4% of the purchases (Moth, 2012).

Example of cross selling from Amazon
Example of cross selling from Amazon

Continue reading Framing product recommendations in online stores

Customer information and promotions: Quid pro quo


Ahold is an international retailer that operates supermarket chains in various countries, amongst which Albert Heijn (Netherlands) and Giant Food Stores (United States), in which they implemented BonusCard programs, respectively introduced in 1998 and 2000. Both cards are required to receive discounts, but while the AH card can be kept anonymous, Giant card holders have to reregister their card, giving their full name and home address every fall, to avoid deactivation. It appears that the amount of personal information required in these programs is directly related to the discounts that can be obtained. The more information is required, the more discounts are awarded.

GiantCard_small

Whereas in US, customers’ privacy concern seems relatively low when the BonusCard was just introduced it faced active protests. These ranged from mass e-mailings to Giants then CEO, to online BonusCard swaps where people could exchange their cards’ barcodes. This probably has to do with the many advantages of the card, which does not only give discounts but which through the A+ school rewards program also donates 1% of the total purchase price of each customer to a school of their choice. On top of that, the card also gives significant discounts on gas, up to $2.20 discount per gallon (which amounts to a 60% discount) at Shell.

The Albert Heijn’s customers received the BonusCard with more suspicion. Of the 10 million new BonusCards that were handed out since bonuskaartOctober 2013, only 2.5 million were activated online. Each customer receives discount if they have a card, but if they link this to their e-mail address they can also view the groceries they have purchased in the past, which of these are on promotion, and receive personalized promotions. Entering further personal details is not required.

Continue reading Customer information and promotions: Quid pro quo