零售行业定价心理战

    你是否曾在购物的时候，看到一件非常适合自己的夹克？然后看了一眼价签，却变得有些犹豫。你应该现在买下这件完美的衣服，还是等到必将来临的换季促销时，再看看能否买到这件衣服？如果店铺告诉你，这件衣服数量有限，或者适合你的尺码只有两件了，你会怎么办？

    笔者近期与凯伦•张教授合作进行的一项研究发现，随着消费者对购物的战略性考虑越来越多，后悔和可获得性错觉等行为动机成为至关重要的因素，应该在定价策略中发挥关键作用。

    如果消费者将自己的选择行为结果，与未选择行为结果进行对比后，发现后者对他们更加有利，这时就会产生后悔情绪。换言之，如果上面提到的夹克在未来促销时可以获得7折的优惠，他们就会后悔现在以更高的价格买下了这件衣服。同样，如果在未来促销时，适合他们的尺寸已经售完，他们则会后悔现在没有出手购买。

    消费者由于缺乏处理所有相关信息的能力，进而会产生可获得性错觉。消费者需要考虑那件夹克现在的受欢迎程度，来预测它未来的可获得性。如果消费者认为出现不确定结果的概率要高于实际概率，此时也会出现可获得性错觉。即便实际概率并不明确，消费者也往往会表现得好像他们在内心已经感知到这种可能性。

    有趣的是，零售商可以通过引发可获得性错觉，来刺激消费者的后悔情绪。他们可以通过标识牌强调库存有限，或者发布较少数量的商品，来达到这个目的。如果你发现在货架上仅有两件适合自己尺寸的衣服，你会想当然地认为这件商品供应量有限。许多电子商务零售商，比如亚马逊（Amazon）等，都会明确标注每件商品的剩余库存。

    这是一种聪明的策略，因为可获得性错觉对消费者购买决定的影响要大于后悔。因此，根据这种错觉开展的营销活动往往会比只强调后悔的营销活动产生更好的效果。

    当然，并不是所有的购买行为都会受到这些行为动机的影响。如果你看中的是普通的贴身内衣而不是夹克，会怎么样？这种内衣在许多零售商店里都能买到。不论今天买还是以后买，消费者都不太可能后悔。对于这类商品，天天低价策略才是最佳选择。相反，那些会引起后悔情绪的商品，则更适合降价促销策略。凭借庞大的销售交易数据集，以及零售商的经验，我们可以确定消费者在购买不同商品时的行为动机。零售商在确定一件商品是否会导致后悔之后，就可以利用我们的算法，决定到底应该采取天天低价策略，还是降价促销策略。

    忽视这些行为动机，对于零售商来说非常危险。我们发现，零售商忽视这些行为可能导致库存过低，同时失去14%的潜在需求。鉴于零售商的利润空间相对较小，14%的数字非同小可，因为它可能意味着10%的利润。

    各公司越来越重视定价策略，因为他们意识到这是决策过程中最重要的手段之一。商业的其他方面，如运营与供应链等，之前一直很受关注。而定价将是下一个重点。（财富中文网）

    本文奥扎尔普•奥泽尔教授来自德克萨斯大学达拉斯分校内瓦金达尔管理学院，现任麻省理工学院斯隆管理学院客座教授。此外，奥扎尔普•奥泽尔教授也是《牛津定价管理手册》一书的作者之一，及论文《降价还是天天低价？行为动机的作用》的作者之一。

    译者：刘进龙/汪皓

    Have you ever been shopping and found a great jacket with a perfect fit? Then you look at the price tag and pause. Should you buy that perfect item now or wait to see if it’s still available during the inevitable end-of-season sale? What if the store told you that it only had a limited number left, or only had two on the rack in your size?

    In a recent study I conducted with Prof. Karen Zheng, we found that as consumers have become more strategic about purchases, behavioral motives like regret and availability misperception are significant factors and should play a key role in pricing strategy.

    Regret happens when consumers compare the outcome of a chosen action with that of the unchosen one and realize they would have been better off with the latter. In other words, they may regret buying the jacket now at the higher price if it turns out to be available during the sale for 30% off. Similarly, they may regret not buying it now if their size is gone by the time of the sale.

    The availability misperception occurs due to lack of ability to process all relevant information. The consumer needs to consider how popular that jacket is now to anticipate its availability later. It also occurs simply because consumers perceive an uncertain outcome to be more likely than its actual probability. Consumers often behave as if they have mentally perceived the probabilities even when those probabilities are not explicitly known.

    Interestingly, retailers can prime that sense of regret by triggering the availability misperception. They can do this by emphasizing limited inventory either with signage or just putting out less of that item. If you only found two jackets in your size on the rack, you’d likely assume it’s in limited supply. Many e-commerce retailers like Amazon do this by explicitly noting how much of each item is left in stock.

    This is a smart strategy, as availability misperception has a greater impact on consumers’ purchase decisions than regret. As a result, marketing campaigns that act on this misperception are more effective than ones that only emphasize regret.

    Of course not all purchases are affected by these behavioral motives. What if, instead of a jacket, you were looking at basic undershirts? Those tend to be readily available at many retailers. You aren’t likely going to experience regret whether you buy today or later. With that type of product, an everyday-low-price strategy is optimal. In contrast, products that will induce regret are better off using a markdown strategy. Large data sets available for sales transactions and the retailer’s experience help us determine consumers’ behavioral motives in purchasing various product lines. Once they determine whether it’s a regret-inducing product or not, retailers can use our algorithm to determine what the optimal everyday-low-price or mark downs should be.

    Ignoring these behavioral motives is dangerous for retailers. We found that it could lead the seller to under-stock too much and unnecessarily forgo up to 14% of potential demand. Given that retailers operate with relatively slim profit margins, 14% is very significant. It could result in 10% of profits.

    Companies are starting to pay a lot more attention to pricing strategy, realizing that it is one of the most important levers in the decision process. There has been a lot of attention to other aspects of the business like operations and supply chains. Pricing is the next frontier.

    Prof. ÖzalpÖzer is a visiting professor at MIT Sloan from the Naveen Jindal School of Management at the University of Texas at Dallas. He also is coeditorof the book The Oxford Handbook of Pricing Management and coauthor of the paper, “Markdown or Everyday-Low-Price? The Role of Behavioral Motives.”