Preference between Individual Products and Bundles: Effects of Complementary, Price, and Discount Level in Portugal

Abstract

This paper aims to (1) compare consumers’ preferences between individual products and bundles as well as (2) investigate some of the factors involved in bundle characteristics that may affect consumer’s preferences. Those factors are complementarity, price level, and discount level. An online survey developed by means of questionnaires were collected from the Portuguese population. Student’s t-tests were used to test the hypothesis formulated and to analyze the consumers’ preferences. The findings corroborate that in a scenario where the bundle does not offer any discounts, preference of individual products is higher. When a 20% discount is assigned to bundles, the overall preference for individual products is still superior. By offering a discount level of 45%, the overall preference for bundles becomes higher. The positive effect of complementarity bundles valuation is confirmed. This is the first approach to evaluate the preferences between bundles and individual products in the Portuguese market. The findings contribute to clarify the customer map within a Business Model Canvas. Furthermore, this paper analyzes the bundle complementarity and discount level effects simultaneously.

Improving the understanding of key nutritional elements to support healthier and more informed food choices: The effect of front-of-pack label bundles

“…Future research could enrich this stream with additional studies, to verify the presence of statistical differences. On the other hand, statistically significant differences in liking were found, showing a higher performance of the single label compared with the double-directive bundle, consistent with the results of previous literature [20].…”

“…Consistent with the bundling literature (e.g., Harlam et al [24] and Venkatesh and Kamakura [49]), the mixed FOPL bundle (i.e., complementary) performed better than the single label in terms of consumers' subjective understanding. Furthermore, regarding the comparison between the double-directive bundle (i.e., non-complementary) and the single label, in contrast to the results highlighted by Martins et al [20], we registered no significant differences in consumers' subjective understanding. The reason for this difference between results highlighted in our research and past evidence could be owed to the fact that little has been explored in the comparison between bundles and single labels, especially on the effect that the different type of bundle has on the consumer.…”

“…The results showed a higher effect of the mixed bundle (versus the double-directive bundle) on consumers' subjective understanding in terms of comprehensibility (H1a was supported), help to shop (H1b was supported), complexity reduction (H1c was supported in both scenarios-label nutritional level 1 and label nutritional level 2), and liking of the label (H2 was supported). Consistent with the literature, the complementary bundle performed significantly better than the non-complementary bundle on dependent variables, reporting a higher utility for the consumers [20,21].…”

“…Khandeparkar [19] reported a significant enhancement effect on the perceived quality of a new brand or product under the condition of a complementary bundle. Martins et al [20] provided evidence that the output of a complementary bundle is higher than that of a non-complementary bundle. Karatas et al [21] highlighted that it is more beneficial for the seller if multiple components of a bundle are complementary [22,23], confirming that complementary items have super-additive utilities.…”

“…Within the comparison between bundles and single products, Harlam et al [24] and Venkatesh and Kamakura [49] highlighted that complementary bundles have a superior evaluation compared with single products. On the other hand, Martins et al [20] provided evidence that a non-complementary bundle (i.e., characterized by redundant or non-related products) received a lower evaluation regarding quality, attractiveness, and purchase intention than did a single product.…”