不归路?对宽松退货政策的限制性改变以及消费者对此的反应

IF 10.4 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Huseyn Abdulla, Michael Ketzenberg, James D. Abbey, Gregory R. Heim
{"title":"不归路?对宽松退货政策的限制性改变以及消费者对此的反应","authors":"Huseyn Abdulla,&nbsp;Michael Ketzenberg,&nbsp;James D. Abbey,&nbsp;Gregory R. Heim","doi":"10.1002/joom.1346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Retailers face a challenging trade-off in maintaining versus restricting long-established lenient return policies. On the one hand, lenient return policies have become an important part of retailers' value propositions and play a significant role in stimulating consumer purchases. On the other hand, lenient return policies increase the volume of product returns, which hurts profitability. Motivated by observing an increase in restrictive changes to long-established lenient return policies, we investigate consumer reactions to such changes and their managerial implications. Through a series of experiments with diverse consumer samples, we find that restrictive changes, such as shortening return time windows or introducing restocking fees, decrease consumer trust in retailers and lead to lowered purchase, positive word-of-mouth, and loyalty intentions. We also find that providing managerial transparency, in the form of communicating the rationale for restrictive changes, can attenuate the negative consumer reactions to such changes. Moreover, rationales that emphasize the cost of handling returns versus blaming opportunistic and abusive returners are similarly effective. Our findings contribute to the growing academic literature on consumer return policy design and provide actionable insights to retail managers.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"71 1","pages":"81-108"},"PeriodicalIF":10.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The point of no return? Restrictive changes to lenient return policies and consumer reactions to them\",\"authors\":\"Huseyn Abdulla,&nbsp;Michael Ketzenberg,&nbsp;James D. Abbey,&nbsp;Gregory R. Heim\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/joom.1346\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Retailers face a challenging trade-off in maintaining versus restricting long-established lenient return policies. On the one hand, lenient return policies have become an important part of retailers' value propositions and play a significant role in stimulating consumer purchases. On the other hand, lenient return policies increase the volume of product returns, which hurts profitability. Motivated by observing an increase in restrictive changes to long-established lenient return policies, we investigate consumer reactions to such changes and their managerial implications. Through a series of experiments with diverse consumer samples, we find that restrictive changes, such as shortening return time windows or introducing restocking fees, decrease consumer trust in retailers and lead to lowered purchase, positive word-of-mouth, and loyalty intentions. We also find that providing managerial transparency, in the form of communicating the rationale for restrictive changes, can attenuate the negative consumer reactions to such changes. Moreover, rationales that emphasize the cost of handling returns versus blaming opportunistic and abusive returners are similarly effective. Our findings contribute to the growing academic literature on consumer return policy design and provide actionable insights to retail managers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51097,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Operations Management\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"81-108\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Operations Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joom.1346\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Operations Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joom.1346","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

零售商面临着一个具有挑战性的权衡,是维持还是限制长期建立的宽松退货政策。一方面,宽松的退货政策已经成为零售商价值主张的重要组成部分,在刺激消费者购买方面发挥了重要作用。另一方面,宽松的退货政策增加了产品退货量,这损害了盈利能力。由于观察到对长期建立的宽松退货政策的限制性变化的增加,我们调查了消费者对此类变化的反应及其管理含义。通过对不同消费者样本的一系列实验,我们发现限制性变化,如缩短退货时间窗口或引入补货费,会降低消费者对零售商的信任,并导致购买量下降、积极的口碑和忠诚意愿。我们还发现,以传达限制性变化的基本原理的形式提供管理透明度,可以减轻消费者对此类变化的负面反应。此外,强调处理退货的成本而不是指责机会主义和滥用退货者的理由同样有效。我们的研究结果为越来越多的关于消费者退货政策设计的学术文献做出了贡献,并为零售经理提供了可操作的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The point of no return? Restrictive changes to lenient return policies and consumer reactions to them

Retailers face a challenging trade-off in maintaining versus restricting long-established lenient return policies. On the one hand, lenient return policies have become an important part of retailers' value propositions and play a significant role in stimulating consumer purchases. On the other hand, lenient return policies increase the volume of product returns, which hurts profitability. Motivated by observing an increase in restrictive changes to long-established lenient return policies, we investigate consumer reactions to such changes and their managerial implications. Through a series of experiments with diverse consumer samples, we find that restrictive changes, such as shortening return time windows or introducing restocking fees, decrease consumer trust in retailers and lead to lowered purchase, positive word-of-mouth, and loyalty intentions. We also find that providing managerial transparency, in the form of communicating the rationale for restrictive changes, can attenuate the negative consumer reactions to such changes. Moreover, rationales that emphasize the cost of handling returns versus blaming opportunistic and abusive returners are similarly effective. Our findings contribute to the growing academic literature on consumer return policy design and provide actionable insights to retail managers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Operations Management
Journal of Operations Management 管理科学-运筹学与管理科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
15.40%
发文量
62
审稿时长
24 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Operations Management (JOM) is a leading academic publication dedicated to advancing the field of operations management (OM) through rigorous and original research. The journal's primary audience is the academic community, although it also values contributions that attract the interest of practitioners. However, it does not publish articles that are primarily aimed at practitioners, as academic relevance is a fundamental requirement. JOM focuses on the management aspects of various types of operations, including manufacturing, service, and supply chain operations. The journal's scope is broad, covering both profit-oriented and non-profit organizations. The core criterion for publication is that the research question must be centered around operations management, rather than merely using operations as a context. For instance, a study on charismatic leadership in a manufacturing setting would only be within JOM's scope if it directly relates to the management of operations; the mere setting of the study is not enough. Published papers in JOM are expected to address real-world operational questions and challenges. While not all research must be driven by practical concerns, there must be a credible link to practice that is considered from the outset of the research, not as an afterthought. Authors are cautioned against assuming that academic knowledge can be easily translated into practical applications without proper justification. JOM's articles are abstracted and indexed by several prestigious databases and services, including Engineering Information, Inc.; Executive Sciences Institute; INSPEC; International Abstracts in Operations Research; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; SciSearch/Science Citation Index; CompuMath Citation Index; Current Contents/Engineering, Computing & Technology; Information Access Company; and Social Sciences Citation Index. This ensures that the journal's research is widely accessible and recognized within the academic and professional communities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信