The Negative Effect of Product Image Inconsistency on Product Overviews During the Online Product Search

ABSTRACT

During the product search phase in online retail, consumers typically review product overviews, where they must decide whether to further investigate a product from the assortment and which products to assess. These product overviews are in practice frequently inconsistent in their image characteristics, that is, in terms of their product background (on white background vs. with contextual background) and/or product orientation (differing presentation angles of the products). Four studies in an e-commerce setting establish the negative effect of inconsistent product presentation in product overviews on assortment evaluations and choice satisfaction, a result of decreased fluency. In contrast, the present investigation also offers initial evidence refuting the idea that inconsistency in presentation of single products increases their choice for closer inspection through increased salience. This implies that online retailers should present their product assortments within each category as consistently as possible, specifically in terms of product background, as the negative effect of background inconsistency is larger (–6 percent to –19 percent) than of product orientation inconsistency (–3 percent to –6 percent). Further, we establish consistency as another antecedent of fluency.

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES:

• Online retail
• e-tail
• product search
• online search
• image inconsistency
• product image
• online product presentation

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website

Notes

1. For example, according to the misattribution view, consumers attribute fluency to an existing sentiment in a two-step process [1], which should accentuate existing perceptions irrespective of the latter’s valence [37, 10, 61]. In addition, more complex dual-process models build on awareness of the exposure process [38] and incorporate a metacognitive evaluation, which compares fluency perceptions against expectations (e.g., the pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking [30]).

2. Specifically, we found the following: beds: M_B1 = +4%, M_B2 = +5%, M_B3 = +13%, SD = 42%; sofas: M_S1 = +22%, M_S2 = +15, M_S3 = +12%, SD = 49%. Perceived as typical: beds: M_B1 = –4%, M_B2 = +8%, M_B3 = 0%, SD = 34%; sofas: M_S1 = –17%, M_S2 = –1%, M_S3 = 0%, SD = 46%. Liking ANOVA for beds: F(1, 77) = .44, p = .64; for sofas: F(1, 77) = .39, p = .67. Perceived similarly: beds: F(1, 77) = 1.02, p = .36; sofas: F(1, 77) = 1.12, p = .33.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Erik Maier

ERIK MAIER ([email protected], corresponding author) is Assistant Professor for Retail and Multi-Channel Management at HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Germany. He holds a Ph.D. in Business Administration from ESCP Europe and has worked as management consultant for McKinsey & Company and as marketing manager for an online retailer. His research focuses on assortment perceptions in e-commerce stores, cross-channel purchase behavior and the societal consequences of online retail. His papers have been published in such journals as the Journal of Industrial Ecology, Marketing Letters, and Psychology & Marketing.