|
 ABSTRACT
A comparison challenge approach is proposed as a form of challenger-activated, just-in-time advertising. To develop a framework for a comparison challenge, we propose a theory of comparison. Based on this theory, the CompareMe and CompareThem strategies are devised, and comparable objects are classified in terms of price and performance dominance as well as the scope of proximity. The idea is demonstrated with a comparison of PCs from five leading manufacturers. To assist in the planning of the comparison challenge, a mathematical programming model was formulated to maximize the value of comparison under the constraints of the comparison opportunity and budget. The model is applied to eight scenarios in terms of the range of comparing objects. We found the ad effect of comparison challenge to be substantially better than banners (4.75 times) and similarity-based comparisons (2.77 times), providing customers with better performance and reduced prices.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
 |
1
|
Rakesh Agrawal , Tomasz Imieliński , Arun Swami, Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases, Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, p.207-216, May 25-28, 1993, Washington, D.C., United States
|
| |
2
|
Betts, M. Brands still matter even for shopbots. MIT Sloan Management Review 42(2), 2001.
|
| |
3
|
Robert B. Doorenbos , Oren Etzioni , Daniel S. Weld, A scalable comparison-shopping agent for the World-Wide Web, Proceedings of the first international conference on Autonomous agents, p.39-48, February 05-08, 1997, Marina del Rey, California, United States
[doi> 10.1145/267658.267666]
|
| |
4
|
Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielsen, D., Marable, L., Stanford, J., and Tauber, E. How Do People Evaluate a Web Site's Credibility? Results from a Large Study. Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab, Stanford University. 2002. http://www.Consumerwebwatch.org.
|
| |
5
|
|
| |
6
|
|
| |
7
|
Gartner Dataquest. U.S. PC Shipments Year 2001 (Preliminary). TWICE. 2002.
|
| |
8
|
Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E. F., Costley, C., and Barnes, J. Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing 61(4). 1--15. 1997.
|
| |
9
|
|
| |
10
|
Johnson, Carrie A., Allen, Lisa., Lee, Jennifer C., Sommer, Jessica., and Valberg, Allegra. eCommerce Brokers Arrive. Forrester Research TechStrategy Report. April 5. 2001.
|
| |
11
|
|
| |
12
|
Lee, J. K., and Lee, J. W. Theory of Comparison and Online Comparison Challenge Approach. Submitted for Management Science. 2003.
|
| |
13
|
Lee, J. K., and Lee, J. W. Comparative Advertisement and Sales Method and its System, Korea Patent Registration # 0357890. 2002.
|
| |
14
|
Lee, J. K., and Lee, J. W. Method and System of Comparative Advertisement and Sales in Computer Network System, US Patent Application # 09/591633. 2000.
|
| |
15
|
Lee, J. K., Song, Y. U., and Lee, J. W. A Comparison Shopping Architecture over Multiple Malls: The Meta-Malls Architecture. Proceedings of International Conference of Electronic Commerce (Seoul, 1998).
|
| |
16
|
|
| |
17
|
Meskauskas, Jim., The Current State of Ad-Pricing Models. ClickZ.com. April 10. 2001.
|
| |
18
|
Russell, Michael J., Keith, Robert J., Feuer, Rod., and Meeker, Mary. Mark Mahaney. Correction: Does Internet Advertising Work? Yes, But. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. February 22. 2001.
|
| |
19
|
Segal, Ajay., What works in Internet Advertising. Avant|marketer. 2002.
|
|
Adobe Acrobat
QuickTime
Windows Media Player
Real Player
Pdf