臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

忠誠度方案近年來倍受各企業的重視，透過鼓勵經常性購買進而維持顧客長期關係，使得忠誠度方案成為企業最重要的經營策略之一。其主要體制為企業基於特定的產品與服務之累積性購買主動提供獎勵以回饋消費者。由於留住現有顧客的成本為爭取新顧客成本的六分之一，因此顧客忠誠度方案日漸重要，然而國內相關研究仍有所欠缺。因此本研究期望藉由探討忠誠度方案門檻及獎勵誘因之關連，提供企業更有效的忠誠度方案規劃方式。

忠誠度方案門檻對消費者獎酬選擇偏好之影響為本研究主要探討目的，並加入貨幣成本為調節變數探討其干擾效果。本研究採2x2樣本間因子實驗設計，有效樣本數為259份，並以SPSS統計軟體針對樣本進行單因子變異數分析。其研究結果如下:

(1) 當忠誠度方案門檻提高時，消費者對於娛樂品獎酬之偏好相較於實用品獎酬會增加。其原因為對於娛樂品消費產生之罪惡感會藉由所付諸之努力成本提高而降低，因而提高娛樂品消費。
(2) 當貨幣成本加入忠誠度方案，消費者需支付部份現金以獲得獎酬時，不論低門檻或高門檻要求，消費者對於娛樂品獎酬之偏好會減少，相對的實用品獎酬之偏好會增加。
(3) 當貨幣成本加入忠誠度方案時，提高努力要求門檻並不會增加消費者對於娛樂品獎酬之偏好。結果顯示貨幣成本對於樣本的影響過高以致於減滅了結論一的效果。

本研究共有四個行銷意涵。第一，忠誠度方案中，提供實用品獎酬較娛樂品獎酬更為適當。企業應提供較多的實用品獎酬來吸引消費者加入忠誠度方案。第二，當忠誠度方案門檻提高時，企業可加入較多的娛樂品於獎勵誘因中。第三，忠誠度方案之消費者藉由累積努力以獲得企業獎酬而非實質金錢消費，因此可視為降低娛樂品消費之罪惡感之原因。故企業可視高門檻忠誠度方案中之娛樂品獎酬為一行銷宣傳工具。第四，當貨幣成本加入忠誠度方案時，不論低門檻或高門檻努力要求，企業可放入更多實用品於獎酬比重中。

Loyalty program, which is to encourage frequent purchasing and to maintain customer long-term relationships, has become a key marketing tool in various industries. The framework of the program is to provide reward incentives based on the cumulative purchases for certain products or services. Researches show that the cost of customer retention is approximately six times lower than that of customer acquisition. Although the importance of such program rises, few researches are made related to the topic. Thus, this study is aimed at exploring the relationships between loyalty effort requirement and reward incentives in order to provide better and more efficient loyalty programs for enterprises.

The effects of effort requirement on consumer preferences towards loyalty program rewards are evaluated. In addition, monetary cost acts as moderator is added in to examine the moderating effect. A 2x2 between-subject experimental design with approximately 259 sampling subjects is adopted in the study and the results are analyzed by One-Way ANOVA aided by SPSS software. The results of this study are as follows:

(1) Increasing the effort requirement of loyalty programs will increase consumer preference for hedonic rewards rather than utilitarian rewards. The reason for this is that long streams of effort required for loyalty programs may serve as reasons to justify and reduce the guilt for hedonic rewards selections and consumptions.
(2) When monetary costs are added to loyalty programs, no matter at low or high effort requirements, consumer preferences for hedonic rewards will decrease and in contract, preferences for utilitarian rewards will increase.
(3) When monetary costs are added to loyalty programs, increasing the effort requirement of loyalty programs will not increase consumer preference for hedonic rewards. This may due to the strong monetary costs effect on the sampling subjects that ends up easing the effect of result one.

Four marketing implementations for this study could be drawn. First, utilitarian rewards are more appropriate as loyalty program incentives than hedonic rewards. Marketers could provide more utilitarian rewards in loyalty programs as incentives to attract more participants. Second, as loyalty program effort requirement increases, hedonic rewards could be added in the reward mix to attract consumers. Third, loyalty program, which provide rewards by accumulative effort rather than money expenditure, may serve as a justification for hedonic rewards consumption. Thus, hedonic rewards could serve as promotion tool for high effort requirement loyalty programs. Finally, when monetary costs are added to loyalty programs, marketers could weight more utilitarian rewards in reward mix regardless effort requirement levels.

Chapter I Introduction...1
1. Research Motivation...1
2. Research Objectives...3
Chapter II Literature Review...4
1. Loyalty Program ...4
2. Hedonic and Utilitarian Products...5
3. The Effect of Effort Requirement Level on Reward Preference...8
4. The Impact of Monetary Cost as a Moderator on Reward Preference...10
5. Smoothing the Impacts of Monetary Cost on Reward Preference...13
Chapter III Research Methodology...16
1. Research Framework and Hypotheses...16
2. Research Hypotheses...17
3. Pilot Study Design...19
4. Results of Pilot Study...21
(1) Personal Information...21
(2) Selection of Loyalty Program Rewards...22
(3) Selection of Effort Requirement Levels...24
5. Actual Study Design...24
(1) Selection of Loyalty Programs...27
(2) Selection of Target Samples...27
(3) Selection of Loyalty Program Rewards...27
(4) Selection of Effort Requirement Levels...29
6. Sampling Subjects...30
Chapter IV Data Analyses...31
1. Results of Actual Study...31
(1) Personal Information...31
(2) Effects of Effort Requirement and Monetary Cost on Reward Preference...32
2. Summary of Test Result...37
Chapter V Conclusion and Suggestion...38
1. Marketing Implications...38
2. Research Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research...41
Reference ...45
Appendix...51
1. Appendix I: Pilot Study Questionnaire...51
2. Appendix II: Actual Study Questionnaire A...55
3. Appendix III: Actual Study Questionnaire B...57
4. Appendix IV: Actual Study Questionnaire C...59
5. Appendix V: Actual Study Questionnaire D...61

1. Akerlof, George A. (1991), “Procrastination and Obedience,” The American Economic Review, Nashville: May, vol.81, Iss. 2, 1-19.
2. Berry, Christopher J. (1994), The Idea of Luxury. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Blattberg, Robert C. and Scott A. Neslin (1990), Sales Promotion: Concepts, Methods, and Strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Bolton, Ruth N., P. K. Kannan, and Matthew D. Bramlett (2000), “Implications of Loyalty Program Membership and Service Experiences for Customer Retention and Value,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), 95-108.
5. Chang, Shin-Shin (2004), “The Effects of Loyalty Program Requirement, Monetary Cost and Source of Income on Consumer Preference Toward Loyalty Program Rewards,” Dong-Wu University MBA Thesis.
6. Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (February), 60-71.
7. Ebert, Jane (2003), “Psychological Approaches to Future Rewards: Sequences, Valuation, Effort, and Frequency Programs,” Advances in Consumer Research, 30, 68-71.
8. Gibbs, Brian J. (1999), “Direction Theory: Inward Versus Outward Decision Making, Chameleonic Consumers, and the Self-Manipulation of Tastes,” working paper, Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN37203.
9. Gourville, John T. and Dilip Soman (1998), “Payment Depreciation: The Effects of Temporally Separating Payments from Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (2), 160-174.
10. Heath, Chip and Jack B. Soll (1996), “Mental Budgeting and Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (June), 40-52.
11. Henderson, Pamela W. and Robert A. Peterson (1992), “Mental Accounting and Categorization,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62 (April), 38-45.
12. Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Morris B. Holbrook (1982), “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (3), 92-101.
13. Josephs, Robert A. and Eugene Hahn (1995), “Bias and Accuracy in Estimates of Task Duration,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61 (2), 202-13.
14. Kemp, Simon (1998), “Perceiving Luxury and Necessity,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 591-606.
15. Kearney, Terrence J. (1990), “Frequent Flyer Programs: A Failure in Competitive Strategy, with Lessons for Management,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7 (1), 31-40.
16. Kivetz, Ran (1999), “Advances in Research on Mental Accounting and Reason-Based Choice,” Marketing Letters 10 (3), 249-266.
17. Kivetz, Ran (2001a), “Consumer Preferences Towards Frequency Programs,” Advanceds in Consumer Research, 28.
18. Kivetz, Ran (2001b), “Factors Affecting Consumer Choices Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Options,” Advances in Consumer Research, 28.
19. Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2002a), “Earning the Right to Indulge: Effort as a Determinant of Consumer Preferences toward Frequency Program Rewards,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (May), 155-170.
20. Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2002b), “Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Precommitment to Indulgence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 199-217.
21. Kopalle, Praveen K., Scott A. Neslin, and Medini Singh (1999), “The Economic Viability of Frequency Reward Programs in a Strategic Competitive Environment,” working paper, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College.
22. Leclerc, France and Richard H. Thaler (1999), “When a Dollar Off is Worth More Than a Dollar,” University of Chicago working paper.
23. Lo, Grace Ya-Hsun (2002), “The Relationship between the Frequency Program Design and Consumers’ Reward Preferences – Guilt as the Moderator for the Effects of Effort Requirements on Consumer Rewards Preferences,” National Taiwan University MBA Thesis.
24. Loewenstein, George (1996), “Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65 (3), 272-92
25. O’Brien, Louise and Charles Jones (1995), “Do Rewards Really Create Loyalty,” Harvard Business Review, 73 (3), 75-82.
26. O’ Curry, Suzanne (1999), “Income Source Effects,” unpublished working paper, DePaul University.
27. O’ Curry, Suzanne and Michal Strahilevitz (2001), “Probability and Mode of Acquisition Effects on Choices Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Option,” Marketing Letters, 12 (1), 37-49.
28. Orr, A. (1995), “Customers for Life!” Target Marketing, 18 (March), 20.
29. Prelec, Drazen (1991), “Values and Principles: Some Limitations on Traditional Economic Analysis, “ in Socioeconomics: Toward a New Synthesis, A. Etzioni and P. Lawrence (Eds.), New York: M. E. Sharpe.
30. Prelec, Drazen and George Loewenstein (1998), “The Red and the Black: Mental Accounting of Savings and Debt,” Marketing Science, 17 (1), 4-28.
31. Raphel, Neil (1998), “The Future of Loyalty Marketing,” Supermarket Business, 53 (April), 23-30.
32. Reichheld, Frederick and W. Earl Sasser, Jr. (1990), “Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services,” Harvard Business Review, 68 (September/October), 105-111.
33. Shafir, Eldar, Itamar Simonson, and Amos Tversky (1993), “Reason-Based Choice,” Cognition, 49(1/2), 11-36.
34. Shefrin, Hersh M. and Richard H. Thaler (1988), “The Behavioral Life-Cycle Hypothesis,” Economic Inquiry, 26, 609-643.
35. Shefrin, Hersh M. and Richard H. Thaler (1992), “Mental Accounting, Saving, and Self-Control,” in Choice Over Time, G. Loewenstein and J. Elster (Eds.), New York: Russell Sage Press.
36. Shiv, Baba and Alexander Fedorikhin (2000), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, forthcoming.
37. Soman, Dilip (1998), “The Illusion of Delayed Incentives: Evaluating Future Effort-Money Transactions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (November), 427-437.
38. Strahilevitz, Michal and John G. Myers (1998), “Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 434-446.
39. Thaler, Richard H. (1985), “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,” Marketing Science, 4 (3), 199-214.
40. Thaler, Richard H. (1999), “Mental Accounting Matters,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12 (3), 183-206.
41. Thaler, Richard H. and Eric J. Johnson (1990), “Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Chioce,” Management Science, 36 (June), 643-660.
42. Wertenbroch, Klaus (1998), “Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Purchase Quantities of Virtue and Vice,” Marketing Science, 17 (4), 317-37.
43. Wu, Ming-Chun (2003), “The Effects of Effort Requirement and Monetary Cost on Consumer Choices of Loyalty Program Incentives,” National Taiwan University MBA Thesis.