Advertisement

Shipping fee schedules and return behavior

  • Anke Lepthien
  • Michel ClementEmail author
Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

We study the influence of shipping fee schedules on the return behavior of customers. Based on a randomized field experiment, we analyze the behavior of visitors of an online shop. Specifically, online shop visitors are assigned to one of seven different shipping fee structures where (a) minimum order sizes, (b) shipping fees, and (c) threshold-based free shipping levels are varied. We observe the number and amount of purchases as well as the number and amount of returns, which allows us to calculate the value of the purchased goods after returns in € (net order value). We find a positive effect of shipping fees on purchase value (pre- and post-return). However, we find that minimum order values lead to slightly more returns by current customers and that threshold-based free shipping leads across all customers to a higher number of strategic returns because they tend to return more items. Threshold-based free shipping decreases purchase incidence (but not purchase value). Interestingly, we do not find negative effects of minimum order value on purchase incidence or purchase value.

Keywords

Shipping fees Field experiment Return behavior Customer life time value 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Benjamin Schröder for his research assistance and Dominik Papies, Jan U. Becker, and Alexa B. Burmester for their valuable feedback.

References

  1. Anderson, E. T., Hansen, K., & Simester, D. (2009). The option value of returns: Theory and empirical evidence. Marketing Science, 28, 405–423.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1080.0430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonifield, C., Cole, C., & Schultz, R. L. (2010). Product returns on the internet: A case of mixed signals? Journal of Business Research, 63, 1058–1065.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bower, A. B., & Maxham, J. G., III. (2012). Return shipping policies of online retailers: Normative assumptions and the long-term consequences of fee and free returns. Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 110–124.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hess, J. D., & Mayhew, G. E. (1997). Modeling merchandise returns in direct marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 11(2), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-7138(199721)11:2<20::AID-DIR4>3.0.CO;2-#.Google Scholar
  5. Hess, J. D., Chu, W., & Gerstner, E. (1996). Controlling product returns in direct marketing. Marketing Letters, 7, 307–317.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Janakiraman, N., Syrdal, H. A., & Freling, R. (2016). The effect of return policy leniency on consumer purchase and return decisions. Journal of Retailing, 92(2), 226–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. King, T., Dennis, C., & Wright, L. T. (2008). Myopia, customer returns and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Marketing Management, 24(1-2), 185–203.  https://doi.org/10.1362/026725708X273993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Koukova, N. T., Srivastava, J., & Steul-Fischer, M. (2012). The effect of shipping fee structure on consumers’ online evaluations and choice. Journal of Academy of Market Science, 40, 759–770.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0281-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lewis, M. (2006). The effect of shipping fees on customer acquisition, customer retention, and purchase quantities. Journal of Retailing 82(1), 13–23Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, M., Singh, V., & Fay, S. (2006). An empirical study of the impact of nonlinear shipping and handling fees on purchase incidence and expenditures decisions. Marketing Science, 25, 51–64.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1050.0150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Petersen, J. A., & Kumar, V. (2009). Are product returns a necessary evil? Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 35–51.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Petersen, J. A., & Kumar, V. (2015). Perceived risk, product returns, and optimal resource allocation: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(2), 268–285.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sarvary, M., & Padmanabhan, V. (2001). The informational role of manufacturer returns policies: How they can help in learning the demand. Marketing Letters, 12, 341–350.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012224422616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schindler, R. M., Morrin, M., & Nasr-Bechwati, N. (2005). Shipping charges and shipping-charge skepticism: Implications for direct marketers’ pricing formats. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(1), 41–53.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Selnes, F. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 32(3/4), 305–322.  https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569810204580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shehu E, Papies D, Neslin SA (2018) Free shipping and product returns, Working Paper.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2864019.
  17. Smith, M. D., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2001). Consumer decision-making at an internet shopbot: Brand still matters. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 49(4), 541–557.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6451.00162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Spiegel Online (2014) Onlinehändler: Zalando steigert Umsatz um 50 Prozent. http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/zalando-online-kaufhaus-steigert-umsatz-um-50-prozent-a-953483.html . Accessed 27 Mar 2018.
  19. Tran, T. V., Gurnani, H., & Desiraju, R. (2018). Optimal design of returns policies. Marketing Science, forthcoming, 37, 649–667.Google Scholar
  20. Verbeek, M. (2008). A guide to modern econometrics (3rd ed.). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Wachter, K., Vitell, S. J., Shelton, R. K., & Park, K. (2012). Exploring consumer orientation toward returns: Unethical dimensions. Business Ethics: A European Review, 21, 115–128.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2011.01639.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wood, S. L. (2001). Remote purchase environments: The influence of return policy leniency on two-stage decision processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 157–169.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.157.18847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for MarketingUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Marketing and Research Center for Media & CommunicationUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations