바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

E-ISSN : 2233-5382

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.8 No.5
Citation Share

The Effect of On-line Product Presentation : A Comparative Study between 3D and General Product Presentation

The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business / The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business, (E)2233-5382
2017, v.8 no.5, pp.15-21
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.13106/ijidb.2017.vol8.no5.15
liu, Shuo
liu,, S. (2017). The Effect of On-line Product Presentation : A Comparative Study between 3D and General Product Presentation. The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business, 8(5), 15-21, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.13106/ijidb.2017.vol8.no5.15
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Purpose - This research aims to examine the effects of 3D online products presentation by comparing it with general presentation. Research design, data, and methodology - To rigorously investigate the differences of effects between 3D presentation and general presentation, this study examines the differences of the two presentations in vividness, informedness, entertainment, product trust, and purchase intention. This research designed two different forms of online product presentations, 3D and general presentation for an experiment. Results - The research findings indicate that 1) the vividness of online product presentation has a positive impact on the informedness and entertainment. While both vividness and informedness product presentation have a positive impact on product trust, the entertainment of online product presentation has no significant impact. 2) Vividness, informedness, entertainment, product trust, and purchasing intention showed significant differences between 3D and general product presentations. 3) Overall, 3D product presentation showed a stronger impact on purchasing intention than the general product presentation. Conclusions - This research expands the area of business presentation by comparing the differences of 3D and general presentation methods. This study made a great contribution to theory development, and also to guidelines for practice. These insights could be used by organizations in developing realistic environments for business presentations.

keywords
3D Presentation, Vividness, Entertainment, Informedness, Product Trust, Purchase Intention, Comparison

Reference

1.

Alwitt, L. F., & Prabhaker, P. R. (1994). Identifying Who Dislikes Television: Not By Demographics Alone. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(6), 17-29.

2.

Carson, S. J., Joann, J. P., & Terry, L. C. (1996). Preliminary Results on the Determinants of Technology Assisted Shopping(TAS): A Model, Measure Development, and Validation. Proceedings of AMA Educator’s Conference, American Marketing Association, Winter, 229-239.

3.

Chau, P. Y. K., Au, G., & Tam, K. Y. (2000). Impact of Information Presentation Modes on Online Shopping: an Empirical Evaluation of a Broadband Interactive Shopping Service. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 10(1), 1–22.

4.

Chin, W. W., & Gopal, A. (1995). Adoption Intention in GSS: Importance of Beliefs. Data Base Adv., 26, 42-64.

5.

Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65-77.

6.

Daugherty, T., Li, H., & Biocca, F. (2008). Consumer Learning and the Effects of Virtual Experience Relative to Indirect and Direct Product Experience. Psychology and Marketing, 25(7), 568-86.

7.

Flavián-Blanco，C., Gurrea-Sarasa, R., & Orús-Sanclemente, C. (2010). Effects of Visual and Textual Information in Online Product Presentations:Looking for the Best Combination in Website Design. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(6), 668-686.

8.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

9.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Dickson, G. W. (1988). Graphics and Managerial Decision Making: Research-based Guidelines. Communications of the ACM, 31(6), 764–774.

10.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Todd, P. A. (1997). Consumer Reactions to Electronic Shopping on the World Wide Web. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1(2), 59-88.

11.

Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2002). Impact of 3-D Advertising on Product Knowledge, Brand Attitude, and Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Presence. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 43–57.

12.

Park, J. H., Lennon S. J., & Stoel, L. (2005). Online Product Presentation: Effects on Mood, Perceived Risk, and Purchase Intention. Psychology and Marketing, 22(9), 695–719.

13.

Remus, W. (1984). A Study of Graphical and Tabular Display and Their Interaction with Environmental Complexity. Management Science, 33, 1200–1204.

14.

Shavitt, S., Lowrey, P., & Haefner, J. (1998). Public Attitudes Towards Advertising: More Favourable Than You Might Think. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(4), 7-22.

15.

Teo, T. S. H., & Yeong, Y. D. (2003). Assessing the Customer Decision Process in the Digital Marketplace. Omega, 31(5), 349-363.

16.

Thompson, B. (1997). The Importance of Structure Coefficients in Structural Equation Modeling Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(1), 5-19.

17.

Wagner. (2005). A Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems. NJ: Princeton University Press.

The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business

e-Submission OA Policy