The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Testing the Value of Customization: When Do Customers Really Prefer Products Tailored to Their Preferences?
Abstract
Recently, researchers have paid increasing attention to the marketing strategy of customization. A key assumption is that customized products create higher benefits for customers than standard products because they deliver a closer preference fit. The prerequisite for this effect is the ability to obtain precise information on what customers actually want. But are customers able to specify their preferences that precisely? Several theoretical arguments raise doubts about this, implicitly challenging the value of customization. The authors conduct two studies in which they find that products customized on the basis of expressed preferences bring about significantly higher benefits for customers in terms of willingness to pay, purchase intention, and attitude toward the product than standard products. The benefit gain is higher if customers have (1) better insight into their own preferences, (2) a better ability to express their preferences, and (3) greater product involvement. This suggests that customization has the potential to be a powerful marketing strategy if these conditions are met. In the opposite case, firms willing to serve heterogeneous customer preferences need to adapt their customization systems in such a way that they explicitly address the customers’ inability to provide valid preference information.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3150783 · Cited by 12,222
Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377701400320 · Cited by 10,390
Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115 · Cited by 4,037
Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies
Smith, W. R. (1956) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1247695 · Cited by 1,910
Shifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits
von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.7.821.2817 · cited 8×
“This is in line with findings on user innovation activities (see Von Hippel 2005).”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
Artificial Intelligence in Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Contexts: The “Word-of-Machine” Effect
Longoni, C., & Cian, L. (2022) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242920957347 · Cited by 831
The “I Designed It Myself” Effect in Mass Customization
Franke, N., Schreier, M., & Kaiser, U. (2010) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1090.1077 · Cited by 760
Self-citationThe mass customization decade: An updated review of the literature
Fogliatto, F. S., da Silveira, G. J. C., & Borenstein, D. (2012) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.002 · Cited by 710
The Service Revolution and the Transformation of Marketing Science
Rust, R. T., & Huang, M.-H. (2014) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.2013.0836 · Cited by 578
Antons, D., & Piller, F. T. (2015) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0091 · Cited by 289
Metadata
- Authors
- Franke, N., Keinz, P., & Steger, C. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 103-121
- ISSN
- 0022-2429 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7185
- OpenAlex
- W2124607917
- Cited by
- 628
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 44.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Testing the Value of Customization: When Do Customers Really Prefer Products Tailored to Their Preferences? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.103
- The paper
- Franke, N., Keinz, P., & Steger, C. J. (2009). Testing the Value of Customization: When Do Customers Really Prefer Products Tailored to Their Preferences? Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.103
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.