Direct versus indirect channels

Abstract

PurposeThis article aims to investigate whether intermediaries reduce loss aversion in the context of a high‐involvement non‐frequently purchased hedonic product (tourism packages).Design/methodology/approachThe study incorporates the reference‐dependent model into a multinomial logit model with random parameters, which controls for heterogeneity and allows representation of different correlation patterns between non‐independent alternatives.FindingsDifferentiated loss aversion is found: consumers buying high‐involvement non‐frequently purchased hedonic products are less loss averse when using an intermediary than when dealing with each provider separately and booking their services independently. This result can be taken as identifying consumer‐based added value provided by the intermediaries.Practical implicationsKnowing the effect of an increase in their prices is crucial for tourism collective brands (e.g. “sun and sea”, “inland”, “green destinations”, “World Heritage destinations”). This is especially applicable nowadays on account of the fact that many destinations have lowered prices to attract tourists (although, in the future, they will have to put prices back up to their normal levels). The negative effect of raising prices can be absorbed more easily via indirect channels when compared to individual providers, as the influence of loss aversion is lower for the former than the latter. The key implication is that intermediaries can – and should – add value in competition with direct e‐tailing.Originality/valueResearch on loss aversion in retailing has been prolific, exclusively focused on low‐involvement and frequently purchased products without distinguishing the direct or indirect character of the distribution channel. However, less is known about other types of products such as high‐involvement non‐frequently purchased hedonic products. This article focuses on the latter and analyzes different patterns of loss aversion in direct and indirect channels.