Bundle Building in the Arts: An Experimental Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Within the arts and culture sector, bundling is a commonly used strategy that consists in marketing a combination of products in a single package. Drawing from current examples in the arts and culture industry, the study presented in this article examines how different bundling strategies affect consumer decisions and perceptions. An experiment was conducted among a sample of 200 adult consumers where the complementarity of bundle items (complementary vs. noncomplementary) and mode of selection of bundle items (additive vs. subtractive) were jointly manipulated by means of a self‐administered questionnaire. Consistent with previous research, the results showed that consumers who construct an arts and culture bundle in a subtractive fashion end up with a greater number of items and a more expensive bundle. However, the impact of mode of selection on the bundle's perceived value was shown to depend on the complementarity of the items. These findings suggest that the recommendation of avoiding bundling noncomplementary products usually put forward in the bundling literature must be evaluated through a consideration of the type of strategy that is used to build the bundle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".