Preference between Individual Products and Bundles: Effects of Complementary, Price, and Discount Level in Portugal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to (1) compare consumers’ preferences between individual products and bundles as well as (2) investigate some of the factors involved in bundle characteristics that may affect consumer’s preferences. Those factors are complementarity, price level, and discount level. An online survey developed by means of questionnaires were collected from the Portuguese population. Student’s t-tests were used to test the hypothesis formulated and to analyze the consumers’ preferences. The findings corroborate that in a scenario where the bundle does not offer any discounts, preference of individual products is higher. When a 20% discount is assigned to bundles, the overall preference for individual products is still superior. By offering a discount level of 45%, the overall preference for bundles becomes higher. The positive effect of complementarity bundles valuation is confirmed. This is the first approach to evaluate the preferences between bundles and individual products in the Portuguese market. The findings contribute to clarify the customer map within a Business Model Canvas. Furthermore, this paper analyzes the bundle complementarity and discount level effects simultaneously.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".