How shopping orientation influences the effectiveness of monetary and nonmonetary promotions

Abstract

Purpose

This research aims to examine whether shopping orientation (experiential vs task-focused) influences how consumers react toward nonmonetary and monetary promotions. It was predicted that promotions are more effective if the promotional benefits are congruent with consumers’ shopping orientation. Moreover, consumers’ financial budget was assumed to moderate the influence of shopping orientation on promotion effectiveness.

Design/methodology/approach

The hypotheses were tested in three experiments. Study 1 used a measure of shopping orientation as a consumer disposition and examined its influence on promotion attractiveness. Two further studies used an experimental manipulation of shopping orientation and examined its influence on promotions attractiveness and retailer choice.

Findings

The results supported the hypotheses. Task-focused shoppers evaluated monetary promotions as more attractive than nonmonetary promotions. Experiential shoppers evaluated both types of promotions as comparably attractive. Furthermore, experiential shoppers were more likely than task-focused shoppers to choose a retailer offering a nonmonetary promotion over a retailer offering a monetary promotion. Low financial budget, however, reduced the influence of shopping orientation on retailer choice.

Originality/value

To effectively use promotions as a tool, marketers and retailers need to know when and how to use them, as well as understand which type of promotion is the most effective. This research implies that retailers will benefit from customizing promotions to fit consumers’ shopping orientations. Furthermore, the findings show that the advantage of such a tailored approach is reduced if consumers’ financial budget is limited.

Citation

Büttner, O.B., Florack, A. and Göritz, A.S. (2015), "How shopping orientation influences the effectiveness of monetary and nonmonetary promotions", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 1/2, pp. 170-189. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-01-2012-0044