Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine how consumers respond differently to “scratch and save (SAS)” promotions versus “tensile price claims (TPC).” SAS promotions provide a possible discount (determined probabilistically) but conceal the exact amount until purchase. Tensile price claims (e.g. “up to 25 percent off on items marked with a red tag”) make imprecise price promotional claims. In addition to making indefinite price claims, SAS promotions (e.g. scratch and save up to 25 percent off) include gambling elements; the exact discount is determined randomly for individual consumers by a scratch‐off card.

Two experimental studies are conducted.

Evidence from two experiments indicates that consumers perceive SAS promotions to be more ambiguous than tensile price claims. In addition, the results demonstrate consumer uncertainty towards SAS promotions but also consumer willingness to gamble: deep discount SAS promotions are perceived as more attractive than limited‐scope tensile price claims.

The findings suggest that consumers perceive SAS offers more enticing than limited tensile price claims as the proposed discount increases. Furthermore, establishing a minimum savings offer could be used to encourage consumers to shop at retailers offering SAS promotions.

Limited work has focused on examining how consumers respond to SAS promotions because SAS promotions are a relatively new store‐level promotional tool. Furthermore, no research effort has been extended to directly compare consumers' perceptions of SAS promotions with tensile price claims.

This paper investigates the impact of framing through the use of a vague scarcity restriction (“while stocks last”) on consumers' perception of promotional offers involving different claim formats (tensile price claim such as “save up to 60 percent” versus non‐tensile price claim such as “save 60 percent”) and different amount of price discounts. The findings show that framing the sales offer with such a vague scarcity restriction and using a tensile claims format improve the consumers' perceived informational value of the offer, only if exaggerated price discounts are involved. This study also confirms earlier studies' findings on the effects of exaggerated price discounts and tensile claims on consumers' perceived savings and information value of sales promotional offers. Managerial implications are discussed.

An experiment was conducted in which level of claim (plausible versus implausible), claim type (tensile versus objective), and brand familiarity were manipulated to determine consumer responses to sale ads. Conducted in an Asian setting using percentage instead of dollar value price reductions, the results replicated and extended past findings in the pricing literature. Specifically, implausible claims that purported exaggerated savings led to greater discounting, higher perceived price reduction, higher perceived offer value, and higher shopping intention than those with plausible price reductions. Objective price claims that state the exact amount of reduction generally elicited more favorable responses than tensile claims of the “save up to ____ percent” genre. When the price reductions were implausible, tensile claims resulted in higher discounting, lower perceived price reduction, and lower perceived offer value than did objective claims. Finally, greater brand familiarity resulted in higher claim discounting and lower perceived price reduction when the claims were implausible rather than plausible. Theoretical and managerial implications are furnished together with directions for future research.

The main purpose of this paper is to examine consumer perceptions of “scratch and save” (SAS) promotions, which are popular store‐level promotional tools. This paper particularly focuses on investigating the moderating effects of consumers' price consciousness and savings expectations.

Two laboratory experimental studies were employed to examine consumer responses to SAS promotions.

The results of two experiments show that SAS promotions positively affect consumer perceptions of offer value and store prices, and consumers' intentions to shop and spread positive word‐of‐mouth. In particular, the effects of SAS promotions are moderated by consumer price consciousness and expected savings. Furthermore, the first study shows that the level of claimed savings of SAS promotions does not favorably affect consumer reactions. The second study also shows that consumers' discounting of expected savings increases as the level of claimed savings of SAS promotions increases.

Although SAS promotions are widely used by various types of retailers, there really is little known as to how consumers respond to SAS promotions. By providing evidence of the effectiveness of SAS promotions, this paper enables pricing researchers to extend issues related to such promotional tools.

For retailers, the most distinctive finding of this paper is that the level of claimed savings may not significantly affect consumer perceptions and shopping intentions, although an SAS promotion would be an effective promotional tool.

As a preliminary effort to examine the effects of SAS promotions, this paper offers a discussion of the future research opportunities.

Retailers are known to present tensile price claims (TPCs) stating high discounts to entice shoppers. Prior research on TPCs suggests that high TPC discounts increase purchase intentions. However, the current study proposes, first, that the TPC discount shifts expected price discount (EPD) and, second, that the gap between the actual price discount and the EPD influence perceptions of the discount deal. Support for these propositions would suggest that high TPC discounts will only be effective when they closely match the actual price discount. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to evaluate the effectiveness of exaggerated maximum-discount TPCs.

Two experiments were used. Study 1 investigated the effect of exposure to a TPC on EPD. Study 2 examined discount discrepancy as a mediator of the relationship between a TPC and consumer perceptions (i.e. perceived savings and price fairness) and purchase intentions. PROCESS and ANOVA were used for the analysis.

This research showed that exposure to a TPC influenced consumers’ EPDs. As TPC discount increased, EPD increased and the discount discrepancy (i.e. actual price discount minus EPD) decreased (and, in some cases, became negative). The discount discrepancy influenced consumer perceptions of savings and fairness, as well as purchase intentions. Consequently, when the actual price discount encountered was not as large as the advertised TPC discount, the results showed a negative, indirect influence of exaggerated maximum-discount TPCs on consumers’ discount perceptions, mediated by the discount discrepancy.

Previous TPC studies found that the size of the TPC discount positively influences consumers’ discount perceptions, implying that larger discounts are more effective. However, this approach does not take into consideration the notion that larger TPC discounts increase consumer expectations about the size of discount and these expectations are used as a frame to evaluate a discount deal. The findings of the current research show a negative, indirect influence of exaggerated TPC discount on consumer perceptions and purchase intentions through discount discrepancy. Therefore, this study provides a new perspective to explain the influence of TPC discount size on consumer perceptions.

This paper aims to clarify the effect of discount discrepancy (DD) on consumers’ purchase intention (PI). The authors propose, test and provide evidence and explanations about the moderation of justification in the relation between consumers’ perceived DD and PI.

The authors conducted three experimental studies with a 2 × 2 factorial design, focusing on consumers’ processing of price discounts. Participants were informed that this study aimed to gather opinions on fashion, clothing and retail sales promotions. They accessed the questionnaire via Qualtrics. Each participant took part in only one study. The experimental conditions were manipulated through scenarios.

Study 1 tested and supported the moderation of justification on the effect of DD on PI. Study 2 tested and supported the moderation of the type of justification for the effect of DD on PI. Study 3 confirmed the findings in Study 2 and revealed the more effective type of justification.

The authors focused on a typically hedonic product category (fashion clothing). Further research should include a wider variety of goods and services, which could lead to different explanations or generalizations.

Sales promotions must refrain from generating DD between the initial price discount and the subsequent smaller discounts. Practitioners must evaluate the gains of an initial, more considerable percentage discount to attract consumers to the store and sell them other products versus the cost of losing sales because of DD. Management should recognize the importance of giving the correct justification for perceived DD, aligning the firm’s justification with the consumer’s motivation to buy the product.

The authors offer subsidies for effective consumer protection policies.

By studying the influence of justification on the effect of DD on PI, the authors propose a mechanism that would reduce the negative effect of DD on consumers’ PI.

Draws from various theoretical bases and empirical research to offer managerial recommendations concerning the communication of sale price information in advertisements. Addresses the manner in which the manipulation of price cues, semantic cues and product cues in an advertisement can enhanceperceptions of utility via increases in the internal reference price, the perceived value implied by the offering price, and perceptions of product quality.

Are retail advertisers using price‐featuring tactics effectively? After a review of past findings on the effectiveness of comparative price formats, this study conducted a content analysis of retail newspaper advertising. The study revealed that advertisements for service retailers and service products consistently used the least effective approaches. Nearly half of all the clothing and department store advertising examined used less effective tactics. Other retailers and retail items tended to use the more effective approaches.

The paper seeks to examine cross‐cultural differences in how consumers evaluate “scratch and save” (SAS) promotions (which are characterized by uncertainty of savings outcomes) between Canada and Korea, where the promotion tool is widely used but the countries have different cultural values.

An experiment was conducted to examine cross‐cultural differences in SAS promotion evaluations between Canada (n=77) and Korea (n=78).

SAS promotions effectively stimulate favorable shopping intentions in Canada, a country with a low uncertainty avoidance culture, more so than in Korea, a country with a high uncertainty avoidance culture. However, subjects in Korea show consistently higher savings expectations from SAS promotions than subjects in Canada. Thus, the results report that consumers with the highest savings expectations do not necessarily have the highest intention to shop. In addition, in Korea, a SAS promotion with guaranteed minimum savings is found to be very effective due to reduced ambiguity about its outcome.

The study suggests cross‐cultural differences in the applicability of the disjunction effect.

The findings suggest that when SAS promotions are presented in a country with high uncertainty avoidance, retailers should explicitly indicate the value of the guaranteed minimum savings. By promising guaranteed savings, retailers can reduce consumers' relatively high concerns about unknown SAS outcomes, which results in a greater advantage in building favorable perceptions.

Very little work has been undertaken into SAS promotions and no known empirical research has been undertaken into cross‐cultural differences. This paper fills some of the gaps.

This paper aims to try to investigate how consumers respond to precise versus imprecise promotional rewards at varied probabilities, including small ones and whether the effect is contingent on purchase value and promotion budget.

Based on reviewing the literature on the ambiguity effect, the certainty effect and small probabilities, the hypotheses are tested by three experimental studies.

The experiments show that at a small winning probability, promotion with imprecise reward is more attractive than with precise reward. For high value purchases, a small‐probability promotion with imprecise reward performs better than an equally costly 100 percent‐probability promotion with precise reward. However, the difference is shortened for low value purchases. Furthermore, as the promotion budget increases, the ambiguity effect becomes stronger. As a result, the small‐probability promotion with imprecise reward is preferred to the 100 percent‐probability promotion with precise reward at both low and high budget levels.

The present study provides a starting‐point for further research on how to design an effective marketing promotion program with precise or imprecise promotional rewards at varied probabilities.

This research extends previous research on tensile versus precise prices to the region of very low or small probabilities, enriches the literature on “overweighting of small probabilities,” and also significantly enriches the existing theories on decision making under ambiguity.