A comparative study of perceptions toward “scratch and save” promotions in Canada and Korea

Abstract

Purpose -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. Design/methodology/approach -An experiment was conducted to examine cross-cultural differences in SAS promotion evaluations between Canada (n ¼ 77) and Korea (n ¼ 78). Findings -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.Research limitations/implications -The study suggests cross-cultural differences in the applicability of the disjunction effect. Practical implications -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. Originality/value -Very little work has been undertaken into SAS promotions and no known empirical research has been undertaken into crosscultural differences. This paper fills some of the gaps.

Impulse buying in social commerce: bundle offer, top reviews, and emotional intelligence

“…premiums, lucky draw) and value increasing promotions, for instance, price deals and coupons (Gilbert and Jackaria, 2002). Sales promotions encompass several forms, and distinctive promotional presentations have a disparate impact on the consumer's responses, which indicates promotional framing (Choi and Kim, 2008;Mckechnie et al, 2012;Pacheco and Rahman, 2015). The framing effect theory demonstrates that the same information with different presentations leads the consumers to bring forth diverse thoughts and decisions (K€ uhberger, 1995).…”

The Role of Product‐Premium Fit in Determining the Effectiveness of Hedonic and Utilitarian Premiums

“…Purchase intention was measured using Juster's Scale, which is a true probability scale (Uncles & Lee, ). The intention to spread positive word‐of‐mouth about the promotional offer was measured via two items on a 7‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) adapted from Choi and Kim : (1) “I would highly recommend the premium promotion to my friends and family”; (2) “I would say positive things about this promotion to other people.”…”

Tiers and Fears: An Investigation of the Impact of City Tiers and Uncertainty Avoidance on Chinese Consumer Response to Creative Advertising

“…Uncertainty avoidance, one of Hofstede's (2001) cultural values, is defined as the extent to which individuals feel threatened by situations that are uncertain, ambiguous or undefined (Ray, 2014; Choi and Kim, 2008). Individuals who are highly uncertainty avoiding are generally conservative in their judgments, preferring predictability (Leonard et al, 2009).…”

“…Thus, people with a high level of uncertainty avoidance are likely to take cognitive shortcuts and employ decision heuristics to facilitate information processing (Jung and Kellaris, 2004). 1 In an advertising context, high uncertainty avoidance consumers are expected to prefer advertisements that are direct and unambiguous over messages that are unpredictable or surprising, while the reverse is true of those who are low in uncertainty avoidance (Choi and Kim, 2008). For example, Lee and Schumann (2004) suggest that low uncertainty avoidance individuals rely on cognitive processing to make sense of incongruity whereas high uncertainty avoidance individuals will reject incongruent messages outright due to their low tolerance of ambiguity.…”