The long‐term effects of sales promotions on brand attitude across monetary and non‐monetary promotions

Abstract

This study compares the influence of sales promotions on brand attitude across promotion types over time. An experiment is conducted with 154 subjects, who are exposed to test materials for 12 weeks. Evidence shows that the long-term effects of sales promotions on brand attitude vary across deal types. Non-monetary promotions seem to work better in eliciting consumers' favorable brand attitude than monetary promotions over time. However, such effects are moderated by consumers' deal proneness. Although monetary promotions may induce more negative effects than non-monetary promotions, these effects are weaker for high deal-prone consumers than for low deal-prone consumers.

Interaction effects of different price claims and contextual factors on consumers' reference price adaptation after exposure to a price promotion

“…Studies on price expectations show that promotion frequency has a negative effect on price expectations (Chen, 2011;Kalwani and Yim, 1992;Kalwani et al, 1990;Montaner and Pina, 2008). Research on reference prices shows that consumers' reference prices decline with increasing exposure to a price promotion (Lattin and Bucklin, 1989;Yi and Yoo, 2011). These studies on advertising frequency did not examine the interaction effects of the number of exposures and other factors, such as the saving format, on consumers' adaptation of the reference price.…”

Sales framing, mental accounting, and discount assignments

“…These promotions may focus on changing the price of target items (e.g., discounts, coupons), offering extra product (e.g., freebies), increasing the volume of target items (e.g., buy one get one free, bonus pack), or pursuing a mixed promotion (e.g., buy two, get 25% off; Chen, Monroe, & Lou, 1998;Diamond, 1992;. Previous research has shown that the frames used in sales promotions influence the value perceptions of consumers and purchasing intention (Barnes, 1975;Chen et al, 1998;Diamond, 1992;Diamond & Sanyal, 1990;Hardesty & Bearden, 2003;Lowe, 2010;Palazon & DelgadoBallester, 2009;Yi & Yoo, 2011). Several authors have also addressed the difference between monetary (e.g., discounts) and nonmonetary (e.g., extra products) promotions and compared the relative attractiveness of different types of promotions (Diamond, 1992;Diamond & Sanyal, 1990;Hardesty & Bearden, 2003;Yi & Yoo, 2011).…”

“…Previous research has shown that the frames used in sales promotions influence the value perceptions of consumers and purchasing intention (Barnes, 1975;Chen et al, 1998;Diamond, 1992;Diamond & Sanyal, 1990;Hardesty & Bearden, 2003;Lowe, 2010;Palazon & DelgadoBallester, 2009;Yi & Yoo, 2011). Several authors have also addressed the difference between monetary (e.g., discounts) and nonmonetary (e.g., extra products) promotions and compared the relative attractiveness of different types of promotions (Diamond, 1992;Diamond & Sanyal, 1990;Hardesty & Bearden, 2003;Yi & Yoo, 2011). However, few studies have explored the effects of framing within the mixed promotion approach or the relative attractiveness of these promotions (e.g., Diamond & Sanyal, 1990;.…”

Building brand equity with cause-related marketing: A comparison with sponsorship and sales promotion

“…For example, sales promotion is increasingly being used to fulfill brand-related objectives such as building brand awareness and brand image (Palazon-Vidal and Delgado-Ballester 2005;Brito and Hammond 2007) and has been found to enhance brand attitude among deal-prone consumers (Yi and Yoo 2011). Furthermore, sponsorship is recognized as a powerful platform for building brands (Cliffe and Motion 2005).…”