|
Article Excerpt
Research on the impact of consumer sales promotion has focused on price-oriented promotions (e.g., price-off coupons) and behavioral effects (e.g., buy promoted products now rather than later) in promotion time periods (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990; Roehm et al., 2002; Rossiter and Bellman, 2005; Shimp, 2007). Nonprice promotions and potential attitudinal effects in different time periods have received little, or no, consideration.
Direct consumer premiums (DCPs) (the most frequently used non-price promotion) have been defined as packaged-related free bonus items offered by packaged-goods manufacturers to consumers when they purchase promoted products (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990; Prentice, 1975; Rossiter and Bellman, 2005). Almost all U.S. packaged-goods manufacturers have claimed DCP usage (e.g., Belch and Belch, 2004; Kotler and Keller, 2006; O'Guinn et al., 2006); however, a search of the literature revealed only a few documented studies on their impact. These studies dealt almost exclusively with the effects of different levels of DCP desirability in promotion time periods (DelVecchio et al., 2006). Consistent findings across the studies acknowledged the success of DCPs in inducing individuals to try a product for the first time, to try more of it, to try it earlier, or to try it more often (Fry and Caffaro, 1995; Seipel, 1971).
Despite the widespread use of DCPs, relatively little is known about their effects after the promotion has ended. Some researchers have argued that DCPs have been used incorrectly and that such misuse has led to undermining post-promotion brand preference (Rossiter and Bellman, 2005; Varadarajan, 1985, 1986). Conversely, other researchers have suggested that DCPs do not affect long-term brand preference (e.g., Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987), and some researchers have proposed that DCPs have favorable effects which has led to increased probabilities of product selection in post-promotion time periods (e.g., Davis et al., 1992). Given the differences of opinions and the fact that studies on the impact of sales promotions have normally dealt with price promotions, DelVecchio, Henard, and Freling (2006) and Blattberg and Neslin (1990) suggested that the effects of DCPs in different time periods is under-researched. Further, Rossiter and Bellman (2005) and Prentice (1975, 1977) proposed that salient DCP characteristics other than its desirability have been identified; however, researchers seem largely unaware of effects.
Three decades ago Prentice (1975, 1977) suggested that the complementary linkage (i.e., relatedness) between DCPs and promoted products could be viewed as existing along a continuum from high association with the promoted product's use to low association, and proposed that higher-related DCPs (e.g., a free toothbrush with toothpaste) would stimulate more enduring post-promotion effects than lower-related DCPs (e.g., free aspirin with toothpaste). Recently, Rossiter and Bellman (2005) contended that higher-related DCPs have customer franchise building potential and produce effects after the promotion has ended; however, lower-related DCPs do little to communicate information about a product's features or the benefits of using it, and contribute nothing to the building of long-term effects. Although DCP relatedness has not been the subject of empirical investigation, Fry and Caffaro (1995) observed that the proposition regarding greater benefits of higher-related DCPs is not reflected in the marketing practices of U.S. packaged-goods manufacturers, who routinely use lower-related DCPs.
The purpose of the current research is to explore the attitudinal effects of different DCPs in different time periods. The basic issue that it addresses is: if DCPs influence individuals' attitudes toward promoted products in promotion time periods, do certain ones continue to produce effects in post-promotion time periods? Specifically, it focuses on testing the effects of equally desirable, higher- and lower-related DCPs (e.g., Do equally desirable DCPs produce the same attitudes in promotion time periods? Do higher-related DCPs produce greater attitude persistence, as compared to lower-related DCPs, in post-promotion time periods?). In the following four sections, this article: (1) gives a review on strategic importance of DCPs, discusses levels of relatedness and desirability, presents rationale for using attitudes instead of behavioral effects, and gives relevant studies on attitude persistence, (2) provides hypotheses, (3) describes methodologies and findings, and (4) concludes with managerial implications, limitations, and directions for future work.
LITERATURE REVIEW
DCPs have been used to help introduce new products, dislodge entrenched market leaders, and generate higher consumer inventories of promoted products. Over the past thirty years, expenditures on DCPs by U.S. consumer-packaged-goods manufacturers have increased at an average annual rate of 20%, from less than $400 million in 1975 to more than $5 billion in 2002. Since 1980 annual DCP usage by manufacturers has increased by more than 300% (Belch and Belch, 2004; Kotler and Keller, 2006; O'Guinn et al., 2006).
Consumer-packaged-goods manufacturers have delivered DCPs free to consumers, immediately at the time of promoted product purchase, in four ways: (1) located in display units near the product and given away free at the point of purchase, (2) contained within the product package, (3) attached to the product package, or (4) as the product package itself. Although manufacturers have used promoted products that have varied in tangibility, frequency of purchase and value of brand as compared to DCPs, most DCPs have been relatively inexpensive, touchable physical items such as tiny sports car models, coasters, ink pens, or bobble-heads (Chandon et al., 1998; Fry and Caffaro, 1995; Roehm et al., 2002). Promoted products have ranged from more frequently purchased ones that can be quickly consumed (e.g., soft drinks) to less frequently purchased products that can survive many uses (e.g., shaving care).
Levels of Relatedness
Prentice (1975, 1977) proposed that DCP relatedness differs with respect to degrees of association with the promoted product's use. Varadarajan (1985, 1986) and Rossiter and Bellman (2005) suggested that perceptions of relatedness vary by context and consumer discernment. Examples of DCP promotion have included ones with "perfect- or partial-use" associations with promoted products, such as a free razor attached to a can of shaving cream (Varadarajan, 1986). Though others have had "seemingly no" associations with the use of promoted products, such as a celebrity poster given away as a near pack incentive with soft drink (Roehm et al., 2002; Shimp, 2007). Varadarajan (1985, 1986) and Strang (1975, 1976) argued that many promotion design decisions have been made without regard to DCP relatedness; yet have been based on DCP availability, cost and ease of implementation.
Prentice (1975, 1977) and Strang (1975, 1976) helped to put forward the idea of dividing sales promotions into customer franchise building (CFB) and non-CFB groups, and classified CFB promotions as incentives that impart "long-term" messages along...
|
