An exploratory study on attitude persistence using sales promotion.

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 with a deal and non-CFB promotions as incentives that communicate only a deal (for additional information on CFB strategies, see Rossiter and Percy (1997)). The CFB concept is based on the premise that attitude persistence is derived from communication about the promoted product's unique and important advantages. In a DCP context, DCPs which have higher associations with the promoted product's use would be viewed as being better than others in creating more persistent effects. Individuals would consider DCPs as well as the promoted products as belonging to the same or complementary categories (Roehm et al., 2002).

Levels of Desirability

Almost all previous research on response to "a consumer sales promotion" has dealt with levels of desirability and price-oriented promotions. Most sales promotions have been viewed as temporary incentives that induce individuals to form immediate favorable connections between the promoted product and "desirable" consequences of receiving the promotion (Fry and Caffaro, 1995). Sales promotions have been found to induce different degrees of the behavioral effects of brand switching (attracting users of another brand within the same product category), purchase acceleration (causing existing users to purchase more of the promoted product, or to purchase it earlier), and category expansion (building trial among nonusers of the product in particular) (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990). Consistent findings across studies have shown that level of promotion desirability has a direct influence on behavioral effects (e.g., higher levels of promotion desirability induced higher degrees of behavioral effects) in promotion time periods. However, Neslin and Shoemaker (1989) and Mac and Neslin (2004) warned that very high levels of desirability might have a detrimental impact by focusing too much on the promotion, and suggested that desirability of the promotion should not overshadow desirability of the promoted product.

Effects in post-promotion time periods have received little research attention, but have been the focus of much discussion. As mentioned, researchers have agreed that level of sales promotion desirability provides a strong impact on behavioral effects in promotion time periods; however, they have disagreed as to direction of effects after the promotion has ended. In a frequently cited example, Dodson, Tybout, and Sternthal (1978) examined behavioral effects and suggested that promotions caused lower brand evaluations in post-promotion time periods. Yet in a direct follow-up study using non-behavioral effects (i.e., measures of brand evaluations), Davis, Inman, and McAlister (1992) found no negative effects in post-promotion time periods. Recently, DelVecchio et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis using 132 observations from 42 sales promotion studies and proposed that most types of sales promotions have no carry-over effects in post-promotion time periods. However, DelVecchio et al. (2006) also proposed that the effects of DCPs were not as well understood as other types of sales promotions and issued a called for research on their effects in different time periods.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates