Search results

Although the evidence exists for the effect of promotional frame on repurchase intention, it is unclear whether the timing of repurchase can moderate the effect. In this paper, three experiments were conducted to answer this question.

In Experiment 1, a 2 (framing: bundle vs. gift) × 2 (repurchase target: focal vs. supplementary) × 2 (timing: short vs. long) between-subjects design was used. In Experiment 2, an identical design was used except that repurchase target being the within-subjects factor. In Experiment 3, the design was based on that of Experiment 2 and brand was added a between-subjects factor.

Experiment 1 showed that, with a short interval, repurchase intention under gift frame was higher than that under bundle frame. With a long interval, there was no significant difference between the gift and bundle frames. Experiment 2, however, indicated no effects for expensive products. Experiment 3 showed that brand (private versus national brand) moderate the interaction between framing, repurchase target and timing. Particularly, for private brand, no significant comparisons were found; for national brand, repurchase intention for the focal product was significantly higher than for the supplementary product, but only under the conditions of long interval and gift frame (rather than bundle frame).

Taken together, findings from the current study contributes to the literature by showing for the first time that repurchase timing can moderate the promotional frame effect (i.e. higher repurchase intention under gift framing relative to bundle framing occurs in the short interval but not long interval) and that brand type can moderate the joint effects of framing, timing and repurchase target (i.e. national brand, rather than private brand, paired with long interval and gift frame results in higher repurchase intention for the focal product). The findings provide marketers with important knowledge in terms of how to adjust a promotional frame depending on when consumers repurchase a product and whether the product has a private or national brand.

Fact-checking is a process of seeking and displaying facts to confirm or counter uncertain information, which reduces the spread of fake news. However, little is known about how to promote fact-checking posts to online users on social media. Through uncertainty reduction theory and message framing, this first study examines the effect of fact-checking posts on social media with an avatar on online users' trust, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. The authors further investigate the congruency effects between promotional message framing (gain/loss/neutral) and facial expressions of the avatar (happy/angry/neutral) on online users' trust, attitudes, and behavioral intentions in the second study.

The authors conducted two studies and statistically analyzed 120 samples (study 1) and 519 samples (study 2) from Facebook users.

Results showed that including the neutral facial expression avatar in fact-checking posts leads to online users' greater trust and more positive attitudes. Furthermore, the congruency effects between loss message framing and the angry facial expression of the avatar can effectively promote online users' trust and attitudes as well as stronger intentions to follow and share.

This study offers theoretical implications for fact-checking studies, and practical implications for online fact-checkers to apply these findings to design effective fact-checking posts and spread the veracity of information on social media.

Based on the concept of information salience, the research investigates the factors that might drive potential differences in consumers' preferences between offers framed as free with purchase or as a bundle.

Four experiments examined how participants' preferences for bundled offers or free-with-purchase offers varied as a function of the perceived benefits to be obtained from the supplementary products (studies 1a and 1b) and identified participants' sensitivity to the price of the supplementary component as a mediator of the framing effect of a promotional offer (study 2) and the provision of information facilitating the drawing of comparisons as the boundary condition constraining the effectiveness of a free-with-purchase offer (study 3).

Results show that a bundled offer is preferable to a free-with-purchase offer when the supplementary product provides a high-level rather than a low-level benefit and identify price sensitivity as an underlying mechanism behind the observed effect. Furthermore, consumers' sensitivity to the value of the focal product in the deal brought to their attention by comparative information makes a fair charge for a relatively unattractive component the preferable offer.

While much of the existing published research on bundled offers focuses on the assigning of discounts to individual products in the bundle, this study adds to the body of knowledge by showing that variation in perceived benefits is the key driver of different responses to a free-with-purchase offer versus a bundled offer.

Based on mental accounting theory, this study explored whether the comparability of missed and subsequent promotional formats/frames affects inaction inertia.

Four experiments with imaginary and incentive-compatible designs were conducted to test the hypotheses.

Consumers are more likely to express inaction inertia after having missed a comparable promotion than after having missed a noncomparable promotion. Devaluation of the promoted target mediates the impact of comparability on inaction inertia, while referent others' actions do not moderate the comparability effect. Finally, when consumers accept a subsequent inferior promotion, they prefer using a different payment format because it reduces comparability of the two promotions.

Companies should use different promotional formats/frames to reduce comparability and inaction inertia when a new promotion is relatively inferior to a recent previous one. Companies should offer different payment options to help customers actively avoid comparing a current promotion with a missed promotion.

This study provides a more comprehensive conceptual structure for understanding the relationship between psychological comparability and inaction inertia. It provides insights into what actions companies should take to reduce inaction inertia. Furthermore, this study empirically tests the influence of multiple comparison referents, which provides a reference point for future studies on the factors affecting inaction inertia. A new method to examine whether consumers actively avoid comparisons is used, which clarifies the internal mechanism of inaction inertia.

This research examines the effects of bundling format (partially‐bundled attributes vs. unbundled attributes) and framing of promotional discounts (rebate, discount and free‐options) on perceived quality, price acceptability, perceived value and subsequent purchase intentions. The results indicate that price reductions that are framed as providing “free” product options are perceived more favorably than conventional discounts which, in turn, are more favorable than rebates, holding the total amount of a price reduction constant. The results also suggest that unbundling of deals (or segregation of gains) enhances these perceptions.

Regulatory focus theory proposes that people make decisions and engage in the pursuit of goals based on either promotional goals indicating sensitivity to gains/nongains or preventional goals reflecting sensitivity to losses/nonlosses (Aaker and Lee, 2001). The purpose of this study is to examine the roles of regulatory foci and their impact on the perceived value and usage of location-based services (LBS) in travel experiences.

Travel planning strategies are framed along promotional or preventional lines to evaluate regulatory focus orientation and respondents’ perceptions of value in location-based marketing (LBM) services are examined. Regression analysis evaluates the primary relationships, followed by analysis evaluating the mediating effects of “travel interest messages” (discount coupons, etc.) in the regulatory-focus-perceived value in LBM relationship.

The findings indicate that the effects of promotional focus are significantly greater than those of preventional regulatory focus. Additionally, the importance of travel interest messages (discount coupons, maps, etc.) was more significant with a promotional regulatory focus than preventional regulatory focus orientation.

The findings provide proof of regulatory focus as a differentiator in travel consumption behavior and demonstrate how it can be used to effectively target marketing messages to augment the travel experience. Destination marketing organizations can apply regulatory focus theory in organizational settings in the areas of leadership, decision-making and front-line employee creativity that can enhance the delivery of memorable travel experiences.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is one of the first to examine the relationship between gains-focused/risk-averse travel planning and their impact on perceptions of value in LBS programs in travel experiences.

对比以收益为中心与风险规避为中心的不同取向, 及其在旅游中对定位营销服务的影响

调节焦点理论提出, 消费者决策以及目标达成行为可以基于对收益/非收益敏感的促进目标或反映对损失/非损失敏感度的保守目标（Aaker and Lee, 2001）。本研究的目的是研究调节焦点及其对定位营销在旅行体验中的感知价值和使用的影响。

旅行计划策略是按照促进或保守路线制定来评估调节的取向, 并检查受访者对定位营销(LBM) 服务价值的看法。本研究运用回归分析评估主要关系, 然后分析评估“旅行兴趣信息”（折扣券等）在LBM关系中的调节焦点感知价值中的中介作用。

调查结果表明, 促进型路线的效果明显大于保守型的效果。此外, 旅游兴趣信息的重要性（折扣券、地图等）在促进调节焦点（相比于保守型）中显得尤其重要。

研究结果证明了调节焦点是旅游消费行为的差异化因素, 并展示了如何将其用于有效地定位营销信息以增强旅游体验。目的地营销组织可以在领导力、决策制定和一线员工创造力等领域的组织环境中应用调节焦点理论, 从而提供难忘的旅行体验。

本论文是首次研究以收益为中心/风险规避为中心的旅行计划, 以及其在旅行经历中对定位营销服务计划中价值感知的影响之间的关系的研究之一。

The objective of this paper is to examine the framing effects of discount presentation format in comparative price advertising in a low‐price and a high‐price product context. In particular, the authors study whether identical discounts presented in percentage and absolute terms result in different consumer perceptions of transaction value and purchase intention. Although price promotions have been the subject of previous research, a closer examination of the potential moderating influence of discount size in both contexts is warranted.

Two separate experiments were designed to isolate the effects of the manner in which discounts are numerically expressed and the size of the discount on consumers' perceptions of a retail price promotion in a low‐price and a high‐price product context.

The effects of discount framing in comparative price promotions are found to be influenced by discount size in the case of the low‐product context but not the high‐price one.

It is recommended that the study be replicated for other types of low‐price and high‐price products to confirm the generalisability of the results for each product context.

Retail managers' choice of discount presentation format for both low‐ and high‐price product contexts, and in the case of the former the additional manipulation of discount size, have an impact on the ability of comparative price promotions to accelerate purchases. Meanwhile policy makers should continue to assign significant time and resources to investigating concerns about misleading price comparison based promotions.

The paper provides original insights into the importance of considering the joint effects of discount presentation format and discount size on consumers' perceptual and behavioural responses to retail price promotions, unlike previous research, which has examined these framing effects separately.

This paper aims to examine the effect of price promotion presentation formats on consumers’ green purchase intentions across various levels of greenness. Despite the increasing awareness of environmental issues and green products among consumers, there is a gap between their green attitude and purchase intentions. Previous studies show that consumers’ degree of greenness varies and that price plays an important role in their green consumption decision-making.

Two between-subject experiments with 236 participants were used to examine our hypotheses and conceptual model.

The results show that different formats of price promotion presentations influence consumers’ purchase perceptions differently. Consumers with a high degree of greenness are attracted to promotions emphasizing gain, while those with a low degree of greenness prefer promotions underlining reduced loss. In addition, medium-greenness consumers show similar reactions to both formats. Our studies further demonstrate that consumers’ perceived value mediates the moderated effects of perceived quality and perceived savings on green purchase intentions.

This research helps marketers better design price promotions, taking into account the various levels of consumers’ greenness. The focus of reduced loss or gain of the promotional programs should be targeted at consumers with different levels of greenness.

This is the first paper to examine the role of price promotion presentation formats in consumer decision-making regarding green consumption. The study provides new insights concerning how to design price promotions to enhance the green purchase intentions of consumers.

Supermarket promotions typically use a standard label, which displays the regular price, discounted price and discounted unit price. Visits to supermarkets across multiple countries found that none used a price label that also contains the regular (i.e. pre-discounted) unit price. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a dual unit-price label that includes the regular unit price as a reference price, and what underpins its efficacy in enhancing promotion attractiveness.

The authors executed four studies, supported by three supplemental studies. Study 1 established external validity through a natural instore experiment. Studies 2 and 3 tested the dual unit-price label with different pack sizes and assortment sizes, respectively. Finally, Study 4 tested the underpinning mechanism of the efficacy of the dual unit-price label.

In Study 1, daily sales records over four weeks showed that dual unit-price label promotions had larger sales volume than standard-label promotions. Study 2 showed a larger pack size, a heuristic cue for greater economy and increased preference for dual unit-price label promotions. Study 3 similarly found that the dual unit-price label was preferred more as cognitive load was increased by assortment size. Finally, Study 4 demonstrated the dual processing of the dual unit-price label, using a conscious preference measure (information provided) and an unconscious implicit attitude test.

Unit-price research has mainly considered a cognitive process. The authors demonstrated the importance of considering a heuristic process.

Supermarkets can use this simple and yet effective tool to improve promotion effectiveness.

This study demonstrates that the dual unit-price label is a new and easy tool to enhance sales promotions, which academic research and managerial practice had never considered previously.

Inaction inertia is the phenomenon in which people are less likely to accept an opportunity after having previously missed a relatively superior one. This research explores how framing quantity promotions as either a freebie (e.g. “buy 1, get 1 free”) or a price bundle (e.g. “buy 2, get 50% off”) influences inaction inertia. Relevant mediators are also identified.

Three experiments, two using imaginary scenarios and one using an incentive-compatible design, test the hypotheses.

Consumers who miss a freebie quantity promotion express higher inaction inertia than consumers who miss a price bundle promotion. The cause of this difference is higher perceived regret and greater devaluation that result from missing a superior freebie (vs price bundle) promotion.

Future research should examine how factors influencing perceived regret and devaluation moderate the quantity promotional frame effect on inaction inertia.

The findings provide insights into which quantity promotional frames practitioners should use to reduce inaction inertia.

This study's comprehensive theoretical framework predicts quantity promotional frame effects on inaction inertia and identifies relevant internal mechanisms. The findings are evidence that inaction inertia is caused by both perceived regret and devaluation in certain contexts. Furthermore, this study identifies the conditions in which a price bundle promotional frame is more beneficial than a freebie promotional frame.