A Benefit Congruency Framework of Sales Promotion Effectiveness

Author(s): Pierre Chandon, Brian Wansink, Gilles Laurent

Source: The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 65-81
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3203478 .
Accessed: 05/04/2011 04:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

Pierre Chandon, BrianWansink, & Gilles Laurent

Benefit
Sales

Frameworkof
Congruency

Promotion Effectiveness

Are monetarysavings the only explanationfor consumer response to a sales promotion?If not, how do the different consumer benefits of a sales promotioninfluenceits effectiveness? To address the firstquestion, this research
buildsa frameworkof the multipleconsumer benefits of a sales promotion.Througha series of measurement studies, the authors find that monetaryand nonmonetarypromotionsprovideconsumers with differentlevels of three
hedonic benefits (opportunitiesfor value expression, entertainment,and exploration)and three utilitarianbenefits
(savings, higherproductquality,and improvedshopping convenience).Toaddress the second question, the authors
develop a benefitcongruencyframework,whichargues that a sales promotion'seffectiveness is determinedby the
utilitarianor hedonic natureof the benefits it delivers and the congruence these benefits have withthe promoted
product.Among other results, two choice experiments show that, as predictedfor high-equitybrands, monetary
promotionsare more effectivefor utilitarianproductsthan for hedonic products.The authorsthen discuss the implications of the multibenefitand the benefitcongruencyframeworksfor understandingconsumer responses to sales
promotions,reexaminingthe value of everyday-low-pricepolicies, and designing more effective sales promotions.
arketersand academics often view the reliance on
sales promotions,especially monetarypromotions,
as a suboptimalconsequence of price competition
caused by myopic management (Buzzell, Quelch, and
Salmon 1990). These critics argue that, in the short run, the
proliferationof monetarypromotionserodes their capacity
to rent market share, which explains why so many are
unprofitable(Abrahamand Lodish 1990; Kahnand McAlister 1997). In the long run, it is feared that sales promotions
increase price sensitivity and destroy brand equity-both
with retailers and consumers (Mela, Gupta, and Lehmann
1997). As a result, many industry experts are calling for
more effective and cost-efficient promotions that rely less
on price (PromotionMarketingAssociation of America Inc.
1994), and some go so far as to recommend eliminating
most promotions by switching to an everyday-low-price
policy (Kahn and McAlister 1997; Lal and Rao 1997).
The centralpremiseof this researchis thatthe value that
sales promotionshave for brands is relatedto the value, or
benefits, that sales promotionshave for consumers.Adopting this consumer perspective leads to the fundamental
question of why consumers respond to sales promotions.
Most econometric or game-theoretic studies assume that
monetarysavings are the only benefit that sales promotions
have for the consumer.If this is true, an everyday low price
may indeed represent an efficient solution for providing
consumerswith these savings while minimizingsearchcosts

for the consumer and logistical costs for the firm. Conversely, if, as this researchargues,sales promotionsprovide
consumers with an arrayof hedonic and utilitarianbenefits
beyond monetarysavings, everyday low prices cannot fully
replace sales promotionswithout the risk of alienatingconsumers who value the nonmonetarybenefits of sales promotions. From a researchperspective,the existence of multiple
consumer benefits may also help explain some puzzling
consumer responses to sales promotionsthat cannot be fully
explained by the search for savings (e.g., Dhar and Hoch
1996; Hoch, Dreze, and Purk 1994; Inman, McAlister, and
Hoyer 1990; Schindler 1992; Soman 1998).
Beyond its intended contributionto the general debate
on the value of sales promotions or on the antecedents of
consumer response to them, studying the consumer benefits
of sales promotionshas practicalimplicationsfor improving
their effectiveness. The existence of multiple types of consumer benefits provides a stepping stone for a benefit congruency framework,which argues that a sales promotion's
effectiveness is determinedby the congruency between its
benefits and those of the promotedproduct.In particular,the
benefit congruency frameworkargues that because monetary and nonmonetarysales promotionsoffer different benefits, they should be more effective for different types of
products.
In the next section, we show how fragmentedexplanations for consumer"dealproneness"can be integratedinto a
frameworkof the hedonic and utilitarianconsumer benefits
of consumer sales promotions (defined as temporary and
Brian
PierreChandon
is Assistant
Professor
of Marketing,
INSEAD.
of Nutritional tangible monetary or nonmonetary incentives intended to
Wansink
is AssociateProfessor
of BusinessAdministration,
andof Agricultural
andConsumer
Science,of Advertising,
Economics, have a direct impact on consumer behavior). In the second
of
section, we reportthe results of three measurementstudies
GillesLaurent
is Professor
of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign.
University
HEC.
The
thank
Adam
Jer-Yuan
authors
validatethe consumerbenefit frameworkthroughmultithat
Brasel,
Chao,
Marketing,
Groupe
forhelp
Seabum
Volle,andAnneMacquin
Delamotte,
Park,Pierre
Maryse
order confirmatoryfactor analyses and structuralequation
withthedatacollection.
Thearticleis basedon PierreChandon's
dissermodels. In the third section, we develop a benefit congruof DonnieLichtenstein,
Lautationandhasbenefited
fromthecomments
ency frameworkand examine its implicationsfor the effecScottNeslin,
renceCapron,
JamesHess,StephenHoch,KentMonroe,
tiveness of monetary and nonmonetarypromotions for difandTerence
Shimp.
ferent types of productsand for brandswith various levels
Journal of Marketing
Vol. 64 (October 2000), 65-81

/ 65
Effectiveness
Sales Promotion

of brandequity. This frameworkis supportedby the results

of the two experimentalstudies we presentin the fourthsection. In the discussion section, we explore the implications
of the consumer benefit and the benefit congruencyframeworks for sales promotiontheory and practice.

Hedonic and UtilitarianConsumer

Benefits of Sales Promotions
Why Do Consumers Respond to Sales
Promotions?
Behavioralresearchon sales promotionshas tendedto focus
on the demographics of deal-prone consumers (Bawa and
Shoemaker 1987; Blattberget al. 1978; Narasimhan1984)
and the identification of personal traits such as "coupon
proneness,""value consciousness," or "marketmavenism"
(Feick and Price 1987; Lichtenstein,Netemeyer,and Burton
1990, 1995; Mittal 1994). These studies offer a coherent
portraitof the demographicand psychographiccharacteristics of deal-proneconsumers(for a review, see Blattbergand
Neslin 1990, pp. 65-82). However,because of theirfocus on
individualvariables,these studies do not examine the nature
and the number of the specific consumer benefits of sales
promotions. As a result, most analytic and econometric
models of sales promotions simply assume that monetary
savings are the only benefit that motivates consumers to
respondto sales promotions(Blattbergand Neslin 1993).
Yet some robustempiricalresults suggest that monetary
savings cannot fully explain why and how consumers
respond to sales promotions. For example, why do consumers respond more to an on-shelf coupon than to a similarly advertised temporaryprice reduction that offers the
same monetary incentive (Dhar and Hoch 1996; Schindler
1992)? Why do consumers respond to insignificant price
reductions(Hoch, Dre'ze,and Purk 1994; Inman,McAlister,
and Hoyer 1990), and why do consumers switch brands
becauseof a coupon or a rebatebut then not redeemit (Bawa
and Shoemaker 1989; Dhar and Hoch 1996; Soman 1998)?
To accountfor these findings, researchershave advanced
explanations related to achievement motives (Darke and
Freedman 1995), self-perception(Schindler 1992), fairness
perception(Thaler 1985), or price and quality inferences in
low-involvement processing (Inman,McAlister, and Hoyer
1990; Raghubir 1998; Raghubirand Corfman 1999). However, the extent of supportfor some of these explanationsis
limited. For example, the achievement and self-perception
argumentsare contradictedby the finding that lucky bargains are enjoyed as much as those acquired skillfully
(Darke and Freedman 1995) and that some consumersmay
feel embarrassedto buy a promotedbrand(Simonson, Carmon, and O'Curry 1994). That consumers enjoy paying
prices that are lower than the reference price and that are
thereforenot fair to the seller indicatesthatfairnessperceptions cannot alone explain the puzzles mentioned previously. Finally, most existing studies examine only the consequences of these nonmonetarybenefits without directly
measuring them. When nonmonetarybenefits are directly
studied(e.g., Shimp and Kavas 1984), the use of single-item
measuresprecludes the study of their constructvalidity.

66/ Journalof Marketing,

October2000

In summary,the contributionsof the personalitystudies,

the parsimonyof the economic perspective,and the existing
work on the nonmonetarybenefits of sales promotionshave
greatly contributed to the understanding of consumer
responseto sales promotion.An integratedstudy of the consumer benefits of sales promotions, however, would help
reconcile the fragmentednatureas well as the empiricaland
conceptual limitationsof these seemingly disparatestudies.

A Multibenefit Framework of Sales Promotions

Following Keller (1993), we define the benefits of sales
promotionas the perceived value attachedto the sales promotion experience,which can include both promotionexposure (e.g., seeing a promotionon a product)and usage (e.g.,
redeeming a coupon or buying a promotedproduct).This
definition implies that consumers respond to sales promotions because of the positive experience they provide or,
consistent with Holbrook's (1994) definition, because of
their customervalue.
To develop a frameworkof the differentconsumerbenefits of sales promotions,we elaboratedon the literatureon
consumerresponseto sales promotions,customervalue, and
hedonic consumption with nine in-depth consumer interviews (for more information,see Chandon,Wansink,and
Laurent1999).The resultof this inductiveinvestigationis the
multibenefitframeworkpresentedin Table 1, which lists six
consumerbenefitsof sales promotionsand offers a definition
of each benefit, supportingresearch,and interviewexcerpts.
In Table 1, we indicatethat one of the benefits of sales promotions for the consumeris the monetarysavings they provide (the savings benefit). However, sales promotionsmay
also enable consumersto upgradeto higher-qualityproducts
by reducingthe priceof otherwiseunaffordableproducts(the
qualitybenefit), which will often lead to a higherprice being
paid. Because they signal the availabilityof the brandat the
point of sale and advertise its promotionalstatus,sales promotions can also reduceconsumersearchand decision costs
and therefore improve shopping convenience (the convenience benefit). Furthermore,sales promotionscan enhance
consumers'self-perceptionof being smartor good shoppers
and provide an opportunityto reaffirmtheirpersonalvalues
(the value expression benefit). Because they create an everchanging shopping environment,sales promotionscan also
provide stimulation and help fulfill consumers' need for
informationandexploration(the explorationbenefit).Finally,
sales promotionsareoften simply fun to see or use (the entertainmentbenefit). It is worthnoting thatthe last five benefits
can be achieved above and beyond any monetarysavings.

Distinguishing Hedonic from UtilitarianBenefits

These six benefits can be more parsimoniouslyclassified.
Most classificationsof customervalue andthe differenttypes
of consumerbenefits startwith the distinctionbetween utilitarian(extrinsic)and hedonic (intrinsic)benefits (Furseand
Stewart 1986; Holbrook 1994). Utilitarianbenefits are primarily instrumental,functional,and cognitive; they provide
customer value by being a means to an end. Hedonic benefits are noninstrumental,experiential,and affective; they are
appreciatedfor theirown sake, withoutfurtherregardto their
practicalpurposes(Hirschmanand Holbrook 1982, p. 100).

Babin, Darden,and Griffin (1994) show that this distinction

applies to shopping,because this activity provides utilitarian
benefits (by helping consumersefficiently find and buy the
best products) and hedonic benefits (by creating entertainment and raisingself-esteem). Similarly,the benefits of sales
promotions can be classified as utilitarianwhen they help
consumersmaximize the utility,efficiency, and economy of
their shoppingand buying and as hedonicwhen they provide
intrinsicstimulation,fun, and self-esteem.
Throughthese definitions,the savings,quality,andconvenience benefits of sales promotionscan be tentativelyclassified as utilitarian,because they help consumersincreasethe
acquisitionutilityof theirpurchaseandenhancethe efficiency
of the shoppingexperience.In contrast,the entertainmentand
exploration benefits of sales promotionscan be tentatively
classified as hedonic,becausethey are intrinsicallyrewarding
andrelatedto experientialemotions,pleasure,andself-esteem.
As Table I shows in moredetail,the value expressionbenefit
of sales promotionsis different,becauseit entailsbothhedonic
and utilitariandimensions. On the one hand, buying a promoted productcan provideshopperswith the moral satisfaction of behavingaccordingto theirprinciplesand values(e.g.,
being good or thriftyshoppers)-an intrinsicor hedonicbenefit. On the other hand, buying a promotedproductcan be a
means of increasingshoppers'prestigeand achieving higher
social statusor groupaffiliation(e.g., becominga recognized
smartshopperor a marketmaven)-an extrinsicor utilitarian
benefit.This classificationneedsto be validatedwithanempirical analysisof consumerperceptionsof the benefitsdelivered
by differentmonetaryand nonmonetarysales promotions.

Measuring and Validatingthe

Benefits of Sales Promotions
In this section, we present the results of three measurement
studies, that examine whether consumers perceive all the
benefits hypothesizedin the multibenefitframeworkand use
them when evaluating a promotion.

Studies 1 and 2: Scale Development and Validation

Scale development.To measureand validatethe benefits
of sales promotionsderived from the consumer interviews,
we followed Churchill's (1979) scale development paradigm. To develop and purify a scale of promotionbenefits,
we used two convenience samples consisting of graduate
students (n = 37) and staff (n = 28) recruited at a major
Frenchuniversity.We asked respondentsto consider 24 promotions as an exemplar of an unspecified category of sales
promotions and indicate their level of agreement with 45
statements measuringthe ability of a promotionto provide
each benefit. These statementswere chosen by sales promotion experts from a corpus of 200 statementsgeneratedfrom
the literatureand the consumer interviews described previously. The data were aggregatedacross consumersand promotions. We analyzed the resulting 45 x 45 correlation
matrix througha principalcomponentanalysis followed by
an oblique rotation,using a state (versus a trait)analysis in
a proceduresimilar to the one Aaker(1997) uses to identify
brandpersonality factors. These analyses provided a set of
three indicatorsfor each benefit as well as preliminarysup-

port for the six hypothesized benefits (for more details, see
Table I and Chandon,Wansink,and Laurent1999).
Validatingthe benefits of sales promotions. Validating
the dimensionality and the higher-order structure of the
multibenefit frameworkrequiredcollecting additionaldata
and analyzing them with confirmatory factor analyses
(Gerbing and Anderson 1988). Following the same procedure as in Study 1, in Study 2 we asked 118 graduatestudents and staff at another French university to evaluate 4
promotionseach (of a sample of 24 new promotions)using
the 18-item scale presented in Table 1. Using AMOS 3.6
(Arbuckle 1997), we first validatedthe internalconsistency
and reliability each of the six congeneric models. We then
tested the convergentand discriminantvalidity of each benefit throughfirst-orderconfirmatoryfactor analyses. These
analyses show that the proposedmodel with six distinct but
correlated benefits significantly outperforms any models
that force two benefits to be perfectly correlatedand, a fortiori, outperformsthe prevailing unidimensionalmodel (for
more details, see Chandon,Wansink,and Laurent1999).
Second-orderfactor analyses. As predicted,the six benefits are not orthogonal.To test the utilitarianand hedonic
higher-orderstructureof the six benefits, we estimated the
model with the two second-orderfactors shown in Figure I
and comparedit with a single second-orderfactormodel (see
Bollen 1989;Lichtenstein,Netemeyer,and Burton 1995).All
fit indices supportthe two higher-orderfactormodel over the
unidimensionalsolution (X2127 = 565; p < .01, goodness-offit index [GFI] = .881, adjusted goodness-of-fit index
[AGFI] = .840, incrementalfit index [IFI]= .882, root mean
squareerrorof approximation[RMSEA] = .087 for the twoconstruct model, and X2128 = 830; p < .01, GFI = .851,
AGFI = .801, IFI = .810, RMSEA = .109 for the one-con-

structmodel).The differencein X2between the two models is

highly significant(X2= 265, degreesof freedom[d.f.] = 1,p <
.01). The proposedmodel providesthe best fit of all possible
classifications of benefits into two higher-orderconstructs.
The correlationbetween the two factorsis high (r = .67) and
comparableto the one (r = .55) reportedby BatraandAhtola
(1990). However, the correlationdoes not include the value
of I in its confidence interval(estimatedby bootstrapanalyses), and the amountof variancesharedbetween the secondorderfactorsis lower thanthe average varianceextractedfor
each factor.These results thereforesupportthe discriminant
validity of the two utilitarianand hedonic factors.
Study 3: How Do Promotion Benefits Influence
the Evaluation of Monetary and Nonmonetary

Promotions?

So far, the measurementstudies have shown thatconsumers

perceive the six benefits of sales promotionsas significantly
differentand relatedto two differenthigher-orderutilitarian
and hedonic dimensions. We now examine the predictive
validity of each benefit by estimating its ability to predict
the overall evaluation of monetaryas well as nonmonetary
promotions.
Data and analyses. We collected three items measuring
the overall evaluation of the promotion in Study 2 that we
have not yet discussed ("I like this type of promotiona lot,"
Sales PromotionEffectiveness167

o
a0,

TABLE1
Utilitarianand Hedonic Consumer Benefits of Sales Promotions

C
0
0)
0
CD
<P~
U2

Benefit
Savings
(Monetary
savings)

C.)
h=
CD3

Existing Support
Sales promotionscan provideperceptionsof monetarysavings by loweringthe
unitprice of the promotedproduct,offeringmore of the same productforfree, or
providingrefundsor rebates on subsequent purchases of the same or other
products.Both the size of the price reductionand the deviationfroma reference
price can create perceptionsof monetarysavings and can reduce the pain of
paying (Blattbergand Neslin 1990).

Excerpts from Intervie

"Apromotionis a price cut

largerpackage size for t
same price."

"Apromotionis like new m

in your pocketthat you can
to buy something else.

Quality
(Increase in the
qualityof the
productbought)

By reducingthe price of the productor by offeringa smallerpackage size, sales

promotionscan relax budget constraintsand enable consumers to upgradeto a
better product.Similarto the savings benefit,the qualitybenefitboils down to
increasingvalue for money, but unlikethe former,it usuallyinvolvesspending
more money. Itcan thereforebe linkedto the "excellence"type of customervalue
discussed by Holbrook(1994). This benefitcan explaincross-promotional
asymmetries.This benefit is a criticalcomponent of the price discriminationtheory
of coupons (Blattbergand Wisniewski1989; Narasimhan1984).

"Inormallydon'tbuy pack
salads because they are
expensive. But I buy the
when they cut the pric

Convenience
(Reductionin
search and
decision costs)

Sales promotionscan improveshopping efficiencyby reducingsearch costs. This

is done by helpingconsumers findthe productthey want or by remindingthem of
a productthey need to buy.This advertisingeffect is documented in field
experiments(Bawa and Shoemaker 1989; Inman,McAlister,and Hoyer1990) and
in-storesurveys (Dicksonand Sawyer 1990; Inmanand Winer1998). Sales
promotionscan also improveshopping efficiencyby reducingdecision costs. This
is done by providingconsumers with an easy decision heuristicforpurchase
incidence or purchase quantity(Wansink,Kent,and Hoch 1998) and by signaling
productprice and quality(Hoyer1984; Raghubir1998; Raghubirand Corfman
1999; Simonson, Carmon,and O'Curry1994).

"SometimesI remembert
need a productwhen I se
on sale."

Some consumers respond to sales promotionsto meet personalor moralvalues

such as being a responsiblebuyer(Mittal1994). The value expression benefitcan
thus be linkedto the moralityvalue defined by Holbrook(1994). This type of
customer value encompasses the gratificationearned fromfulfillinga duty.Other
consumers respond to sales promotionsto express and enhance theirsense of
themselves as smart shoppers and earn social recognitionor affiliation(Bagozzi,
Baumgartner,and Yi 1992; Feickand Price 1987; Schindler1992; Shimpand
Kavas 1984). This dimensionof the value expression benefitcan be linkedto
Holbrook's(1994) utilitarianpoliticsand esteem values, because it describes how
consumers respond to sales promotionsto earn status and controlover others.

"Whenmy husband com

back fromhis shopping tri
is always very proudto tel
about the bargainshe fou

Value expressionb
(Expressionand
enhancement of
self-concept
and personal
values)

"Ibuy the brandon dea

because I don't knowwh
one to buy."

"Ilike promotionalpack
because they make shop
fast and easy."

"Isometimes feel guiltywh

could have used a coupon
didn't."

TABLE 1
Continued
Benefit
Exploration
(Stimulationand
variety)

Entertainment
(Amusement
and aesthetic
value)

C,

(0
ant
-o

S
3

m
CD
U)
u,

Ca
C.D

Existing Support
Because sales promotionsare constantlychanging, and because they attract
consumers' attention,they can fulfillintrinsicneeds for exploration,variety,and
information(Baumgartnerand Steenkamp 1996; Kahnand Louie 1990; Kahnand
Raju 1991). The explorationbenefit has been documentedin the context of
shopping (Babin,Darden,and Griffin1994), varietyseeking (Kahn1995), and
exploratorybehavior(Baumgartnerand Steenkamp 1996).

Manysales promotions,such as sweepstakes, contests, and free gifts, are

intrinsicallyfun to watch and to participatein.The entertainmentbenefit
encompasses both the active play and reactiveaesthetic values of Holbrook's
(1994) typology.Itis distinctfromthe overallenjoymentresultingfrombuyinga
promotedproductoften used to measure deal-proneness, which is partof the
affective response to a promotionratherthan one of its antecedents (e.g.,
Lichtenstein,Netemeyer,and Burton1990).

aAllmeasures begin with"(With)this type of promotion..." and are translatedfromFrench.

bAs discussed in the text, the value expression benefithas both a utilitarian
and a hedonic component.

Excerpts from Intervie

"Myhusband likes to loo

the promotionin the pap
even though he never doe
shopping!"

"WhenI buy, I look at sa

promotionsto get new id
and to find variety."

"Iread the contests on

cereal boxes every morn
they are fun."

"Sweepstakes in the sto

create a nice and excit
atmosphere."

FIGURE1
the
Frameworkof Sales Promotions
Multibenefit
Validating
(Second-Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis)
.67

Hedonic

Utilitarian
.83
zs

Savings
.84

.45

zve

.6

.78

.61

.6

.53

.56

s1

s2

s3

qi

q2

q3

cl

c2

c3

zsl

zs2

zs3

zql

zq2

zq3

zcl

zc2

zc3

"I wish there were more promotions like this," and "With
this type of promotion,I feel like buying the product").We
selected these items on the basis of a pretest.The reliability
of the measureis conventionallyacceptable(Cronbach'sa =
.83). We used AMOS 3.6 to estimate a structuralequation
model in which the overall evaluation of the promotion
(modeled as a latent constructwith the three indicatorspresented previously) is regressed on the six latent constructs
(benefits) measuredwith the items describedin Table 1. To
examine the differences between monetaryand nonmonetary promotions, we estimated a multigroup model that
allowed for different regression coefficients, means, and
intercepts for each subsample of promotions (see Bollen
1989, p. 306). The subsampleof monetarypromotionsconsists of five temporaryprice reductions,four coupons, three
rebates,and two multiunitpacks, for a total of 269 observations. The subsample of nonmonetarypromotionsconsists
of two free gifts, two free samples, and three sweepstakes,
for a total of 192 observations. Because the questionnaire
asked respondentsto use each specific promotionas a category exemplar,we tentativelygeneralizethe results to monetary and nonmonetarypromotions.
Results of predictive analyses. A multigroup model in

which the regressioncoefficientsareallowedto varybetween

monetaryand nonmonetarypromotionsexhibitsa satisfactory
fit (2354 =-931, IFI = .968, RMSEA = .060) and outperforms

an aggregatemodel in which these parametersareconstrained

to be equal across both groups(incrementalX2= 29, d.f. = 4;
p < .01). Allowing the correlationbetweenthe benefitsto vary
across the two samplesdoes not improvethe fit of the model
significantly(incrementalX2= 19, d.f. = 15; p > .10). This
shows that the multibenefitframeworkis robustand that the
correlationbetweenthe benefitsdoes notdependon the selection of the promotionsused to measurethese benefits.

70 / Journalof Marketing,
October2000

.69

.76

.76

ve2

vel

zvel

zve2

ze

45

Value
Expression

Convenience

Quality

.80

.75
.46

zq

.8

. 1

.78

.74

zx

Enter-Exploration
Exploration
tainment
.85

.65

.86

.72

.86

.80

ve3

el

e2

e3

xl

x2

zve3

zel

ze2

ze3

zX1

zx2

x3

zx3

In Table2, we show thatmonetarypromotionsareprimarily evaluatedon theirutilitarian(savingsandconvenience)and

value expression benefits. In contrast,nonmonetarypromotions are primarilyevaluatedon theirhedonicbenefits(entertainment,exploration,and valueexpression).Surprisingly,the
coefficient for quality is not significant(and negative). This
coefficient also exhibits a high degree of instabilityin the
bootstrapanalyses,probablybecauseof multicollinearitywith
the other utilitarianbenefits. However,value expression is a
good predictor,and not only for monetarypromotions,possibly becauseof the dual utilitarianand hedonicnatureof value
expressivebenefits.Althoughmorerefinedorexhaustiveclassificationshaveyet to be examined,these resultsshow thatthe
six benefits proposedin the frameworkprovidea significant
improvementover the currentemphasison monetarysavings
alone. Adding the five nonsavings benefits increases the
amountof varianceexplainedin the overallevaluationof nonmonetarypromotions(from.54 to .82) andeven in the overall
evaluationof monetarypromotions(from.71 to .79).
In Table 2, we also report the estimated means of the
latent variablesand show that,comparedwith nonmonetary
promotions,monetarypromotionsare perceived as offering
more savings and more opportunitiesto upgradeto a higherquality productand to express core values but provide less
entertainmentand fewer opportunitiesfor exploration.Surprisingly, given the importanceof the convenience benefit
for the evaluationof monetarypromotionsin our study, the
two types of promotionare indistinguishablewith regardto
this benefit. This might be due to the difficulty of assessing
the convenience benefits of a promotion outside its shopping environment. Last, monetary promotions receive a
higherscore on the value expression benefit, which suggests
that consumersgain more self-esteem from utilitarianbenefits than from hedonic benefits.

TABLE2
3:
How
and
Utilitarian
Hedonic
Benefits Influence Promotion Evaluations
Study
NonmonetaryPromotions
n = 192

MonetaryPromotions
n = 269

Savings
Quality
Convenience
Value expression
Entertainment
Exploration

Meana

t-Value

Meana

t-Value

3.57b
2.90b
2.25
3.29
2.09
2.96

.55*
-.11
.27*
.26*
.11
-.07

5.25
-1.76
2.60
2.18
1.47
-.98

2.09
2.17
2.17
2.87b
2.94b
3.16C

.30
.36
-.84
.35*
.43*
.79*

1.63
1.16
-1.82
2.08
2.12
3.51

al = completelydisagree;5 = completelyagree.
bThemean scores of monetaryand nonmonetarypromotionsare differentat p < .01.
cThe mean scores of monetaryand nonmonetarypromotionsare differentat p < .05.
*The regressioncoefficientis differentfromzero foreach type of promotionat p < .01.
Note: Means of latentvariablesand regressioncoefficientsare estimatedin a multigroupstructuralequationmodel withmeans and intercepts
(Bollen1989, p. 306).

FIGURE2
Sales Promotions Benefit Matrix
High
Freegifts

Free productoffers

Hedonic
Benefits

Coupons

?
Sweepstakes

*
Rebates

*
Price
reductions

Low
Low

High

UtilitarianBenefits

Repeating the same analysis at the level of the two

higher-orderutilitarianand hedonic constructs shows that
monetarypromotionshave a higher overall utilitarianmean
but a lower hedonic mean than nonmonetarypromotionsdo.
This result is shown in Figure 2, which reports the factor
scores of the different promotion techniques used in this
study on the utilitarianand hedonic dimensions. Figure 2
also shows that nonmonetarypromotionsare more heterogeneous than monetarypromotionsand that their higher overall hedonic appeal is mainly due to free gifts. Sweepstakes
are dominatedby all other types of promotions;they offer
few utilitarianbenefits and are also poorly rated in termsof
hedonic benefits, which may explain why they are one of the
few declining promotionaltechniques(Cox Direct 1997).

Conclusions fromthe MeasurementStudies

The scale measuringsales promotionbenefits developed in
Studies I and 2 can be useful for benchmarkingpromotions
or for pretesting purposes. More important,this scale provides a means of validatingthe multibenefitframework.The
results show the following: (I) Monetarysavings are not the
only consumer benefit of sales promotions, (2) consumers
can distinguish between the six benefits hypothesized, (3)
these six benefits can be groupedaccording to their utilitarian or hedonic nature,and (4) all benefits, except quality,are
significant predictorsof the overall evaluation of monetary
or nonmonetarypromotions.
These analyses also show that if the correlationamong
the six benefits does not depend on the type of promotion

Effectiveness
/ 71
Sales Promotion

being evaluated, the mean value and explanatorypower of

each benefit are significantly different between monetary
and nonmonetary promotions. Nonmonetary promotions
provide stronger hedonic benefits and weaker utilitarian
benefits than monetary promotions,and nonmonetarypromotions are evaluated primarilyon the basis of their hedonic benefits, whereas monetary promotions are evaluated
primarilyon their utilitarianbenefits. With the exception of
value expression, which is a universalpredictorbecause of
its dual utilitarianand hedonic nature,each type of promotion tends to be evaluatedon the basis of the benefits it provides best.

WhenAre Monetaryand Nonmonetary

PromotionsMost Effective?
That monetaryand nonmonetarypromotionsprovidedifferent consumerbenefits suggests that their effectiveness may
depend on the congruence or the match that these benefits
have with the product,consumer,or purchaseoccasion. In
this section, we examine how targetinga sales promotion
accordingto the benefits it providescan increase its effects
on brandchoice. Specifically, we develop a benefit congruency frameworkthatpredictsthe types of productsfor which
monetaryand nonmonetarypromotionsare most effective.
This analysis provides a means to test whether the added
complexity of the multibenefitframeworkcan be justified
on the grounds of an improvedability to predict the effectiveness of a promotionand not only on the groundsthat it
more accuratelyrepresentsconsumercognitive structures.

A Benefit CongruencyFramework
Accordingto most models of consumerchoice (e.g., combinatorialmodels of attitudeformationor utility theory),consumers evaluate products on the basis of the benefits they
provide weighted by the importanceof these benefits. The
weighting of the benefits varies across products,purchase
occasions, and individuals(Eagly and Chaiken 1993; Meyer
and Kahn 1991). For low-involvement, repeat-purchase
products,the weights of some of these benefitsmay go down
to zero, so thatonly a few benefits, the most importantones,
are considered in the purchaseevaluation (as in a lexicographic decision rule). For example, Hoyer's (1984) field
study of laundrydetergentbuyersin the United States shows
that a few product benefits, such as product performance,
price, emotional attachment,or social norms, account for
81% of the (self-reported) benefits sought. Many studies
have documented that the importanceof benefits sought
varies(see Kivetz 1999;Shavitt 1990;StrahilevitzandMyers
1998), but Leong's (1993) replicationof Hoyer's study provides some of the clearestevidence. Leong finds thatthough
the same list of benefits accounts for 86% of the benefits
sought by Singaporeanconsumers,the weights of these benefits are very differentfromthe figuresreportedfor U.S. buyers. Interestingly,Leong finds that these weights vary more
across product categories (e.g., laundry detergent versus
shampoo)thanacross nationalitiesfor the same category.
We expect, therefore, that the utilitarianbenefits of a
specific choice alternativeare given more weight when consumers make a utilitarianpurchasedecision and that hedonic benefits are given more weight when consumersmake a

72 / Journalof Marketing,
October2000

hedonic purchasedecision. The various importanceof the

benefits sought implies, in turn, that the effectiveness of a
sales promotion is higher when its benefits are congruent
with those sought for the purchaseoccasion. Simply stated,
the benefit congruencyprincipleproposesthat sales promotions are more effective in influencing brandchoice when
they provide the benefits that have the largestweight in the
evaluationof a purchasealternative.
There is ample empirical support for such a matching
hypothesis in the literature on persuasion (Eagly and
Chaiken 1993). For example, Edwards (1990) finds that
hedonic informationon the smell of a beverage is more persuasive than utilitarianinformationon its storage requirements when the attitude toward the beverage is based on
hedonic benefits (taste) than when it is based on utilitarian
benefits (nutrition).Many theories of attitude change can
account for the effects of benefit congruency. Functional
theories of attitudes contend that persuasion is enhanced
when a persuasive message emphasizes the utilitarianor
hedonic functionthat provides the motivationalbasis of the
attitudeto be modified (Katz 1960). Similarly,Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975) arguethat persuasionattemptsare more effective when they addressthe salient beliefs underlyingthe attitude to be changed, that is, the beliefs that are the most
importantantecedentsof an attitude. Finally, the compatibility principle(Tversky,Sattath,and Slovic 1988) suggests
that consumers weight more heavily the dimension of an
object (say, its utilitarianbenefits) when it is compatible
with or similarto theirgoal (say, choosing between two utilitarian alternatives as opposed to choosing between two
hedonic alternatives). These authors argue that people
attribute a large weight to the compatible dimensions
because these dimensions can be more easily and confidently mapped with the outputconsidered. For example, it
is easier to assess the value added by a free gift to the
(mostly hedonic) value of a hedonic product than to the
(mostly utilitarian)value of a utilitarianproduct.This principle, therefore,predictsthatpromotionsthatare compatible
with the promoted product being evaluated because they
offer similar benefits would have a greater impact on the
final value of this productthan promotionsthat offer incongruentbenefits.

Implicationsfor the Effectiveness of Monetary

and NonmonetaryPromotions
The benefit congruency principle does not depend on the
level of aggregation of the benefits chosen and can be
applied to the six benefits outlined in the multibenefit
framework or to their more parsimonious bidimensional
classification. In the remainderof this article, we focus on
the distinctionbetween hedonic and utilitarianbenefits and
examine the effectiveness of different types of promotions
for utilitarianand hedonic decisions. One way of inferring
the utilitarianor hedonic natureof the purchasedecision is
to examine the type of productbeing considered(Mano and
Oliver 1993; Shavitt 1989). Several studies have used product type to test matchinghypotheses, usually in the area of
advertising research. For example, Shavitt (1990) shows
that the attitudetoward a utilitarianproduct (an air conditioner) was influencedmore by advertisementsemphasizing

utilitarianratherthan hedonic benefits and that the reverse

was true for a hedonic product(coffee). Similarly,Strahilevitz and Myers (1998) find thatdonationsto charities(a type
of nonmonetary promotion) were more effective when
offered for a hedonic productthan for a utilitarianproduct.
We expect that a similar benefit congruency effect will
occur with any type of sales promotion.Study 3 shows that
monetarypromotions provide more utilitarianbenefits and
fewer hedonic benefits than nonmonetary promotions.
When evaluatinga promotionfor a utilitarianproduct-say,
a battery-consumers place a greaterweight on its utilitarian benefits than on its hedonic benefits. As a result, they
will be more influenced by a (relatively utilitarian)monetary promotionthan by a (relatively hedonic) nonmonetary
promotion.Conversely, when evaluating a promotionfor a
hedonic product-say, a wine or a dessert on a date-consumers should place a greateremphasis on the hedonic benefits of the product.They should thus be more receptiveto a
(relatively hedonic) nonmonetarypromotionthanto a (relatively utilitarian)monetarypromotion.

The Leveraging Effect of Brand Equity

The question of the short-termeffectiveness of sales promotions (or lack of it) is particularlyimportantfor brandswith a
high level of customer-basedbrand equity (from now on,
referredto as high-equitybrands)because of concernsabout
the long-term effects of sales promotions on brandequity.
Therefore,in this section we examine the importanceof benefit congruency in the case of a duopoly between a highequity brand(e.g., a nationalbrand)and a low-equity brand
(e.g., a privatelabel). Existinganalyticalmodels arguethatin
such a situation,the high-equitybrandshould discountprice
to capturethe buyers of the privatelabel (Rao 1991). However, empiricalevidence on the effectiveness of sales promotions for high- and low-equity brands is mixed. Whereas
some studies find that high-qualitybrandsgain more from a
price cut than low-qualitybrands(Blattbergand Wisniewski
1989), others find the opposite (Bronnenbergand Wathieu
1997). In addition, no study to date has examinedeitherthe
effectiveness of nonmonetarypromotionsor the importance
of benefitcongruencyfor high-equityand low-equitybrands.
In the case of such a duopoly, we expect, for statistical
and theoreticalreasons, the effects of benefit congruencyto
be strongerfor the high-equitybrandthanfor the low-equity
brand.We expect the high-equitybrandto be more promotion elastic than the low-equity brand of the pair. This
hypothesis follows Keller's (1993) definition of brand
equity, which states that consumers are more responsive to
the marketing mix of brands with high levels of brand
equity. Blattbergand Wisniewski (1989) provide empirical
evidence of the higher promotionelasticity of high-quality
brandsin the case of a duopoly between brandsof differing
perceived quality.As a result, the effects of benefit congruency should be statistically easier to detect for high-equity
brandsthanfor low-equity brands.There are also theoretical
argumentssupportingthe leveraging impactof brandequity
on benefit congruency.Comparedwith high-equitybrands,
low-equity brandsdo not provide as many benefits (utilitarian or hedonic) and are boughtbecause of their lower price.
Low-equity brands should therefore be less sensitive than

high-equity brandsto the congruency between their weaker

benefits and those of the promotion.Priorresearchprovides
evidence that supports this assertion. The cross-promotion
asymmetry documented by Blattberg and Wisniewski
(1989) implies that monetary promotions should be less
effective for the low-equity utilitarianbrand--despite their
benefit congruency-because of their incapacity to attract
the price-insensitive buyers of the high-equity brand. The
loss aversion argumentthat explains the cross-promotional
asymmetry for monetary promotions applies to nonmonetary promotions as well. Nonmonetary promotions should
be less effective for the low-equity hedonic brandthan for
its high-equity counterpartbecause buyers of high-equity
brandsare more reluctantto tradedown in hedonic product
benefits (a loss) than buyers of low-equity brands are to
tradeup (a gain).
The following hypotheses summarizeour predictions:
H1:High-equitybrandsaremorepromotionelasticthanlowequitybrands.
andnonmonetary
promoH2:Forlow-equitybrands,monetary
as forhedotionsareequallyeffectiveforutilitarian
products
nic products
(i.e.,thereis noeffectof benefitcongruency).
aremore
brands,(a) monetarypromotions
H3:Forhigh-equity
effective (comparedwith no promotion)for utilitarian
productsthanfor hedonicproductsand (b) nonmonetary
aremoreeffective(comparedwithno promopromotions
tion)forhedonicproductsthanfor utilitarian
products.
are relaFor
brands,
monetary
promotions
high-equity
H4:
protively moreeffective (comparedwith nonmonetary
motions)forutilitarian
productsthanforhedonicproducts.
HI generalizes Blattbergand Wisniewski's (1989) crosspromotionalasymmetryeffect to encompass differences in
terms of not only brand quality but also brand equity and
justifies the following equity-specific hypotheses. H2 deals
with the effects of benefit congruencyfor low-equity brands.
H3 comparesthe effectiveness of each promotiontechnique
across producttypes using a comparisonwith a control condition (the absence of any promotion)to measuretheireffectiveness. H4 states the same hypothesis using a relative measure of promotion effectiveness that is based on the
differencebetween the effects of each promotion.Because it
compares the effectiveness of each promotion in relative
terms ratherthan absolute terms, rejecting H4 implies that
H3aor H3bis also rejected,thoughthe reverse is not true.All
these hypotheses refer to the case of a competition between
two brandsof differentcustomer-basedbrandequity.

ExperimentalStudies of the Benefit

CongruencyFramework
Study 4: Design and Procedure
In Study 4, we examine the effectiveness of monetaryand
nonmonetarypromotions for hedonic and utilitarianproducts by following the procedureused by Simonson, Carmon,
and O'Curry (1994). In this procedure, subjects choose
which of a high-equitybrandand a low-equity brandto buy
in different product categories across different promotion
conditions. In this experiment,we used a 2 (producttype) x
5 (promotion type) between-subjects design with five

173
Effectiveness
SalesPromotion

within-subjectreplicationsconsisting of a different promotion condition for each of the five choices. The five promotion conditions were (1) no promotionon any brand,(2) a
monetary promotion on the high-equity brand only, (3) a
nonmonetarypromotionon the high-equitybrandonly, (4) a
monetarypromotionon the low-equity brandonly, and (5) a
nonmonetary promotion on the low-equity brand only.
Depending on the design treatment,the five pairs of products were either two pairs of utilitarianproductsand three
pairs of hedonic productsor vice versa. The orderin which
the promotions,products,and type of targetbrandappeared
was counterbalanced.
Questionnaireswere mailed to 350 consumers in five
states (California,Iowa, Illinois, New Hampshire,and Pennsylvania), and 171 usable questionnaires were returned
(48%). Each mailing consisted of the study survey,an unrelated questionnaire,and a $6 check for participation.In the
first part of the questionnaire,respondentschose between
pairs of brandsgrouped into five productcategories. They
then providedpast usage informationfor each brand,evaluated two of ten brandsand two of five promotions,and rated
their hedonic and utilitariannature.We rotatedacross subjects the two brandsandpromotionsfollowing a latin-square
design. For each brand,a one-sentence productdescription
(e.g., "PlantersMixed Nuts, 10 oz., less than 50% peanuts")
was provided along with its price, and when necessary, a
shelf tag with the textualdescriptionof the promotionspresented in Table 3 was added. Prices ranged from $2.39 to
$3.99, equally balanced between utilitarian and hedonic
brands, with an average price of $3.46. The low-quality,
lesser-knownbrandof the pairwas pricedat a 20% discount.
The four monetarypromotionsconsistedof two coupons and
two free product offers, and the four nonmonetarypromotions consisted of two free gifts and two sweepstakes.These
promotions were selected on the basis of currentlyoffered

promotionsin these productcategories.Three utilitarianand

three hedonic productswere selected on the basis of pretests
and prior research(Laurentand Kapferer 1985; Ratchford
1987). The utilitarianproductswere liquidlaundrydetergent,
AA batteries,and flour.The hedonicproductcategorieswere
assortedchocolates, mixed nuts, and bubble bath.A pretest
showed that Cheer, Duracell, Pillsbury,Freeman Beautiful
Bath, WhitmanAssorted Chocolates, and Planters were of
higher quality and were better known than, respectively,
Purex, Eveready,Robin Hood, CapriFrenchFormula,Russell Stover,and Nutcracker.

Study 4: Results
Manipulation checks. With two exceptions, all highequity brandswere more frequentlypurchasedthan any of
the low-equity brands(t = 18.3, p < .01) and were preferred
to their low-equity counterparts(FI,293 = 7.5, p < .01, 1r =
.16). The two exceptions were the two brands of bubble
bath, which had similarlylow usage rates and brandevaluation, and the two brandsof batteries, which had similarly
high usage rates and brandevaluations.Because this study
examines the effects of sales promotions for consumer
choices between a high-equity and a low-equity brand,we
eliminatedthese two productsfromthe subsequentanalyses.
Following the same rationale,we also eliminated subjects
who were unawareof the high-equity brandsand subjects
who were completely acquainted with the low-equity
brands, as measured by their self-reportedprior purchases
(respectively, n = 43 and n = 11). Each utilitarianproduct
scored higher on a utilitarianindex that was inspired by
Batra and Ahtola (1990) and computed by subtractingthe
semantic differentialscore on "fun/notfun" from the average semantic differentialscore on "wise/foolish"and "useful/useless."The utilitarianscore was -.04 for chocolate, .36
for nuts, 1.39 for flour,and 1.96 for detergent(FI,232= 31.3,

TABLE3
Sales Promotion Stimuli Used in Study 4
Type
Monetary

Technique
Price cut

Free product

Description
SmartSaver! Save 350 withthis coupon. Redeem at checkout.

Free gift

Sweepstakes

.69

WeeklySpecial!Takean additional10%off the markedprice.

1.93

Valuepack! 15% more productfree.

1.31

Special Offer!Buy one, get anotherat half price!

Nonmonetary

UtilitarianScorea

.31

Buy this productand get one red rose free! Simplyselect a rose
fromthe flowerdepartmentand show this pack withthe offerto
the cashier.

-1.58

Free videotape rental!Go to the nearest Blockbusterstore and

show one proofof purchase.

-1.10

Wantto have some fun? Do this crosswordpuzzle and win a

week in Hawaiiand otherprizes.

-2.58

2 free ticketsto watch yourfavoriteMajorLeague BaseballTeam!

Lookinside the pack to see if you are one of the 50 winners.

-1.68

score ranges from-8 to 8 and is computedby subtractingthe nine-pointsemantic differentialscore on "fun/notfun"fromthe aver
aUtilitarian
and "useful/useless."
age semantic differentialscore on "wise/foolish"

74 / Journalof Marketing,
October2000

p < .01, = . 34 for a comparisonof utilitarianand hedonic

rgroups). Furthertests show that brandequity is not related
to the perceived benefits of the brand(F1,232= .05, p = .83,
= .02) and that monetarypromotionsare preferredto non1monetary promotions (F1,178= 17.9, p < .01, ri = .30) and
perceivedas more utilitarianand less hedonic than nonmonetary promotions (see Table 3, group difference: F,,178 =
73.6, p < .01, il = .54).

General results. After testing for productcategory and

promotion differences, we aggregated the choice data at
the promotion type and product type levels. We first analyzed brand choices with a logit regression with three
independent factors (product type, promotion type, and
brand equity), their interactions, and three individuallevel covariates (past usage, age, and sex). At this aggregate level, brand equity and past usage are the only significant variables (respectively, B = -2.14, Wald statistic
= 41.3, p < .01 and B = 1.04, Wald = 29.2, p < .01). No

two-way interaction is significant. As expected, the threeway interaction among product type, promotion type, and
brand equity is significant (Wald = 4.8, p < .03), which
shows that the importance of benefit congruency varies
depending on the equity of the target brand. Subsequent
analyses therefore examine high-equity and low-equity
brands separately.
The effects of benefit congruencyfor high- and lowequity brands. As predicted in HI and shown in Figure 3,
sales promotions, on average, increased market share for
high-equity brands (Wald = 5.56, d.f. = 2, p < .01) but not
for low-equity brands(Wald= .60, d.f. = 2, p = .74). As predicted in H2, for low-equity brands,monetaryand nonmon-

etary promotionswere equally effective for utilitarianas for

hedonic products (the interactionbetween promotion type
and producttype is not significant:Wald= 1.70, d.f. = 2, p =
.40). For high-equity brands only, Figure 3 shows that, as
predicted by H3a, monetary promotions were significantly
more effective for utilitarianproductsthan for hedonic products (they lead to an increaseof 24 marketshare points over
the control condition for utilitarianproducts versus a drop
by 2 marketsharepoints for hedonic products;Wald= 4.00,
p < .05). Conversely, nonmonetarypromotions were more
effective for hedonic productsthanfor utilitarianones (a 19point increase versus a 6-point increase). However, this
effect is not statisticallysignificant, and H3bis thus rejected
(Wald= .30, p = .56).
To test H4, we used a repeated contrast coding, which
comparesthe effects of one type of promotionwith those of
another,ratherthan their individualeffects with the control
condition. This analysis found a significant crossover interaction between promotion type and product type (Wald =
6.02, d.f. = 1, p < .01). As predictedby H4, for high-equity
brands, monetary promotions were more effective (comparedwith nonmonetarypromotions)for utilitarianproducts
than for hedonic products.Actually, the difference between
the effectiveness of the two types of promotion reverses
depending on producttype: For utilitarianproducts,monetary promotions increased market share by 18 more points
than nonmonetary promotions did (24 versus 6), but for
hedonic products, monetary promotions are dominated by
nonmonetarypromotionsby 21 marketsharepoints (-2 versus 19). Overall, these results provide strong supportfor the
benefit congruency hypotheses and invite furthertesting of
their generalizabilityacross other stimuli and respondents.

FIGURE3
4:
How
Benefit
Study
Congruency Influences Sales Promotion Effectiveness
Low-Equity Brands

High-Equity Brands
30
MarketShare
PointsIncrease
overtheControl 25
(No-Promotion)
Condition
20

24
-

, 19

15

With a monetary
promotion

15-- - With a nonmonetary

fpromotion
.

10

666

-2

-2 *

-5
Utilitarian
Products

Hedonic
Products

Utilitarian
Products

Hedonic
Products

Effectiveness
/ 75
Sales Promotion

is 69% versus 58% for French respondents).However, the

effects of benefit congruency are, remarkably,of the exact
same magnitudein both countries:Matchingthe type of promotion with the type of productincreasedpromotioneffectiveness by 12 choice share points. For example, U.S.
respondentswere more likely to choose the brandpromoted
with a monetary promotion when choosing between two
utilitarianbrands(75%) than when choosing between two
hedonic brands(63%).

Study 5: A Cross-National Replication of the

Benefit Congruency Effect
In Study 5, we providea test of the robustnessof the benefit
congruencyeffect. We use a procedureanda design similarto
those used in Study4, except thatrespondentswere 139 U.S.
and 51 Frenchstudentsof similarage andeducationlevel. As
in Study4, subjectschose betweentwo hedonicor utilitarian
brands.However,to providea simpletest of the mainbenefitcongruency hypothesis, we made both alternativeshighequity brandsand promotedboth, one with a monetarypromotion and the other with a nonmonetarypromotion.The
design of Study5 is thereforea 2 (promotiontype) x 2 (product type) between-subjectsdesign with four within-subject
replicationsconsistingof the use of a differentpromotionand
productcategorycombination.The absence of a control (no
promotion)condition implies that only H4, pertainingto the
relative effectiveness of monetaryand nonmonetarypromotion, can be tested.The monetarypromotionsused in Study5
were two coupons and two rebatesby mail, and the nonmonetary promotionswere two free gifts and two sweepstakes.
We used ice creamand wine as hedonicproductsand 35-millimeterfilm and garbagebags as utilitarianproducts.We used
the same procedure,brands,andpromotionswiththe U.S. and
Frenchrespondents(for additionalinformationon the stimuli
used in Study 5, see Chandon,Wansink,and Laurent1999).
We analyzed the data separately for each group of
respondentsusing the same logistic regressionas in Study4.
The interactionbetween product type and promotiontype
was significantin both samples (B = .32, Wald= 4.0, p < .05
and B = .022, Wald = 6.2, p < .05 for the U.S. and French
data, respectively). In Figure4, we show the marketshares
of monetaryand nonmonetarypromotionsfor utilitarianand
hedonic products.Overall,monetarypromotionswere more
effective than nonmonetarypromotions,especially for U.S.
respondents(average marketshare of monetarypromotions

Discussion of Experimental Studies

Studies 4 and 5 show that it is critical for managersto take
into account the types of consumer benefits provided by
their promotionsif they want to predicthow effective a particular promotion will be for a particularproduct. Specifically, the resultsof these studies supportthe benefit congruency hypotheses for high-equity brands,because for these
brands, sales promotions are, on average, more effective
when they provide benefits that are congruent with consumers' need for the product.The benefit congruencyeffect
is particularlystrong for monetary promotions, which, in
Study 4, destroyedmarketshare when they were associated
with a hedonic product.Examining the performanceof the
two types of monetarypromotionsused in Study 4 reveals
that the poor performanceof monetary promotions is primarily due to coupons: For high-equity brands, coupons
increasedmarketshare by 26 points for utilitarianproducts
but decreased market share by 5 points for hedonic products, whereas free productoffers led to, respectively, a 21point increase and a 1-point increase. One reason for the
absence of negative effects and for the lower variance of
free-productoffers may be that offering more of a highequity product provides utilitarianbenefits for utilitarian
products and hedonic benefits for hedonic products,
whereas coupons offer the same utilitarianbenefits no matter what productthey promote.

FIGURE4
Study 5: Effects of Benefit Congruency for U.S. and French Respondents
U.S. Respondents

French Respondents

100%
Choice Share
75%

75%
63%

64%
52%

50%

."

25%

37%

48%

36%
"

25%

0%

Utilitarian

Hedonic

Utilitarian

Hedonic

Products

Products

Products

Products

76/ Journalof Marketing,

October2000

With a monetary
promotion

- - - - With a nonmonetary

promotion

The performanceof nonmonetarypromotionsis slightly

less sensitive to benefit congruency effects for high-equity
brands,especiallybecausefreegifts arenot ineffectivefor utilitarianproducts(+17 points) even if they are less effective
than for hedonic products(+26 points). In contrast,sweepstakes fare especially poorly with high-equity utilitarian
brands(-9 points versus+7 pointsfor hedonicbrands),possibly because they are ratedas the most hedonic type of nonmonetarypromotions(see Table 3). These findings suggest
thatthe generalconclusionsof priorresearchaboutthe negative effects of nonmonetarypromotions and the positive
effects of monetarypromotionsshouldbe qualified.The negative effects of free gifts documentedin Simonson,Carmon,
and O'Curry's(1994) study may be due to the lack of relevance of the gifts used. These authors used what they
describedas unneededfree gifts targetedat a segment other
than their respondents,whereas the studies we reporthere
used gifts that appealeddirectlyto the respondents.The performanceof free gifts in Simonson, Carmon,and O'Curry's
(1994) study would have been furtherweakened by their
selectionof multipleutilitarianproducts(35-millimeterfilm, a
compactdisc player,a wristwatch,a calculator,a videocassette
recorder,and a dental plan) and only one hedonic product(a
brownie mix). The findings we reporthere underscorethat
theremay be value to revisitingthese studiesand reinterpreting theirresultsin light of the types of promotionsand products thatwere used.

Summary and Discussion

Perhapsbecause coupons and temporaryprice reductionsare
the most common form of sales promotions,most research
has assumedthatmonetarysavings is the only consumerbenefit of sales promotions.Consequently,althoughmany studies have examined the inconvenienceof using promotions,
comparativelyfew have examined their benefits to the consumer.The first purposeof this researchwas thereforeto provide an integrativeframeworkof the consumer benefits of
sales promotions.In a second step, we examinedthe implications of the existence of multiplehedonicand utilitarianbenefits for the effectiveness of sales promotionsthat offer differentbenefits.By studyinghow and when promotionswork,
these frameworkshave implicationsfor how to improve the
effectiveness of sales promotionsas they increasetheir presence in the marketingmix. Before we detail these implications, consider threeconclusionsof this research:
1. Sales promotionscan provideconsumerswith an arrayof
hedonicand utilitarianbenefitsbeyondmonetarysavings.
Hedonicbenefitsincludevalueexpression,entertainment,
andexploration.
Alongwithsimplemonetarysavings,utilitarianbenefitsalso includeproductqualityand shopping
convenience.
2. Nonmonetarypromotionsprovidemore hedonicbenefits
All
andfewerutilitarian
benefitsthanmonetarypromotions.
benefitsexceptqualitycontributeto the overallevaluation
of monetaryandnonmonetary
promotions.However,each
evaluatedon the basisof the
typeof promotionis primarily
dominantbenefitsit provides.
3. Forhigh-equitybrands,salespromotions
aremoreeffective
when they providebenefitsthatare congruentwith those
providedby theproductbeingpromoted.
Specifically,mon-

products
etarypromotionsaremoreeffectivefor utilitarian
thanfor hedonicproducts.Conversely,nonmonetary
promotionsarerelativelymoreeffectivefor hedonicproducts
thanforutilitarian
products.

Implicationsfor Researchers
Understandingconsumer response to sales promotions.
The multibenefitframeworkprovides new insights into the
questions raised previously. Why do consumers respond
more to an on-shelf coupon than to a similarly advertised
temporary price reduction that offers the same monetary
incentive(DharandHoch 1996; Schindler1992)?One explanation may be that coupons offer strongervalue expression
benefits because collecting and redeemingcoupons requires
more skill and effort than buying productson sale. Coupon
usage therefore more clearly signals the smart-shopping
skills and values of the users and may superiorlyenhance
their social prestige and help them fulfill their personalvalues and moral obligations.The benefit congruencyprinciple
moderatesthis predictionby emphasizingthatit would occur
only to the extent that the value expression benefits are
important-forthe consumeror the purchaseconsidered.
Why do consumersrespondto insignificantprice reductions (Hoch, Dreze, and Purk 1994; Inman,McAlister, and
Hoyer 1990)? The surprisinglystrongresponse to sales promotion signals in the absence of significant price reductions
may be explained by the convenience benefit. Promotion
signals can increase shopping convenience by reducing
search costs (because the brandis more visible at the point
of purchase)and decision costs (because it provides a simple justification for the choice of the promoted product).
Again, the benefit congruency principleexplains why these
effects are especially strong for hurriedconsumersor those
with low need for cognition (Inman,McAlister, and Hoyer
1990; Inmanand Winer 1998).
Why do some consumers switch brands because of a
coupon but then do not redeem it (Bawa and Shoemaker
1989; Dhar and Hoch 1996; Soman 1998)? The failure to
redeem the coupons responsible for the purchase decision
may be due to these consumers valuing the convenience and
explorationbenefits coupons providein the aisles at the time
of the decision but not the monetarysavings they provide at
the time of payment. For example, if consumers buy
couponed brands because they reduce search and decision
costs or increase the variety of productsconsumers buy by
suggesting new alternatives,consumers may simply forget
to use the coupon at the checkout or believe that the embarrassmentof showing it to the cashier and the other shoppers
is not worth the monetarysavings provided.
Expandingthe relevance of benefit congruency. Further
research could study the effects of benefit congruency
beyond the utilitarianor hedonic nature of the product. It
would be interestingto study benefit importanceacross the
differentphases of the productlife cycle, differentpurchase
situations,and different general demographicand personality classifications. For example, we might expect that savings are more importantthan value expression for mature
products than for new products, for agents than for end
users, and for low self-monitoring consumers. Similarly,
Sales PromotionEffectiveness/ 77

althoughChristmasshoppers purchasinggifts may be more

interestedin promotionswith utilitarianbenefits (e.g., price
reductions), this might change one month later when they
shop for themselves and appreciate hedonic promotions
(e.g., free gifts). Finally, monetary promotions might be
more effective in increasing trial (a relatively utilitarian
decision), whereas nonmonetarypromotionsmight be more
effective in retaining customers (a relatively hedonic decision, because repeat buyers often expect a symbolic recognition of their "good"behavior).
Examiningthe results of Studies 4 and 5, the robustness
of the benefit congruency effects for high-equity brands
across 12 promotions and eight products is comforting.
However, it is importantto understandthatin the case of the
competition between a high-equityand a low-equity brand,
benefit congruency holds only for familiarand high-quality
brands. This is possibly because low-equity brands are
bought mainly for their low price and provide weaker utilitarianor hedonic benefits. Brandequity is probablynot the
only factorthat moderatesthe effects of benefit congruency.
For example, the absence of benefit congruencyeffects for
the low-equity brands in Study 4 can also be explained by
their higher market share, because promotion elasticity-and thus the power to detect benefit congruency effects-decreases with market share (Bolton 1989). This indicates
that the utilitarianor hedonic natureof a productis not the
only antecedentof benefit importanceand thereforeof the
effectiveness of a promotion.It is critical thatmarketersnot
only understandthe generic benefits of the productcategory
but also directly study the natureof the benefits sought by
the buyersfor the targetedbrand,the purchasesituation,and
the geographicmarketof interest.
A functional perspective on deal proneness. Prior
research shows that consumer response to coupons can be
explained by two personal traits: coupon proneness and
value consciousness (Lichtenstein,Netemeyer, and Burton
1990). By emphasizing the utilitarianor hedonic benefits
that may motivate each type of deal proneness, the multibenefit frameworkprovides a functional alternativeto the
personalityapproachto deal pronenessof priorresearch.For
example, instead of characterizing consumers as either
value prone or coupon prone, the multibenefit framework
qualifies or segments sales promotionpronenessas utilitarian deal proneness or hedonic deal proneness. Similarly,
instead of referringto sales promotionsin a generic manner,
it may be appropriateto use a new typology of sales promotions based on the benefits they deliver (e.g., hedonic or
entertainmentpromotions).
Emphasizingthe motivationalantecedentof each type of
deal pronenessratherthanthe techniquesthatdeliver it-for
example, renaming sale proneness (Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, and Burton 1995) to convenience proneness-may
also generatecross-fertilizationwith comparableresearchin
social psychology on the motivationalbasis of involvement
and attitude (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). This should help
determine the most appropriateaggregation level of consumer benefits (and, in particular,of the relativelymore heterogeneous hedonic benefits): the micro level of the multibenefit framework,the bidimensionalclassification used in
the experimental studies, or some other classification

78/ Journalof Marketing,

October2000

scheme including, for example, a more general "feel good"

benefit. Keller's (1993) work suggests distinguishing
between symbolic and more purely affective hedonic benefits (respectively, value expression, entertainment, and
exploration).Holbrook's(1994) self-oriented/other-oriented
and active/reactive dimensions suggest refining the value
expression benefit by distinguishing between the intrinsic
moral pridederived from buying promotedproductsand the
political use of smart shopping expertise as a means of
attaininggroup recognitionand influence.
It would also prove productiveto examine each benefit
independently.For example, the convenience benefit may
help explainthe effectivenessof multiunitoffers(e.g., promotional packs,multiple-unitpricing)and othervisually distinctive promotionsin terms of brandconsideration,at both the
point of purchaseand the point of consumption(Chandon,
Hutchinson,and Young 2000; Chandonand Wansink1999).
Furtherresearchcould also test the mixedevidenceon the predictive validity of the quality benefits. For example,
researcherscould compare the effectiveness across product
types of promotionsthatoffera reducedunitpriceon subjects'
habitualpurchasesand of coupons that enable consumersto
buy a higher-qualityproduct.This could be done in laboratory
experimentsor with datafromCatalinaMarketing'scheckout
coupons. Using purchase history data would also help
researchersovercome the limitationsof the methodologies
(surveysand laboratoryexperiments)used in this study.

Implications for Managers

Increasing sales promotion effectiveness with nonmone-

tary promotions.One of the majorconclusions of the benefit congruency results in Studies 4 and 5 is that marketers
can increase sales promotioneffectiveness by matchingthe
type of promotion to the type of product being promoted.
When this cannot be done-say, when the promotion is
offered across differentbrandsor when the promotedbrand
is bought for a wide variety of benefits-the benefit congruency framework recommends using promotions that
combine multiple hedonic and utilitarian benefits. Such
multibenefitpromotionswould appealto the differentbenefits sought by the various segments of consumers that buy
each product.They would also match the differentbenefits
provided by the various brands promoted under a multibrandpromotion.As Study 3 suggests, this can be achieved
by designing promotionsthat combine monetaryand nonmonetary incentives (e.g., an in-pack coupon with an onpack contest or a multipackrefundwith an in-store display
that emphasizes new productuses).
The benefit congruencyprinciplecalls into question the
strong reliance of marketerson monetary promotions and
the relative neglect of nonmonetarypromotions(Cox Direct
1997). This research shows that monetary promotionscan
destroy marketshare when offered with incongruenthighequity hedonic brandscompetingagainstlow-pricedbrands.
In contrast,in the studies reportedhere, the effects of nonmonetary promotions were always positive and were relatively more stable across producttypes. Nonmonetarypromotions are also more likely than monetary promotionsto
create unique brand associations that can reinforce brand
image. We gatheredpreliminaryevidence on this issue by

asking a subsampleof respondentsin Study 4 to rate brand

image on the five personality dimensions suggested by
Aaker (1997). We found that both utilitarianand hedonic
brands were perceived as more exciting, sincere, reliable,
and upper-classwhen they were offered with the nonmonetary promotiondescribed in Table 3 than when they were
offered with no promotion. In contrast, monetary promotions had no significant effects, except on brand sincerity.
Although only tentative,these results suggest that nonmonetary promotionsmay be more appropriateas a brand-building activity than as a short-termsales incentive.
How do these findings compare with best practices in
the industry?An analysis of the sales promotionsnominated
for the 16th Reggie Awardsfor their "originality,execution,
and results" by the Promotion Marketing Association of
America provides additionalevidence on the value of nonmonetary promotions and on the external validity of the
benefit congruency framework.We asked 12 independent
experts to rate the type of incentive (monetary versus nonmonetary) and the consumer benefits offered by the 21
award-winning promotions, along with the utilitarian or
hedonic natureof the promotedproducts.
First, the results show that few of the Reggie Award
finalists are purely monetary promotions and that most of
them combine utilitarian and hedonic benefits, with a
strongerpresence of hedonic benefits. In fact, only I of 21
promotions was rated at six or higher on the seven-point
This is consistent with the
scale "nonmonetary/monetary."
multibenefit framework and with Study 3, which showed
that consumers evaluate promotionson more thanjust cost
savings. Second, there is a significant correlation between
the hedonic nature of the product and the nonmonetary
natureof the promotion(r = .57, p < .01)-the more hedonic the product,the more nonmonetaryis the promotion.
The best promotionsof 1999thusabideby the benefitcongruencyprinciple.Benefitcongruencyis particularlyrespected
for the morehedonic half of the productsstudied,which were
never promotedwith a monetarypromotion.In contrast,the

Composition

more-utilitarianproductswere promotedwith both relatively

monetaryand relativelynonmonetarypromotions(see Table
4). This is consistentwith resultsof Study4, which show that
monetarypromotionscan damage hedonic brands, whereas
nonmonetarypromotions,if they are less effective, do not
damagethe marketshareof utilitarianproducts.
Rethinkingthe goals of sales promotions.Withoutminimizing the importanceof supply-sidearguments,the findings
of this researchsuggest that the debate on the value of sales
promotion compared with everyday low price should take
into considerationthe essential demand-sideissue: the consumer.Many studiesrecommendingeverydaylow pricecharacterize consumers on a convenience-to-pricecontinuum,
assumingthatdeal-proneconsumersare willing to forgo convenience for lower prices (see Kahnand McAlister 1997; Lal
and Rao 1997; Narasimhan 1984). These assumptionsmay
not hold for all consumers.Indeed,our resultsshow thatconsumers may find that sales promotionscan provide savings
and improve shopping convenience by reducingsearch and
decision costs. Similarly,everydaylow price policies run the
risk of alienatinghedonic deal-proneshopperswho value the
entertainmentor explorationbenefits of sales promotions.
More generally, the multibenefit framework suggests
that sales promotions may be appropriateunder conditions
that would not call for promotions if a purely monetary
frameworkwas followed. The traditionalgoals assigned to
sales promotionsare to increasetrial,pricediscriminate,and
serve as short-termtactical weapons in a price competition.
The multibenefitframeworksuggests that sales promotions
may also be appropriatein order to deliver a higher customer value through higher hedonic benefits or improved
shopping convenience underconditions of low competition
or consumer homogeneity that traditionallywould not call
for promotions(e.g., electronic commerce). Focusing on the
nonmonetary,hedonic benefits of sales promotions brings
opportunitiesfor innovative uses in these contexts.

TABLE 4
of the 1999 Reggie Award Finalists (number of finalists and typical examples)
UtilitarianProductsa

Monetary
promotions

Seven finalists

Hedonic Products
No finalist

Typicalexample:
BurgerKingFree FryDay:
Free orderof Frenchfries offeredon
Friday,January2, 1998.
Nonmonetary
promotions

Six finalists

Eightfinalists

Typicalexample:

Typicalexample:

Wisk RichardPetty Race Cars:

Three models of RichardPetty'srace
cars in powderdetergent boxes or as
self-liquidatingpremiums.
witha midpoint
weredichotomized
andpromotions
aProducts
split.

StarburstFruitChews Chew the Clue:

Identifyinga new mysteryflavorwon
a free pack of candy and chances to
win a tripto Hawaii.

Sales PromotionEffectiveness/ 79

REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), "Dimensions of Brand Personality,"
Journal of MarketingResearch,34 (August), 347-56.
Abraham,Magid M. and LeonardM. Lodish (1990), "Gettingthe
Most out of Advertising and Promotion,"Harvard Business
Review, 68 (3), 50-63.
Arbuckle, James L. (1997), Amos Users' Guide Version 3.6.
Chicago: SmallWatersCorporation.
Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin (1994),
"Workand/orFun: MeasuringHedonicandUtilitarianShopping
Value,"Journalof ConsumerResearch,20 (March),644-56.
Bagozzi, Richard P., Hans Baumgartner,and Youjae Yi (1992),
"State VersusAction Orientationand the Theory of Reasoned
Action: An Application to Coupon Usage," Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (March),505-18.
Batra,Rajeev and Olli T. Ahtola (1990), "Measuringthe Hedonic
and UtilitarianSources of ConsumerAttitudes,"MarketingLetters, 2 (2), 159-70.
Baumgartner,Hans and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (1996),
"ExploratoryConsumer Buying Behavior: Conceptualization
and Measurement,"InternationalJournal of Research in Marketing, 13 (2), 121-37.
Bawa, Kapil and Robert W. Shoemaker (1987), "The CouponProne Consumer:Some Findings Based on PurchaseBehavior
Across ProductClasses,"Journalof Marketing,51 (4), 99-110.
and (1989), "Analyzing IncrementalSales from a
Direct Mail Coupon Promotion,"Journal of Marketing,53 (3),
66-76.
Blattberg,RobertC., Thomas Buesing, PeterPeacock, and Subrata
K. Sen (1978), "Identifyingthe Deal Prone Segment,"Journal
of MarketingResearch, 15 (August), 369-77.
and Scott A. Neslin (1990), Sales Promotion: Concepts,
Methods,and Strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
and
(1993), "Sales Promotion Models," in Marketing, J. Eliashberg and G.L. Lilien, eds. Amsterdam:North
Holland, 553-610.
and Kenneth J. Wisniewski (1989), "Price-InducedPatterns of Competition,"MarketingScience, 8 (4), 81-100.
Bollen, KennethA. (1989), StructuralEquationswith Latent Variables. New York:John Wiley & Sons.
Bolton, Ruth N. (1989), "The RelationshipBetween MarketCharacteristics and PromotionalPrice Elasticities,"MarketingScience, 8 (2), 153-69.
Bronnenberg,Bart J. and Luc Wathieu(1997), "AsymmetricPromotion Effects and BrandPositioning,"MarketingScience, 15
(4), 379-94.
Buzzell, Robert, John Quelch, and Walter Salmon (1990), 'The
Costly Bargainof TradePromotion,"HarvardBusiness Review,
68 (2), 141-49.
Chandon,Pierre,J. Wesley Hutchinson,andScott H. Young(2000),
"Measuring the Value of Point-of-PurchaseMarketing with
CommercialEye-TrackingData,"working paper,INSEAD.
-and Brian Wansink (1999), "When and Why Does Consumer Stockpiling Accelerate Consumption?"Working Paper
No. 99-201, London Business School.
, -, and Gilles Laurent(1999), "Hedonic and UtilitarianConsumerBenefits of Sales Promotions,"MarketingScience Institute WorkingPaper No. 99-109. Cambridge, MA:
MarketingScience Institute.
Churchill, G.A., Jr. (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing Better
Measures of Marketing Constructs," Journal of Marketing
Research, 16 (February),64-73.
Cox Direct (1997), 19th Annual Surveyof PromotionalPractices.
Largo, FL: Cox Direct.
Darke, Peter R. and JonathanL. Freedman(1995), "Nonfinancial
Motives and BargainHunting,"Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25 (18), 1597-610.

80/ Journalof Marketing,

October2000

Dhar, Sanjay K. and Stephen J. Hoch (1996), "Price Discrimination Using In-StoreMerchandising,"Journal of Marketing,60
(1), 17-30.
Dickson, Peter R. and Alan G. Sawyer (1990), 'The Price Knowledge and Search of SupermarketShoppers,"Journal of Marketing, 54 (3), 42-53.
Eagly,Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken(1993), ThePsychology ofAttitudes. Orlando:HarcourtBrace & Company.
Edwards, Kari (1990), "The Interplayof Affect and Cognition in
Attitude Formation and Change," Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 59 (2), 202-16.
Feick, Lawrence and Linda Price (1987), '"TheMarketMaven: a
Diffuser of MarketplaceInformation,"Journal of Marketing,
51 (1), 83-97.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Beliefs, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introductionto Theoryand Research.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Furse, David H. and David W. Stewart(1986), EffectiveTelevision
Advertising:A Study of 1000 Commercials.Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson (1988), "An Updated
Paradigmfor Scale Development IncorporatingUnidimensionality and Its Assessment,"Journal of MarketingResearch, 25
(May), 186-92.
Hirschman,Elizabeth C. and MorrisE. Holbrook (1982), "Hedonic Consumption:Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions," Journalof Marketing,46 (3), 92-101.
Hoch, StephenJ., XavierDrbze,and MaryPurk(1994), "EDLP,HiLo, andMarginArithmetic,"JournalofMarketing,58 (4), 16-27.
Holbrook, MorrisB. (1994), '"TheNatureof CustomerValue,"in
Service Quality: New Directions in Theoryand Practice, R.T.
Rust and R.L. Oliver, eds. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, 21-71.
Hoyer,WayneD. (1984), "An Examinationof ConsumerDecision
Making for a Common Repeat PurchaseProduct,"Journal of
ConsumerResearch, 11 (December), 822-29.
Inman,J. Jeffrey, Leigh McAlister, and Wayne D. Hoyer (1990),
"PromotionSignal: Proxy for a Price Cut?" Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (June),74-81.
and Russell S. Winer(1998), "Wherethe RubberMeets the
Road:A Model of In-StoreConsumerDecision-Making,"MarketingScience InstituteWorkingPaper No. 98-122. Cambridge,
MA: MarketingScience Institute.
Kahn, Barbara E. (1995), "Consumer Variety-Seeking Among
Goods and Services:An IntegrativeReview,"Journalof Retailing and ConsumerServices, 2 (3), 139-48.
and Therese A. Louie (1990), "Effects of Retraction of
Price Promotionson BrandChoice Behavior for VarietySeeking andLast PurchaseLoyal Consumers,"Journalof Marketing
Research,27 (August), 279-89.
and Leigh McAlister(1997), GroceryRevolution,TheNew
Focus on the Consumer.Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
- and JagmohanRaju (1991), "Effects of Price Promotions
on Variety Seeking and Reinforcement Behavior,"Marketing
Science, 10 (4), 316-37.
Katz, Daniel (1960), 'The Functional Approach to the Study of
Attitudes,"Public Opinion Quarterly,24 (2), 163-204.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and
ManagingCustomer-BasedBrandEquity,"Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 1-22.
Kivetz, Ran (1999), "Advancesin Researchon MentalAccounting
and Reason-BasedChoice,"MarketingLetters, 10 (3), 249-66.
Lal, Rajiv and Ram Rao (1997), "SupermarketCompetition:The
Case of Every Day Low Pricing,"MarketingScience, 16 (1),
60-80.

Laurent,Gilles and Jean-Noel Kapferer(1985), "MeasuringConsumer Involvement Profiles," Journal of MarketingResearch,

22 (February).41-53.
Leong, Siew Meng (1993), "ConsumerDecision Makingfor Common, Repeat-PurchaseProducts:A Dual Replication,"Journal
of ConsumerPsychology, 2 (2), 193-208.
Lichtenstein, Donald R., RichardG. Netemeyer,and Scot Burton
(1990), "Distinguishing Coupon Proneness from Value Consciousness:An Acquisition-TransactionUtility TheoryPerspective," Journal of Marketing,54 (3), 54-67.
(1995), "Assessing the Domain
, and
, -Specificity of Deal Proneness:A Field Study,"Journal of Consumer Research,22 (December), 314-26.
Mano, Haim and RichardL. Oliver (1993) "Assessing the Dimensionality and Structureof the ConsumptionExperience:Evaluation, Feeling, and Satisfaction," Journal of Consumer
Research,20 (December),451-66.
Mela, Carl F., Sunil Gupta,and Donald R. Lehmann(1997), "The
Long-TermImpactof Promotionand Advertisingon Consumer
Brand Choice," Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (May),
248-61.
Meyer, RobertJ. and BarbaraE. Kahn(1991), "ProbabilisticModels of ConsumerChoice Behavior,"in Handbookof Consumer
Behavior,Thomas S. Robertsonand HaroldK. Kassarjian,eds.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mittal, Banwari (1994), "An IntegratedFrameworkfor Relating
Diverse Consumer Characteristics to Supermarket Coupon
Redemption,"Journal of MarketingResearch,31 (November),
533-44.
Narasimhan,Chakravarthi(1984), "A Price DiscriminationTheory
of Coupons,"MarketingScience, 3 (2), 128-46.
PromotionMarketingAssociation of America Inc. (1994), Winning
with Promotion Power: The Reggie Awards Winners.
Ravenswood, IL: DartnellCorporation.
Raghubir,Priya (1998), "CouponValue:A Signal for Price?"Journal of MarketingResearch, 35 (August), 316-24.
and Kim Corfman (1999), "When Do Price Promotions
Affect Pre-Trial Brand Evaluation?" Journal of Marketing
Research, 36 (May), 211-22.

Rao, Ram C. (1991), "Pricing and Promotions in Asymmetric

Duopolies," MarketingScience, 10 (2), 131-44.
Ratchford, BrianT. (1987), "New InsightsAbout the FCB Grid,"
Journal of Advertising Research, 27 (August/September),
24-38.
Schindler, Robert M. (1992), "A Coupon Is More Than a Low
Price: Evidence from a Shopping-SimulationStudy,"Psychology & Marketing,9 (6), 431-51.
Shavitt, Sharon (1989), "OperationalizingFunctionalTheories of
Attitude,"in Attitude Structureand Function, A.R. Pratkanis,
S.J. Breckler, and A.G. Greenwald, eds. Hillsdale, NJ:
LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
(1990), "The Role of Attitude Objects in Attitude Functions," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26 (2),
124-48.
Shimp, TerenceA. and Alican Kavas (1984), "TheTheory of Reasoned Action Applied to Coupon Usage,"Journal of Consumer
Research, 11 (December), 795-809.
Simonson, Itamar, Ziv Carmon, and Suzanne O'Curry (1994),
"ExperimentalEvidence on the Negative Effect of ProductFeatures and Sales Promotionson BrandChoice," MarketingScience, 13 (1), 23-39.
Soman, Dilip (1998), "The Illusion of Delayed Incentives:Evaluating FutureEffort-MoneyTransactions,"Journal of Marketing
Research, 25 (November), 425-37.
Strahilevitz, Michal and John G. Myers (1998), "Donations to
Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May
Depend on WhatYou Are Tryingto Sell," Journal of Consumer
Research, 24 (March),434-46.
Thaler, Richard (1985), "Mental Accounting and Consumer
Choice," MarketingScience, 4 (3), 199-214.
Tversky,Amos, Shmuel Sattath,and Paul Slovic (1988), "Contingent Weighting in Judgement and Choice," Psychological
Review, 95 (July), 204-17.
Wansink, Brian, Robert J. Kent, and Stephen J. Hoch (1998),
"An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Purchase Quantity
Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (February),
71-81.

/ 81
Sales Promotion
Effectiveness