Analysis of panel data for two consumer packaged goods indicates that media-distributed coupons and cents-off deals induce brand switching and result in less loyalty when retracted than if no deal is offered. In contrast, package coupons stimulate brand loyalty which is maintained when they are retracted. The extent to which economic utility theory and self-perception theory order these findings is evaluated and the implications of the results for managing demand are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AronsonE. and CarlsmithJ. “Effect of the Severity of Threat on the Devaluation of Forbidden Behavior,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66 (1963), 584–8.
2.
BanksS. “Trends Affecting the Implementation of Advertising and Promotion,” Journal of Marketing, 37 (January 1973), 19–28.
3.
BemD. “Self-Perception Theory,” in BerkowitzL., ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1972, 1–62.
4.
BogartK., LoebA., and RutmanI. “Behavioral Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance,” paper read at Eastern Psychological Association Meeting, 1969.
5.
BrownR. “Sales Response to Promotions and Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 14 (August 1974), 33–8.
6.
DholakiaR. and SternthalB. “Highly Credible Sources: Persuasive Facilitators or Persuasive Liabilities?” Journal of Consumer Research, (March 1977), 223–32.
7.
DodsonJ. “An Empirical Examination of Buyer Behavior: Individual and Brand Analysis,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1975.
8.
DoobA., CarlsmithJ., FreedmanJ., LandauerT., and TomS. “Effect of Initial Selling Price on Subsequent Sales,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11 (1969), 345–50.
9.
FreedmanJ. “Long-term Behavioral Effects of Cognitive Dissonance,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1 (1965), 145–55.
10.
FreedmanJ. and FraserS. “Compliance Without Pressure: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (August 1966), 195–202.
11.
KuehnA. A. and RohloffA. C. “Consumer Response to Promotions,” in RobinsonP. J., ed. Promotional Decisions Using Mathematical Models. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1967, 45–145.
12.
PlinerP., HartH., KohlJ., and SaariD. “Compliance Without Pressure: Some Further Data on the Foot-in-the-Door Technique,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10 (January 1974), 17–22.
13.
MassyW. and FrankR. “Short Term Price and Dealing Effects in Selected Market Segments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 2 (May 1965), 175–85.
14.
MassyW., and LodahlT.Purchasing Behavior and Personal Attributes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968.
15.
MontgomeryD. “Consumer Characteristics Associated with Dealing: An Empirical Example,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (February 1971), 118–20.
16.
The Nielsen Researcher. “A New Look at Coupons,” No. 1, 1976, 8.
17.
ScottC. “Effects of Trial and Incentives on Repeat Purchase Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (August 1976), 263–9.
18.
SnyderM. and CunninghamM. “To Comply or Not Comply: Testing the Self-Perception Explanation of the Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (January 1975), 64–7.
19.
StockmanL. “The Influence of Consumer Deals on Urban Household Purchases of Butter, Margarine, Vegetable Shortening, and Salad and Cooking Oils in Metropolitan Chicago,” in BassF., ed., The Frontiers of Marketing Thought and Science. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1957, 241–6.
20.
StrangR. A. “Sales Promotion—Fast Growth, Faulty Management,” Harvard Business Review, 54 (July–August 1976), 115–24.
21.
TyboutA. “The Effects of Source Credibility and Behavior Modification Strategy on Enrollment in a Health Care Plan,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1975.
22.
WebsterF. “The ‘Deal-Prone’ Consumer,” Journal of Marketing Research, 2 (May 1965), 186–9.
