This study throws light on the diversity of online sales promotion and deal acquisition with respect to human capital (time cost and efforts cost). This is the non-monetary investment of consumer while making a purchase. The influence of non-monetary cost decides the action towards purchase choice among various product offerings in online space. Findings of the research reveal (a) the different types of consumer: value conscious, price conscious and encounters, (b) different strategies a consumer adopts: track on information, futuristic thinking and formulating deals and (c) source of deal gratification for different goal-oriented consumer behaviour. This study proposes an empirical model validated by data interpretation using grounded theory. It shows how human capital decides approach of consumer to evaluate online sales promotion.
ArgoJ. J., & MainK. J. (2008). Stigma by association in coupon redemption: Looking cheap because of others. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 559–572.
2.
AshworthL., DarkeP. R., & SchallerM. (2005). No one wants to look cheap: Trade-offs between social disincentives and the economic and psychological incentives to redeem coupons. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 295–306.
3.
BatraR., & SinhaI. (2000). Consumer-level factors moderating the success of private label brands. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 175–191.
4.
BawaK., & ShoemakerR. W. (1987). The coupon-prone consumer: Some findings based on purchase behavior across product classes. The Journal of Marketing, 51, 99–110.
5.
BlattbergR., BuesingT., PeacockP., & SenS. (1978). Identifying the deal prone segment. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(3), 369–377.
6.
BurtonS., LichtensteinD. R., NetemeyerR. G., & GarretsonJ. A. (1998). A scale for measuring attitude toward private label products and an examination of its psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(4), 293.
7.
CastanedaM. G., MartinezC. P., MarteR., & RoxasB. (2015). Explaining the environmentally-sustainable consumer behavior: A social capital perspective. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(4), 658–676.
8.
CorbinJ. M., & StraussA. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
9.
DelVecchioD. (2005). Deal-prone consumers’ response to promotion: The effects of relative and absolute promotion value. Psychology & Marketing, 22(5), 373–391.
10.
EesleyC. (2016). Institutional barriers to growth: Entrepreneurship, human capital and institutional change. Organization Science, 27(5), 1290–1306.
11.
GlaserB. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
12.
GreerC. R., LuschR. F., & HittM. A. (2017). A service perspective for human capital resources: A critical base for strategy implementation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(2), 137–158.
13.
Hakan AltıntaşM., KılıçS., SenolG., & Bahar IsinF. (2010). Strategic objectives and competitive advantages of private label products: Manufacturers’ perspective. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 38(10), 773–788.
14.
KimH. W., ChanH. C., & GuptaS. (2007). Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 111–126.
15.
KwonK. N., & KwonY. J. (2007). Demographics in sales promotion proneness: A socio-cultural approach. ACR North American Advances.
16.
KwonKyoung-Nan and KwonYoo Jin (2007) , “Demographics in Sales Promotion Proneness: a Socio-Cultural Approach”, In NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 34, eds. FitzsimonsGavan and MorwitzVicki, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 288–294.
17.
LeeB. C. Y. (2007). Consumer attitude toward virtual stores and its correlates. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14(3), 182–191.
18.
LeeC., HallakR., & SardeshmukhS. R. (2016). Innovation, entrepreneurship, and restaurant performance: A higher-order structural model. Tourism Management, 53, 215–228.
19.
LeeJ., ParkD. H., & HanI. (2008). The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(3), 341–352.
20.
LuJ. (2003). A model for evaluating e-commerce based on cost/benefit and customer satisfaction. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(3), 265–277.
21.
MoavO., & NeemanZ. (2012). Saving rates and poverty: The role of conspicuous consumption and human capital. The Economic Journal, 122(563), 933–956.
22.
OnkelinxJ., ManolovaT. S., & EdelmanL. F. (2016). The human factor: Investments in employee human capital, productivity, and SME internationalization. Journal of International Management, 22(4), 351–364.
23.
ParkD. H., & KimS. (2009). The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of electronic word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(4), 399–410.
24.
PutrevuS., & RatchfordB. T. (1997). A model of search behavior with an application to grocery shopping. Journal of Retailing, 73(4), 463–486.
25.
RatchfordB. T. (2001). The economics of consumer knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 397–411.
26.
RatchfordB. T., TalukdarD., & LeeM. S. (2007). The impact of the Internet on consumers' use of information sources for automobiles: A re-inquiry. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 111–119.
27.
RichardsonP. S., JainA. K., & DickA. (1996). Household store brand proneness: A framework. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 159–185.
28.
RubioN., & Jesús YagüeM. (2009). Alternative panel models to evaluate the store brand market share: Evidence from the Spanish market. European Journal of Marketing, 43(1/2), 110–138.
29.
SethuramanR. (2000). What Makes Consumers Pay More for National Brands Than for Store Brands: Image or Quality? (Report No. 00-110). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute Paper Series.
30.
SilversteinM., SilversteinM. J., & ButmanJ. (2006). Treasure hunt: Inside the mind of the new global consumer. Penguin.
