Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Consumer Attitude Towards Sales Promotion Techniques: A Multi-Country Study
Consumer Attitude Towards Sales Promotion Techniques: A Multi-Country Study
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm
Consumer
Consumer attitude towards attitude
sales promotion techniques: towards SPT
a multi-country study
Kim-Shyan Fam 437
Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand and
Received 10 January 2018
Yatai Business School, Jilin University of Finance and Economics, Revised 16 July 2018
Changchun, China 6 September 2018
17 October 2018
Pedro Q. Brito and Mahesh Gadekar Accepted 23 October 2018
Faculty of Economics, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
James E. Richard
School of Marketing and International Business, Victoria University of Wellington,
Wellington, New Zealand
Ugtakh Jargal
National University of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, and
Wenchao Liu
Jilin University of Finance and Economics, Changchun, China
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine and compare the influence of age, education, income,
product involvement and sales promotion (SP) characteristics on consumer attitudes towards SP across eight
culturally dissimilar environments.
Design/methodology/approach – A multi-country mall intercept and mail survey was conducted in Brunei,
China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Thailand (n ¼ 4,125 respondents).
Findings – Country, education level and income significantly influence consumer attitudes towards SP.
Some countries show a significant monetary value interaction effect. Consumers using delayed-reward SPT
reported a significantly more positive attitude towards SP. Discounts and coupons are the two most highly
ranked SP across the sampled countries.
Research limitations/implications – Limitations include the use of intercept and mail sampling.
Extending the study to include additional Asian countries and other regions would benefit the understanding
of cultural influences on SP.
Practical implications – Multinational marketing managers should consider three aspects of SP
implementation strategy: cultural and demographic factors, interaction between delayed-reward SP and
socio-demographics variables; country specific SP preferences to promote both sales and brand equity.
Originality/value – This study investigates and extends research on SP across cultures. In particular the
research helps better understand the impact of demographic factors and culture on attitudes towards SP,
and implementation of global promotions.
Keywords Culture, Consumer behaviour, Sales promotion, Multi-country, Consumer attitude
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Temporary incentives such as sales promotions (SP) targeted at consumers are often utilised as
weapons to provide a competitive edge (McNeill, 2013; Raju, 1995). In 2013, North American
investment in SP was US$176bn and is expected to grow 2.6 per cent in 2017, and
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
3.4 per cent in 2018 (Garibian, 2013; Statista, 2018). Although SP encourages customer and Logistics
purchase, influences sales and brand choice decisions, and helps marketers sell products, not all Vol. 31 No. 2, 2019
pp. 437-463
SP meet their business objectives, and therefore some businesses are reducing their reliance on © Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-5855
SPs ( Jee and de Run, 2013; Roderick, 2016; Wierenga and Soethoudt, 2010; Yi and Yoo, 2011). DOI 10.1108/APJML-01-2018-0005
APJML The lack of SP success may be due to the failure to understand the cultural environment
31,2 (Markus and Kitayama, 1991), under-performing SP tools (Schultz and Block, 2014), customer
reservation of promotional claims (de Pechpeyrou and Odou, 2012; Odou and de Pechpeyrou,
2011) or difficulty in comprehending the promotion itself (Tan and Bogomolova, 2016).
In the long run successful SP increase sales volume (e.g. Boschetti, 2012; Santini et al.,
2016), positively influence consumer attitudes and perception of quality ( Jones, 2008;
438 Kwok and Uncles, 2005), increase customer loyalty (Omotayo, 2011; Rizvi and Malik, 2011)
and reduce switching cost (Esteban-Bravo et al., 2009; Omotayo, 2011). Studies have also
examined the effects of SP on consumer response to bundled promotions such as price deals
and promotions, and the use of coupons (e.g. Foubert and Gijsbrechts, 2007; Villarejo-Ramos
and Sánchez-Franco, 2005). While customers appear to enjoy SP, and SPs also provide
benefits to companies (Esteban-Bravo et al., 2009), some researchers have expressed
concerns that SPs suffer from poor planning and implementation, creating differentiation
and lack promotional options (Borges and Babin, 2012; Brito and Hammond, 2007;
Chandon et al., 2000). However, Laran and Tsiros (2013) found that marketing promotion
uncertainty explains some of the customer purchase response variability.
The primary objective of the current study is to examine and compare the influence of
age, education, income, product involvement (PI) and SP characteristics on consumer
examining consumer behaviour and attitude towards SP across culturally diverse countries,
and a number of researchers have called for additional cross-cultural research outside the
western influence (Akram et al., 2018; Stafford et al., 2004). Considering Hofstede’s (1980)
theoretical contribution to the influence of demographic variables, the current state of SP
theory (e.g. Chandon et al., 2000), and the economic growth within the Asia-Pacific, eight
countries were chosen to represent culturally diverse markets in the Asia-Pacific region:
Brunei, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Thailand.
Given the general forecast growth in SP, and the concern regarding the value of
discounting, the study is important to marketing academics and practitioners. From an
academic perspective, the study helps identify and better understand the complex
relationships between culture and SP, practitioners will benefit from improved comprehension
of promotion strategies influenced by cultural and diverse customer needs, country-level
factors and cultural adaptation (Cavusgil et al., 1993; Jin and Sternquist, 2003; Kotler, 1986;
McNeill, 2013; Samiee, 1994).
2. Literature review
2.1 Sales promotion characteristics
The American Marketing Association (2017) defined SP as “The media and non-media
marketing pressure applied for a predetermined, limited period of time at the level of
consumer, retailer, or wholesaler in order to stimulate trial, increase consumer demand, or
improve product availability”. SP are considered as any short-term inducement used to
stimulate a desired response from consumers and tend to be used for a predetermined
limited period of time in order to arouse consumers’ desires, stimulate interest, encourage
customers to try new products, increase sales or incentivise trade (channel members)
(Ehrenberg et al., 1994; Gilbert and Jackaria, 2002; Ndubisi and Moi, 2005).
SPs are important strategic tools for marketing (Brito and Hammond, 2007; Thaler, 1983;
Liao, 2006; Fam et al., 2011). Successful SPs encourage consumers to purchase new products
while providing additional consumer benefits, such as monetary or non-monetary rewards.
Two important characteristics of SP are reward timing and incentive value. Promotion
timing, in the form of instant – or delayed – rewards, can affect buying behaviour. Monetary
incentives provide short-term economic motivations to consumers while non-monetary
incentives can yield long-term benefits for utilitarian products (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990;
Kwok and Uncles, 2005).
2.1.1 Sales promotion timing. The SP timing (instant or delayed) aspect can make a Consumer
difference to the adoption and use of the SP by consumers. Instant-reward sales promotion attitude
techniques (SPT) include coupons, discounts, point of purchase incentives, premiums,
refunds or free samples. Delayed-reward SPT include advertisements and consumer
towards SPT
contests. A number of studies found that instant-reward SPT provide short-term
revenue for companies and are preferred by consumers (Esteban-Bravo et al., 2009;
Santini et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2010). Ndubisi and Moi (2005) found that delayed rewards 439
tend not to increase sales revenue in the short term, but yield long-term benefits, via
increased brand promotion and brand reinforcement through entertainment and similar
activities (Chandon et al., 2000; d’Astous et al., 2004; Kwok and Uncles, 2005; Lee, 2002).
Coker et al. (2010) found that consumers value SP timing benefits differently for high and
low-priced products, which helps explain variation in preferences for instant – rather than
delayed – reward SPT. Present or future consumer temporal orientation, and timing of
activities, influences consumer attitudes, actions (including products consumed) and
decision making (Bergadaà, 1990). Aggarwal (2004) found that some brand evaluations are
more positive when a request for help is delayed, compared to an immediate request, which
may help explain consumer valuation of immediate and future benefits.
2.1.2 Sales promotion value. While SP incentives can be monetary or non-monetary,
both help create and enhance brand equity through their positive effect on brand
awareness and information structure (Campbell and Diamond, 1990; Mela et al., 1997;
Palazon-Vidal and Delgado-Ballester, 2005). Monetary incentives include discount
coupons, price discounts and rebates, while non-monetary incentives include tangible or
intangible gifts, presented immediately or post-purchase.
Consumers are primarily interested in monetary incentives for economic reasons, while
non-monetary incentives appeal to emotional needs (Wakefield and Bush, 1998; Weng and
de Run, 2013). However, monetary savings are not the only reason consumers respond to SP
(Iranmanesh et al., 2017). Buil et al. (2013) found that consumers perceive more benefit in
non-monetary promotion when there is a strong perceived fit between the promoted
product, the hedonic nature of the promotion and value expression and entertainment value.
Further, there is a positive link between smart-shopping skills and the use of non-monetary
promotions (Mano and Elliott, 1997). Chandon et al. (2000) found that non-monetary
incentives, such as coupons, help identify and entice consumers with smart-shopping skills
by enhancing their social prestige, personal values and moral obligations.
3. Methodology
The data used in this study to rank the SPT and estimate the attitude towards SPT were
collected from Hong Kong, China (Guangzhou, Shanghai and Wuhan), Brunei, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and New Zealand. Brunei, Malaysia and Indonesia are
APJML Demographics
• Product Involvement
31,2 • Gender
• Timing
• Age
• Value
• Education
• Occupation
• Income (annual)
Muslim majority countries, where Islam strictly prohibits games of chance, and SPs such as
sweepstakes, contests and lucky draws (Binde, 2007; Ministry of Endowments and Islamic
Affairs, 2016). China is an atheist society, with a growing number of practising Christians,
Taoists and Buddhists. To reflect the diverse representation of mainland China this study
included three key cities; Guangzhou (a key manufacturing base and richest city in
Mainland Chine per capita), Shanghai (most populous and wealthiest city in China) and
Wuhan (main transportation hub, high-tech, education and financial centre) (HKTDC
Research, 2018). Hong Kong, being a former British colony and Special Administrative
Region of the People’s Republic of China, has a free-market economy, highly dependent on
international trade and finance, with a population mixture of different religions and values,
and is considered a separate country from Mainland China for the analysis. Singapore is a
global financial centre with a highly developed and successful free-market economy
consisting of a multicultural population with a high proportion of Chinese, and lesser
numbers of Malays, and Indians. Thailand is a Buddhist nation with a relatively well-
developed infrastructure, and free-enterprise economy. New Zealand is predominantly an
Anglo Saxon country with an industrialised, free market economy that can compete globally
(CIA, 2018). These countries exhibit different values, religious beliefs, languages and level of
economics development. According to Fam (2008) these economic and cultural differences
influence consumers’ preference for advertising messages.
The data collected from four versions of the survey and four different research teams
were aggregated for analysis. Two surveys were administered by mail and two through
face-to-face interviews; Table I indicates the survey used in each location and the respective
sample sizes. The questionnaires used for mainland China and Hong Kong were translated
into Chinese by employing back-translation techniques to ensure meaning was as close as
possible to the original.
The data for Guangzhou, Hong Kong (MVA), Shanghai and Wuhan were collected using
mall intercept survey, a relatively inexpensive method to collect individual personal,
accurate, high quality data (Ducoffe, 1995; Jackson et al., 2011; Rice and Hancock, 2005).
Every third person walking past the researcher was asked to participate in the survey.
Refusal by the potential respondent resulted in intercepting the next potential respondent
until a respondent agreed to participate in the survey. After a positive response, the
intercept process returned to every third respondent. The interviews were undertaken from
mid-afternoon until 8 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday over two weekends.
Method Location/Country Frequency % Location/Country Frequency %
Consumer
attitude
Mail survey 1 Brunei 513 11.7 Brunei 513 11.7 towards SPT
New Zealand 274 6.3 China 1,158 26.5
Mail survey 2 Indonesia 495 11.3 Hong Kong 720 16.5
Malaysia 501 11.5 Indonesia 495 11.3
Singapore 250 5.7 Malaysia 501 11.5
Thailand 464 10.6 New Zealand 274 5.7 443
Intercept survey 1 Hong Kong (MVA) 300 6.9 Singapore 250 6.3
Hong Kong 420 9.6 Thailand 464 10.6 Table I.
Intercept survey 2 Guangzhou, China 318 7.3 Survey method and
Shanghai, China 420 9.6 sample sizes for
Wuhan, China 420 9.6 each location and
Total 4,375 100.0 Total 4,375 100.0 country summary
The data for Hong Kong were collected using the same mall intercept technique between
3 p.m. and 6 p.m. on one Saturday. New Zealand data were collected from a random sample
of 2,000 individuals selected from the NZ postal service database. The New Zealand
response rate was 13.7 per cent.
Mail surveys were randomly sent to 550 university student parents to collect data from
Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. University students voluntarily
agreed to participate in the research by providing the contact details for their respective
parents. Parents were considered a better sample than university students, since they were
more likely to be employed, have more experience with a higher number and variety of SPs,
and more likely to have considered or used an SP recently. The survey was then sent to the
parents who were asked to respond anonymously or opt-out. The completed survey
response rates were Brunei (93.3 per cent), Indonesia (90.0 per cent), Malaysia (91.1 per cent),
Singapore (45.5 per cent) and Thailand (84.4 per cent).
The survey consisted of two sections, the first section had each participant: rank a list of
common SP (1 ¼ least preferred and 5 ¼ most preferred); provide information on a recent
purchase (product, brand, price and the SPT used); and indicate their attitude towards the
SPT used in that purchase on a six-item six-point semantic differential scale. The survey
items are shown in Appendix.
The research literature identifies a number of SPT developed primarily in the North
American and European markets. Although the SPT list was slightly different between the
four survey instruments, and varied from 8 to 18 items, all of the technique lists were
constructed from recent marketing and advertising textbooks (Yang et al., 2010). Table II
shows the final compiled list of eight aggregated SPT used for ranking sales promotion
technique in the data analysis.
The second section of the survey asked for demographic information, including gender,
marital status, education, occupation and income level. The dependent variables are the
SPT, and the attitude towards the sales promotion technique. Independent variables
included country, age, education, PI (high/low) and SPT used on last recalled purchase
(USPT). The data were analysed using SPSS version 18.
Table II.
List of eight sales
Advertisement Point of purchase (PoP) promotion techniques
Contests (includes sweepstakes and games) Premiums (incl. gifts, patronage and novelties) from the survey data
Coupons (incl. web and mobile) Refunds (incl. cash, rebates and trade-ins) used in the analysis
Discounts (incl. trade-in and price packs) Samples (incl. tie-ins) (RSPT)
APJML 4. Results
31,2 The compiled data set sample consisted of 4,375 responses, however, Singapore respondents
did not provide ranking data, and therefore only 4,125 responses were used in the ranking
analysis. Table I shows the location and country sample sizes. The respondents were fairly
evenly distributed with respect to gender (female ¼ 54.9 per cent and male ¼ 44.8 per cent;
seven participants did not answer the question). Marital status of the sample included
444 45.5 per cent married, 38.4 per cent single, 1.4 per cent divorced, 0.3 per cent indicated other
and 14.4 per cent did not provide a status.
Table III shows that across the seven countries (Hong Kong listed separately)
46.4 per cent of respondents have an annual income greater than NZ$20,000, with the
majority employed in a professional capacity (38.3 per cent). Indonesia, Malaysia and
Thailand report more than 90 per cent of respondents have an annual income less than
NZ$40,000. The annual income and prices reported by the respondents were converted into
New Zealand currency across all countries.
Hong New
% Brunei China Kong Indonesia Malaysia Zealand Singapore Thailand Average
Gender
Male 47.6 51.0 48.6 51.3 52.1 24.8 44.4 38.8 44.8
Female 52.4 49.0 51.4 48.7 47.9 73.4 55.6 60.8 54.9
Age
Under 25 15.0 0.3 4.9 31.5 38.1 16.4 14.4 31.3 19.0
25–34 46.2 47.8 31.9 33.9 15.8 43.8 52.4 20.3 36.5
35–44 33.5 27.4 26.1 20.6 14.8 28.5 28.0 23.7 25.3
45–55 5.1 24.1 30.0 11.5 23.4 0.0 4.0 18.5 14.6
Over 56 0.2 0.4 7.1 2.4 7.6 10.6 1.2 5.4 4.4
Education
Primary school 0.4 25.9 9.9 0.6 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2
Secondary school 25.9 46.6 58.6 61.6 58.5 0.0 26.4 19.8 37.2
Tertiary 73.7 72.5 31.5 37.8 25.9 0.0 73.2 79.3 49.2
Occupation
Professional 80.1 30.5 23.9 37.6 18.2 73.4 43.2 0.0 38.3
Employed (not
professional) 9.0 53.5 50.6 21.6 18.0 15.3 26.0 0.0 24.2
Own business 0.8 7.3 2.9 3.0 6.8 0.4 11.6 0.0 4.1
Student 3.5 2.5 4.6 32.3 33.3 0.0 12.4 0.0 11.1
Unemployed 0.6 5.7 14.6 1.4 0.0 3.6 4.8 0.0 3.8
Other 0.6 0.5 3.5 1.6 13.0 6.6 1.2 0.0 3.4
Annual income (NZ$)
No income 6.2 1.9 15.3 25.9 32.1 0.0 13.6 7.8 12.8
Less than $20,000 26.1 39.0 22.4 65.7 59.7 12.0 21.2 80.6 40.8
$20,000–$29,999 36.3 8.7 15.4 1.6 5.8 16.1 20.0 4.7 13.6
$30,000–$39,999 18.3 7.3 19.9 2.0 0.8 11.3 17.2 0.2 9.6
$40,000–$49,999 5.3 9.2 10.4 0.0 0.0 12.0 13.6 0.6 6.4
$50,000–$69,999 3.3 12.0 4.9 0.4 0.4 16.4 8.0 0.2 5.7
$70,000–$100,000 2.5 11.4 6.7 0.4 0.0 19.7 2.0 0.2 5.4
Table III.
Demographic More than
information $100,000 0.2 10.4 1.5 0.2 0.2 9.9 1.2 0.4 3.0
by country Notes: The columns are the percentages by country. The “Average” column indicates the overall percentage
(in percentages) across countries
The majority of respondents are in the 25–34 age group (36.5 per cent), while 49.2 per cent Consumer
have indicated some level of tertiary education. Table III shows that across the attitude
seven countries (Hong Kong listed separately) 46.4 per cent of respondents have an annual towards SPT
income greater than NZ$20,000, with the majority employed in a professional capacity
(38.3 per cent). Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand report more than 90 per cent of
respondents have an annual income less than NZ$40,000. The annual income and prices
reported by the respondents have been converted into New Zealand currency across all 445
countries for comparison and consistency purposes.
Preferences
Sales promotion technique 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total
Brunei Coupons 2.56 POP 2.61 Premium 2.74 Contests 2.81 Samples 2.83
China Discount 2.14 Premium 2.48 Samples 2.60 Contests 2.93 Advert 3.04
Hong Kong Discount 2.46 Premium 2.53 Samples 2.58 Contests 2.83 Coupon 2.86
Indonesia Coupons 2.29 Premium 2.43 Adverts 2.78 Discounts 2.85 Refund 2.89
Malaysia Discount 2.21 Premium 2.65 Coupon 2.82 Refund 2.86 Samples 3.01 Table V.
New Zealand Discount 1.19 Coupon 2.58 Premium 2.91 Refund 2.91 POP 2.99 Ranked sales
Thailand Discount 2.58 Samples 2.67 Premium 2.75 Coupon 2.75 Refund 2.76 promotion technique
Notes: 1 ¼ 1st preferred; 5 ¼ 5th preferred preference by country
31,2
446
Table VI.
by country
APJML
Sales promotion
technique mean rank
Kruskal–Wallis Advertised specials Contests Coupons Discounts Point of purchase Premiums Refunds Samples
2
χ 183.0 251.1 526.2 638.8 170.3 380.9 431.8 355.1
df 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
p o0.001 o0.001 o0.001 o0.001 o0.001 o0.001 o0.001 o0.001
Country Mann–Whitney U rank order test
Brunei x 2.87c, g 2.81b, e, f 2.56b, c 3.13b, c, e, f, g 2.61b, c, d, e, g 2.74d 2.91b 2.83f
N 214 251 330 308 157 356 373 151
SD 1.23 1.42 1.48 1.53 1.29 1.39 1.27 1.50
China x 3.04d, g 2.93a, e, f 3.23a, c, d, e, f, g 2.14a, c, d, e, f, g 3.08a 2.48f, g 3.36a, c, d, e, g 2.60d, e, f
N 840 1004 1081 1153 970 1070 991 957
SD 0.74 0.83 1.12 0.97 0.85 0.97 1.09 0.95
a, d, g d, e, f, g a, b, d a, b, d, f a b, g
Hong Kong x 3.15 2.83 2.86 2.46 3.11 2.53 3.06 2.58d, e, f
N 478 510 621 674 458 648 633 594
SD 0.73 0.82 1.17 1.04 0.58 1.12 1.22 1.00
Indonesia x 2.78b, c, e, g 3.06c 2.29b, c, e, g 2.85b, c, e, f 3.31a 2.43a, f, g 2.89b 2.93b, c, f
N 99 139 168 397 80 396 288 352
SD 1.07 1.23 1.42 1.63 1.39 1.34 1.24 1.39
Malaysia x 3.26d 3.20a, b, c 2.82b, d 2.21a, c, d, f, g 3.06a 2.65 2.86b 3.01b, c, f, g
N 96 222 154 393 213 362 251 333
SD 1.28 1.30 1.52 1.41 1.37 1.29 1.38 1.37
a, b, c b a, b, c, d, e, g b, d a, b, c, d, e, f
New Zealand x – 3.28 2.58 1.19 2.99 2.91 2.91 3.92
N – 78 119 240 138 85 32 50
SD – 1.23 1.20 0.64 1.26 1.33 1.38 1.01
a, b, c, d c b, d a, b, e, f a b, d b, c
Thailand x 3.37 3.11 2.75 2.58 3.07 2.75 2.76 2.67e, f
N 128 196 247 349 139 339 230 331
SD 1.25 1.29 1.44 1.43 1.27 1.31 1.31 1.33
Total x 3.07 2.95 2.91 2.35 3.05 2.57 3.08 2.73
N 1,855 2,400 2,720 3,514 2,155 3,256 2,798 2,768
SD 0.91 1.04 1.29 1.29 1.00 1.19 1.23 1.18
Notes: aBrunei significantly different; bChina significantly different; cHong Kong significantly different; dIndonesia significantly different; eMalaysia significantly
different; fNew Zealand significantly different; gThailand significantly different. 1 ¼ Most preferred; 5 ¼ Least preferred. Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA; Mann–Whitney U-
rank order test, comparing each pair of countries, with Bonferroni adjusted α (α ¼ 0.007). All significant differences at p o 0.05
relationship between countries and individual STP ranking indicates that amongst the eight Consumer
countries the discount SPT is most preferred (x ¼ 2.35, SD ¼ 1.29), and refunds are least attitude
preferred (x ¼ 3.08, SD ¼ 1.23). towards SPT
4.1.1 Rank by age and income. The overall SPT ranking by age has discounts being
ranked first preference for all age groups (x ¼ 2.35, SD ¼ 1.29). The least preferred SPT varies
between age groups; advertisements are least preferred for the under 25 (x ¼ 3.18, SD ¼ 1.32),
and over 56 age groups (x ¼ 3.42, SD ¼ 1.36), and refunds are least preferred for the 25–34 447
(x ¼ 3.11, SD ¼ 1.25), 35–44 (x ¼ 3.10, SD ¼ 1.20) and 45–55 (x ¼ 3.20, SD ¼ 1.15) age groups.
The overall SPT ranking by income level also has discounts (x ¼ 2.35, SD ¼ 1.29) ranked
first, however, the no income group ranked premiums first (x ¼ 2.55, SD ¼ 1.29) by a small
margin. The least preferred SPT is refunds for the $20k–$30k, $30k–40k, $50k–$70k,
$70k–$100k and more than $100k income groups (x ¼ 3.08, SD ¼ 1.23). The no income and
less than $20k groups least preferred advertisement, while the $40k–$50k group least
preferred point of purchase (x ¼ 3.23, SD ¼ 1.01).
449
towards SPT
(USPT) by country
recalled purchase
promotion mean
Table VIII.
sales promotion
attitude by individual
APJML 5.50
31,2
Post hoc analysis revealed that the no income group (x ¼ 4.70, SD ¼ 0.88) and the less than
$20k group (x ¼ 4.63, SD ¼ 0.87) were significantly more positive towards SP than all other
income groups. The $20k–$30k group (x ¼ 4.07, SD ¼ 0.81) is significantly less positive
towards SP than the $30k–$40k group (x ¼ 4.25, SD ¼ 0.83) and the more than $100k group
(x ¼ 4.35, SD ¼ 0.89). The significant interaction effect of country and income on the
respondents’ attitude towards SP F(45, 4,153) ¼ 2.50, po 0.001, partial η2 ¼ 0.026, indicates
that income has a statistically significant effect on SP attitude in China F(7, 4,153) ¼ 11.50,
p o0.001, Hong Kong F(7, 4,153) ¼ 2.52, p ¼ 0.014 and Singapore F(7, 4,153) ¼ 2.22,
p ¼ 0.030, but not in the other countries. This interaction effect is not consistent between
countries and income levels (see Figure 3).
Mainland Chinese respondents in the more than $100k income group favour SP
significantly more than other income groups, while Singapore respondents in the no income
group are more positive towards SP. Hong Kong respondents in the no income group
indicated the least positive attitude towards SP.
5.70
5.60
5.50
5.40
Attitude towards sales promotion
5.30
5.20
5.10
5.00
4.90
4.80 China
4.70
4.60 Hong Kong
4.50
Singapore
4.40
4.30
Figure 3. 4.20
Significant country 4.10
and income interaction No Less than $20,000– $30,000– $40,000– $50,000– $70,000– More
effect on attitude income $20,000 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $69,999 $100,000 than
towards sales $100,000
promotion
Income levels (NZ$)
4.2.3 Product categories and product price. Each recollected purchase identified by a survey Consumer
participant was assigned to a product category (see Table IX). ANOVA was used to attitude
investigate product categories influence on respondents’ attitude to SP. The respondent’s
attitude towards SP was significantly influenced by product category, F(9, 4,234) ¼ 19.35,
towards SPT
p o 0.001. However, the effect is small, η2 ¼ 0.04. Post hoc analysis revealed that the attitude
towards SP was significantly more positive for apparel (x ¼ 4.57, SD ¼ 0.86) than furniture
and appliances (x ¼ 3.92, SD ¼ 0.87, d ¼ 0.30), household goods (x ¼ 4.24, SD ¼ 0.90, d ¼ 0.17), 451
personal goods (x ¼ 3.48, SD ¼ 0.46, d ¼ 0.15) or food (x ¼ 4.13, SD ¼ 0.95, d ¼ 0.21).
ANOVA results indicate that respondents who purchased lower priced products
were more positive towards SP than those who purchased higher priced products,
F(5, 4,192) ¼ 6.21, p o0.001. Post hoc analysis revealed that the attitude towards SP was
significantly less positive for purchases between $2,000 and $19,999 (x ¼ 4.57, SD ¼ 0.86)
and all purchases below $2,000; less than $100 (x ¼ 4.48, SD ¼ 0.90), $100–$499 (x ¼ 4.43,
SD ¼ 0.87), $500–$999 (x ¼ 4.34, SD ¼ 0.82) or $1,000–$1,999 (x ¼ 4.41, SD ¼ 1.01).
4.2.4 Product involvement. Table IX lists the mean attitude towards SP by product
categories, and reported product category frequency, as provided by the respondent
information. PI refers to the personal relevance and the general level of interest in a product or
product category and is a key moderator of purchase decisions (Zaichkowsky, 1994). High PI
tends to involve low frequency, high price, high risk purchase, invoking higher cognitive
processes to evaluate the product for purchase, while low PI includes “force of habit”, low risk
purchases and appears to invoke more superficial methods of evaluation and product analysis
(Gu et al., 2012; Holmes et al., 2014; Ministry of Economic Development, 2000).
As an indicator of PI a high/low dummy variable was created based on the perceived
cognitive processing required to purchase the product within each category and price
(as an indicator of relative risk) (Laurent and Kapferer, 1985; Willis, 2004). As Sun (2010)
found in their study of PI and trivial attributes, higher priced products tends to attract
more attention and involvement from consumers. Considering product category, and the
PI criteria listed above, for purposes of this study products identified as high risk, low
purchase frequency and costing more than $2,000 was considered high involvement, while
low involvement consisted of products with little perceived cognitive processing
requirements, considered frequent (habitual purchase) and low risk (e.g. cost less than
$100, depending on the product).
To investigate whether PI influences the attitude towards SP in general the dummy
variable high/low PI, was created as a PI proxy by aggregating the high involvement
Product category N x SD
5. Discussion
Positive response to SP in globalised markets is crucial, however, marketers struggle to
design and attain profitability from promotional campaigns (Laran and Tsiros, 2013). This
study examined the influence of demographics, PI and SP characteristics affecting
consumer attitudes towards SP in cultural dissimilar environments. The results show that
country (location) does affect a customer’s SP preference and attitude towards SP.
The results of this study clearly indicate that location (country and culture) has a
significant effect on the perception and value of specific SPT, for example, New Zealanders
rank discounts significantly higher and samples significantly lower than the other seven
countries. Indonesia and Malaysia show the most favourable general attitude towards SP,
with New Zealand expressing the least favourable attitude. The concept of self-construal
could explain the difference in attitude towards SP between Asia and western societies.
Self-construal describes how an individual view themselves in relation to others and the
Notes
1. Data were not available for Guangzhou or New Zealand.
2. Data were not available for Guangzhou or New Zealand.
References
Aggarwal, P. (2004), “The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 87-101.
Akram, U., Hui, P., Khan, K.M., Tanveer, Y., Mehmood, K. and Ahmad, W. (2018), “How website quality
affects online impulse buying: moderating effects of sales promotion and credit card use”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 235-256.
Alvarez, B.A. and Casielles, R.V. (2005), “Consumer evaluations of sales promotion: the effect on brand
choice”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 1/2, pp. 54-70.
American Marketing Association (2017), “AMA dictionary: sales promotion”, available at: www.ama. Consumer
org/resources/Pages/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter=S (accessed 24 April 2017). attitude
Bergadaà, M.M. (1990), “The role of time in the action of the consumer”, Journal of Consumer Research, towards SPT
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 289-302.
Binde, P. (2007), “Gambling and religion: histories of concord and conflict”, Journal of Gambling Issues,
Vol. 20, pp. 145-165.
Blattberg, R.C. and Neslin, S.A. (1990), Sales Promotion: Concepts, Methods, and Strategies, Prentice 457
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Borges, A. and Babin, B.J. (2012), “Revisiting low price guarantees: does consumer versus retailer
governance matter?”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 777-791.
Boschetti, R.I.B. (2012), “Non-monetary sales promotion and its effects on the purchase intention and
the choice of the brand of financial services”, master’s thesis, Pontifica Catholic University of
Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.
Brito, P.Q. and Hammond, K. (2007), “Strategic versus tactical nature of sales promotions”, Journal of
Marketing Communications, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 131-148.
Buil, I., de Chernatony, L. and Montaner, T. (2013), “Factors influencing consumer evaluations of gift
promotions”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 Nos 3/4, pp. 574-595.
Campbell, L. and Diamond, W.D. (1990), “Framing and sales promotions: the characteristics of a
‘good deal?’ ”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 25-31.
Cavusgil, S.T., Zou, S. and Naidu, G.M. (1993), “Product and promotion adaptation in export ventures:
an empirical investigation”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 479-506.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B. and Laurent, G. (2000), “A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion
effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 65-81.
Chang, H.J., Yan, R.-N. and Eckman, M. (2014), “Moderating effects of situational characteristics on
impulse buying”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 42 No. 4,
pp. 298-314.
Cheung, M. (2009), “Sales promotion communication as social processes and schematic structures”,
The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 32-44.
CIA (2018), “The world factbook”, Central Intelligence Agency, available at: www.cia.gov/library/
publications/resources/the-world-factbook/ (accessed 25 May 2017).
Cochrane, L. and Quester, P. (2005), “Fear in advertising”, Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 17 Nos 2/3, pp. 7-32.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Coker, K.K., Pillai, D. and Balasubramanian, S.K. (2010), “Delay-discounting rewards from consumer
sales promotions”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 487-495.
Creusen, M.E.H. (2010), “The importance of product aspects in choice: the influence of demographic
characteristics”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 26-34.
Culter, B.D., Thomas, E.G. and Rao, S.R. (2000), “Informational/transformational advertising:
differences in usage across media types, product categories, and national cultures”, Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 69-83.
d’Astous, A., Legoux, R. and Colbert, F. (2004), “Consumer perceptions of promotional offers in the
performing arts: an experimental approach”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 242-254.
de Pechpeyrou, P. and Odou, P. (2012), “Consumer skepticism and promotion effectiveness”, Recherche
et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 45-69.
DelVecchio, D., Henard, D.H. and Freling, T.H. (2006), “The effect of sales promotion on post-promotion
brand preference: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 203-213.
APJML Deval, H., Mantel, S.P., Kardes, F.R. and Posavac, S.S. (2013), “How naive theories drive
31,2 opposing inferences from the same information”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 39
No. 6, pp. 1185-1201.
Dholakia, U.M. (2001), “A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk
perception”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1340-1362.
Ducoffe, R.H. (1995), “How consumers assess the value of advertising”, Journal of Current Issues &
458 Research in Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Hammond, K. and Goodhardt, G.J. (1994), “The after-effects of price-related
consumer promotions”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 11-21.
Esteban-Bravo, M., Múgica, J.M. and Vidal-Sanz, J.M. (2009), “Magazine sales promotion”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 137-146.
Fam, K.-S. (2008), “Attributes of likeable television commercials in Asia”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 418-432.
Fam, K.-S. and Merrilees, B. (1998), “Exploring the relevance of strategic promotion management
approach among small independent retailers”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 354-361.
Fam, K.-S. and Waller, D.S. (2003), “Advertising controversial products in the Asia Pacific: what makes
them offensive?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 237-250.
Fam, K.-S., Waller, D.S., Ong, F.S. and Yang, Z. (2008), “Controversial product advertising
in China: perceptions of three generational cohorts”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 7 No. 6,
pp. 461-469.
Fam, K.-S., Merrilees, B., James, E.R., Jozsa, L., Li, Y. and Krisjanous, J. (2011), “In-store marketing: a
strategic perspective”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 165-176.
Foubert, B. and Gijsbrechts, E. (2007), “Shopper response to bundle promotions for packaged goods”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 647-662.
Foxman, E.R., Tansuhaj, P.S. and Wong, J.K. (1988), “Evaluating cross-national sales promotion
strategy: an audit approach”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 7-15.
Garibian, L. (2013), Local Marketing: Promotions Spending Surges as Advertising Slips, MarketingProfs,
Dover, DE, available at: www.marketingprofs.com/charts/2013/10405/local-marketing-
promotions-spending-surges-as-advertising-slips (accessed 10 April 2017).
Gilbert, D.C. and Jackaria, N. (2002), “The efficacy of sales promotions in UK supermarkets: a consumer
view”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 30 Nos 6/7, pp. 315-322.
Gu, B., Park, J. and Konana, P. (2012), “The impact of external word-of-mouth sources on retailer sales
of high-involvement products”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 182-196.
Hansen, H., Samuelsen, B.M. and Sallis, J.E. (2013), “The moderating effects of need for cognition on
drivers of customer loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 1157-1176.
Harmon, S.K. and Hill, C.J. (2003), “Gender and coupon use”, The Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 12 Nos 2/3, pp. 166-179.
Henry, P. (2002), “Systematic variation in purchase orientations across social classes”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 424-438.
HKTDC Research (2018), “China – market profiles”, available at: http://china-trade-research.hktdc.com/
business-news/article/Facts-and-Figures/Mainland-China-Provinces-and-Cities/ff/en/1/1X39VTST/
1X06BOQA.htm (accessed 28 June 2018).
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Holmes, A., Byrne, A. and Rowley, J. (2014), “Mobile shopping behaviour: insights into attitudes,
shopping process involvement and location”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 25-39.
Hong, F.C., Pecotich, A. and Shultz, C.J. II (2002), “Brand name translation: language constraints, Consumer
product attributes, and consumer perceptions in East and Southeast Asia”, Journal of attitude
International Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 29-45.
towards SPT
Hong, J. and Chang, H.H. (2015), “ ‘I’ follow my heart and ‘we’ rely on reasons: the impact of self-
construal on reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1392-1411.
Huff, L. and Alden, D. (1998), “An investigation of consumer response to sales promotions in developing 459
markets: a three-country analysis”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 47-56.
Hultén, P. and Vanyushyn, V. (2014), “Promotion and shoppers’ impulse purchases: the example of
clothes”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 94-102.
Iranmanesh, M., Jayaraman, K., Zailani, S. and Ghadiri, S.M. (2017), “The effects of consumer
perception of volume discount benefits on intention to purchase grocery products: deal
proneness as a moderator”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 1017-1035.
Irem Eren, E., Bodur, M. and Yilmaz, C. (2010), “International strategies of emerging market firms”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 9/10, pp. 1410-1436.
Iyengar, S.S. and Lepper, M.R. (1999), “Rethinking the value of choice: a cultural perspective on
intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 349-366.
Jackson, V., Stoel, L. and Brantley, A. (2011), “Mall attributes and shopping value: differences
by gender and generational cohort”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 1-9.
Jee, W.T. and de Run, E.C. (2013), “Consumers’ personal values and sales promotion preferences effect
on behavioural intention and purchase satisfaction for consumer product”, Asia Pacific Journal
of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 70-101.
Jeon, J.O. and Beatty, S.E. (2002), “Comparative advertising effectiveness in different national cultures”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 11, pp. 907-913.
Jin, B. and Sternquist, B. (2003), “The influence of retail environment on price perceptions: an
exploratory study of US and Korean students”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 643-660.
Jones, J.M. (2008), “An exploratory study on attitude persistence using sales promotion”, Journal of
Managerial Issues, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 401-416.
Josiam, B.M., Kinley, T.R. and Youn-Kyung, K. (2005), “Involvement and the tourist shopper: using the
involvement construct to segment the American tourist shopper at the mall”, Journal of Vacation
Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 135-154.
Khare, A., Achtani, D. and Khattar, M. (2014), “Influence of price perception and shopping motives on
Indian consumers’ attitude towards retailer promotions in malls”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 272-295.
Kim, C., Takashima, K. and Newell, S. (2018), “How do retailers increase the benefits of buyer
innovativeness?: an intra- and inter-organization perspective”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 571-586.
Kotler, P. (1986), “Global standardization – courting danger”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 13-15.
Krugman, H.E. (1966), “The measurement of advertising involvement”, Public Opinion Quarterly,
Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 583-596.
Kwok, S. and Uncles, M. (2005), “Sales promotion effectiveness: the impact of consumer differences
at an ethnic-group level”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 2/3,
pp. 170-186.
Kwon, K.-N. and Kwon, Y.J. (2007), “Demographics in sales promotion proneness: a socio-cultural
approach”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 34, pp. 288-294.
Laaksonen, P. (1994), Consumer Involvement: Concepts and Research, Cengage Learning, London.
APJML Laran, J. and Tsiros, M. (2013), “An investigation of the effectiveness of uncertainty in marketing
31,2 promotions involving free gifts”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 112-123.
Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J.N. (1985), “Measuring consumer involvement profiles”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 41-53.
Lee, C.W. (2002), “Sales promotions as strategic communication: the case of Singapore”, The Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 11 Nos 2/3, pp. 103-114.
460 Lee, S.H., Bai, B. and Murphy, K. (2012), “The role demographics have on customer involvement in
obtaining a hotel discount and implications for hotel revenue management strategy”, Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 569-588.
Liao, S.-L. (2006), “The effects of nonmonetary sales promotions on consumer preferences: the
contingent role of product category”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 196-203.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Burton, S. and O’Hara, B.S. (1989), “Marketplace attributions and consumer
evaluations of discount claims”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 163-180.
Liu, D., Geng, X. and Whinston, A.B. (2007), “Optimal design of consumer contests”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 140-155.
Lowe, A.C.-T. and Corkindale, D.R. (1998), “Differences in ‘cultural values’ and their effects on
responses to marketing stimuli: a cross-cultural study between Australians and Chinese from
the People’s Republic of China”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 9/10, pp. 843-867.
McNeill, L. (2013), “Sales promotion in Asia: successful strategies for Singapore and Malaysia”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 48-69.
Mano, H. and Elliott, M.T. (1997), “Smart shopping: the origins and consequences of price savings”,
in Brucks, M. and MacInnis, D.J. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 504-510, available at: http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/8093/
volumes/v24/NA-24
Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991), “Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, p. 224.
Mela, C.F., Gupta, S. and Lehmann, D.R. (1997), “The long-term impact of promotion and advertising on
consumer brand choice”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 248-261.
Michaelidou, N. and Dibb, S. (2008), “Consumer involvement: a new perspective”, The Marketing
Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 83-99.
Ministry of Economic Development (2000), “Electronic commerce in New Zealand: a survey of business
use of the internet”, Government report, Ministry of Economic Development, Wellington,
available at: www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____9884.aspx
Ministry of Endowments and Islamic Affairs (2016), “Islam on gambling”, available at: www.islamweb.
net/en/article/176683/islam-on-gambling (accessed 20 June 2018).
Mitra, A. and Lynch, J.G. Jr (1995), “Toward a reconciliation of market power and information
theories of advertising effects on price elasticity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 644-659.
Narayana, C.L. and Raju, P.S. (1985), “Gifts versus sweepstakes: consumer choices and profiles”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 50-54.
Ndubisi, N.O. and Moi, C.T. (2005), “Customers behaviourial responses to sales promotion: the role of
fear of losing face”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 32-49.
Nickerson, C. and Hoeken, H. (2003), “Remarkable or modest? The role played by culture in
advertising”, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 61-71.
O’Cass, A. (2000), “An assessment of consumers product, purchase decision, advertising and
consumption involvement in fashion clothing”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 545-576.
Odou, P. and de Pechpeyrou, P. (2011), “Consumer cynicism”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45
Nos 11/12, pp. 1799-1808.
Omotayo, O. (2011), “Sales promotion and consumer loyalty: a study of Nigerian telecommunication Consumer
industry”, Journal of Competitiveness, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 66-77. attitude
Palazon-Vidal, M. and Delgado-Ballester, E. (2005), “Sales promotions effects on consumer-based brand towards SPT
equity”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 179-204.
Park, E.J., Eun Young, K. and Judith Cardona, F. (2006), “A structural model of fashion-oriented
impulse buying behavior”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 433-446. 461
Raju, J.S. (1995), “Theoretical models of sales promotions: contributions, limitations, and a future
research agenda”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Ratchford, B.T. (2001), “The economics of consumer knowledge”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 397-411.
Rice, R. and Hancock, L. (2005), “The mall intercept: a social norms marketing research tool”,
The Report on Social Norms, Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 4-7.
Ricks, D.A. (1983), Big Business Blunders: Mistakes in Multinational Marketing, Dow Jones-Irwin,
Homewood, IL.
Rizvi, S. and Malik, S. (2011), “Impact of sales promotion on organizations’ profitability and consumer’s
perception in Pakistan”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 3
No. 5, pp. 296-310.
Roderick, L. (2016), “Why Unilever and P&G are pulling back from discounting”, Marketing Week,
available at: www.marketingweek.com/2016/11/01/why-unilever-and-pg-are-pulling-back-from-
price-promotions/ (accessed 10 September 2017).
Romaine, S. (1995), Bilingualism, 2nd ed., Wiley-Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Rosa-Diaz, I.M. (2004), “Price knowledge: effects of consumers’ attitudes towards prices, demographics,
and socio-cultural characteristics”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 6,
pp. 406-428.
Samiee, S. (1994), “Customer evaluation of products in a global market”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 579-604.
Santini, F.D.O., Vieira, V.A., Sampaio, C.H. and Perin, M.G. (2016), “Meta-analysis of the long- and short-
term effects of sales promotions on consumer behavior”, Journal of Promotion Management,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 425-442.
Schultz, D.E. and Block, M.P. (2014), “Sales promotion influencing consumer brand preferences/
purchases”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 212-217.
Stafford, T.F., Turan, A. and Raisinghani, M.S. (2004), “International and cross-cultural influences on
online shopping behavior”, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 70-87.
Statista (2018), “Annual growth of advertising, sales promotion and sponsorship spending in North
America from 2010 to 2018”, Statista, New York, NY, available at: www.statista.com/statistics/
196872/change-in-advertising-sales-promotion-sponsorship-since-2008/ (accessed 16 August 1976).
Sun, P.-C. (2010), “Differentiating high involved product by trivial attributes for product line extension
strategy”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 11/12, pp. 1557-1575.
Tan, P.J. and Bogomolova, S. (2016), “A descriptive analysis of consumer’s price promotion literacy
skills”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 44 No. 12, pp. 1223-1244.
Thaler, R. (1983), “Transaction utility theory”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 229-232.
Tong, D.Y.K., Lai, K.P. and Tong, X.F. (2012), “Ladies’ purchase intention during retail shoes sales
promotions”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 90-108.
UN ESCAP (2013), Population Trends in Asia and the Pacific, United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific, available at: www.unescap.org/our-work/social-development/
population-dynamics
APJML Vignali, C. (2001), “Kellogg’s – internationalisation versus globalisation of the marketing mix”,
31,2 British Food Journal, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 112-130.
Villarejo-Ramos, A.F. and Sánchez-Franco, M.J. (2005), “The impact of marketing communication and
price promotion on brand equity”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 431-444.
Wakefield, K.L. and Bush, V.D. (1998), “Promoting leisure services: economic and emotional aspects of
consumer response”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 209-222.
462 Waller, D.S. and Fam, K.S. (2000), “Cultural values and advertising in Malaysia: views from the
industry”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3-16.
Warner, M. (2000), “Introduction: the Asia-Pacific HRM model revisited”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 171-182.
Weng, T.J. and de Run, E.C. (2013), “Consumers’ personal values and sales promotion preferences effect
on behavioural intention and purchase satisfaction for consumer product”, Asia Pacific Journal
of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 70-101.
Wierenga, B. and Soethoudt, H. (2010), “Sales promotions and channel coordination”, Academy of
Marketing Science. Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 383-397.
Williams, T.G. (2002), “Social class influences on purchase evaluation criteria”, The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 Nos 2/3, pp. 249-276.
Willis, J.L. (2004), “What impact will e-commerce have on the U.S. economy?”, available at: www.
kansascityfed.org/Publicat/econrev/Pdf/2q04will.pdf (accessed 12 January 2012).
Yang, L., Cheung, W.-l., Henry, J., Guthrie, J. and Fam, K.-S. (2010), “An examination of sales promotion
programs in Hong Kong: what the retailers offer and what the consumers prefer”, Journal of
Promotion Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 467-479.
Yi, Y. and Yoo, J. (2011), “The long-term effects of sales promotions on brand attitude across monetary
and non-monetary promotions”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 879-896.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), “Measuring the involvement construct”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 341-352.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1994), “The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application to
advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 59-70.
Appendix. Survey items Consumer
attitude
towards SPT
463
Corresponding author
Pedro Q. Brito can be contacted at: pbrito@fep.up.pt
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com