European Journal of Marketing

An experimental investigation of factors affecting consumers' perceptions of sales

promotions
Alain d'Astous, Valérie Landreville,
Article information:
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

To cite this document:

Alain d'Astous, Valérie Landreville, (2003) "An experimental investigation of factors affecting consumers'
perceptions of sales promotions", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Issue: 11/12, pp.1746-1761,
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560310495447
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560310495447
Downloaded on: 27 November 2018, At: 02:58 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 22 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5461 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2005),"Consumer evaluations of sales promotion: the effect on brand choice", European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 39 Iss 1/2 pp. 54-70 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560510572016">https://
doi.org/10.1108/03090560510572016</a>
(2005),"Sales promotion effectiveness: the impact of consumer differences at an ethnic-group
level", Journal of Product &amp; Brand Management, Vol. 14 Iss 3 pp. 170-186 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601049">https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601049</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:526497 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
EJM
37,11/12
1746
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)
Received September
2001
Revised March 2002
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 37 No. 11/12, 2003
pp. 1746-1761
q MCB UP Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090560310495447
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
An experimental investigation
of factors affecting consumers’
perceptions of sales
promotions
Alain d’Astous and Valérie Landreville
HEC Montréal, Montréal, Canada
Keywords Sales management, Premium products, Marketing communications,
Consumer behaviour
Abstract This paper reports the results of an experimental study where four characteristics of
premium-based sales promotions were manipulated in the context of a computer purchase: the
attractiveness of the premium, the extent to which it fits the product category, the reception delay of
the premium, and the mention of its value. The results show that these factors had interactive
effects on consumer reactions. Thus, although the attractiveness of the premium generally had a
positive impact on consumer appreciation of the promotional offer, a promotion including an
unattractive premium was nevertheless positively evaluated if the premium was a good fit to the
product category. Sales promotions, including a premium that fits well the product category, were
less likely to be perceived as manipulative. However, if the product-premium fit was poor and the
premium was not attractive, mentioning the value of the premium helped to reduce the perceptions
of manipulation intent. It is concluded that more research is needed on this managerially relevant
topic in light of the complex dynamics that appear to underlie the relationships between the
characteristics of premium-based promotions and consumer reactions.
Background discussion
Sales promotion comprises a multitude of marketing tools designed to
stimulate the purchase of goods and services by providing an incentive.
Among those tools, premiums occupy an important place. A premium-based
sales promotion is one in which a good or service is offered free of charge or at a
relatively low price in return for the purchase of one or many products or
services. For instance, a potential customer may be offered a free cookware set
as a premium for opening a new bank account (Preston et al., 1978).
Premium-based promotions can be categorized into two types (d’Astous and
Jacob, 2002): those involving direct premiums (e.g. an article is inserted in the
package) and those involving delayed premiums (e.g. an article is sent by mail
upon receiving a proof of purchase). Each year, thousands of marketing
practitioners attend specialized trade shows such as the Premium Incentive
Show (Goldsborough, 1998) or the Motivation Show (Kaeter, 1998) to learn
The authors wish to thank Marc Tomiuk for his useful comments on an earlier version of this
paper.
 more about the use and the effectiveness of premiums for promoting their Consumers’
products and services. In 1996, the reported sales volume of products used as perceptions of
premiums reached $9.5 billion in the USA, an increase of more than 18 percent sales
over the sales observed during the previous year (Bertrand, 1998).
Although premium-based sales promotions are commonly used in
marketing practice, academic research on the subject is scarce. In an early
study, Preston et al. (1978) looked at the effectiveness of premium-based
1747
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

promotions (free cookware or low-price calculator) in convincing customers to

open a bank account. The study took place in two different banks. In one
setting, no significant impact of the promotions emerged, whereas in the other,
a slight increase in the number of account openings was observed during the
cookware promotion and a 50 percent increase occurred during the calculator
promotion. In a series of interesting studies, Simonson et al. (1994) showed that
premium-based promotions may be detrimental to brand image and brand
attitude if the premium is unattractive. For instance, in one study it was
showed that offering consumers a free subscription to the Audio/Video
Interiors magazine in return for the purchase of a JVC CD player resulted in a
significant decrease (22 percent) in choice of the brand in comparison to a
situation where no premium was offered. According to Simonson et al. (1994),
consumers are likely to develop negative reactions toward brands that use
marketing gimmicks such as useless premiums to induce them to buy. Ong
(1999) studied one particular form of premium-based promotion: the
bonus-pack. In his study, bonus level (60 versus 80 percent extra quantity of
skin lotion) had no impact on purchase intention and predisposition to
stock-pile. More recently, d’Astous and Jacob (2002) studied the impact of three
categories of variables on consumer reactions to premium-based promotions:
characteristics of the offer (e.g. direct versus delayed premium), attitudinal
variables (e.g. interest in the premium) and personal characteristics (e.g.
deal-proneness). Two kinds of consumer reactions toward premium-based
promotions were examined: overall appreciation and perceived manipulation
intent. It was found that consumer appreciation of the promotional offer was
significantly higher when the premium was direct, when its value was
mentioned, and a minimal quantity of product had to be purchased. Perceived
manipulation intent, in turn, was significantly lower when the premium was
direct and its value was not mentioned.
Although these studies have brought some insightful knowledge about the
premium-based sales promotions, there is a need for more research on the
factors that impact on consumer reactions toward such promotions. The work
reported in Simonson et al. (1994) clearly indicated that premium attractiveness
is a significant variable in explaining how consumers react to premium-based
sales promotions. However, these findings were further specified in d’Astous
and Jacob (2002), where it was shown that it is important to consider the type of
reaction involved because a given promotion characteristic may impact
 EJM differently on consumer appreciation and feelings of being manipulated (e.g.
37,11/12 mentioning the value of the premium). In addition, although premium
attractiveness is certainly an important variable, other characteristics of the
premium-based promotions, such as having a direct or a delayed premium,
have a significant impact. Some relevant findings on the effects of these
variables were reported by d’Astous and Jacob (2002), but their study was
1748 correlational and limited to repeat-purchase consumer goods such as cough
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

tablets, mouthwash, fruit juice, and so on. In this paper, we report the results of
an experimental study using a more involving, less frequently bought, and
more technologically complex product (i.e. a computer).

Theoretical framework
In this section, we present the rationale behind the selection of four variables to
explain consumer reactions to premium-based sales promotions:
(1) premium attractiveness;
(2) premium immediacy;
(3) mention of the premium’s value; and
(4) perceived fit between the premium and the product category.
For each variable, we conclude with a research proposition.

Premium attractiveness
According to balance theory, linking a positively-valued object to a target
object should make the latter object more positive (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993).
Conversely, if the object that is associated with the target object is negatively
valued, the target object evaluation should be affected in a negative way. While
these theoretical predictions of balance theory appear to be straightforward,
they may not apply directly to the situation where the target object is a product
and the linked object a premium, because a premium does not have a simple
association with a given product. The premium represents an object that is
offered free or at a reduced price in return for the purchase of a product. Hence,
a premium could be considered as a gift and consequently lead to some positive
reaction toward the to-be-purchased product or brand or it could be perceived
as a persuasion trick orchestrated so as to make the product offer more
attractive. As a theoretical framework, balance theory cannot explain and
predict the nature of the inferences that consumers may form when they
encounter a premium-based promotional offer. As Simonson et al. (1994)
demonstrated, consumers do appear to question the reasons behind the
marketing decision consisting in giving away an article with a product
purchase. This seems to be especially true when the article is unattractive. In
that situation, Simonson et al. (1994) argued that consumers are likely to make
the inference that some kind of marketing gimmick has been put in place in
 order to deceive them. This may consequently have a negative effect on brand Consumers’
attitude: perceptions of
P1. A promotional offer that includes an attractive premium is better sales
perceived by consumers than a promotional offer that includes a less
attractive premium.
1749
Premium immediacy
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

As part of their research on the impact of premiums, d’Astous and Jacob (2002)
elaborated and validated a comprehensive typology of premium-based sales
promotions in which premium immediacy (i.e. the premium is direct or delayed)
was a primary dimension of categorization. Subsequently, the results of a
survey indicated that sales promotions involving direct premiums were better
appreciated by consumers than sales promotions based on delayed premiums,
and also the former led to a significant decrease in perceptions of manipulation
intent in comparison to the use of delayed premiums. It is somewhat surprising
to see that the delaying of premium reception has not been afforded more
consideration by researchers interested in studying premium-based sales
promotions, despite its apparent importance for consumers. One interesting
aspect of reception delay is its possible interaction with the level of consumer
interest in the premium. Thus, to the extent that consumers are very much
attracted by the premium, they should give some importance to premium
immediacy. On the other hand, if the premium is deemed unattractive, whether
or not it is received at the moment of purchase may not matter a great deal:
P2. A promotional offer that includes a direct premium is better perceived
by consumers than a promotional offer that includes a delayed
premium and this difference is greater when the premium is attractive.

Mention of the premium’s value

Mentioning the value of a premium is a common practice. The rationale behind
this practice does not, however, seem to have been documented. Presumably,
marketers think that knowledge of the premium’s value may enhance the
perceived value of the total promotional offer. This obviously depends on the
perceived magnitude of the communicated value and consequently, mentioning
the premium’s value appears more justified when the premium’s real value is
indeed relatively high and when consumers may not be able to infer that value
on their own. However, as mentioned earlier, consumers are likely to engage in
inference making when they encounter a premium-based promotional offer.
They may think that marketers try to artificially increase the total worth of the
promotional offer by mentioning the value of the premium. There is some
empirical evidence that this process may actually take place. d’Astous and
Jacob (2002) found that when the value of the premium was mentioned,
consumer appreciation of a promotional offer significantly increased, but the
perception of manipulation intent also increased. It is not clear whether this
 EJM result is reliable given the correlational nature of d’Astous and Jacob’s (2002)
37,11/12 data. Any conclusion about the impact of mentioning the premium’s value on
consumer reactions should be based on the experimental data:
P3. Mentioning the value of a premium that is included in a promotional
offer has a negative impact on consumer perceptions.
1750
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

Fit between the premium and the product category

According to Hiam (2000) and Rossiter and Percy (1997), one fundamental
element that must be considered in designing premium-based sales promotions
is how well the premium is integrated with the brand’s positioning. Sales
promotion efforts typically pursue short-term sales objectives (Blattberg and
Neslin, 1988). However, it is important to consider the possible effects of the
relationships between the premium, product, and brand on the long-term
variables such as brand image and brand equity. This issue has not been
examined in previous research on premium-based promotion, but some
findings in the areas of sponsorship and brand alliances appear to be relevant.
Several studies in the area of sponsorship research have shown the
importance of a strong link between the sponsor and the sponsored event or
entity: the stronger the link, the greater the impact on the sponsor’s image and
the attitude towards the sponsoring itself (McDonald, 1991; Meenaghan, 1983).
Extending this basic finding to premium-based sales promotions, a strong
product-premium congruity is likely to be perceived as natural and consistent,
and the consequent impact on consumer reactions should be positive. A brand
alliance is an association between two or more brands that takes form in some
shared distribution or advertising (Rao and Ruerkert, 1994). A study by
Simonin and Ruth (1998) showed that in order to benefit from such association,
brand alliance partners not only have to be favorably evaluated, but must also
be perceived as forming a good combination.
The results of these different studies point to the importance of considering
the fit between the product and its premium when evaluating the effectiveness
of premium-based promotions. When the product-premium congruity is weak,
the promotional offer is likely to be perceived as inconsistent and perhaps
opportunistic. In addition, the perceived value of the promotional offer may be
enhanced when the premium can actually be integrated with the consumption
or utilization of the product (e.g. a glass offered with the purchase of a bottle of
Bacardi rum). In support of this rationale, Chandon et al. (2000) recently
concluded that effective promotions are those that offer benefits that are
congruent with the promoted product:
P4. A promotional offer that includes a premium that has a strong link
with the product in promotion is better perceived by consumers than a
promotional offer that includes a premium that has a weak link with
the product.
 Method Consumers’
An experiment was conducted where premium attractiveness, premium perceptions of
immediacy, mention of the premium’s value and fit between the premium and sales
the product category were manipulated in a mixed 2 £ ð2Þ £ 2 £ ð2Þ factorial
design. In that design, mention of the premium’s value and premium
immediacy were between-subjects variables, whereas premium attractiveness
and fit were within-subjects variables.
1751
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

Stimuli and experimental conditions

An IBM computer was chosen as the promoted product primarily because it is
a product of high relevance to university students who participated in the
experiment. A pilot study involving 56 university students at a business school
was conducted in order to select premiums that significantly differed on
attractiveness (low/high) and fit (poor/good). A total of 25 different premiums
were pre-tested. Two measures were obtained for each premium: overall
appreciation (nine-point bipolar scale with anchor points: do not like at all/like
very much), and perceived fit (nine-point bipolar scale with anchor points:
premium does not fit well with the product/fits very well). In addition, for each
premium, the students indicated whether $70 was an appropriate value (really
not enough/quite enough/too high). The selection of premiums to be used in the
experiment was made on the basis of the means and variances of the
appreciation and fit variables. A CD-ROM encyclopedia was chosen as the high
attractiveness/good fit premium (appreciation mean ¼ 7.80; fit mean ¼ 8.38), a
cordless telephone as the high attractiveness/poor fit premium (appreciation
mean ¼ 7.09; fit mean ¼ 4.48), a computer joystick as the low
attractiveness/good fit premium (appreciation mean ¼ 4.95; fit mean ¼ 6.77),
and a pair of binoculars as the low attractiveness/poor fit premium
(appreciation mean ¼ 4.53; fit mean ¼ 2.23). All mean differences were
statistically significant. On the basis of the answers provided by students
concerning an appropriate value for the premium, it was decided to increase the
value of the premium to $100.
Figure 1 presents the promotional offer corresponding to a high
attractiveness/good fit (CD-ROM encyclopedia) delayed premium where the
premium’s value is mentioned. A total of 16 promotional offers like this one
were prepared to be used as stimuli in order to accommodate the 24
combinations defined by the factorial design. Promotional offers with a direct
premium mentioned that the premium has to be obtained immediately. The
$100 value did not appear on promotional offers associated with conditions
which involved no mention of the premium’s value. Each participant saw four
promotional offers corresponding to the attractiveness £ fit within-subjects
conditions and was randomly assigned to one of the four groups defined by the
mention of premium’s value £ premium immediacy between-subjects
conditions.
 EJM
37,11/12

1752
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

Figure 1.
Example of a stimulus
promotional offer

Measures and data collection

Seven nine-point bipolar scales were used to measure consumer reactions
toward each promotional offer (Figure 1): pleases me, is of quality, interests me,
incites me to buy the product, seems to be dishonest, makes me feel like I am
being manipulated, and gives a good image to IBM. The first six scales were
taken from d’Astous and Jacob (2002), while the last one was tailored for the
present study. In addition, the participants had to indicate their general
impression of each offer using three nine-point bipolar scales:
 unfavorable/favorable, negative/positive, and bad/good (Burton and Consumers’
Lichtenstein, 1988). perceptions of
Prior to evaluating the stimulus offers, subjects had to complete a sales
series of scales designed to measure their interest in various product
categories (including computers) and their attitude towards various brands
(including IBM). The interest measures were made up of three seven-point
bipolar scales (with anchor points: does/does not interest me; does/does
1753
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

not count for me; means a lot/nothing to me). The brand attitude
measures included four seven-point bipolar scales (with anchor points:
bad/good quality; positive/negative opinion; inferior/superior to other
brands; like/does not like).
After having evaluated the stimulus offers, the respondents completed a
series of scales designed to measure their interest in various premiums
(including the four premiums used as stimuli), the perceived fit between the
premiums and the product category (computer), as well as measures of
individual characteristics: deal-proneness, materialism, compulsive buying
tendencies, and socio-demographics (gender, age, and annual income). The
interest measures were made up of two items associated with nine-point bipolar
scales with anchor points not at all/completely: “This premium interests me,”
and “This premium pleases me.” Perceived product-premium fit was assessed
using three items associated with nine-point bipolar scales with anchor points
not at all/completely: “this premium is appropriate for the product”, “this
premium is a logical choice for the product”, and “there is a good association
between the premium and the product”. The deal-proneness scale was adapted
from a scale developed by Burton et al. (1998). It was made up of eight items for
which the participants had to indicate their degree of agreement on a nine-point
bipolar scale (e.g. “I am more likely to buy brands that are on sale”).
Materialism was measured using Richins’ (1986) six-item scale. Compulsive
buying tendencies were assessed using ten items from a scale developed by
d’Astous et al. (1990).
Four different questionnaires were prepared corresponding to the different
between-subjects conditions. The order of presentation of the four stimulus
offers within each questionnaire was randomized across participants. The
questionnaires were distributed in a random fashion during class periods and
collected immediately after having been completed.

Results
Sample description
The participants were 163 undergraduate business students in a large North
American university. They were about equally split on gender (men/48 percent
and women/52 percent). Their age varied between 18 and 38 with a mean of 21,
and 48 percent had an annual income lower than $20,000.
 EJM Definition of variables
37,11/12 Consumer reactions. The scale data were subjected to principal components
analyses with varimax rotation. With respect to consumer reactions toward the
offers (ten scales), two factors were extracted (eigenvalue . 1) which explained
81.4 percent of the total variance. Eight items loaded highly (average loading in
absolute value ¼ 0.88) on the first factor: “pleases me”, “is of quality”,
1754 “interests me”, “incites me to buy the product”, “gives a good image to IBM”,
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

unfavorable/favorable, negative/positive, and bad/good. This factor was

interpreted as the overall appreciation of the promotional offer. The two items
remaining loaded highly (average loading ¼ 0.95) on the second factor: “seems
to be dishonest” and “makes me feel like I am being manipulated”. This factor
was interpreted as perceived manipulation intent behind the offer. The mean
scores of the corresponding items of each factor were computed. This resulted
in two dependent variables. Cronbach’s alpha estimates equaled 0.95 for the
appreciation variable and 0.90 for the perceived manipulation intent variable.
Other variables. The same procedure was used to define the other variables:
interest in the product category, attitude towards IBM, interest in the
premiums, perceived product-premium fit, deal-proneness, materialism, and
compulsive buying tendencies. In all cases, a single factor emerged (eigenvalue
. 1) explaining a good portion of the total variance (lowest ¼ 44.3 percent,
highest ¼ 98.1 percent). The variables were created by computing the mean of
the items retained within each resulting factor. In all cases, Cronbach’s alpha
estimates were very satisfactory (all . 0.70).

Manipulation checks
In order to verify the effectiveness of the premium attractiveness and
product-premium fit manipulations within-subjects, analyses of variance
(ANOVA) were performed using interest in the premiums and perceived fit as
dependent variables. As expected, the participants were significantly more
interested in the CD-ROM encyclopedia (mean interest ¼ 6.22) and the cordless
telephone (mean interest ¼ 6.37) than in the other premiums (mean interest
joystick ¼ 5.45; mean interest binoculars ¼ 2.94). They also perceived the
CD-ROM encyclopedia and the joystick as having a significantly better fit to
the product category (mean fit encyclopedia ¼ 7.76; mean fit joystick ¼ 7.60)
than the other premiums (mean fit telephone ¼ 4.56; mean fit
binoculars ¼ 2.29). All differences were statistically significant at p , 0:01:

ANOVA models
Two ANOVA models were considered to analyze the experimental data
(Keppel, 1991). The first included the overall appreciation of the promotional
offer as a dependent variable while the second included perceived manipulation
intent as a dependent variable. For each model, the between-subject factors
were mention of the premium’s value (yes/no) and premium immediacy
(direct/delayed) and the within-subjects factors were premium attractiveness
 (low/high) and product-premium fit (poor/good). Each model also included five Consumers’
covariates: interest in the product category, attitude towards IBM, perceptions of
deal-proneness, materialism, and compulsive buying tendencies. sales
Table I presents the ANOVA results for the two dependent variables. Only
the F statistics for the main effects and for statistically significant interactions
and covariates are reported. As can be seen, none of the main effects was
statistically significant in both the models. In the case of the overall
1755
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

appreciation dependent variable, the triple interaction involving premium

attractiveness, product-premium fit and premium immediacy was significant.
In addition, two covariates had a statistically significant impact on
appreciation: attitude towards IBM and deal-proneness. In the case of the
perceived manipulation intent variable, the only significant effect was the triple
interaction between premium attractiveness, product-premium fit, and mention
of the premium’s value.
Figure 2 presents the plot of the premium attractiveness £
product-premium fit £ premium immediacy interaction means for the
overall appreciation measure. As the pattern of interaction means makes clear,
the impact of product-premium fit on the appreciation of the promotional offer
depended on the level of premium attractiveness. When the premium was
attractive, fit did not matter. However, in the case of unattractive premiums, fit
had a positive impact on appreciation. Although premium immediacy
significantly interacted with the two other factors, its impact on appreciation
appeared to be small. Overall, the results suggest that promotional offers
including attractive premiums were better appreciated by consumers. More
importantly, however, the results show that a good product-premium fit may
compensate for an unattractive premium since the overall appreciation of the
promotional offer increased substantially in that situation. The worst
combination as far as the appreciation of the promotional offer is concerned
was clearly an unattractive premium that was not a good fit to the product
category.

Dependent variable
Overall appreciation Perceived manipulation intent
Source of variation F-statistic F-statistic

Premium attractiveness (A) 0.12 1.12

Product-premium fit (B) 1.79 0.19
Mention of the premium’s value (C) 2.72 0.95
Premium immediacy (D) 0.39 1.13
A£B£D 5.28* 1.74
A£B£C 1.37 4.05*
Attitude toward IBM 5.38* 0.02
Deal-proneness 8.04** 0.11 Table I.
Notes: * p , 0.05, ** p , 0.01 ANOVA results
 EJM
37,11/12

1756
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

Figure 2.
The premium
attractiveness £
product-premium fit £
premium immediacy
interaction (overall
appreciation of the
promotional offer)

Regressing the overall appreciation on the covariates revealed that the attitude
toward IBM and deal-proneness had a positive impact on the dependent
variable. However, the effects were not statistically significant in all premium
conditions. Both deal-proneness and attitude towards IBM had a significant
positive impact on the appreciation of the promotional offer including a
 cordless telephone (t ¼ 2:73; p , 0:01; t ¼ 2:35; p , 0:05 respectively). Consumers’
Deal-proneness was statistically significant for the binoculars (t ¼ 2:12; perceptions of
p , 0:05) and the encyclopedia (t ¼ 3:10; p , 0:01) conditions. sales
Figure 3 presents the plot of the premium attractiveness £
product-premium fit £ mention of the premium’s value interaction means
1757
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

Figure 3.
The premium
attractiveness £
product-premium fit £
mention of the
premium’s value
interaction (perceived
manipulation intent
behind the promotional
offer)
 EJM for the perceived manipulation intent variable. The pattern of interaction
37,11/12 means revealed that in the case of an attractive premium, product-premium fit
attenuated the perception of manipulation intent. When the premium was
unattractive, a poor product-premium fit combined with no mention of the
premium’s value led to the strongest perceptions of manipulation intent.
However, when product-premium fit was good, perceptions of manipulation
1758 intent were less severe. The best combination as far as the perceptions of
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

manipulation are concerned was a highly attractive premium that was a good
fit to the product category. Mentioning the value of the premium generally had
the effect of reducing the perceptions of manipulation, particularly for an
unattractive and product-incongruent premium.

Discussion
The results of this study provide some useful information about the impact of
four controllable variables on consumer reactions to a promotional offer
including a premium. The pattern of effects associated with these variables
depended on the nature of consumer reactions. With respect to consumer
appreciation of sales promotions, we found that premium attractiveness played
a significant role in shaping consumer evaluative reactions. Consistent with the
findings reported in Simonson et al. (1994), a promotional offer that included an
attractive premium was better appreciated by consumers. Contrary to what
was expected, reception delay did not seem to matter a great deal since
consumers participating in this experiment were only slightly more positive
about getting the premium immediately rather than receiving it by mail. This
result may, however, be caused by the fact that the participants knew that they
would not receive any premium, now or delayed. Therefore, the non-significant
impact of premium immediacy might have been an artifact of the experimental
process. The anticipated interaction between the premium attractiveness and
premium immediacy did not materialize either because consumers were not
really more favorable toward promotional offers associated with an immediate
rather than a delayed premium high on attractiveness. Premium attractiveness,
however, interacted with product-premium fit. Although consumers were
generally more appreciative of promotional offers with attractive premiums,
the results showed that the fit between the premium and the product category
had a positive and significant impact on appreciation of the promotional offer
when the premium was unattractive. That is, product-premium fit did not
matter when consumers were interested in the premiums, but it had a
significant effect on consumer appreciation in the case of less interesting
premiums. The lesson for marketing people involved in the design of
premium-based sales promotions seems clear. If the primary objective of the
promotion is to trigger consumer appreciation then it is wise to select an
attractive premium. If for whatever reason the chosen premium is not very
attractive to potential consumers, then it should at least be a good fit to the
 product category. In any case, giving away the premium at the moment of Consumers’
purchase or later (by mail) does not seem to be very important. These results perceptions of
qualify the conclusions of Simonson et al. (1994) concerning the negative sales
impact of unattractive premiums on brand image and brand attitude by
identifying the product-premium fit as a significant moderator of the
relationship between premium attractiveness and consumer reactions to sales
promotions.
1759
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

While premium attractiveness had a positive impact on consumers’

appreciation of promotional offers, its effect on perceptions of manipulation
intent was generally weak. The pattern of effects associated with consumers’
feelings of being manipulated was in fact rather different. For this type of
reaction, product-premium fit and mention of the premium’s value appeared to
play a more important role than the other factors. In general, perceptions of
manipulation intent were lower when product-premium fit was good rather
than poor. Mentioning the value of the premium lowered consumers’
perceptions of manipulation intent in the case of sales promotions, including
poor-fit/unattractive premiums and to a lesser extent, in the case of those with
good-fit/attractive premiums. This result is contrary to what was observed in
d’Astous and Jacob (2002) where mentioning the value of the premium had the
opposite effect of increasing consumers’ impressions of being manipulated. As
discussed earlier, the correlational nature of d’Astous and Jacob’s (2002) study
renders suspicious their result because in the sample of sales promotions that
was considered, mention of the premium’s value might have been positively
correlated with some other factor impacting on the perceptions of manipulation
(e.g. product-premium fit). It seems safer to conclude on the basis of our
experimental data that mentioning the value of the premium in a sales
promotion may attenuate consumers’ feelings of being the object of some more
or less honest marketing scheme, especially when the offered premium is
unattractive and does not fit the product category. Again, the message to
marketing practitioners is clear. If the objective of the premium-based sales
promotion is to minimize potential consumers’ perceptions of manipulation
intent, the promotional offer should include a premium that fits well to the
product being promoted. If for whatever reason the product-premium fit is
poor, then the premium’s value should at least be mentioned (assuming that it
is sufficiently high) and/or the premium should be attractive.

Conclusion
Despite their common utilization in marketing practice, premium-based sales
promotions suffer from a surprising lack of academic research. Marketing
practitioners seem to make decisions concerning the characteristics of such
promotions on the basis of experience and intuition. What kinds of premiums
do consumers appreciate most? How do they form their evaluation of sales
promotions that include a premium? Should the premium be necessarily
 EJM attractive? Should it fit well with the product with which it is associated?
37,11/12 Should its value be mentioned as part of the promotional offer? These are
important research questions for which we do not yet have satisfactory
answers. In this study, we have tried to uncover some new knowledge about
this managerially relevant topic. We have proposed that consumer reactions
toward premium-based sales promotions are affected by four factors: the
1760 attractiveness of the premium, the extent to which it fits the product category,
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

the reception delay of the premium, and the mention of its value. The results of
an experimental study involving a computer purchase showed that these
factors had interactive effects on consumer reactions toward premium-based
promotional offers. Moreover, the pattern of effects was different depending on
the type of reaction considered (i.e. consumer appreciation of the promotional
offer or consumer perception of manipulation intent).
It appears that there are no simple answers to the questions raised earlier
and that more research is needed to understand better the complex dynamics
underlying the relationships between these (and other) premium-based sales
promotion characteristics and consumer responses. In particular, it would be
important to replicate this study using different products and subjects in order
to see if the observed effects can be generalized across product categories and
consumer types. It would also be important to conduct research on this topic
using dependent variables that relate more closely to consumer behavior, such
as brand choice. While it may seem that consumer choices can be inferred from
people’s preferences, research tends to show that it is not necessarily the case
(Payne et al., 1993)
The results presented here should be evaluated in light of some important
methodological limitations that may affect the validity of our conclusions.
First, the study dealt with a single product stimulus (i.e. a computer). It is not
clear whether similar results would be obtained with different products and
services. Second, the dependent variables considered in this study were
appreciation judgements and perceptions of manipulation intent. However, the
ultimate objective of sales promotions is not only to impact positively on
consumer reactions, but also, and most importantly, to stimulate purchasing
behavior. It remains to be seen whether the conclusions derived in this paper
can be extended to consumer purchasing behavior.

References
Bertrand, K. (1998), “Premiums prime the market”, Advertising Age’s Business Marketing, Vol. 83
No. 5, p. s6.
Blattberg, R.C. and Neslin, S.A. (1988), Sales Promotion, Concepts, Methods, and Strategy,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Burton, S. and Lichtenstein, D.R. (1988), “The effects of ad claims and ad context on attitude
toward the advertisement”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
 Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D.R. and Netemeyer, R.G. (1998), “A scale for measuring attitude toward Consumers’
private label products and an examination of its psychological and behavioral correlates”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 293-306. perceptions of
Chandon, P., Wansink, B. and Laurent, G. (2000), “A benefit congruency framework of sales sales
promotion effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 65-81.
d’Astous, A. and Jacob, I. (2002), “Understanding consumer reactions to premium-based
promotional offers”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 11, pp. 1270-86. 1761
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

d’Astous, A., Maltais, J. and Roberge, C. (1990), “Compulsive buying tendencies of adolescent
consumers”, in Goldberg, M.E., Gorn, G. and Pollay, R.W. (Eds), Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 17, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 306-12.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich,
Forth Worth, TX.
Goldsborough, R. (1998), “Premium incentive show expects 15,000 attendees”, Advertising Age’s
Business Marketing, Vol. 83 No. 5, p. s2.
Hiam, A. (2000), “Match premiums to marketing strategies”, Marketing News, Vol. 34, September,
p. 12.
Kaeter, M. (1998), “Motivation show offers more than ever”, Potentials in Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 8,
p. 5.
Keppel, G.F. (1991), Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McDonald, C. (1991), “Sponsorship and the image of the sponsor”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 25, pp. 31-8.
Meenaghan, T. (1983), “Commercial sponsorship”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 17,
pp. 5-73.
Ong, B.S. (1999), “Determinants of purchase intentions and stock-piling tendency of bonus
packs”, American Business Review, January, pp. 57-64.
Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R. and Johnson, E.J. (1993), The Adaptive Decision Maker, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
Preston, R.H., Dwyer, F. and Rodelius, W. (1978), “The effectiveness of bank premiums”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 96-101.
Rao, A.R. and Ruekert, R.W. (1994), “Brand alliances as signals of product quality”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 87-97.
Richins, M. (1986), “Media, materialism, and human happiness”, in Wallendorf, M. and
Anderson, P. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Association for Consumer
Research, Provo, UT, pp. 352-6.
Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (1997), Advertising, Communication and Promotion Management,
2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Simonin, B.L. and Ruth, J.A. (1998), “Is a company known by the company it keeps ? Assessing
the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Simonson, I., Carmon, Z. and O’Curry, S. (1994), “Experimental evidence on the negative effect of
product features and sales promotions on brand choice”, Marketing Science, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 23-40.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Boonchai Hongcharu. 2018. Effects of Message Variation and Communication Tools Choices on
Consumer Response. Global Business Review 39, 097215091880352. [Crossref]
2. Shinhyoung Lee, Youjae Yi. 2018. “Retail is detail! Give consumers a gift rather than a bundle”: Promotion
framing and consumer product returns. Psychology & Marketing 13. . [Crossref]
3. Weichen Teng. 2018. Utilitarian, hedonic, collecting, epistemic, and high values as determinants of the
attractiveness of premium promotions. Journal of Marketing Communications 76, 1-19. [Crossref]
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

4. Wagner Junior Ladeira, Fernando De Oliveira Santini, Claudio Hoffmann Sampaio, Juan Pablo Boeira.
2018. Effects of belief in luck on the attractiveness of loyalty programmes. Journal of Consumer Behaviour
17:2, 107-122. [Crossref]
5. Bram Foubert, Els Breugelmans, Karen Gedenk, Charlotte Rolef. 2018. Something Free or Something
Off? A Comparative Study of the Purchase Effects of Premiums and Price Cuts. Journal of Retailing 94:1,
5-20. [Crossref]
6. IranmaneshMohammad, Mohammad Iranmanesh, JayaramanKrishnaSwamy, KrishnaSwamy Jayaraman,
ZailaniSuhaiza, Suhaiza Zailani, GhadiriSeyed Mohammadreza, Seyed Mohammadreza Ghadiri. 2017.
The effects of consumer perception of volume discount benefits on intention to purchase grocery products.
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 29:5, 1017-1035. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. KulshreshthaKushagra, Kushagra Kulshreshtha, TripathiVikas, Vikas Tripathi, BajpaiNaval, Naval Bajpai,
DubeyPrince, Prince Dubey. 2017. Discriminating market segments using preferential green shift: a
conjoint approach. foresight 19:4, 386-408. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. LiangAustin Rong-Da, Austin Rong-Da Liang, YangWan, Wan Yang, ChenDun-Ji, Dun-Ji Chen,
ChungYu-Fang, Yu-Fang Chung. 2017. The effect of sales promotions on consumers’ organic food
response. British Food Journal 119:6, 1247-1262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Oliver Roll, Elenia Pfeiffer. 2017. Are your consumers variety seekers? The moderating impact on the
effectiveness of free gift promotions vs. price discounts. The International Review of Retail, Distribution
and Consumer Research 68, 1-17. [Crossref]
10. Rochele Isabel Bagnolini Boschetti, Marcelo Gattermann Perin, Márcia Dutra de Barcellos, Cláudio
Hoffmann Sampaio, Kenny Basso. 2017. Non-monetary sales promotion effects on credit cards. Journal
of Financial Services Marketing 22:1, 3-13. [Crossref]
11. Meredith Lawley, Dawn Birch, Lucy Johnson. 2016. Changing purchasing habits through non-monetary
point of sale strategies: The case of Australian oysters. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33,
194-201. [Crossref]
12. Peter J. Danaher, Laszlo Sajtos, Tracey S. Danaher. 2016. Does the reward match the effort for loyalty
program members?. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 32, 23-31. [Crossref]
13. Fernando de Oliveira Santini, Valter Afonso Vieira, Claudio Hoffmann Sampaio, Marcelo Gattermann
Perin. 2016. Meta-Analysis of the Long- and Short-Term Effects of Sales Promotions on Consumer
Behavior. Journal of Promotion Management 22:3, 425-442. [Crossref]
14. Ji-Hern Kim, Dongwon Min. 2016. Designing Customer-Oriented Non-Monetary Promotions in the
Tourism Industry. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 33:2, 184-196. [Crossref]
15. Fernando de Oliveira Santini, Cláudio Hoffmann Sampaio, Marcelo Gattermann Perin, Lelis Balestrin
Espartel, Wagner Junior Ladeira. 2015. Moderating Effects of Sales Promotion Types. BAR - Brazilian
Administration Review 12:2, 169-189. [Crossref]
 16. Oliver B. Büttner, Arnd Florack, Anja S. Göritz. 2015. How shopping orientation influences the
effectiveness of monetary and nonmonetary promotions. European Journal of Marketing 49:1/2, 170-189.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Abdullah Awad Alhaddad. 2015. The Effect of Advertising Awareness on Brand Equity in Social Media.
International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning 5:2, 73-84. [Crossref]
18. Thomas M. Wagner, Alexander Benlian, Thomas Hess. 2014. Converting freemium customers from free
to premium—the role of the perceived premium fit in the case of music as a service. Electronic Markets
24:4, 259-268. [Crossref]
19. Kate Westberg, Nigel Pope. 2014. Building brand equity with cause-related marketing: A comparison
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

with sponsorship and sales promotion. Journal of Marketing Communications 20:6, 419-437. [Crossref]
20. Arpita Khare, Dhiren Achtani, Manish Khattar. 2014. Influence of price perception and shopping motives
on Indian consumers' attitude towards retailer promotions in malls. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics 26:2, 272-295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Mariola Palazon, Elena Delgado-Ballester. 2013. The Role of Product-Premium Fit in Determining the
Effectiveness of Hedonic and Utilitarian Premiums. Psychology & Marketing 30:11, 985-995. [Crossref]
22. François A Carrillat, Alain d'Astous. 2013. The complementarity factor in the leveraging of sponsorship.
International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 15:1, 15-34. [Abstract] [PDF]
23. Dolores M. Frías-Jamilena, Salvador Del Barrio-García, Lorenza López-Moreno. 2013. Determinants of
Satisfaction with Holidays and Hospitality in Rural Tourism in Spain. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54:3,
294-307. [Crossref]
24. Mariola Palazon, Elena Delgado-Ballester. 2013. Hedonic or utilitarian premiums: does it matter?.
European Journal of Marketing 47:8, 1256-1275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Qing Yao, Rong Chen, Ping Zhao. 2013. Precise versus imprecise promotional rewards at small
probabilities:. European Journal of Marketing 47:5/6, 1006-1021. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Paurav Shukla, Barry J. Babin. 2013. Effects of consumer psychographics and store characteristics in
influencing shopping value and store switching. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 12:3, 194-203. [Crossref]
27. Isabel Buil, Leslie de Chernatony, Teresa Montaner. 2013. Factors influencing consumer evaluations of
gift promotions. European Journal of Marketing 47:3/4, 574-595. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Salvador Del Barrio García, Lorenza López Moreno, Dolores M. Frías Jamilena. 2012. EL TIPO DE
INCENTIVO COMO DETERMINANTE EN EL ATRACTIVO DE LA PROMOCIÓN DE VENTA
EN TURISMO RURAL. EFECTO MODERADOR DEL SEXO, LA EDAD Y LA EXPERIENCIA.
Revista Española de Investigación de Marketing ESIC 16:2, 103-126. [Crossref]
29. Adrian Sargeant, Jen Shang. 2012. How we make donors feel: the relationship between premium benefit
level and donor identity esteem. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 17:3,
157-171. [Crossref]
30. Ben Lowe, Bradley R. Barnes. 2012. Consumer perceptions of monetary and non-monetary introductory
promotions for new products. Journal of Marketing Management 28:5-6, 629-651. [Crossref]
31. Ahmad Jamal, Sue Peattie, Ken Peattie. 2012. Ethnic minority consumers' responses to sales promotions
in the packaged food market. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19:1, 98-108. [Crossref]
32. Mary Foster, Bettina West, Anthony Francescucci. 2011. Exploring social media user segmentation and
online brand profiles. Journal of Brand Management 19:1, 4-17. [Crossref]
 33. Teresa Montaner, Leslie de Chernatony, Isabel Buil. 2011. Consumer response to gift promotions. Journal
of Product & Brand Management 20:2, 101-110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Hilde Van den Bulck, Sil Tambuyzer, Stef Ackx. 2011. Readers' Responses to Product+ Strategies of
Print Media Brands: Increasing Readership or Commoditization of Print Media?. International Journal
on Media Management 13:1, 71-85. [Crossref]
35. Ben Lowe. 2010. Consumer perceptions of extra free product promotions and discounts: the moderating
role of perceived performance risk. Journal of Product & Brand Management 19:7, 496-503. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
36. Mariola Palazon, Elena Delgado-Ballester. 2009. Effectiveness of price discounts and premium
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:58 27 November 2018 (PT)

promotions. Psychology and Marketing 26:12, 1108-1129. [Crossref]

37. Ayantunji Gbadamosi. 2009. Cognitive dissonance. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 37:12, 1077-1095. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Tali Te'eni-Harari. 2008. Sales Promotion, Premiums, and Young People in the 21st Century. Journal of
Promotion Management 14:1-2, 17-30. [Crossref]
39. Rong CHEN. 2008. Weighting of Small Probabilities and Its Market Applications. Acta Psychologica Sinica
40:2, 210-218. [Crossref]
40. Alain D'Astous, Renaud Legoux, François Colbert. 2004. Consumer Perceptions of Promotional Offers
in the Performing Arts: An Experimental Approach. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue
Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration 21:3, 242-254. [Crossref]
41. Süphan Nasır, Esra Bal. Sales Promotional Strategies and Buying Behavior in an Emerging Market at the
Post Recession Period 239-262. [Crossref]