Analysis of Sales Promotion Effects on Household Purchase Behavior

are called “attributions.” Attributions result in attitude change rather than behavioral change,
and attribution theory does not formally address the behavioral consequences <strong>of</strong> a consumer’s
attributions. However, to the extent that attitudes are antecedents <strong>of</strong> behavior (cf. Foxall and
Goldsmith 1994), the theory is very relevant. Attribution theory considers the causal
judgments consumers make when they purchase a brand. The concern is that when the
purchase involves use <strong>of</strong> a promotion, these judgments may be negative. For example, the
thought that “I must have bought this brand because it was on promotion” weakens the
consumer’s intrinsic interest in or preference for the brand. Once the promotion is no longer
available, there is no firm cognitive reason for the consumer to continue buying. The
consumer may buy once because the price is low, but may make a negative inference about
the quality <strong>of</strong> the brand that will lower the probability <strong>of</strong> a subsequent purchase. There is
theoretical debate as to whether the promotion usage effect should be positive or negative. If
the effect is negative, the important overall question for repeat purchasing is whether the total
(purchase and promotion usage) effect is positive or negative.
Studies in many areas <strong>of</strong> marketing suggest that brand loyalty is an important
predictor <strong>of</strong> repeat buying <strong>of</strong> low-involvement, low-cost, frequently purchased products
(Kumar et al. 1992). But there has been little empirical work on establishing the effect <strong>of</strong> sales
promotions on brand loyalty and repeat purchase probability, and how that effect varies
between categories. East and Hammond (1996) studied the erosion in time (the proportional
fall) <strong>of</strong> repeat-purchase rates <strong>of</strong> brand buyers in stationary markets. Erosion was observed in
all product categories covered (ground and instant c<strong>of</strong>fee, detergent, toothpaste, carbonated
drinks, and crackers). The variation was modest, with most results close to the average <strong>of</strong> 15
percent in the first year. But, the authors did not attempt to explain erosion with reference to
marketing activity, while marketing activity can provide the basis for long-term changes. On
the other hand, Dekimpe et al. (1996) found little empirical support for the contention that
brand loyalty, and therefore repeat purchase probability, is eroding. Neslin and Shoemaker
(1983) concluded that the repeat purchase effect should be manifested one purchase cycle
after the promotion, so that the pattern <strong>of</strong> sales should be spike-dip-minispike. In addition, if
the promotion converts nonregular customers to regular customers, the baseline should
actually increase slightly. Neslin and Shoemaker (1989) provide an alternative explanation to
explain possible lower repeat rates after promotions. This explanation is that a promotion
76