27.10.2012 Views

Analysis of Sales Promotion Effects on Household Purchase Behavior

Analysis of Sales Promotion Effects on Household Purchase Behavior

Analysis of Sales Promotion Effects on Household Purchase Behavior

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

4.3.2 <strong>Purchase</strong> Frequency<br />

The study <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Fader and Lodish (1990) implied a positive relati<strong>on</strong>ship between high frequency<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> purchase and promoti<strong>on</strong>al elasticity. Based <strong>on</strong> Bawa and Shoemaker (1987), Narasimhan<br />

et al. (1996) hypothesized that shorter c<strong>on</strong>sumer interpurchase times result in more brand<br />

switching because the c<strong>on</strong>sumer must live with the c<strong>on</strong>sequences <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> buying a less preferred<br />

brand for a shorter period. In additi<strong>on</strong> Narasimhan et al. c<strong>on</strong>jectured that interpurchase<br />

times are related to purchase accelerati<strong>on</strong>. L<strong>on</strong>g interpurchase times discourage<br />

accelerati<strong>on</strong> because the stockpiled product must be stored for a l<strong>on</strong>ger period <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> time. This<br />

was supported by empirical findings. Bell et al. (1999) found less stockpiling for <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten<br />

purchased products. Based <strong>on</strong> above, we expect to find a positive relati<strong>on</strong>ship between<br />

purchase frequency and promoti<strong>on</strong>al resp<strong>on</strong>se, mainly due to brand switch effects (H2).<br />

<strong>Purchase</strong> frequency might be related to storability (which is discussed in Secti<strong>on</strong> 4.3.4). This<br />

will be investigated empirically.<br />

4.3.3 <str<strong>on</strong>g>Promoti<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>al Activity<br />

If a brand is promoted very infrequently, c<strong>on</strong>sumers are likely to use these opportunities to<br />

stock-up for future c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> (Krishna et al. 1990). Decrease in stockpiling as promoti<strong>on</strong>al<br />

frequency increases has been shown using simulati<strong>on</strong>s in Helsen and Schmittlein (1992), and<br />

Assuncao and Meyer (1990). Winer (1986) and Lattin and Bucklin (1989) c<strong>on</strong>cluded that<br />

more frequent discounts might lower the reference price <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the promoted brand, which in turn<br />

may additi<strong>on</strong>ally negate the effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> promoti<strong>on</strong>s. The study <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Raju (1992) implies that<br />

categories with deeper, infrequent dealing show higher promoti<strong>on</strong>al elasticities. Bell et al.<br />

(1999) stated that more frequent dealing leads to more opportunities for the c<strong>on</strong>sumer to<br />

exploit price promoti<strong>on</strong>s, leading to lower promoti<strong>on</strong>al elasticities. We therefore hypothesize<br />

that promoti<strong>on</strong>al frequency and promoti<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>se are negatively related (H3).<br />

81

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!