An exploratory study on attitude persistence using sales promotion.

Research on the impact of consumer sales promotion has focused on price-oriented promotions (e.g., price-off coupons) and behavioral effects (e.g., buy promoted products now rather than later) in promotion time periods (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990; Roehm et al., 2002; Rossiter and Bellman, 2005; Shimp, 2007). Nonprice promotions and potential attitudinal effects in different time periods have received little, or no, consideration.

Direct consumer premiums (DCPs) (the most frequently used non-price promotion) have been defined as packaged-related free bonus items offered by packaged-goods manufacturers to consumers when they purchase promoted products (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990; Prentice, 1975; Rossiter and Bellman, 2005). Almost all U.S. packaged-goods manufacturers have claimed DCP usage (e.g., Belch and Belch, 2004; Kotler and Keller, 2006; O'Guinn et al., 2006); however, a search of the literature revealed only a few documented studies on their impact. These studies dealt almost exclusively with the effects of different levels of DCP desirability in promotion time periods (DelVecchio et al., 2006). Consistent findings across the studies acknowledged the success of DCPs in inducing individuals to try a product for the first time, to try more of it, to try it earlier, or to try it more often (Fry and Caffaro, 1995; Seipel, 1971).

Despite the widespread use of DCPs, relatively little is known about their effects after the promotion has ended. Some researchers have argued that DCPs have been used incorrectly and that such misuse has led to undermining post-promotion brand preference (Rossiter and Bellman, 2005; Varadarajan, 1985, 1986). Conversely, other researchers have suggested that DCPs do not affect long-term brand preference (e.g., Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987), and some researchers have proposed that DCPs have favorable effects which has led to increased probabilities of product selection in post-promotion time periods (e.g., Davis et al., 1992). Given the differences of opinions and the fact that studies on the impact of sales promotions have normally dealt with price promotions, DelVecchio, Henard, and Freling (2006) and Blattberg and Neslin (1990) suggested that the effects of DCPs in different time periods is under-researched. Further, Rossiter and Bellman (2005) and Prentice (1975, 1977) proposed that salient DCP characteristics other than its desirability have been identified; however, researchers seem largely unaware of effects.

Three decades ago Prentice (1975, 1977) suggested that the complementary linkage (i.e., relatedness) between DCPs and promoted products could be viewed as existing along a continuum from high association with the promoted product's use to low association, and proposed that higher-related DCPs (e.g., a free toothbrush with toothpaste) would stimulate more enduring post-promotion effects than lower-related DCPs (e.g., free aspirin with toothpaste). Recently, Rossiter and Bellman (2005) contended that higher-related DCPs have customer franchise building potential and produce effects after the promotion has ended; however, lower-related DCPs do little to communicate information about a product's features or the benefits of using it, and contribute nothing to the building of long-term effects. Although DCP relatedness has not been the subject of empirical investigation, Fry and Caffaro (1995) observed that the proposition regarding greater benefits of higher-related DCPs is not reflected in the marketing practices of U.S. packaged-goods manufacturers, who routinely use lower-related DCPs.

The purpose of the current research is to explore the attitudinal effects of different DCPs in different time periods. The basic issue that it addresses is: if DCPs influence individuals' attitudes toward promoted products in promotion time periods, do certain ones continue to produce effects in post-promotion time periods? Specifically, it focuses on testing the effects of equally desirable, higher- and lower-related DCPs (e.g., Do equally desirable DCPs produce the same attitudes in promotion time periods? Do higher-related DCPs produce greater attitude persistence, as compared to lower-related DCPs, in post-promotion time periods?). In the following four sections, this article: (1) gives a review on strategic importance of DCPs, discusses levels of relatedness and desirability, presents rationale for using attitudes instead of behavioral effects, and gives relevant studies on attitude persistence, (2) provides hypotheses, (3) describes methodologies and findings, and (4) concludes with managerial implications, limitations, and directions for future work.

LITERATURE REVIEW

DCPs have been used to help introduce new products, dislodge entrenched market leaders, and generate higher consumer inventories of promoted products. Over the past thirty years, expenditures on DCPs by U.S. consumer-packaged-goods manufacturers have increased at an average annual rate of 20%, from less than $400 million in 1975 to more than $5 billion in 2002. Since 1980 annual DCP usage by manufacturers has increased by more than 300% (Belch and Belch, 2004; Kotler and Keller, 2006; O'Guinn et al., 2006).

Consumer-packaged-goods manufacturers have delivered DCPs free to consumers, immediately at the time of promoted product purchase, in four ways: (1) located in display units near the product and given away free at the point of purchase, (2) contained within the product package, (3) attached to the product package, or (4) as the product package itself. Although manufacturers have used promoted products that have varied in tangibility, frequency of purchase and value of brand as compared to DCPs, most DCPs have been relatively inexpensive, touchable physical items such as tiny sports car models, coasters, ink pens, or bobble-heads (Chandon et al., 1998; Fry and Caffaro, 1995; Roehm et al., 2002). Promoted products have ranged from more frequently purchased ones that can be quickly consumed (e.g., soft drinks) to less frequently purchased products that can survive many uses (e.g., shaving care).

Levels of Relatedness

Prentice (1975, 1977) proposed that DCP relatedness differs with respect to degrees of association with the promoted product's use. Varadarajan (1985, 1986) and Rossiter and Bellman (2005) suggested that perceptions of relatedness vary by context and consumer discernment. Examples of DCP promotion have included ones with "perfect- or partial-use" associations with promoted products, such as a free razor attached to a can of shaving cream (Varadarajan, 1986). Though others have had "seemingly no" associations with the use of promoted products, such as a celebrity poster given away as a near pack incentive with soft drink (Roehm et al., 2002; Shimp, 2007). Varadarajan (1985, 1986) and Strang (1975, 1976) argued that many promotion design decisions have been made without regard to DCP relatedness; yet have been based on DCP availability, cost and ease of implementation.

Prentice (1975, 1977) and Strang (1975, 1976) helped to put forward the idea of dividing sales promotions into customer franchise building (CFB) and non-CFB groups, and classified CFB promotions as incentives that impart "long-term" messages along with a deal and non-CFB promotions as incentives that communicate only a deal (for additional information on CFB strategies, see Rossiter and Percy (1997)). The CFB concept is based on the premise that attitude persistence is derived from communication about the promoted product's unique and important advantages. In a DCP context, DCPs which have higher associations with the promoted product's use would be viewed as being better than others in creating more persistent effects. Individuals would consider DCPs as well as the promoted products as belonging to the same or complementary categories (Roehm et al., 2002).

Levels of Desirability

Almost all previous research on response to "a consumer sales promotion" has dealt with levels of desirability and price-oriented promotions. Most sales promotions have been viewed as temporary incentives that induce individuals to form immediate favorable connections between the promoted product and "desirable" consequences of receiving the promotion (Fry and Caffaro, 1995). Sales promotions have been found to induce different degrees of the behavioral effects of brand switching (attracting users of another brand within the same product category), purchase acceleration (causing existing users to purchase more of the promoted product, or to purchase it earlier), and category expansion (building trial among nonusers of the product in particular) (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990). Consistent findings across studies have shown that level of promotion desirability has a direct influence on behavioral effects (e.g., higher levels of promotion desirability induced higher degrees of behavioral effects) in promotion time periods. However, Neslin and Shoemaker (1989) and Mac and Neslin (2004) warned that very high levels of desirability might have a detrimental impact by focusing too much on the promotion, and suggested that desirability of the promotion should not overshadow desirability of the promoted product.

Effects in post-promotion time periods have received little research attention, but have been the focus of much discussion. As mentioned, researchers have agreed that level of sales promotion desirability provides a strong impact on behavioral effects in promotion time periods; however, they have disagreed as to direction of effects after the promotion has ended. In a frequently cited example, Dodson, Tybout, and Sternthal (1978) examined behavioral effects and suggested that promotions caused lower brand evaluations in post-promotion time periods. Yet in a direct follow-up study using non-behavioral effects (i.e., measures of brand evaluations), Davis, Inman, and McAlister (1992) found no negative effects in post-promotion time periods. Recently, DelVecchio et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis using 132 observations from 42 sales promotion studies and proposed that most types of sales promotions have no carry-over effects in post-promotion time periods. However, DelVecchio et al. (2006) also proposed that the effects of DCPs were not as well understood as other types of sales promotions and issued a called for research on their effects in different time periods.

Attitudes

Measures of behavioral effects have commonly been used in examinations of sales promotions in promotion time periods; however, reliance on these measures in post-promotion time periods can lead to unclear results (e.g., unforeseen retail situations, such as product stock-outs or new in-store information, can influence behavioral effects). Attitudes have been found to be enduring over time, to have strong relationships and high correlations with behavior in other contexts, and to be relatively unaffected by situational events (e.g., stock-outs have no impact on promotion-evoked attitudes that endure over time) (Chow and Holden, 1997). Attitudes have long been employed in studies on persistence of effects in post-promotion time periods (e.g., Sengupta et al., 1997; Haugtvedt and Wegener, 1994). Related studies, particularly in advertising, have examined attitude persistence and changes in attitudes by comparing appropriate measures in different time periods (e.g., Haugtvedt and Petty, 1992).

Attitudes and attitude persistence have important implications in the sales promotion discipline. For example, some previous sales promotion studies have been criticized because of attempts to derive attitudes based on behavioral effects (Davis et al., 1992). Rossiter and Percy (1997) have argued that the best types of sales promotions influence attitudes as well as behavior.

Related Studies

Related studies on attitude persistence provide important guidelines for similar research in a DCP context. For example, findings from a study on advertising-evoked attitudes and attitude persistence indicated that advertising cues that were related to the promoted product allowed for creation of strong memory linkages. Sengupta, Goodstein, and Boninger (1997, Study 1) used two different types of endorsers for a new brand of mouthwash to investigate the longterm attitudinal effects of different advertising cues. In one case the new mouthwash was endorsed by the makers of a well-respected brand of oral hygiene products (i.e., Crest) and in the other case by a well-liked television celebrity (i.e., Jerry Seinfeld). Results from a pilot study confirmed that the Crest cue was significantly more related to mouthwash than was the Seinfeld cue and the two cues were equally desirable. While both types of endorsers were equally desirable and led to equivalent initial attitudes, attitudes of individuals exposed to the mouthwash associated with Crest persisted longer than attitudes of individuals exposed to the mouthwash endorsed by Seinfeld (i.e., the findings indicated that related and unrelated cues, which evoked similar initial attitudes, result in attitude persistence only on basis of exposure to related cues).

The Sengupta et al. (1997) findings and those from allied studies (e.g., Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Lee and Schumann, 2004; Srull and Wyer, 1989) have explanations in common with principles drawn from the customer franchise building concept. In this context, information which matches with an individual's expectations has tended to be encoded effortlessly, and has resulted in reinforcing value and persistent attitudes; however, if there was not a match between information and existing expectations, the encoding process became difficult and decay of attitudes occurred much more rapidly under lower-related conditions than under higher-related ones (Srull and Wyer, 1989).

HYPOTHESES

The current research explores a gap in the literature on the effects of DCPs in promotion and post-promotion time periods. It uses the literature on promotion desirability and behavioral effects to develop promotion time period hypotheses, and the literature on promotion relatedness and relevant studies on attitude persistence to construct post-promotion time period hypotheses.

Current Research

Independent Variables. The current research considers different independent variables: two levels of relatedness (higher and lower) between DCPs and promoted products, one level of DCP desirability (i.e., the one level of DCP desirability is matched across the two levels of DCP relatedness), and different time periods (i.e., repeated measures). This research uses only one level of DCP desirability in order to carefully examine effects of different levels of DCP relatedness. The different time periods involve examinations of effects in promotion time periods (individuals are exposed to DCPs and promoted products) and a post-promotion time period (individuals are exposed to only the products, i.e., after retraction of the DCPs).

Dependent Variables. The current research uses attitudes toward promoted products as the primary dependent variables. Attitudes and attitude persistence are important to examine because attitudes that persist over time reflect enduring feelings or overall liking toward products, correlate with behavior and are relatively unaffected by situational events. The focus is on attitudes and attitude persistence rather than drawing inferences about attitudes on the basis of behavior as in some previous sales promotion studies (Davis et al., 1992). Obtaining attitudes and attitude persistence is an important goal in developing general knowledge on DCP effects.

Control Group. Based on suggestions by Cook and Campbell (1979), the current research uses a control (no-DCP offer) to examine the overall effects of the promotion and to cope with possible history effects (i.e., whether extraneous variables influence the dependent variables). The control provides baseline comparisons for assessing effects of other treatments.

The current research uses two equally desirable DCPs that differ by higher- and lower-levels of relatedness. It examines attitudes in three groups. Two groups are used to investigate effects of higher- and lower-levels of DCP relatedness, and a third group is used as the control.

Promotion Time Period Hypotheses

In promotion time periods, the focus is on investigating whether both research DCPs (i.e., equally desirable, higher- and lower-related DCPs) will be used as equal inputs to initial product attitudes. Previous sales promotion studies have documented the success of promotion desirability in stimulating favorable initial effects (Doyle and Saunders, 1985; Fry and Caffaro, 1995; Gupta, 1988). Although researchers have agreed that levels of promotion desirability play a pivotal and direct role in determining initial effects (e.g., promotion desirability stimulates more favorable initial effects than other promotion characteristics, higher levels of desirability stimulate more favorable effects than lower levels), they have warned that very high levels of desirability can obscure benefits of promoted products (e.g., DeWecchio et al., 2006; Mac and Neslin, 2004). Related studies by Sengupta et al. (1997) and others (see Lee and Schumann, 2004) have found that levels of relatedness stimulate little, or no, immediate effects in promotion time periods, yet certain ones produce delayed effects in post-promotion time periods. Based on the promotion desirability and behavioral effects literature, DCP desirability should play a dominant role in determining initial effects. If the level of DCP desirability is favorable but does not overshadow desirability of the promoted product, favorable evaluations should result. DelVecchio et al. (2006) suggested that different types of DCPs can be used as equal inputs to initial attitudes (also see Sengupta et al., 1997). Thus, if the different DCPs are equally desirable, they should stimulate equivalent attitudes during promotion time periods. This perspective leads to the following hypotheses about initial attitudes when individuals are exposed to the DCP offer and promoted product.

Hypothesis 1: During promotion time periods, higher-related DCPs will stimulate more favorable attitudes toward promoted products than the no-DCP control.

Hypothesis 2: During promotion time periods, lower-related DCPs will stimulate more favorable attitudes toward promoted products than the no-DCP control.

Hypothesis 3: During promotion time periods, equally desirable, yet different types of DCPs (i.e., higher- and lower-related DCPs) will stimulate equivalent attitudes toward promoted products.

Post-promotion Time Period Hypotheses

In post-promotion time periods, the focus is on exploring the effects of DCP relatedness and whether only higher-related DCPs will be used as inputs to attitudes. The Sengupta et al. (1997) findings have indicated that higher-related cues produce reinforcing value, greater cue accessibility and more enduring effects after the promotion ended; however, lower-related cues and promotion desirability produce no delayed effects. Related studies on attitude persistence and promotion relatedness have suggested that higher levels of relatedness (i.e., degree of association with the promoted product's use) should play a dominant role in determining persistent effects in post-promotion time periods (e.g., Rossiter and Bellman, 2005; Sengupta et al., 1997). If DCPs have higher associations with the promoted product's use, individuals should have no difficulty in classifying promoted products and DCPs together. Higher-related DCPs should cause more durable linkages with promoted products, as compared to lower-related DCPs, and should lead to greater attitude persistence. On the other hand, lower-related DCPs should influence attitudes only temporarily because information they provide will not match with promoted product expectations (Lee and Schumann, 2004). Thus, only higher-related DCPs should be used in post-promotion evaluation. This perspective leads to the following hypotheses about post-promotion attitudes when individuals are exposed to just the promoted product.

Hypothesis 4: In the post-promotion time period, higher-related DCPs will produce more favorable attitudes than the control.

Hypothesis 5: In the post-promotion time period, lower-related DCPs and the control will produce similar attitudes toward promoted products.

Hypothesis 6: In the post-promotion time period, higher-related DCPs will produce more favorable attitudes than lower-related DCPs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND FINDINGS

Preliminary Issues

Promoted Product. Ong (1999) argued that characteristics of promoted products play major roles in the likelihood that consumer sales promotions influence attitudes (also see Chandon et al., 1998). In the current research, a soft drink is used as the promoted product. This decision was based on previous work (see Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989; Rohm and Milne, 2003) and results from several one-on-one interviews and pretests. In order to avoid any prior biases (i.e., before the current research was conducted), the soft drink was taste-tested for palatability, camouflaged and referred to as the "new promoted brand."

Although soft drinks belong to a single product category that might be criticized for generalizations purposes, it is believed to be an ideal one for the current research because of its routine use of different types of sales promotion and universal acceptance. It is a low cost, frequently purchased product category with high personal relevance, and a history of new product launches and DCP promotion (e.g., D'Souza and Weun, 1997; Jack et al., 2002).

DCPs and Pilot Studies. Numerous DCPs were examined in one-on-one interviews and pretests, to identify a higher-related DCP and a lower-related DCP. On the basis of these studies, it was found that a certain beverage coaster (higher-related DCP) and ink pen (lower-related DCP) were matched across the same level of desirability.

Two pilot studies confirmed that (1) the coasters were significantly more related to colas than the pens and (2) the coasters and the pens were equally desirable. Participants in the pilot study samples were not part of the current research sample. For the relatedness measure, in the first pilot study participants answered two nine-point scales anchored by "Strongly Disagree" and "Strongly Agree" (see Sengupta et al., 1997). The first statement was "When I think of using these (coasters/pens) as free gift premiums with purchase, colas are one of the first products I think about." The second statement was, "There is a very good fit between using these (coasters/pens) as free gift premiums with purchase of colas." A composite, or average, measure was used as the relatedness measure (r = .89). Coasters were viewed as significantly more related to colas (M = 7.53) than pens (M = 2.47; t(65) = 12.01, p < .001). For the desirability measure, participants in the second pilot study answered two nine-point semantic differential scales (see Haugtvedt and Petty, 1992). The first statement was "How much do you like these (coasters/pens) as free gift premiums with purchase?" The second statement was, "Please rate your impression, good-bad, of these (coasters/pens) as free gift premiums with purchase." A composite measure was used as the desirability measure (r = .76). The coasters and pens were viewed as equally desirable, although participants gave slightly more favorable ratings (not significant) to the pens (M = 5.86) than to the coasters (M = 5.42).

Main Study

A repeated measures experiment was used to examine the hypotheses. It investigated effects in three time periods: two promotion-time periods and one post-promotion time period. It examined participants' attitudes toward the new brand of soft drink (i.e., promoted product) and other relevant dependent variables (e.g., relevance of the promoted product to them). Changes in attitudes were calculated by comparing appropriate measures in different time periods.

In each time period, attitudes were obtained using nine-point bipolar adjectives. Consistent with attitude measures used by others (e.g., Haugtvedt and Petty, 1992; Petty et al., 1983), participants' attitudes toward promoted products were measured by three items that assessed feelings toward promoted products (favorable-unfavorable), likeability of the promoted product (like-dislike), and impressions of the promoted product (good-bad).

Participants were undergraduate students at a small northeastern university. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions. The experiment examined attitudes in three groups. Two groups were used to investigate the impact of higher- and lower-levels of DCP relatedness, and one group was used as the control (no-DCP offer).

Experimental Procedures. The experiment used three sessions over a time period of ten days: session one (promotion time period one) occurred on Tuesday of week-one, session two (promotion time period two) occurred on Thursday of week-one, and session three (post-promotion time period) occurred on Thursday of week-two.

There were two phases in the first session and the phases were conducted in a single time period. In the first phase, participants listened to a tape-recorded cover story and signed a consent form. The cover story disguised the intent of the study and led participants to believe they were participating in a taste-testing phase of a new product launch study. In the second phase, participants were given appropriate DCPs (control group participants were not given DCPs), asked to taste the new soft drink, and to complete a questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed attitudes toward the promoted product and other relevant variables. The session ended with the experimenter thanking participants for participating in the study and reminding them of their scheduled time to return for the next session.

Session two occurred two days after session one (session two was the same as session one-phase two). In this session, participants were given appropriate DCPs, asked to taste the new soft drink, and to complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed attitudes and other relevant variables. The session ended with the experimenter reminding participants of their scheduled time to return for the next session.

Session three occurred one week after session two. In this session, DCPs were not offered and were not present. Participants were asked to taste the new soft drink and then complete the questionnaire. In this session, there was a second phase. Session three-phase two was the final part of the study, and participants were asked to complete an ending questionnaire. This questionnaire was a manipulation check on perceived levels of DCP relatedness and desirability, and an assessment of demand characteristics. Control group participants were asked to complete questionnaires without DCP questions (i.e., assessment of demand characteristics). After this session, participants were thanked for their participation and debriefed.

Analysis

The experiment was conducted using one hundred twenty-eight participants. One hundred six participants completed all three sessions, and usable information was obtained from ninety-nine participants. Of those who gave usable information, ninety-four percent were either .juniors or seniors, and seventy percent were male. Manipulation checks on DCP relatedness and desirability used the same scales as in the pilot studies. Participants answered the two scales for measures of DCP relatedness (r = .84) and the two scales for DCP desirability (r = .78). The findings indicated that coasters were viewed as significantly more related to colas (M = 7.24) than pens (M = 2.67; F(1, 225) = 6.01, p < .001), and coasters (M = 5.32) and pens (M = 5.54; F(1, 225) < 1, not significant) were equally desirable. Thus, the manipulations were successful. Participants perceived DCP relatedness levels as being "matched" across the level of desirability and perceived DCP relatedness levels as being significantly different in appropriate directions.

Demand characteristics were investigated at the end of the experiment. Participants were asked to respond to one "direct" open-ended question (i.e., they were asked for written explanations of what the study was about) and to two "indirect" open-ended questions (i.e., participants were asked about their feelings toward the study and to give additional comments regarding the study). Responses revealed support for effectiveness of the cover stories and indicated that no one correctly guessed hypotheses.

Composite measures of attitudes were constructed by averaging responses to the three semantic differential attitude items (i.e., favorable/ unfavorable, like/dislike, good/bad) (Cronbach's alpha = .86). These composite measures are presented in Table 1. To provide insights into treatment differences, a series of repeated measures analysis of variance and within time-period analysis of variance were conducted. The results suggested that attitudes toward the promoted product differed over time (F(2,194) = 3.2, p < .05) and by conditions over time (F(4,194) = 3.7, p < .01), and indicated significant variation by conditions in all time periods.

Tests of Promotion Time Period Hypotheses. In promotion time periods, the current research examined whether higher- and lower-related DCPs can be used as inputs to product attitudes and whether equally desirable DCPs can produce the same attitudes. Dunnett t-tests were conducted on the composite measures of attitudes, and were used to contrast the mean of the no-DCP control group with the means of the two other groups in all time periods, as recommended by Winer, Brown, and Michels (1991) (see Table 1 for results).

Findings from the Dunnett t-tests indicated significant differences between the mean of the higher-related DCP group and the mean of the no-DCP control in the first promotion time period (Ms = 6.4 vs. 4.1, respectively; t = 5.2, p < .01) and the second promotion time period (Ms = 6.3 vs. 4.0, respectively; t = 5.1, p < .01). Thus, these results provided support for Hypothesis 1 (higher-related DCPs will stimulate more favorable initial attitudes than the no-DCP control). The Dunnett t-tests findings also indicated significant differences between the mean of the lower-related DCP group and the mean of the no-DCP control in the first promotion time period (Ms = 6.2 vs. 4.1, respectively; t = 5.0, p < .01) and the second promotion time period (Ms = 5.9 vs. 4.0, respectively; t = 4.8, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported (lower-related DCPs will stimulate more favorable initial attitudes than the no-DCP control). Bonferroni t-tests were conducted on the composite measures to compare the two group means representing the different levels of DCP relatedness, as recommended by Winer et al. (1991). The Bonferroni t-tests findings revealed no significant differences between the mean of the higher-related DCP group and the mean of the lower-related DCP group in the first promotion time period (Ms = 6.4 vs. 6.2, respectively; t = 1.2, p > .15) and the second promotion time period (Ms = 6.3 vs. 5.9, respectively; t = 1.1, p > .15). Thus, these results provided support for Hypothesis 3 (equally desirable, yet different types of DCPs will stimulate equivalent initial effects).

In promotion time periods, the current research findings indicated that both DCPs were used as inputs to favorable product attitudes because of DCP desirability. The findings suggested that the research DCPs produced attitudes that were more favorable than the no-DCP control, and both higher- and lower-related DCPs produced the same attitudes. These findings were consistent with principles drawn from the literature on promotion desirability and behavioral effects (see DelVecchio et al., 2006).

Tests of Post-promotion Time Period Hypotheses. In the post-promotion time period, the current research explored whether equally desirable DCPs can produce different degrees of attitude persistence because of different levels of relatedness. Findings from Dunnett t-tests (i.e., experimental groups were contrasted with the control group) revealed one significant difference between the mean of the higher-related DCP group and the mean of the no-DCP control group in the post-promotion time period (Ms = 5.8 vs. 4.3, respectively; t = 4.9, p < .01). Thus, these results provided support for Hypothesis 4 (higher-related DCPs will produce more favorable attitudes than the control after the promotion has ended). However, no significant difference was found between the mean of the lower-related DCP group and the mean of the no-DCP control group using Dunnett t-tests in the post-promotion time period (Ms = 4.7 vs. 4.3, respectively; t = 1.9, p > .15). Thus, Hypothesis 5 was supported (lower-related DCPs and the control will produce similar attitudes after the promotion has ended). Findings from Bonferroni t-tests (i.e., higher- and lower-related DCP groups were contrasted) indicated significant differences between the mean of the higher-related DCP group and the mean of the lower-related DCP group in the post-promotion time period (Ms = 5.8 vs. 4.7, respectively; t = 2.2, p < .02). Thus, Hypothesis 6 was supported (higher-related DCP s will produce more favorable attitudes than lower-related DCPs after the promotion has ended).

In the post-promotion time period, the current research findings indicated that only the higher-related DCPs were used as inputs to post-promotion attitudes. The higher-related DCPs and the promoted product had a stronger association (as compared to lower-related DCPs), produced more durable linkages, and led to greater attitude persistence. That is, the higher-related DCPs provided information that was consistent with expectations about promoted products, and this information was retained longer when compared with lower-related DCPs. These findings were consistent with predictions based on the promotion relatedness literature and the customer franchise building concept (e.g., Prentice, 1975, 1977; Rossiter and Bellman, 2005), and related studies (e.g., Sengupta et al., 1997).

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The current research is the first study to compare two equally desirable DCPs that differ in terms of relatedness to the promoted product. The findings provide initial evidence that some DCPs are better than others in creating persistent attitudes. Under conditions of using low-involving DCPs (coasters and pens) with a low-involving consumer-packaged-good (a new brand of soft drink), the findings indicate that equally desirable DCPs stimulate equivalent attitudes in promotion time periods; however, only higher-related DCPs continue to produce enduring effects in post-promotion time periods.

Managerial Implications

The current research examines the apparent contradiction between predictions based on the brand franchise potential of DCPs and promotion practice. As noted, Rossiter and Bellman (2005) and Prentice (1975, 1977) argue that higher-related DCPs stimulate more favorable effects in post-promotion time periods than lower-related DCPs; however, U.S. packaged-goods manufacturers use lower-related DCPs much more than higher-related ones (e.g., Fry and Caffaro, 1995). Based on the current research findings, marketers of packaged-goods may consider using higher-related DCPs instead of lower-related ones. Although promotion design decisions (e.g., selecting type, product scope, market scope, timing) may be less complicated for lower-related DCPs than for higher-related ones, higher-related DCPs may build greater franchises. For many marketers and manufacturers DCP promotions represent major expenditures in their promotional mix. Customer franchise-building investments, such as higher-related DCPs, may be needed for the long-term health of a brand.

Trade publications often contain discussions about how marketers and manufacturers expect to attract and retain consumers by introducing new products and using DCP promotions. All types of DCPs provide consumers with an impetus to try products (i.e., DCP desirability is an important input in promotion time periods); however, use of higher-related DCPs may result in long-term benefits (i.e., DCP relatedness is an important input in post-promotion time periods). Research such as outlined in the present article may be helpful to marketers and manufacturers in their search for appropriate higher-related DCPs. If a manufacturer anticipates using higher-related DCPs, it can focus on attempts to get consumers to think about DCP associations with the product's use. If associations are not obvious, in-store display messages and product package messages may point out associations or serve as reminders. Some higher-related DCPs may take on an added come-back function (i.e., continuity sets). For example, if a consumer obtains a free coaster with a soft drink, the consumer may come back to complete the set before the offer ends. A set of higher-related DCPs may serve as a strong input in post-promotion time periods.

Limitations and Future Research

The artificial environment of the current research was used to provide a basis for an examination of the effects, and homogeneous student samples were examined for cost and convenience reasons and to minimize individual difference variance. Highly controlled academic experimental procedures were used where DCPs were the focus of the participants' attention (i.e., participants were given DCPs to use, but they only tasted the promoted product). However, the DCPs (coasters and pens), promoted product (a new brand of soft drink), and experimental task (taste test) may have been too limited in certain respects (e.g., level of DCP desirability, level of involvement) and participants may have given little thought to other aspects of the experiment. Use of other DCPs, promoted products, and experimental tasks might lead to different findings than the ones revealed in the current research.

Another limitation is that the repeated measures design leaves open the possibility of testing effects (i.e., participants may have recalled their earlier measures, wish to appear consistent and are reluctant to change from their initial self-reports; see Churchill and Iacobucci, (2002)). Future studies might try to detect whether testing effects exist by using more control groups. For example, some control group participants might be measured only once and then compared to control group participants with repeated measures (i.e., some control group participants might be measured in session one only, other control group participants might be measured in session two only, etc.). Then, if no differences are found between the results from the additional control group participants and those from the control group with repeated measures, the repeated measures have no effect on participants' responses (Ehrenberg et al., 1994).

The low number of exposures to DCPs (i.e., only two promotion time periods) along with only one measure of effects in a post-promotion time period may have reduced the generalization power. Future studies might sort out contributions of multiple exposures to DCPs in promotion time periods, and examine persistence of effects in more extended post-promotion time periods.

Conclusion

Marketers of consumer-packaged-goods should consider the impact of DCP campaigns before they offer the promotion. The magnitude and persistence of effects will depend on the situation, DCPs used, promoted products, and target market. The current research indicates that a DCP that is highly associated with use of the promoted product (i.e., a beverage coaster with a new brand of soft drink) produces more attitude persistence than a DCP that is not associated with use of the promoted product (i.e., an ink pen with a new brand of soft drink). Additional studies on attitude persistence using DCPs are needed to examine such other factors as different levels of DCP relatedness and involvement, as well as different design and measurement issues.

References

Alba, J. W. and J. W. Hutchinson. 1987. "Dimensions of Consumer Expertise." Journal of Consumer Research 13 (4) : 411-454.

Bawa, K. and R. Shoemaker. 1987. "The Effects of Direct Mail Coupon on Brand Choice Behavior." Journal of Marketing Research 24 (4): 370-376.

Belch, G. E. and M. A. Belch. 2004. Advertising and Promotion: An Integrative Marketing Communications Perspective, 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Blattberg, R. C. and S. A. Neslin. 1990. Sales Promotion: Concepts, Methods, and Strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Chandon, P., G. Laurent and B. Wansink. 1998. "Beyond Savings: The Multiple Utilitarian and Hedonic Benefits of Sales Promotions." Advances in Consumer Research 25: 55.

Chow, S. and R. Holden. 1997. "Toward an Understanding of Loyalty: The Moderating Role of Trust." Journal of Managerial Issues 9(3): 275-298.

Churchill, G. A. and D. Iacobucci. 2002. Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, 8th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.

Cook, T. D. and D. T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Davis, S. J., J. Inman and L. McAlister. 1992. "Promotion has a Negative Effect on Brand Evaluations--Or Does It? Additional Disconfirming Evidence." Journal of Marketing Research 29 (1): 143-148.

DelVecchio, D., D. H. Henard and T. H. Freling. 2006. "The Effect of Sales Promotion on Post-promotion Brand Preference: A Meta-analysis." Journal of Retailing 82 (3): 203-231.

Dodson, J. A., A. M. Tybout and B. Sternthal. 1978. "Impact of Deals and Deal Retraction on Brand Switching." Journal of Marketing Research 15 (1): 72-81.

Doyle, P. and J. Saunders. 1985. "The Lead Effect of Marketing Decisions." Journal of Marketing Research 12 (1): 54-65.

D'Souza, G. and S. Weun. 1997. "Assessing the Validity of Market Segments Using Conjoint Analysis." Journal of Managerial Issues 9 (4): 399-418.

Ehrenberg, A. S. C., K. Hammond and G.J. Goodhart. 1994. "The After-effects of Price-related Consumer Promotions." Journal of Advertising Research 34 (3): 11-21.

Fry, S. L. and R. Caffaro. 1995. "Premiums: Versatile Marketing Tools." In Handbook of Sales Promotion. Ed. S. M. Ulanoff. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company. pp. 27-39.

Gupta, S. 1988. "Impact of Sales Promotion on When, What, and How Much to Buy." Journal of Marketing Research 23 (4): 342-355.

Haugtvedt, C. P. and R. E. Petty. 1992. "Personality and Persuasion: Need for Cognition Moderates the Persistence and Resistance of Attitudes Changes." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63 (2): 308-319.

-- and D. T. Wegener. 1994. "Message Order Effects in Persuasion: An Attitude Strength Perspective." Journal of Consumer Research 21 (1): 205-218.

Jack, K. H., K. Sudhir and J. H. Steckel. 2002. "A Multiple Ideal Point Model: Capturing Multiple Preference Effects from Within an Ideal Point Framework." Journal of Marketing Research 39 (1): 73-86.

Kotler, P. and K. L. Keller. 2006. Marketing Management, 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Lee, E-J. and D. W. Schumann. 2004. "Explaining the Special Case of Incongruity in Advertising: Combining Classic Theoretical Approaches." Marketing Theory 4 (1/2): 59-90.

Mace, S. and S. A. Neslin. 2004. "The Determinants of Pre- and Post-promotion Dips in Sales of Frequently Purchased Goods." Journal of Marketing Research 41 (3): 339-350.

Meyers-Levy, J. and A. M. Tybout. 1989. "Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation." Journal of Consumer Research 16 (1): 39-54.

Neslin, S. A. and R. W. Shoemaker. 1989. "An Alternative Explanation for Lower Repeat Purchase Rates After Promotion Purchases." Journal of Marketing Research 26 (2): 205-231.

O'Guinn, T. C., C. T. Allen and R.J. Semenik. 2006. Advertising and Integrated Brand Promotion, 4th ed. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

Ong, B. S. 1999. "Determinants of Purchase Intentions and Stock-piling Tendency of Bonus Packs." American Business Review 17(1): 57-64.

Petty, R. E., J. Cacioppo and D. W. Schumann. 1983. "Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement." Journal of Consumer Research 10 (3): 135-146.

Prentice, R. M. 1977. "How to Split Your Marketing Funds between Advertising and Promotion." Advertising Age (January 10): 41-42.

--. 1975. "The CFB Approach to Advertising/Promotion Spending." In The Relationship between Advertising and Promotion in Brand Strategy. Ed. R. A. Strang. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. pp. 75-90.

Roehm, M. L., E. B. Pullins and H. Roehm Jr. 2002. "Designing Loyalty-building Programs for Packaged Goods Brands." Journal of Marketing Research 39 (2): 202-213.

Rohm, A.J. and G. R. Milne. 2003. "Investigating Internet Channel Opportunities and Challenges: Managers' Experiences Across Five Industries." Journal of Managerial Issues 15 (4): 467-485.

Rossiter, J. R. and S. Bellman. 2005. Marketing Communications. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

-- and L. Percy. 1997. Advertising Communications & Promotion Management, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Seipel, C. M. 1971. "Premiums--Forgotten by Theory." Journal of Marketing 35 (2): 26-34.

Sengupta, J., R. C. Goodstein and D. S. Boninger. 1997. "All Cues Are Not Created Equal: Obtaining Attitude Persistence under Low-involvement Conditions." Journal of Consumer Research 23 (4): 351-361.

Shimp, T. A. 2007. Advertising, Promotion, and Other Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications, 7th ed. Mason, OH: Thomson Higher Education.

Srull, T. K. and R. S. Wyer. 1989. "Person Memory and Judgment." Psychological Review 96: 58-83.

'Strang, R. A. 1976. "Sales Promotion: Fast Growth, Faulty Management." Harvard Business Review 54 (3): 115-124.

--. 1975. The Relationship Between Advertising and Promotion in Brand Strategy. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Varadarajan, P. 1986. "Horizontal Cooperative Sales Promotion: A Framework for Classification and Additional Perspectives." Journal of Marketing 50 (2): 61-73.

--. 1985. "Joint Sales Promotion: An Emerging Marketing Tool." Business Horizons 28 (5): 43-48.

Winer, B.J., D. R. Brown and K. M. Michels. 1991. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Joseph M. Jones

Associate Professor of Marketing

North Dakota State University 

Table 1
Comparison of No-DCP Control Group Mean
with Other Treatment Group Means

                                   Time Periods

                     Sample                                  Post-
Conditions            Size    Promotion 1    Promotion 2   promotion

Higher-related DCP     33       6.4 *          6.3 *        5.8 *
Lower-related DCP      31       6.2 *          5.9 *        4.7
No-DCP Control         35       4.1            4.0          4.3

The means reported here are composite measure means of the three
nine-point semantic differential items (i.e., favorable/unfavorable,
like/dislike, good bad) which assess attitudes toward promoted
products. Within each time period, composite measure means assigned
the superscript * are significantly different from the no-DCP
control group mean using Dunnett t-tests.