Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63 (2021) 102745
Available online 30 August 2021
0969-6989/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The perception of discount sales promotions – A utilitarian and hedonic perspective
Teck Weng Jee
Swinburne University Technology, Sarawak Campus, Malaysia
A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords:
Utilitarian Hedonic
Smart shopper self-perception Price-quality perception Discount
Sales promotions
A B S T R A C T
This paper explores the effects of utilitarian and hedonic benefits perceptions of discount sales promotions on consumer purchase decisions (attitude and behavioral intention). A closed-ended survey, as well as a partial least squares structural equation modeling of consumers sampling who had used discount sales promotions in their recent purchases, was utilized in this study. The findings suggest that utilitarian benefits perceptions derived from price-quality perception and hedonic benefits perceptions derived from smart shopper self-perception of using discount sales promotions positively affect consumer purchase decisions. Both utilitarian and hedonic benefits perceptions of discount sales promotions can henceforth be used to produce the desired effects on purchase decisions. Hence, this paper sheds light on the effects of utilitarian and hedonic benefits perception of discount sales promotions on purchase decisions. Though the findings are limited to discount sales promotions alone and two types of purchase decisions outcomes (attitude and behavioral intentions), this paper identified multiple avenues to extend its findings. This encourages further exploration of such promotion topics, particu- larly on the various perceptions of discount sales promotions as well as other sales promotion techniques among marketing academics and practitioners.
1. Introduction
Continuous competition among the global and international retailers had increased pressure on both new and existing retail entrants (Fam et al., 2019; McNeill, 2012, 2013). Such competitive pressure is further aggravated by marketplace inequities caused by the mismatch between the attractiveness of promoted products and consumers’ actual pur- chases (Deval et al., 2012; Ofosu-Boateng, 2020). Such a situation is further intensified by the slow-moving growth in sales and the struggle to stay afloat in business due to such an increase in both local and in- ternational competition (Fam et al., 2019; Iyer and Bennur, 2017). Such phenomenon (slow-moving sales and business survival) is particularly evident among the small independent retailers (e.g. sundry shops) as opposed to the more modern and larger retailers (e.g. large-scale shopping malls) in emerging markets (Helm et al., 2020; Mohd Roslin and Melewar, 2008; Ramakrishnan, 2010). As a result, many of these small independent retailers prefer to use different price-related sales promotion techniques (e.g. premium, discount, coupon) to yield more revenue within a shorter period (e.g. Ahmad et al., 2008; Fam and Merrilees, 1998; Ing et al., 2020; Jozsa and Keller, 2012), including the ´ more modern and larger retailers (Ailawadi, 2001; Bogomolova et al.,
2017; Dickson and Sawyer, 1990; McNeill, 2012, 2013). Previous studies reveal that consumers are more inclined towards sales pro- motions with monetary benefits rather than non-monetary benefits (Huff and Alden, 1998; Ndubisi & Chiew, 2005, 2006). Discount is a standard type of monetary-based benefits promotions and applied sales promotion technique used by retailers (Jee et al., 2016; McNeill, 2012, 2013, 2013; Ndubisi and Chiew, 2006).
The retailing perspective claims that consumers’ spending is consistent with their perception of the use of a specific sales promotion technique (Sinha and Verma, 2020). Analysis of the existing literature suggests that most studies focused on identifying various possible de- terminants of consumers’ attitude and behavior responses towards sales promotion including consumers sales promotion experience (Chandon et al., 2000), price promotion (Drechsler et al., 2017), sales promotion technique preferences (Jee and De Run, 2013), and branding (Van Heerde, Gupta and Wittink, 2003). There are also past studies that rely on developing frameworks of sales promotion technique effectiveness to explain how different sales promotion techniques can be used simulta- neously to address continuous retailing competition and demands (Breugelmans and Campo, 2016; Bucklin and Lattin, 1992; Van Heerde and Neslin, 2017). These studies demonstrate a common theme – that E-mail address: [email protected].
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102745
Received 25 February 2021; Received in revised form 6 August 2021; Accepted 24 August 2021
retailers need to be able to differentiate themselves to remain significant in the competitive marketplace. The findings from these studies claim that for businesses to remain significant, they need to develop and implement a wide range of empirically tested promotion strategies to maintain sales in a more effective and strategic manner.
Despite the significant contributions of sales promotion studies in extant retailing and consumer behavior literature to date, there is still a lack of exploration, resulting in an inadequate understanding of how one specific sales promotion (i.e., discount) are perceived from the lenses of both utilitarian and hedonic benefits, and how it may or may not affect consumer purchase decisions (i.e., consumers attitude and behavioral responses) (Palazon and Delgado-Ballester, 2013; Sinha and Verma, 2020). Though scarce, studies related to these alternatives, such as Kivetz and Zheng (2017), Sinha and Verma (2020), and Bandyopadhay, Sivakumaran, Patro, and Kumar (2021) on the influence of promotions on hedonic and utilitarian purchases are starting to appear in high impact and top-tier journals. It is the contention of the present paper, however, that further investigation is necessary to enrich the under- standing of utilitarian and hedonic benefits perception towards specific sales promotions and the purchase decisions associated with it.
This study aims at identifying and investigating consumers’ utili- tarian and hedonic benefits perception of the most widely used sales promotion technique, discount, as well as its impact on consumer pur- chase decisions (in the form of attitude and behavioral intention re- sponses). The paper will firstly review the relevant literature and secondly, build on the associated hypotheses before delineating the conceptual framework. This will be followed by a highlight on the methodology before reporting the results. This paper will conclude with a discussion on its theoretical and managerial implications, study limi- tations, and suggestions for future research.
2. Literature review
2.1. Sales promotion benefits and effectiveness
Investigations into the benefits and effectiveness of sales promotion are limited despite growing evidence highlighting the significant role of sales promotions over other marketing communication techniques such as advertising (Peattie, 1998). Scholars in sales promotion studies have long argued that sales promotion technique is to be studied separately (as in the uses of coupons against other price-related sales promotion techniques) or sales promotion as a whole (Laroche et al., 2003).
Nevertheless, past studies also posited that sales promotion tech- niques as a marketing tool would inevitably cause eventual market losses (Ehrenberg et al., 1994; Totten and Block, 1994). Although this will imminently produce promotional-prone consumers in transition, real gains will also result (Mela et al., 1997; Srinivasan and Anderson, 1998; Steenkamp et al., 2005). Nonetheless, such losses and gains are connected to consumers’ perceptions (utilitarian and hedonic) of the types of sales promotion (Sinha and Verma, 2020).
Frequently used techniques to promote sales by retailers and pro- ducers include discounts, free samples, coupons, and bonus packs (Jee et al., 2016; McNeill, 2013; Ndubisi & Chiew, 2005, 2006). Likewise, sales promotional techniques such as discounts, rewards, and premiums are ubiquitous and highly preferred by consumers (Jee et al., 2016;
McNeill, 2012, 2013). The use of these techniques was primarily rein- forced by the associated monetary benefits (Tellis, 1998). Such mone- tary benefits can be further explained through consumers’ perceptions of the utilitarian and hedonic benefits enticed with the sales promotion techniques adopted by businesses alike.
The survey of the existing literature largely reveals limited empirical research on the impact of sales promotion on utilitarian and hedonic purchases (e.g. Bandyopadhyay et al., 2021; Chandon et al., 2000;
Chitturi et al., 2008; Das et al., 2018; Eisenbeiss et al., 2015; Kivetz and Zheng, 2017; Liao et al., 2009; Sinha and Verma, 2020). Utilitarian benefits perception is represented by the perceptions of savings,
convenience, and quality (rational), while hedonic benefits perception includes the perceptions of good feelings. The limited existing literature also presents incongruous results. For instance, findings from Sinha and Verma (2020) indicated that utilitarian and hedonic sales promotion benefits influence perceived value. These findings are inconsistent with a previous study conducted by Mussol et al. (2019) which found that functional and hedonic promotions do not drive brand experience.
Nevertheless, a more recent study by Bandyopadhay, Sivakumaran, Patro, and Kumar (2021) discovered that shoppers are motivated hed- onically upon exposure to promotional stimuli (in this case both mon- etary and non-monetary sales promotion). Such limited investigations on such topics further accentuate the need for further investigation of the relationship between sales promotion utilitarian and hedonic per- ceptions and consumer purchase decisions. Table 1 presents the existing literature examining sales promotion benefits and effectiveness.
2.2. Utilitarian benefits perception
Consumers experience (i.e. pertaining to good feelings related to shopping) and buying behavior (i.e. attitude and behavior) also have impeding roles in shaping consumers’ purchase decisions (Sinha and Verma, 2020), particularly when it involves the use of sales promotion techniques to push products or services from shelves to consumers (Jee et al., 2016). Such emotions and buying behaviors are identified as utilitarian behavior (Chandon et al., 2000; Sinha and Verma, 2020). Past studies indicated that these emotional and buying behaviors are valued expressive and entertaining, and they entice consumers’ exploration or testing of the products or services under sales and appeal towards monetary benefit sales promotion (Chandon et al., 2000). The authors further explained that consumers would prioritize utilitarian rewards over hedonic, hence the rewards (the benefits associated with pro- motions and goods purchases) are contingent on greater effort con- sumers put forth when making purchases. This is consistent with the findings of Sinha and Verma (2020), which indicated that consumers’
demand for utilitarian perceived goods increases when price promotions are assimilated into purchase decisions.
The present study asserts that such pleasures (as a form of reward) and sales promotion uses can be explained by consumer price-quality perception. Past studies conducted on price-quality perceptions within particular monetary promotions exemplified this claim (Garretson et al., 2002). Earlier studies by Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer (1993) explain how such price-quality perception constructs are related to the quality level of a product, which further exemplify the utilitarian orientation it yields within a particular price promotion. Such price-quality perceptions were also postulated as having impacts on purchase decisions (Garretson et al., 2002), which can be further explained through the concept of attribution (Ferreira and Coelho, 2015).
Attribution can be distinguished as self, object, and person percep- tion (Mizerski et al., 1979). These attribution concepts specify in detail how consumers explain the basis of events (Sawyer and Dickson, 1984;
Zgolli, 1999). Past studies on the implications attribution (also known as self-perception) indicated significant implications on attitude formation (Garretson et al., 2002). Such attributions are also commonly tested for product purchases (Garretson et al., 2002; Sawyer and Dickson, 1984;
Zgolli, 1999), whereas they can be used to manipulate consumer’s be- liefs of their purchases (liking or based on situational incentives) (Scott and Yalch, 1980). Of interest to this study is exploring the self-perception concepts (one of the types of attribution) to explain the perception of the utilitarian benefits of discount sales promotion tech- nique. Such self-perception concepts can be captured through price-quality perception. Such utilitarian benefits perceptions enticed by a specific price promotion have an impending impact on consumer purchase decisions (Sinha and Verma, 2020). Hence, it is hypothesized that price-quality perception (utilitarian benefits).
will impact consumers’ purchase decisions (attitude and behavioral
intention) towards discount as a sales promotion technique.
H1. The utilitarian benefits (price-quality perception) in discount as a sales promotion technique influence consumer purchase decisions – (a) attitude and (b) behavioral intention.
2.3. Hedonic benefits perception
Sales promotion hedonic benefits perceptions are commonly asso- ciated with monetary sales promotion techniques (Jee et al., 2016; Sinha and Verma, 2020). These are usually motivated by basic needs associ- ated with practicality and necessity (Kivetz and Zheng, 2017). For price-conscious consumers, savings are important when it comes to choosing the right sales promotion technique such as discount (Jee et al., 2016). Past studies by Schindler (1989) use consumers’ smart shopping feelings or perceptions to describe consumers’ self-concepts concerning a particular excitement generated by a price promotion being offered.
Such findings are related to the hedonic benefits (smart shopper self-perception) of sales promotion techniques used on products and/or services enticed on a purchase (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2021; Kivetz and Zheng, 2017). Also known as smart shopping, it measures the willing- ness of consumers to spend time and effort in seeking and using promotion-related information to achieve savings on a purchase (Mano and Elliot, 1997). Such shopper self-perception is derived primarily from consumers’ need for intrinsic reward from price savings (Schindler, 1992) and a high sense of accomplishment, self-esteem, and pride (psychology needs) from shopping (Mano and Elliot, 1997; Schindler, 1988). Known as hedonic perceptions (or relative vices), they are usu- ally motivated by typical experiences that are associated with good feelings to always get a good deal. More specifically, Kivetz and Zheng (2006) indicated that consumers who sense entitlement due to contri- butions and achievements had higher chances to choose pleasures from
experiences as rewards.
Schindler’s (1989) studies had used consumers’ smart shopping feelings or perceptions to describe consumers’ self-concepts with a particular excitement generated by a price promotion being offered.
Such findings are related to the perceptions of the hedonic benefits (monetary savings) of a particular price promotion enticed on a pur- chase (Mano and Elliot, 1997; Schindler, 1988). Such hedonic benefits enticed towards a specific price promotion have an impending impact on consumers’ purchase decisions (Sinha and Verma, 2020). Hence, it is hypothesized that smart shopper self-perception (hedonic benefits) has an impact on consumers’ purchase decisions (attitude and behavioral intentions) with discount.
H2. The hedonic benefits (smart shopper self-perception) in discount sales promotion technique influence consumer purchase decisions – (a) attitude and (b) behavioral intention towards it.
2.4. Attitudinal and behavioral responses
The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) states that attitude represents the cognition part (personal factor) of behavior (Armitage and Conner, 2000; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Such attitude is usually used to assess the positive or negative evaluation of performing a specific behavior (Armitage and Conner, 2000). TRA assumes that attitude is a condi- tioned predisposition behavior in a consistently positive or negative reaction to a given object (Ajzen, 1991). Thus, it is necessary to measure a person’s attitude towards performing a behavior (Choong, 1998) to predict a behavioral intention. Such applications of attitude and behavioral intention were evident in earlier studies such as on the use of coupons, contrasting deal-proneness and coupon-proneness (Lichten- stein, 1997; Lichtenstein et al., 1990), price reduction promotions (Chen et al., 1998), promotions purchase satisfaction (Jee and De Run, 2013), Table 1
Existing literature in sales promotion benefits and effectiveness.
Academic Source Research construct(s) Methodology(s) Key finding(s)
Chandon et al. (2000) Utilitarian products, hedonic products, savings, quality,
convenience, value expression, entertainment, exploration QN using CB-SEM Monetary promotions are more effective utilitarian products; non-monetary promotions are more effective for hedonic products
Laroche et al. (2003) Cognitive dimension, conative dimension, affective
dimension, lifestyle and traits QN using CB-SEM Deals and different trait variables trigger different promotional responses
Chitturi et al. (2008) Product design benefits (utilitarian and hedonic), consumption experience, post-consumption emotions, customer loyalty
QN using experimental
design Product design benefits (utilitarian and hedonic) significantly affect consumers post-consumption emotions and customer loyalty
Liao et al. (2009) Sales promotion strategy, product appeal, consumer traits,
reminder impulse buying behavior QN using experimental
design Price discounts are more related to utilitarian products and can induce reminders of impulse buying Palazon and
Delgado-Ballester (2013)
Premium promotions, affective reactions, cognitive reactions,
purchase intention QN using experimental
design Consumers’ affective and cognitive reactions affect premium promotions (utilitarian and hedonic) Eisenbeiss et al. (2015) Discount promotions, time constraints, product type QL, QN using
experimental design Discount promotions increase promotional
effectiveness for utilitarian products more than hedonic products.
Jee et al. (2016) Behavioral belief, normative belief, attitude, subjective norm,
behavioral intention QL, QN using PLS-SEM Behavioral beliefs and normative beliefs of discount promotions significantly affect consumers’ attitudes and behavioral intentions
Kivetz and Zheng (2017) Price and non-price promotions, consumer purchase decisions QN using experimental
design Promotions have a stronger effect on the purchase likelihood driven by hedonic benefits
Das et al. (2018) Popularity cues, scarcity cues, purchase intention CFA, QN using CB-SEM Utilitarian and hedonic products boost consumers’
purchase intentions.
Mussol et al. (2019) Relational benefits, functional benefits, hedonic benefits,
brand expression, loyalty QN using experimental
design, QN using CB-SEM Functional and hedonic promotions do not drive brand experience
Sinha and Verma (2020) Utilitarian benefits, hedonic benefits, monetary promotions, non-monetary promotions, consumer perceived values, product category
CFA, QN using PLS-SEM Both utilitarian and hedonic benefits sales promotions affect consumer perceived values
Bandyopadhyay et al.
(2021) Consumer sales promotion, value shopping, positive affect, deal proneness, impulsive buying tendency, urge to buy impulsively, impulsive buying
QN using CB-SEM Various types of sales promotion drive consumers towards impulse buying, moderated by hedonic shopping and positive affects
Present study Utilitarian benefits, hedonic benefits, attitude, behavioral
intention QN using PLS-SEM Discount utilitarian and hedonic benefits perceptions
drive consumer purchase decisions
QL: Qualitative Techniques (e.g., Case Studies, Observations, Interviews), QN: Quantitative Techniques (e.g. survey questionnaires, panel data), PLS-SEM: Partial Least Square based Structural Equation Modelling, CB-SEM: Covariance based Structural Equation Modelling, CFA: Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
promotions impact on brand loyalty (Santini et al., 2016), and pro- motions impact on product involvement (Jee, 2018). Hence, it is hy- pothesized that attitude towards discount usage will impact the consumers’ behavioral intention.
H3. Consumers’ attitude towards discount as a sales promotion tech- nique will influence behavioral intention.
Nevertheless, most of the studies on sales promotion predominantly explore and test the direct interaction between various antecedents of sales promotion techniques with various purchase decisions (i.e. attitude and behavioral intention) (Jee et al., 2016). Studies by Prayag et al.
(2013) indicated that overall attitude plays a mediating effect between the various cognitive constructs tested in their studies against the behavioral outcome of it. Nevertheless, most sales promotion studies focus on the mediating effect of other variables such as perceived quality between brand loyalty and advertising endorser (Chi et al., 2009) and perceived value (Sinha and Verma, 2020) on purchase decisions. Most of these studies, however, neither explored nor tested the mediating effect of attitude on behavioral intentions (Jee et al., 2016; Jee and De Run, 2013), hence this warrants more extensive research. This is particularly evident for discount sales promotion techniques as it tends to be trifling and humdrum when the direct interaction of various antecedents on attitude and behaviors alone is investigated. This has led to the following hypotheses:
H4. The (a) utilitarian and (b) hedonic benefits in discount influence consumers’ behavioral intention, mediated by attitude towards it.
2.5. Conceptual framework
This study presents a framework based on external variables, which are the independent variables in this study: price-quality perception (utilitarian benefits perception) and smart shopper self-perception (he- donic benefits perception) may or may not affect consumer purchase decisions (attitude and behavioral intention). Attitude towards discount sales promotion techniques was also hypothesized as the mediating ef- fect between price-quality perception, smart shopper self-perception, and behavioral intention. Refer to Fig. 1.
3. Methods
A survey was used to investigate the significance of the relationships in the proposed framework. The questionnaire gathered essential de- mographic information (i.e., gender, age, marital status, and income) and other information under the purview of prior studies dealing with research constructs such as price-quality perception and smart shopper self-perception (Garretson et al., 2002), and attitude and behavioral intention (Kraft et al., 2005). A Likert-7 scale was used in the survey, were ‘strongly disagree’ corresponded to ‘1’ and ‘7’ indicated a response of ‘strongly agree’. The use of a Likert-type scale promotes higher
reliability and validity in the findings (Schindler, 1984).
3.1. Sampling technique and procedure
The sample population was selected from Malaysian states and fed- eral territories with census data guiding the relevance of the sampling cohort. This ensures a fair representation of the Malaysian population in the various geographical locations (Cooper and Schindler, 2008). A total of 356 respondents1 were randomly recruited for this study. The sample size fulfills the requirement to conduct the data analysis method used in the study—i.e., partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS- SEM).
The study’s participants were recruited from all states and territories (Johor, Selangor, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Perak, Pahang, Pulau Pinang, Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis, Terengganu, Sabah, Sarawak, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Labuan, Federal Terri- tory of Putrajaya) in Malaysia. The current researcher, with the help of hired enumerators, personally visited major shopping malls/complexes in these locations to collect the responses for the questionnaire. The respondents for this study were sampled using quota sampling. This technique was selected due to the difficulty in estimating the probability of inclusion for each person in a large population sample (Malhotra, 2004; Malhotra and Birks, 2006; Newby-Clark et al., 2002). The sam- pling of respondents such way was intentional to fulfill the study’s aim and purpose, as well as to provide an adequate representation within the study population (Malhotra and Birks, 2006; Zikmund et al., 2012). To mitigate potential bias from using quota sampling, the surveys were carried out at different times of the day, and on different days within one week of data collection at each location. Participation was voluntary, and all respondents had given their consent to participate in the study.
3.2. Characteristics of sample population
356 respondents participated in this study, comprising 145 (40.7%) male and 211 (59.3%) female respondents. The majority of these re- spondents were between 21 and 29 years old (32.0%), and 30 and 39 years old (26.3%), whereas approximately 66.3% of these respondents earn a gross monthly income of RM2999 and below. This indicates that these respondents have a meaningful means of purchasing.
Discount sales promotion technique was chosen as the focus of this study as it is identified as the most preferred sales promotion technique in Malaysia (Jee et al., 2016). From the total of 356 respondents’ re- sponses collected in this study, 52.5% of them had used discounts at least once in their recent purchases (less than 2 months). The most frequent items being purchased by these respondents using discount sales promotion techniques were apparel (53.7%), electronic devices (9.6%), and footwear (5.9%).
3.3. Data analysis technique and procedure
To investigate the proposed relationships in the conceptual frame- work of this study, the researcher applied variance-based partial least square – structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using the SmartPLS 3.0 software. PLS-SEM enables the researcher to better investigate the casual explanations (confirmatory) between sales promotion hedonic and utilitarian benefits perception on consumers attitudinal and behavioral responses. PLS-SEM is fitting for the type of confirmatory
Fig. 1. Price-Quality Perception (Utilitarian Benefits Perception) and Smart Shopper Self-Perception (Hedonic Benefits Perception) Influence on Discount Sales Promotion Technique Purchase DecisionsAdopted
from: Garretson et al. (2002); Jee et al. (2016).
1 The sample size of cases in the current study meets the required sample sizes of 30 cases (i.e. 10 cases ×maximum of three arrows [from price-quality perception, smart shopper self-perception, and attitude] pointing at one latent research construct [behavioral intention]), 96 cases (i.e. based on power analysis using G*Power), and 100 to 200 cases for a meaningful structural (or path) analysis, as suggested by Hair et al. (2017), Akter et al. (2011), and Hoyle (1995), respectively.
investigations adopted in this paper (opposing covariance-based struc- tural equation modeling [CB-SEM]) because it is primarily used for confirmation of the established theory. It is also able to determine the correlational extent between exogenous (or independent) and endoge- nous (or dependent) latent research constructs (Hair et al., 2017; Ringle et al., 2015).
This study used PLS-SEM: (i) to test the relationship between observed variables to validate a latent variable through the utilization of convergent validity, and discriminant validity; (ii) to analyze the direct, and extended relationships between the exogenous variables and endogenous variables specified in the conceptual framework (Fig. 1) through the Bootstrapping procedure.
4. Results
4.1. Manipulation checks
To check for common method bias, the study applied the Common Method Variance (CMV) based on Harman’s (1976) single-factor test.
The presence of a substantial common method variance is detected with the existence of a single factor or the accountability of a general factor for most of the total variance indicated by the items (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The test results revealed only one factor explaining less than 50%
(i.e., 43.03%) of the variance. The test results detected non-problematic CMV as the first factor, which accounts for less than 50% of the variance among variables (Fuller et al., 2016; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).
Furthermore, the highest correlation was 0.704 (correlation between attitude towards discount sales promotion technique and behavioral intention) (Bagozzi et al., 1991) with none of the correlation between research constructs above the threshold of 0.90. The test results indi- cated no bivariate correlation exists among the variables, suggesting a non-problematic common method bias in this study.
In addition, the collinearity of indicators, determined by the variance inflation factor (VIF), was below the critical value of five (Hair et al., 2017). This again indicates the study had no issues with the collinearity of indicators in the measurement and structural models. A two-step procedure was then employed to firstly examine the measurement model for construct and discriminant validity, followed by a test of the structural model’s hypotheses.
4.2. Assessment of measurement model
Table 2 depicts all the criteria of factor loadings, composite re- liabilities (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The standardized factor loadings in the measurement model were above the accepted threshold at 0.70, which illustrates an adequate reliability level (Hair et al., 2017). One item in price-quality perception (the old saying “you get what you pay for” is true) and three items in attitude towards discount sales promotion techniques (my use of discount sales promotion technique in my purchases is [1] useful, [2] right, [3] interesting) were removed as the factor loading was below the 0.70 suggested threshold (Hair et al., 2017). CR of the research constructs was above 0.80, which exceeds the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Sarkar et al., 2001). This indicated that the construct internal consistency reliability is supported. AVE values for all research con- structs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The test results indicate that all the constructs explained more than 50% of the variance of its indicator respective (Ringle et al., 2015), which implies that convergent validity was achieved (Tsai and Tiwasing, 2021). The test results indicated the reliability and validity of the data collected for this study were achieved (Chin, 1998; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Wong, 2013).
Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Henseler et al.’s (2015) Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) criterion were used to determine the discriminant validity of the measurement model. Based on Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion in Table 2, the results indicated that the square root of the AVE exceeded the correlation values between that and other research constructs. Henseler et al.’s (2015) HTMT criterion in Table 3 indicated that discriminant validity is established between research constructs as all the HTMT values are below 0.90. Thus, this study met the tests of discriminant validity.
4.3. Assessment of structural model
Bootstrapping procedure through T-statistics was used to test the path relationships of the structural model (Hair et al., 2017; Hair et al., 2014; Ringle et al., 2015). A total of 5000 cases of sub-samples in bootstrapping procedures were drawn to estimate the model of each of the subsamples (Hair et al., 2011). The findings from the bootstrapping procedure reveal partial support for all the direct effects, but full support Table 2
Descriptive and confirmatory factor analysis results.
Constructs Items/Questions Mean Standard Deviation Loadings AVEa CRb
Price Quality Perception Generally speaking,
The higher the price of a product, the higher the quality 4.44 1.48 0.746 0.585 0.809
The price of a product is a good indicator of its quality 4.38 1.39 0.777
I always have to pay a bit more for the best 4.94 1.38 0.771
Smart Shopper Self- Perception When I go shopping,
I feel like a winner 5.07 1.42 0.800 0.671 0.891
I take a lot of pride in making smart purchases 4.70 1.37 0.847
It makes me feel good about myself 5.00 1.39 0.820
I get real sense of joy when I make purchases 5.08 1.36 0.808
Attitude My use of discount sales promotion technique in my purchases is,
Wise 4.82 1.27 0.792 0.624 0.892
Beneficial 4.72 1.25 0.810
Good 4.82 1.13 0.769
Relaxing 4.68 1.28 0.743
Pleasant 4.78 1.18 0.832
Behavioral Intention Over the next 2 months,
I expect to use discount in my purchase 4.56 1.23 0.767 0.644 0.878
It is likely I will use discount in my purchase 4.60 1.24 0.779
I intend to use discount in my purchase 4.66 1.25 0.853
I plan to use discount in my purchase 4.57 1.23 0.808
aAverage variance extracted (AVE) =(summation of the square of the factor loadings)/([summation of the square of the factor loadings] +[summation of the square of the error variances]).
b Composite Reliability (CR) =(square of the summation of the factor loadings)/([square of the summation of the factor loadings] +[square of the summation of the error variances]).
for all the indirect effects tested.
The f2 effect size determines the impact of independent research constructs on the dependent research constructs (according to the path coefficients) (Schirmer et al., 2018). Having the largest effect size, smart shopper self-perception (hedonic benefits perception) also contributed the significantly strongest relationship to attitude towards discount sales promotion technique (f2 =0.650, β =0.633, t =16.466, p ≤0.000) as compared to behavioral intention (f2 =0.018, β =0.133, t =2.214, p ≤ 0.016). However, price-quality perception (utilitarian benefits percep- tion) was only found to affect attitude significantly positively towards discount sales promotion technique (f2 =0.049, β =0.175, t =3.672, p
≤0.000), and none to behavioral intention. Attitude towards discount sales promotion technique, on the other hand, was found to affect behavioral intention significantly (f2 =0.379, β =0.612, t =10.558, p
≤0.000). Refer to Table 4.
In analyzing the mediating effect of attitude towards discount sales promotion technique (post hoc analysis), the findings in Table 3 reveal that attitude plays a significant mediating effect between price-quality perception and behavioral intention (β = 0.107, t = 3.486, p ≤ 0.000), as well between smart shopper self-perception and behavioral intention (β =0.387, t =8.711, p ≤0.000).
Lastly, the predictive capability of the structural model (also known as predictive relevance) was assessed through a blindfolding procedure by assessing the cross-validated redundancy using Stone-Geisser’s pre- dictive relevance (Q2) estimates and co-efficient of determination (R2) values. These were done to assess the predictive accuracy levels of the model procedure in PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2014). The R2 and Q2 values for attitude towards discount sales promotion technique were 0.332 and 0.541 respectively and 0.346 and 0.549 for behavioral intention. This indicates that 33.2% of the variance in attitude towards discount sales promotion technique is due to both price-quality perception and smart shopper self-perception and that 34.6% of the variance in behavioral intention is explained by price-quality perception, smart shopper self-perception, and attitude towards discount sales promotion tech- nique. Predictive relevance is also present in the structural model, as the Q2 values for attitude (0.541) and behavioral intention (0.549) are
larger than 0.
5. Discussion
This discussion is drawn from the impact of utilitarian benefits (price-quality perception) and hedonic benefits (smart shopper self- perception) perceptions on consumer purchase decisions (in the form of attitude and behavioral intention responses). The present findings further highlight that consumer purchase decisions are propelled by both the utilitarian and hedonic perceived benefits associated with the promotions under investigation (Sinha and Verma, 2020).
The findings reveal that utilitarian benefits (price-quality percep- tion) perception shows positive impacts/relationships on consumer purchase decisions (attitude and behavioral intention collectively).
Despite indicating that utilitarian perceived benefits of promotion do not yield significant results on consumers’ behavioral intention, the findings also reveal that the inclusion of attitude as a mediating effect yields significant positive results between utilitarian perceived benefits (in the form of price-quality perception) and consumers behavioral intention. Consumers expect to get better quality products/services when they spend on these purchases, which are primarily governed by societal norms at large that believe any monetary promotion (evident for discount sales promotion) is a good deal. Such a phenomenon is related to the societal perceptions of sales promotion, which consumers believe can assist them with better purchases for the products/services that are collectively perceived as good quality products/services (Sinha and Verma, 2020). Such societal reinforcement will increase their suscepti- bility towards utilizing sales promotions when they shop.
Furthermore, the present findings reveal that hedonic benefits (smart shopper self-perception) perception has a positive impact on consumer purchase decisions. Consumers also perceive the use of discount sales promotion techniques as a central element of self-concept, rather than just another marketing activity. Such self-concept of sales promotion perceptions is associated with the annotation that “… the real reasons for deal proneness lie more deeply than the cold statistics of de- mographics or buying patterns …” (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990, p. 73), Table 3
Fornell-Larcker and Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) criterion results.
Price Quality
perception Smart Shopper Self-
Perception Attitude Behavioral
Intention Fornell-Larcker Criteriona Price Quality Perception 0.765
Smart Shopper Self-
Perception 0.505 0.819
Attitude 0.478 0.720 0.790
Behavioral Intention 0.420 0.599 0.732 0.803
Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT)
Criterion Price Quality Perception
Smart Shopper Self-
Perception 0.657 (0.529, 0.770)b
Attitude 0.647 (0.519, 0.762) 0.851 (0.778, 0.916)
Behavioral Intention 0.564 (0.397, 0.716) 0.722 (0.642, 0.799) 0.879 (0.818, 0.937) aNote: Bold diagonals represent the square root of the AVE while the off-diagonal represents the correlations.
b Note: HTMT value in bracket represent the 2.5% and 97.5% confidence interval.
Table 4
Structural model results.
Hypothesis Path Relationship Path Coefficient Std Error t-statistic p-Value VIF f2 Hypothesis
H1(a) PQ - >ATT 0.175 0.047 3.672** 0.000 1.342 0.049 Supported
H1(b) PQ - >BI 0.053 0.058 0.914 0.361 1.408 0.004 Rejected
H2(a) SS - >ATT 0.633 0.038 16.466** 0.000 1.342 0.650 Supported
H2(b) SS - >BI 0.133 0.055 2.406** 0.016 2.214 0.018 Supported
H3 ATT - >BI 0.612 0.058 10.558** 0.000 2.178 0.379 Supported
Post hoc (mediation) analysis
H4(a) PQ- >ATT - >BI 0.107 0.030 3.486** 0.000 Supported
H4(b) SS- >ATT - >BI 0.387 0.044 8.711** 0.000 Supported
Note: VIF =Variance Inflation Factor. **p <0.05.
which reflects consumers smart-shopper perception (Schindler, 1984).
As a result, these consumers will derive an immense sense of achieve- ment and excitement from shopping by netting themselves better deals (Schindler, 1989). Such findings are consistent with the annotation that consumers tend to be more ego expressive (Vicdan et al., 2007), resulting in a more preferable consumer purchase decision.
Nevertheless, the present findings also seem to contradict findings from prior studies. A previous study conducted by Kivetz and Zheng (2017) indicated that consumers often face dilemmas in terms of he- donic and utilitarian consumption. Bandyopadhay, Sivakumaran, Patro, and Kumar (2021) discovered that consumers who are motivated hed- onically upon exposure to promotional stimuli (in this case, both mon- etary and non-monetary sales promotion) are more likely to induce purchases. The present study conceptualizes and synthesizes the impli- cations from past studies by demonstrating that consumers can be simultaneously stimulated by both utilitarian and hedonic benefits perceptions in justifying their purchase decisions. Such perception for utilitarian and hedonic benefits perceptions are closely tied to the collectivist nature of consumers, who generally regard the use of dis- count sales promotion techniques in their purchases as an overall good deal. As such, it reinforces the same beliefs (utilitarian and hedonic benefits) within the larger community, perceiving this as a good deal and choice made on their purchases. Such findings are consistent with Sinha and Verma (2020) who indicated both utilitarian and hedonic benefits sales promotion had an impact on consumer purchase decisions.
Consequently, this study promotes the use of sales promotion in pro- curing perceived benefits (utilitarian and hedonic) and boosting sales.
5.1. Theoretical implications
Firstly, this study acknowledges the predictability of the adopted theories to explain consumer purchase decisions (in the form of attitude and behavioral intention responses towards discount sales promotion technique). This study builds on the existing literature on the impact of sales promotion on utilitarian and hedonic purchases by extending the research of Kivetz and Zheng (2017), Sinha and Verma (2020), and Bandyopadhay, Sivakumaran, Patro, and Kumar (2021) that examined the impact of hedonic and utilitarian effects of promotions on consumer purchase decisions. The current study also further illuminates the study of Sinha and Verma (2020) by integrating the same sales promotion techniques into utilitarian and hedonic perceptions and empirically affirming such perceptions on consumer purchase decisions.
Secondly, this study confirms the relevance of price-quality percep- tion and smart shopper self-perception as the indicator of utilitarian and hedonic benefits in explaining consumer purchase decisions (in the form of attitude and behavioral intention responses). This observation was made when both utilitarian versus hedonic benefits perspectives had collective impacts on consumer purchase decisions. Consistent with the role of justification in the observed effects (utilitarian and hedonic), the positive effects of promotions on consumer purchase decisions were attenuated when: (i) the promotion was contingent on sales promotion availability; (ii) the purchases made via the promotion was intended for self-consumption; (iii) consumers were able to explain the purchase decisions after purchasing.
The present findings affirm that sales promotion impact consumer purchase decisions through utilitarian and hedonic benefits perceptions.
They further reveal the difference in consumer perceived benefits (utilitarian versus hedonic) for the same promotion technique under investigation (i.e., discount). Such findings are useful in developing a workable targeting approach according to utilitarian and hedonic ben- efits of a particular preferred sales promotion technique within a specific market context. With its wide implication on consumer purchase de- cisions, such findings provide another platform to better understand sales promotion technique perceptions, thus further articulating its targeting opportunities in the marketplace. This was evident when it enables the researcher to better distinguish and test the various
constructs and path relationships in this study.
5.2. Managerial implications
The present findings reveal that when consumers are unable to justify the utilitarian perceptions (in the form of price-quality percep- tion) on their purchases (in the form of behavioral intention), it will offset the hedonic perceptions (in the form of smart-shopper self-per- ceptions) provided by the promotion on both attitude and behavioral intentions. The findings from this study show that utilitarian benefits (price-quality perception) perception had a direct positive impact/
relationship on consumer attitudes but not on behavioral intentions.
Hedonic benefits (smart shopper self-perception) perception, on the other hand, were shown to have a direct positive impact/relationship on both consumer attitudes and behavioral intentions. When tested for the indirect effect of both utilitarian benefits and hedonic benefits percep- tions on behavioral intentions, mediated by attitude, the findings show positive indirect impact/relationship. Given that attitude is an impor- tant mediator, strategic promotional activities and campaigns are required to strengthen both utilitarian benefits (price-quality percep- tion) and hedonic benefits (smart shopper self-perception) perceptions had on consumer behavioral intentions.
This can be done by strategically placing promoters or merchandisers at stores or retail outlets to promote monetary savings from purchasing to reaffirm consumers’ positive attitudes towards discount sales pro- motions. This will ensure that consumers’ price-quality perceptions (utilitarian benefits perception) can affect their behavioral intentions.
The same goes for smart shopper self-perceptions (hedonic benefits perception) where retailers can display advertisements that reaffirm/
highlight monetary savings from shopping. This will further reinforce consumer perceptions of being a smart shopper when they purchase products/services upon seeing the advertisements, resulting in positive attitudes and behavioral intentions towards discount sales promotions.
Retailers and marketers can further invest in various discount cam- paigns (e.g., weekend sales with further discount offerings) coupled with the strategies indicated earlier (i.e., strategically placing promoters or merchandisers, and display of advertisements). Such campaigns can strengthen both utilitarian and hedonic benefits perceptions (integrating both perceptions) to generate a stronger effect on consumer purchase decisions (attitude and behavioral intention responses towards discount sales promotions). This will further ensure the effectiveness and sus- tainability of the promotion’s campaigns carried out, enabling retailers to stay competitive and gain a larger and more profitable market share despite market competition and utilization of the same sales promotion technique. This will also enable the development of profitable and effective activities linked to sales (e.g., loyalty programs), in alignment with the previously stated implications.
6. Conclusion
The adaptation and testing of utilitarian benefits (price-quality perception) and hedonic benefits (smart shopper self-perception) per- ceptions on consumer purchase decisions represented by attitude and behavioral intention responses towards discount sales promotion tech- nique have significant contributions. Firstly, the implementation and testing of these factors would enable researchers to develop and test a workable model of preferred sales promotion techniques. This will help the researcher to better illuminate attitude and behavioral responses to preferred sales promotion techniques within a specific market and consumer context. This is primarily due to a lack of theoretical and managerial considerations in using price-quality perception and smart shopper self-perception as utilitarian and hedonic benefits indicators of a sales promotion technique, and its impact on consumer purchase decisions.
Attitude and behavioral intention are incorporated concurrently as the central and consequent construct to enhance the explanation of the
formation of the antecedents towards a specific preferred sales promo- tion technique. All these antecedents-to-consequences constructs are tested simultaneously, shedding light on sales promotion techniques perceptions and the consumers’ responses within a specific market context.
6.1. Limitations and future research
The main limitation of this study is that it only focused on discount, a popular sales promotion technique in Malaysia, which results in a lack of insight on the link between the perceptions of the utilitarian and he- donic benefits on other sales promotion techniques and consumer pur- chase decisions. Investigating the impact of other sales promotion techniques and whether similar results will be uncovered is important to address the generalizability issue here. Subsequent investigations can also focus on the use of coupons and samples, or any other sales pro- motion techniques and the utilization of the research model to provide insights to sales promotion techniques perceptions. Another suggestion is for future studies to examine the use of other sales promotion tech- niques on different products. Incorporating these research suggestions in future studies will help the development of an integrated and compre- hensive framework on the perceptions of different techniques for sales promotion and the disparity in consumer perceptions.
This study uses price-quality perception and smart shopper self-
perception as the utilitarian and hedonic benefits indicators in explaining consumer purchase decisions. Having said that, the investi- gation of consumer purchase decisions from the lenses of price-quality perception and smart shopper self-perception are generally lacking in relation to the literature on sales promotion. Hence future research is essential to illuminate such investigations as the area of study is less common. This will enable a more holistic model for future research that is better able to explain sales promotion technique perceptions. Future research could examine other indicators such as perceived values or value consciousness to better explain both utilitarian and hedonic ben- efits perceptions of sales promotion techniques. Other possibilities could include identifying the other components of mediating effect such as involvement and acculturation to better understand sales promotion techniques perceptions and their association with consumer purchase decisions.
Declaration of competing interest No potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank Professor Weng Marc Lim for his helpful comments and guidance during the revision stage of this paper.
Appendix A. Cross Loadings Analysis for Checking Discriminant Validity for Measurement Model
Constructs Attitude Behavioral Intention Price Quality Perception Smart Shopper Self-Perception
Attitude A1 0.792 0.601 0.399 0.591
A2 0.810 0.613 0.400 0.593
A3 0.769 0.567 0.428 0.554
A4 0.743 0.540 0.355 0.541
A5 0.832 0.566 0.361 0.561
Behavioural Intention BI1 0.571 0.767 0.426 0.556
BI2 0.557 0.779 0.369 0.476
BI3 0.615 0.853 0.273 0.453
BI4 0.605 0.808 0.284 0.437
Price Quality Perception PQ1 0.355 0.255 0.746 0.295
PQ2 0.313 0.309 0.777 0.312
PQ3 0.441 0.382 0.771 0.511
Smart Shopper Self-Perception SS1 0.574 0.452 0.401 0.800
SS2 0.626 0.539 0.434 0.847
SS3 0.614 0.520 0.389 0.820
SS4 0.538 0.443 0.432 0.808
References
Ahmad, A.H., Mohd Nor, S., Abd Rahman, I., Abd Moen, J., Che Wel, C.A., 2008. Small retailers and entrepreneurs’ perceptions on the departmental store development: a Malaysian case study. International Review of Business Research Papers 4 (1), 1–10.
Ailawadi, K.L., 2001. The retail power-performance conundrum: what have we learned?
J. Retailing 77 (3), 299–318.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2), 179–211.
Akter, S., D’Ambra, J., Ray, P., 2011. An Evaluation of PLS Based Complex Models: the Roles of Power Analysis, Predictive Relevance and GoF Index. Paper presented at the AMCIS 2011.
Armitage, C.J., Conner, M., 2000. Social cognition models and health behaviour: a structured review. Psychol. Health 15 (2), 173–189.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., Phillips, L.W., 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adminstrative Science Quarterly 36 (3), 421–458.
Bandyopadhyay, N., Sivakumaran, B., Patro, S., Kumar, R.S., 2021. Immediate or delayed! whether various types of consumer sales promotions drive impulse buying?:
an empirical investigation. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 61, 102532. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102532.
Blattberg, R.C., Neslin, S.A., 1990. Sales Promotion: Concepts, Methods, and Strategies (NJ: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs).
Bogomolova, S., Szabo, M., Kennedy, R., 2017. Retailers’ and manufacturers’ price- promotion decisions: Intuitive or evidence-based? J. Bus. Res. 76, 189–200.
Breugelmans, E., Campo, K., 2016. Cross-channel effects of price promotions: an empirical analysis of the multi-channel grocery retail sector. J. Retailing 92 (3), 333–351.
Bucklin, R.E., Lattin, J.M., 1992. A model of product category competition among grocery retailers. J. Retailing 68 (3), 271–293.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B., Laurent, G., 2000. A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. J. Market. 64 (4), 65–81.
Chen, S.F.S., Monroe, K.B., Lou, Y.C., 1998. The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions. J. Retailing 74 (3), 353–372.
Chi, H.K., Yeh, H.R., Huang, M.W., 2009. The Influences of advertising endorser, brand image, brand equity, price promotion on purchase intention: the mediating effect of advertising endorser. The Journal of Global Business Management 5 (1), 224–233.
Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.
Modern methods for business research 295 (2), 295–336.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., Mahajan, V., 2008. Delight by design: the role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. J. Market. 72 (3), 48–63.
Choong, L.H., 1998. The theory of reasoned action applied to brand loyalty. J. Prod.
Brand Manag. 7 (1), 51–61.
Das, G., Mukherjee, A., Smith, R.J., 2018. The perfect fit: the moderating role of selling cues on hedonic and utilitarian product types. J. Retailing 94 (2), 203–219.
Deval, H., Mantel, S.P., Kardes, F.R., Posavac, S.S., 2012. How naïve theories drive opposing inferences from the same information. J. Consum. Res. 39 (6), 1185–1201.
Dickson, P., Sawyer, A., 1990. The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers.
J. Market. 54 (July), 42–53.
