“The effect of green advertisements and the moderating effect of price promotion. Broadening the differences between self-benefit appeal versus environmental benefit appeal.
Nienke Postma
University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands Student number: s10509100
Master track: MSc Business Studies Marketing Track 1st Supervisor: Frederik Situmeang
2nd Supervisor: Alfred Zerres Date: March 24, 2014
Abstract
Faced with multiple environmental issues, many consumers are increasingly consciousness towards green issues. However, consumers show ambivalent attitudes about green products and buying products, partly caused by negative perceptions about green products. Green advertising is a powerful tool to create favourable perceptions of green products and influence purchase decision. Some research has been done in order to understand the factors that influence consumers in their green purchase decisions. The assumption made in this research is that consumers response towards types of appeal in green advertisements, and that this a crucial aspect concerning the effectiveness of green advertising (Leonidou and Leonidou, 2011). An issue that arises in the context of green consumption, is the fact that consumers do not want to pay a higher price for green products. Price promotion could possible serve as a tool in order to get green products promote, but could also negatively influence the purchase intention of quality perception of green products.
This study assesses consumers perception of advertising messages for organic chocolate, by examining the effectiveness of self-benefit versus environmental-benefit appeal and the moderating role of price promotions. We borrow from the self-construal and prospekt theory to explain consumers perception and purchase intention of green products. The influence of Price Promotion is assessed as it related to the quality perception of (green) products advertised. A total of 187 respondents participated in the research. Respondents were randomly divided into 6 conditions: self-benefit/no price promotion, self-benefit/price promotion, environmental benefit/no price promotion, environmental benefit/price promotion, both-benefit/no price promotion, both-benefit/price promotion. In this between-subject experiment, respondents were assigned to different conditions. Respondents were told that they were looking for chocolate, and different ads were shown in the conditions. Afterwards, the questionnaire contained questions about their purchase intention, quality perception and price perception.
Results showed that chocolate, advertised with a self-benefit appeal was received as less costly, of higher quality and the purchase intentions was higher, in comparing to the environmental appeal. Advertisement containing both self-benefit appeal and environmental appeal, did result in the highest purchase intention, quality perception and price perception. Finally, price promotion is not found to moderate perceptions of message appeal.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ... 5
1.2 Problem statement. ... 6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW. ... 8
2.1 Green advertising. ... 9
2.2 Type of Appeal and Green consumption. ... 10
2.3 Type of consumers; self-concerned versus social motivated. ... 13
2.4 Effect of price promotions. ... 15
2.4.1 Effect of price promotion on purchase intention. ... 15
2.4.2. Effect of price promotion on quality perception. ... 16
3. METHODOLOGY. ... 17
3.1 Participants. ... 18 3.2 Manipulation check. ... 18 3.3 Experimental design. ... 18 3.4 Measures. ... 22 3.5. Data analysis. ... 244. RESULTS. ... 24
4.1 Descriptive results. ... 24 4.2 Main Results ... 25 4.2.1 Influence of appeal ... 254.2.2. Effect of price promotion ... 28
5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION. ... 32
5.1 Conclusion. ... 32
5.2 Theoretical Contribution en Managerial Implication. ... 33
5.3 Limitations and future research. ... 34
APPENDIX. ... 36
References. ... 36 Questionnaire. ... 45 Outputs. ... 52 41. Introduction
Nowadays, consumers are increasingly consciousness towards green issues. The world is currently facing multiple environmental issues, among which climate change, loss of biodiversity, erosion, and a rapid depletion of non-renewable resources (OECD, 2009). The main cause for the environmental problems is identified as increased consumption patterns among all types of consumers, resulting in high economic growth (Grunert 1993; in Chen & Chai, 2012). Environmental issues have gradually become a public concern, and companies increasingly move to the production green products (Chen, 2001). According to The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2009), green products should “to reduce, limit, prevent or correct harmful environmental impacts on employees, water, air, and soil”.
Not only companies and governments are responsible for the enhancement of sustainable economic growth, but also other stakeholders, (e.g. consumers) should be concerned with and responsible for environmental issues. Indeed, research shows that consumers are increasingly concerned about the environmental issues, since direct effects of environmental damage are increasingly visible to them (Chen, 2011). A vast majority of consumers nowadays expresses concerns about environmental impacts of their consumption behaviour and identify themselves as environmentally concerned (Ottman, 1993). More than ever, consumers demand greener firms (i.e. organizations that produce environmentally friendly) and greener products (i.e. products that do not harm the environment; Essousi and Linton, 2010; Bockman, Razzouk & Sirotnik, 2009). Therefore, companies have been forced to develop new products and marketing strategies that are able to fulfil all these consumer requirements.
Fortunately, companies perceive the increased customer preference for green products as an important opportunity . Niche markets for green products are identified, motivating organizations to invest in innovative and creative 'green initiatives', product differentiation and to reach niche markets (Tsen et al., 2006). Consistent with increased environmental concern among different groups of people, empirical research indeed shows that consumers claim to be willing to pay the higher prices associated with green products (Laroche et al., 2001, Loureiro et al., 2002). Although these findings seem hopeful, consumers’ actual buying behaviour is inconsistent with the claimed positive attitude towards “green” products (De Pelsmacker, Janssens, Sterckx &Mielants, 2005; Hanas 2007), and the market share of green products remains surprisingly low (Bray, Johns & Killburns, 2009). Thus, although companies are increasingly focusing on the development of green products, the majority of consumer still chooses to buy 'wallet-friendly’ regular products instead of environmental friendly green products (Rex and Baumann, 2007).
It appears that envisioned behaviour change of consumers is a difficult task, as green products still compete with a high diversity of low-priced regular products. (Thurston & Hoffman, 1999). Accordingly, Keller (2008) suggests that green products need to achieve points of parity on quality, price, and credible 5
environmental claims to make green marketing successful. When consumers are forced to make trade-offs between prices or product attributes versus helping the environment, the environment almost never wins. Hopes for green products have been hurt by the perception that such products are of lower quality, higher of price or don't really deliver on their environmental promises (Browne, 2000; Pickett-Baker and Ozaki, 2008). For example, Ottman (1998) concluded that 41 per cent of consumers refuse to buy green products, since they perceive the green products as inferior quality. Marketing of green products is a challenge, since it needs to achieve two goals; improve environmental quality while satisfying customers.
In conclusion; consumers show an ambivalent attitude towards green products. Ambivalent attitudes toward an object emerge when people sense simultaneous positive and negative evaluations (Scott,1998; in Chang 2011).
1.2 Problem statement.
The problem of ambivalent perceptions towards green products is two-fold. First, some individuals perceive green products as being too expensive and second, part of the individuals believe green products are not necessarily adding value on individual level (self-benefit). An issue that arises in the context of green consumption, is that consumers often resist to buy those green products that involve ‘costs’ at the individual level (e.g. lower quality, higher price) despite the goal of promoting a more societal good (e.g. less harmful to the environment). Despite the fact that companies do spend a great part of their marketing budget on the promotion of green products, consumers still perceive green products as more expensive and insufficient, comparing to the regular concurrent. With increased expenditures, studies towards advertising approaches to successfully reach the green consumer are likely to become important, since research shows us that not all consumers respond positively to green advertisements (Bulik, 2008).
Models of advertising have recognized that, in order to effectively promote the product, advertisers must understand the factors that influence consumers purchase decisions (Shrum et al. 2012 in Kareklas et. al, 2013). Picket- Baker and Ozaki (2008) found that green advertising plays a dominant role in the perception towards green products. They state that in order to get green products accepted by a broad public, it is critical to understand the factors to include in green advertisements. The environmental Leader LLC (2009) commissioned a study in which 80% of the respondent companies indicated that they expect the spending ‘s on green marketing to increase.
Purchase intentions are considered as an important indicator of the actual purchase (Chang and Wildt, 1994). Purchase intention is a concept which measures the willingness of consumers to buy a product and shows the probability that a consumer will buy a product (D’Souza, 2007). Since research (Keller, 2008, Brown, 2010, Chang, 2011) shows us that perceived price and quality are the most critical factors causing the ambivalent perception towards green products, and the goal of green advertising is to change the 6
perception of consumers, it would be interesting to investigate as well how type of appeal in green advertising can create influence this.
The aim of this study is twofold. First, it aims to investigate how consumers perceptions of a green product, in the form of purchase intention, price perception and perceived product quality will differ between two types of appeal in advertisement, and secondly, how this will change, when a certain price promotion is offered. It aims to explore the impact of consumers self-orientation by control for this variables. Although research shows that type of appeal can be of great influence in order to influence purchase behaviour and can serve as a tool to get green products accepted (Leonidou and Leonidou, 2011; Picket-Baker and Ozaki, 2008), not much is known yet about the consumers’ response to the application of types of appeal in green advertisements.
Banerjee, Gulas and Iyer (1995) considered self-benefit appeals (e.g. the goodness of natural products) and environmental appeals (e.g. less harmful impact at the environment) as one of the seven appeals relevant to their content analyses of green advertising. In keeping with this notion, the current research examines which different types of appeal in advertising are most effective. This leads to the question whether self-benefit appeal (appeal that highlight the benefit to the individual self; White and Peloza, 2009) or environmental appeal (e.g. appeal that highlight the advantages for the environment) will be more effective in influencing green consumption.
To date, few studies have examined the relationship between green advertising and especially the impact of message-framing and consumers’ response to green advertising. (Dettmann and Dimitri, 2010; Hartman & Apaolaza-Ilbanez, 2009). To better explain consumers perceptions of product benefits and the effect of price promotions we borrow from the Self-Construal theory and Prospect theory to guide the research. We recognize that one’s self view (i.e. whether a consumer responds to the advertised product from a self-focused perspective of from an other-focused perspective) serves as a control variable within this relationship (Aaker and Lee, 2001). Furthermore, we propose to investigate how price promotions affect this relationship. This is relevant to investigate, since price promotions in regular products have been found to increase sales (Chen & Chai, 2010) and therefore could be a tool to market green products. Investigating what the effect is of adding a price promotion is interesting, since consumers purchase intentions rely quality on the product price. Previous research for the combination of type of appeal and price promotion cannot be found in existing literature.
In the light of the increasing calls for increased environmental sensitivity, investigating the abovementioned concepts seems important. Furthermore, the economic crisis has had significant impacts on consumer spending behaviour, making it all the more difficult to market high(er) priced green products. Especially nowadays, this research is important since green marketers do spend an increasing amount of their marketing budget on green products, but the underlying nature of green appeals is not completely 7
understood, consumers are very price aware and people change their purchasing behaviour during the economic crisis (Bondy and Talwar, 2011). Examining how different types of appeal and sales promotions will influence consumers perceived quality, and purchase intentions, might help in practice in how green products can be better communicated in the market. Based on the problem statement, the following research question has been formulated ;
What is the effect of green advertisements, especially self-benefit versus environmental-benefit appeal, on quality perception, price perception and purchase intentions and to what extent is this relationship
affected by price promotion?
This study provides research in into the specific factors than can encourage green consumption. The study contributes to the knowledge of existing academic research in a few ways.
First, the current study extends previous research by providing insights to examine consumers ’underlying considerations to form attitudes towards, and purchase green products. Will green products be purchased based on self-benefit concerns, or do “other-based” (e.g. environmental and societal concerns) play a role as well. The research add to the theories about appeal in green advertising on perceived quality, and purchase intentions, and shed additional light on consumer reactions to price promotions.
Secondly, measuring the effects of price promotions will create knowledge to what extent it will be effective to use price promotions for green products.
Besides the scientific relevance, the present research also holds an important societal relevance if we take into consideration the harmful effect that regular products will have (OECD, 2009), effective advertising can be a potential factor in reducing the environmental damage.
This paper will be structured in different parts. The literature review will give an overview of the relevant literature about green products, green advertising price perception and price promotions. After the literature review , the corresponding hypotheses can be found. These hypotheses are tested by a self-established experiment among at least 150 respondents. The methodology will give an overview of the experimental design and the results part shows the outcomes of the experiment. Finally a discussion, conclusion and the limitations of the research will be elaborated.
2. Literature review.
The goal of this section is to get insight into literature about green advertising, especially the role of appeal regarding to the response towards green advertisements. The role of price promotion and how this is of 8
influence on the perceived quality and purchase intentions of green products will be discussed as well. Based on the literature review, an empirical research will be executed in order test the literature empirically.
2.1 Green advertising.
Zinkhan & Carlson (1995) define green advertising as “the promotional messages that may appeal to the needs and desires of environmentally-concerned consumers ”. Banerjee et al (1995) defined green advertising as advertising that meets three criteria: ‘explicitly or implicitly addresses the relationship between a product/service and the biophysical environment; promotes a green lifestyle with or without highlighting a product/service; and/or presents a corporate image of environmental responsibility’. Green advertising is an important concept to investigate more in depth, since it generates more favourable attitudes and stronger purchase intentions than broadcast advertisement (Chan, 2004). Shrum et al. (1995) also found that consumers are more receptive for print than TV advertising. Green advertising is of high importance, since it helps companies to distinguish one business from competitors and it is a motivational factor for consumers in creating favorite perceptions of green products. Gosh (2011) specifies this, he states that the goal of green advertising is to improve the environmental quality and to satisfy customers.
On average, companies increase their spending on green advertising (Environmental Leader and Media Buyer Planner, 2009) and nowadays, many marketers tailor advertising messages for green products. Leonidou (2011) stressed the growing importance of green advertising in consumer markets. Despite the growth of green marketing, marketers still do not have the adequate tools for evaluating the success of advertising relative to consumers’ attitudes, intentions and behaviors.
Maignan and Ferrel (2011) state that their there is only premature research on the impact of how green products are communicated, and that more research is required on the way products are communicated and what types of appeal are most effective. Firms increasingly recognize that the development and production of a green product is only the first step in order to get green products adopted among consumers (Hartman & Apaolaza-Ilbanez, 2009). Not only environmentally concerned consumers need to be reached. In order to exploit the opportunities of green products into a more sustainable path, green products must appeal to consumers outside the traditional green niche. Research points out that reaching different type of consumers, will contribute to long-term profits for companies (Sharma et al., 2010).
As mentioned in the introduction, the way consumers react towards green advertising; and especially to type of appeal, are important determinants of the consumer’s intention to buy green products. Picket- Baker and Ozaki (2008) confirmed this statement, and state that green advertising plays a dominant role in the perception towards green products. In order to get green products accepted by a broad public, it is critical to understand the factors to include in green advertisements. Also companies do increasingly 9
recognize that the way they communicate (eg. use ad appeals) affect the persuasion (Sung and Choi, 2011; Kees, Burton and Tangari, 2010).
They recognize that using the right appeal in the advertisement, in order to affect the perceptions of green products, is necessary (Bickart and Ruth, 2012). Within the few studies investigating the relationship between used appeal and response towards the advertisement, most dealt with the influence of emotional appeal (Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995), affective versus cognitive appeal, audience characteristics (Zinkhan and Carlson, 1995), extent of environmental concern and environmental knowledge, (D’Souza and Taghian, 2005) or product type ( Kong and Zhang, 2012).
2.2 Type of Appeal and Green consumption.
An issue that arises in context of green consumption, is that consumers often tend to resist in purchasing green goods that evolve costs to the individual-level (e.g. lower quality, increased costs) despite the goal of promoting a more societal, other-focused good (e.g. less harmful to the environment). Banerjee, Gulas and Iyer (1995) considered self-benefit appeals and environmental appeals as one of the seven appeals relevant to their content analyses of green advertising. To extent this study, I will try to investigate whether self-benefit appeals (appeal which highlights self-benefits of green consumption for the individual self; White and Peloza, 2009) or environmental appeal (e.g. appeal which highlight the advantage for the environment) will be more effective in order to encourage green consumption. Investigating this concept more deeply; could be helpful to identify the drivers of green consumption. In the literature; different outcomes among this subject exists.
On hand, research shows that consumers are more likely to buy green products, when consumers have the perception that something is in it for the individual self (Holmes, Miller and Lerner, 2002). Some research suggest that consumers are more motivated by self-interest than by the interest of the environment. Self-interest all refer to the focus a person has to fulfill the needs, and get maximized value for oneself. Consumers will evaluate whether the expected behavior (e.g. what they should do) corresponds with their own personal concerns (Davis, 2012). There is the tendency to decide in favor of one's own self-interest, which is related to the fact that consumers are often unable to estimate the actual impact of a green purchase (Rokka & Uusitalo, 2008). Consumers will buy a green product when, besides the environmental benefit, they can also see some direct individual benefit in purchasing the product (Nottage, 2008; Stern, 2000). White et. Al (2012) state in their research that “the challenge for marketers is that green products often involve a unique consumer trade-off between individual level costs (high prices) and more external-oriented payoffs (less harmful to the environment). The marketing of green products is therefore a challenge, since it needs to achieve two goals; improve environmental quality while satisfying customers.
According to one view; the adoption of green-behavior would be favored if such behaviors led to concrete benefits for the individual self. According to this, self-concerned consumers do agree the importance of engaging in environmental behavior, but in the end, they refuse to assume the possible consequences. Namely the higher prices (Page and Fearn, 2005) and lower quality (Sen&Bhattacharya, 2001). Generally speaking, consumers will not purchase green products if the purchase does not create a direct benefit for the consumer (Joergens, 2006). An important factor for consumers to not adopt green products, is the perceived risk and uncertainty regarding green products (Chen, 2001). Perceived risks stem from uncertainty about the potentially negative consequences associated with a choice (Laforet, 2008). Consumers are less familiar with green products, resulting in riskier buyer situations. Advertising should response to this phenomenon. Framing the advertising message based on the highest perceived benefit and the lowest perceived risk is essential. This can be explained by using the prospect theory. Prospect theory is a model; which helps to interpret a consumer’s decision-making process (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Prospect theory posits that consumers relate choices to an internal reference point which frames outcomes in terms of subjective potential losses and gains. Prospect theory includes decision making under risk. The theory is the underlying framework for risk aversion and predicts that when a product message is framed positively rather than negatively, consumers are more risk averse in order to secure the potential gains of the product.
This can be applied to advertising as well. The goal of advertisement is to frame the message, based on the motivations for consumers to buy the product. Our study is in line with the prospect theory. We frame the advertisement in terms of environmental benefit versus self-benefit, and test the perception of the green product. Essousi and Linton (2010) extend on this. They conclude that consumers refuse to buy green products since they suspect green products to have inferior quality and higher price; and therefore perceive a risk with buying green products. This can be translated to stressing environmental benefits in advertising. Moreover, stressing environmental benefits in advertisement can enhance this perceived risk.
On the other hand research suggests that environmental appeal can be more influential than factors that people intuitively believe will affect their consumption behaviour, referring to the provision of benefits to the self (Nolan et. Al, 2008). Inconsistent with the mentioned studies above; research suggest that market behaviours are influenced not solely by just self-benefit. Thogersen (2011) found that buying organic food was positively related to unselfish values. He postulated that those findings are indicative of the fact that consumers are not solely driven by selfishness, but are also motivated to serve the environment as well. Studies show that a part of the consumers are willing to pay an extra amount for a green products, also when this product does not provide an individualistic benefit (Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993). Kong and Zang (2012) identified that activating affective mechanisms via advertising can cause a positive perception of green products. They identified that environmental appeal can generate a positive perception of green 11
products. Consumers satisfaction increases when they have the feeling of contributing to social and environmental welfare (Montorio Rios et. Al, 2006). Elfenbein & McManus (2010) agree on this.This green behaviour occurs when consumers are aware of the negative consequences for the environment and assume taking responsibility for undertaking preventative action. Elfenbein & McManus (2010) state that despite the fact that research shows that self-benefit dominates in market behaviour through rational choice, the importance of altruism in green behaviour is considerable. Hartman & Ibanez (2006) argue that consumers experience an intrinsic value in using green products or services and that “individual motivation is driven by a warm glow of meaning”. This could be seen as an impure form of altruism. Guagnano (2001 )also states that stressing environmental appeal (focusing on collective benefit instead of individual benefit) may influence choice as much as expected quality and prices (self-benefit).
As I already mentioned, perceived higher price of green products is a concept which needs to be studies more deeply. Price perception holds the attitude towards the advertised product price (Lichtenstein and Burton, 1989). This concepts holds not the absolute price; but consumers’ perception of the price. Research supports the view that price is a complex construct (Monroe 1973), and for each products consumers have an internal reference price. This is consumers perception of a fair price, which represents the price that consumers think is fair to charge for the product. For the record; consumers perceptions of a fair price need not to correspond to the actual price. When the advertised price of a products is higher than the internal reference price, consumers perceive the selling price negatively. On the other hand, when the selling price of the product is lower than the expected price, consumers perceive the selling price positively. As theory suggest; the low market shares of green products, can be explained by the fact that those products are more expensive than regular products. The Guardian (March 2010) also investigated that 73% of the consumers are deterred from purchase green products and services because of the price.
Generally spoken, consumers do not want to make a trade-off between the individual consequences (i.e. higher price) and the pay-offs for the environment (less harmful to the environment). By stressing self-benefit in an advertising; we assume that consumers are more focused on increasing individual value. Since the self-benefit advertisement emphasize advantages for the individual self (e.g. healthy/better taste) we think that consumers tend to have a more favourable price perception towards the advertisement stressing personal benefits, comparing to the advertising which stresses environmental benefits. Stressing on self-benefit in the advertisement, creates the feeling of individual value and I assume that consumers are more willing to pay a higher price for an individual benefit than for a benefit which serves the environment.
Taken above mentioned all into account, I think that consumers take the self-benefit argument as most important. Consumers would like to have the best quality and the best price. Research in social psychology finds that people are in the essence selfish beings (Fischer et al, 2008) and therefore; one might expect that most purchase intentions are still made in the light of benefitting oneself. We expect that in a 12
market where not all consumers are exactly known with the environmental consequences of buying non-green products (Chen and Chang, 2011), and where the perception of non-green products to have inferior quality and perception of high prices still dominates, we formulated the following hypothesis:
H1a: There is a positive relationship between appeal and purchase intention. H1b: There is a positive relationship between appeal and quality perception.
H1c: There is a positive relationship between appeal and price perception.
H2a: Stressing on self-benefits of an advertised green product will have a more positive influence on the purchase intention, comparing to stressing on environmental benefits.
H2b: Stressing on self-benefits of an advertised green product will have a more positive influence on the quality perception, comparing to stressing on environmental benefits.
H2c: Stressing on self-benefits of an advertised green product will have a positively influence on price perception, comparing to stressing on environmental benefits.
2.3 Type of consumers; self-concerned versus social motivated.
To what extent consumers respond more positive towards the different types of appeal in advertisement; is not as easy to explain as it seems to be. A theory which could help explain the dichotomy regarding this subject, is self-construal theory. This theory points to the notion that selves can be seen as more separate, bounded and individualistic (independent-self construal) or more interconnected and collectivistic (Singelis, 1994). This intervening variable; which can account for the ambiguous evidence and helps understanding the factors that drive green purchase decisions.
The theory was considered in a cultural context, to compare Western and Eastern conceptualizations of the self. The research suggests that Western cultures tend to emphasize autonomy and individualism. People view themselves as more bounded, separate and individualistic. The independent view of the self, characterizes the individual in terms of self-centred attributes and the betterment of one’s self (Aaker and Lee, 2001).The equivalent of the Western cultures, are the East Asian and Latin American countries, they tend to emphasize collectivism, viewing the self as part of a broader social context (Briley and Wyer, 2002). Consumers from independent cultures prefer appeals that are congruent with their individualistic values (e.g. emphasising personal welfare; i.e. self-benefit), whereas consumers from interdependent cultures prefer appeals that emphasize collective welfare. Here selves can be viewed as more interconnected and individualistic. 13
Research has been identified the connection between independent-self en egoistic values, and interdependent self an altruistic values (Lau-Gesk, 2006; Aaker and Williams, 1998; White and Peloza, 2009). In the literature, e.g. the labels self-benefit versus other-benefit, help-self versus help-other have appeared. In this study; we will operationalize the two concepts (i.e. independent-self and interdependent-self) in terms of self-benefit (self-oriented) versus environmental benefit (social-oriented). Independent and interdependent construal can result in different values and attitude towards society and others.
Recently; research extended the literature regarding to the self-construal literature with a third variable; the meta-personal view of the self (DeCicco and Stroink, 2007). This concept stands for how one is connected to all forms of life; and is defined as a construal which does not solely investigates whether people are self- or other focused but it goes beyond those two constructs. It was observed that meta-personal self-construal predicts environmental concern and cooperation; and is therefore more suitable to test how self-view plays a role in response towards green advertising. Arnocky, Stronk and DeCicco, (2007) argue that the understanding of the self is more accurately described by the meta-personal self-construal than the independent or interdependent self-construal. Many authors (e.g. Hill, 2006; Ho, 1995; Friedman, 1983) described that a self-construal is neither or independent nor interdependent in nature. Self-orientation is not defined only by social context (me-other focused). The meta-personal scale reflects the extent to how people reflect on others and to what extent see people those other things as part of the self. For example, take the case of poverty. By using the meta-personal scale; we can test whether world poverty is seen as one’s own poverty. In our case; environmental damage would be the subject. The addition of the third self-construal construct could be helpful in order to understand individual responses to environmental appeals. Utz (2004) found in his research that “the interdependent and metapersonal self-construals were predictive of cooperative attitudes in a “commons dilemma” dealing with, for example, limited environmental resources, where the independent self-construal was negatively correlated with corporation (Arnocky, Stroink and DeCicco, 2007 in: Kareklas, 2013). Self-construal can partly play a role in environmental concern. If one considers the self to include all living things, then one is less likely to harm and more likely to protect the environment. We therefore control for this, by making use of the meta-personal scale.
In the literature referring to green consumption, the view of the self is a subject which had been investigated increasingly. White and Simpson (2013) for example, investigated that sustainable consumer behaviour may be moderated by whether the independent-self construal or the interdependent-self construal is primed. This has important complications for the green advertising strategy; since it provides knowledge regarding the types of appeal in order to increase the effectiveness of green advertisements.
Goal compatibility could help explain this claim. Compatible goals stemming from the view of the self and corresponding goals. When appeal type is in line with an individual goal, this will result in a more 14
positive attitude towards green products and therefore a higher purchase intention. People with an independent self-construal (e.g. focus in on the self; more self-concerned) tend to focus on individual-level goals and self-standards (White and Peloza; 2009). Therefore; an appeal that promotes self-benefit would create a favourable perception of the green product; since the ad is congruent with individual level goals. Individuals with an interdependent self-construal (i.e. focus on others) are more likely to respond positively towards appeal which benefits the whole society (e.g. environmental appeal).
2.4 Effect of price promotions.
2.4.1 Effect of price promotion on purchase intention.
Chang and Wild ( 1994) consider purchase intentions as a crucial factor of the actual purchase. Price promotions are considered to be a promotional activity which aims to enhance consumers’ perceptions of products value and increase their purchase of a product (Devlin et al., 2007; Campo and Yagüe, 2007). People have the perception of savings in money (Sinha and Smith, 2000). Darke and Chung (2005) stated that price discounts enhances value perceptions. Teng (2009) emphasizes that price discounts benefit economically consumers, affect their beliefs about a brand positively and as a result consumers’ buying intentions are increased. Chang and Wildt, 1994 consider purchase intentions as a crucial factor of the actual purchase.
As we mentioned before, consumers have doubts about buying green products because of the higher price (Chang, 2011). Adding a price promotion could positively moderate the relationship. The most used type of promotion is “price discounts” (Alvarez and Casielles, 2005) Retailers offer price discounts since they assume that they are effective in promoting sales (Suri et al., 2000; Grewal et al., 1998). There are numerous ways to present price reductions, for example relative (discount in percentage) and absolute (discount in money) (Chen et al., 1998). In our research we make use of a price promotion in the form of discount in percentage. We expect price discounts to have different effects on the type of appeal.
We assume that people who show a higher purchase intention towards the self-benefit appeal, comparing to an environmental benefit appeal, are more sensitive for the individual benefit (lower price, since the goal is to pay not too much). Their goal is to buy an product with good quality (serving self-benefit) in stead of serving the environment. Therefore we conducted the following hypothesis:
H4: Price promotion has moderating effect on the relationship between appeal and purchase intention. More specified; Adding a price promotion in the self-benefit appeal advertisement, will have a positive moderating effect on the purchase intention ,and therefore serves as a positive moderation in H2a. The moderating effect for adding a price promotion in the environmental appeal will not be significant.
2.4.2. Effect of price promotion on quality perception.
Zeithaml (1988) defines quality as “superiority or excellence”. Quality perception can be defined as the consumers’ judgement about a product’s overall excellence or superiority. Grewal et al (1998) describes quality perception as “a buyer’s estimate of a product’s cumulative excellence”. As mentioned above, quality is an important factor in the ambivalent attitude towards green products. Prior research showed that price affects product perceived quality (Chen et al., 1998; Grewal et al., 1998), but the extent to which consumers will be affected by price will depend on other presented quality cues (Zeithaml, 1988). Price is an important indicator of quality, on one hand, brands and products with high price are considered to be of higher quality (Yoo et al., 2000).
Green products need a special attention regarding sales promotions, since consumers already suspect green products to have inferior quality (Luchs et. Al, 2010, Chang, 2011). Vlosky, Ozanne and Fontenot (1999) note that marketers must carefully set prices for green products, while considering consumers response to costs of green products. Chen et al. (1998) indicates that perceived quality of green is not influenced by sales promotions. However, Grewal et al. (1998) and Darke et al. (2005) stated that price discounts definitely influence the quality perceptions. Consumers associate lower prices with a decrease in quality. Price promotions present a price-reduction and therefore may create the perception that the offer of price discounts is due to lower product quality. This is in line with the Price/Quality signalling theory which hypothesizes that when consumers are unable to directly assess product quality, they may infer it from price (Monroe, 1973). The lower the price, generated by a price promotion, signals lower quality.
We argue that adding a price promotion will differently affect self-benefit appeal and environmental appeal, regarding to quality perception. If the focus of the advertisement lays on self-benefit, we expect that consumer experience the advertisement as having more individualistic value, and therefore the perceived quality for the individual self, stemming from the products; will me more important to the consumers, comparing to the consumers who are more attracted by the advertisement stressing environmental benefit. Since price is an indicator for quality, and consumers associate price-promotions with lower quality (Zeithalm, 1988) adding a price promotion will lower the effect in H2B. Since the focus of advertisements stressing on environmental benefit lies more on a benefit for the environment, the price-quality relationship is less dominant and therefore the moderating effect of adding a price promotion will have a less effect. Therefore we hypotheses the following;
H5: Price promotion has a moderating effect on the relationship between appeal and quality perception.
More specified; adding a price promotion in the self-benefit appeal advertisement, will lower the effect in H2B, and therefore serves as a negative moderation in the relationship between self-benefit ad and quality perception. The effect of adding a price promotion in the environmental appeal will not be significant.
3. Methodology.
The purpose of this research is to examine whether different claim within a green products influence price perception, perceived quality and purchase intentions; and two what extent price promotion is a moderating factor between the different claims and purchase behavior.
In order to do so; the hypotheses are tested by six different questionnaires (see appendix 1 for the questionnaire which is used. A 2 (price promotion-non price promotion) x 3 (self-benefit vs. environmental benefit vs. control) between-subjects experiment is used in order to test the hypotheses. Six different conditions will be tested. Those conditions differ from each by other by the claim emphasized in the advertisement and the use of a price promotion. Table 1 shows the six conditions a respondent can be assigned to.
Type of appeal No- Price Promotion Price Promotion
Self-benefit appeal Condition 1. (N=31, 16,4%) Condition 4 (N=32, 16,9%)
Environmental appeal Condition 2 (N=24, 12,7%) Condition 5 (N=34, 18%)
(control group, environmental and self-benefit)
Condition 3 (N=39, 20,6%) Condition 6 (N=27, 14,3%) Table 1: Six conditions used for the experiment.
Every respondent is only subjected to one condition, and is arbitrarily assigned by using the software Qualtrics. The between-subjects-design has the advantage that little contamination occurs, since the respondent is less able to guess the purpose of the study on beforehand and respond accordingly (Malhotra, 2007). To avoid participants’ prior brand liking and brand preference, a fictitious brand name and package was selected; but the advertisement is based on an existing advertisement. It is expected that the respondents will be mostly students, so therefore it will be important to select a product that students are familiar with. We therefore decided to advertise for chocolate. In daily life, students will use this so it is expected that students are familiar with the subject. We have chosen for a fictive price of €1,39 and in order to communicate the sustainable aspect of the chocolate, we kept two EKO labels instead of the original three.
Respondents were asked to imagine that they were looking for chocolate. The advertisement addresses one of the benefit types regarding green advertising, defined by Leonidou et al. (2011). the relationship between the ad-types. The ad contains textual arguments. After having looked carefully at the advertisement, they were giving a questionnaire to answer. This questionnaire contained questions about purchase intentions, perceived quality, perceived price and manipulation checks. In the beginning of this questionnaire, age, gender, income and work-status were asked.
3.1 Participants.
Every condition required at least twenty-five respondents, so in total at least hundred fifty respondents had to join this experiment. In the end, 187 respondents joined the experiment. The respondents are more or less equally distributed across the six conditions (see table 1). The respondents were approached via private messages on Facebook and email. Since a lot of the participants approached via Facebook are aged between 25-30. I decided to approach the older population via email (Appendix 2). My parents, colleagues and family were asked to forward it to friends and family; so that they could join the experiment as well. This is called the “snowball-effect” (Byrnes, 2011).
The six different survey were built in qualtrics; every conditions meets another hyperlink. The randomizer function in Qualtrics is used to assign respondents to either the control group or to one of the four experimental groups. In order to randomly assigned the different hyperlinks to the respondent; all the six hyperlinks are shown in the email, where I changed the sequences every email. After two days I have closed the survey; taking into account that every conditions needed at least 25 respondents. A total amount of 187 respondents have taken the survey.
3.2 Manipulation check.
In order to ensure that the intended manipulation was successfully the actual study, we conducted a manipulation check. This is to determine that the test is reliable and valid and whether the participants evaluated these stimuli as intended. This is necessary in order to check whether the advertisement are received as having a self-benefit respectively environmental appeal.
For the self-benefit ad; we asked the respondent after the questions have been conducted “What is the most applicable on the advertisement; whereas the respondents could chose for the self-option or the environment option. For the environmental-ad; we asked the same question. 81,5% of the respondents recognized the right benefit in the advertisement, 85% of the respondents indeed recognized a price promotion in the advertisement.
3.3 Experimental design.
As mentioned above; a 2 (price promotion-no price promotion) x 3 (self-benefit, environmental-benefit, both-benefit) experiment has been executed to test the hypotheses. Price perception, purchase intention 18
and perceived quality functioned as the dependent variables in this research. In the next section; the manipulations and the measurement scales will be described. The base and text for the advertisement comes from the “Albert Heijn puur en eerlijk” brand (see Figure 1) , in order to make sure that we would have a plausible advertisement.
Figure 1: Base ad experiment
3.3.1 Benefit appeal.
The product that is used in all of the six conditions is chocolate. The type of appeal has been manipulated by modifying the text into self-benefit appeal and environmental appeal. O hold the stimuli constant, the layout of the publication remain the same, and only the text is modified into stressing self-benefit and stressing environmental-benefit.
The self-benefit appeal is expressed in terms of “better for your health”, “only natural ingredients so better for the taste”, “enjoy chocolate on a healthy way”. The environmental benefit is expressed in terms of “better for the environment”, “no harm towards the ecological system”.
The respondents assigned to condition 5 en 6 saw the both benefit appeal with- or without a price promotion.
3.3.2 Price promotion.
The price promotion that we have used was a 20% discount, based on the price discount which Albert Heijn recently used in their promotion of organic chocolate (AH, 2014).
3.3.3 Stimuli material.
Beneath the advertisements, shown to each condition will be displayed.
Figure 2: Self-benefit NO Price Promotion
Figure 3: Environmental-benefit NO Price Promotion
Figure 4: Both benefit, NO Price Promotion
Figure 5: Self-benefit: Price Promotion
Figure 6: Environmental-benefit: Price Promotion
Figure 7: Both-benefit: price promotion
3.4 Measures.
The internal consistency (reliability) is controlled, by using the Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). George and Mallery (2003) provide guidelines for applying the Cronbach’s alpha: > .9 is excellent, > .8 is good, > .7 is acceptable, > .6 is questionable, > .5 is poor, and < .5 is unacceptable. However, the critical level for this research is assumed to be > 7.
3.4.1 Quality perception.
The first dependent variable of the study will be Perceived Quality. This variable will be interesting to investigate more in depth, in order to see whether the opinion that a consumer will have towards an advertising, will change as a result of different appeal in different advertisements. Respondents could perceive the product differently once the types of appeal are presented, which can result in a difference (positive/negative) perceived quality. Dodds, Monroe and Grewal (1991) developed a scale in order to measure Perceived Quality. This measurement contains statements like “This product would seem to be durable (1: strongly agree to 7: strongly disagree). These statements will be measured on a 7 point Likert scale and the present paper will adopt this scale as well. This scale was reliable with a cronbach’s Alpha = 0,894
3.4.2 Purchase intention.
In order to measure purchase intention; a seven point likert scale will be used. Dodds, Monroe and Grewal (2003) developed a scale in order to measure purchase intentions. The measure of purchase intentions can be critized, since some research (Wertenbroch and Skiera, 2002) state that asking the likeliness of purchase behaviour does not oblige respondents to purchase the products. However, Chang and Wildt (1994) state that purchase intentions are considered as a crucial indicator of actual purchase. scale is also presented in the Marketing Scales Handbook (Bruner et al., 2005). This scale was reliable with a cronbach’s Alpha= 0,940.
3.4.3 Price perception.
In order to measure the price perception, we used the scale of Lichtenstein and Bearden (1998). This dependent variable is conceptually similar to “attitude towards the advertised product price, used in previous studies. Respondents were asked “ I personally feel that the advertised selling price for the chocolate is…”. These statements will be measured on a point Likert scale. This scale was reliable with a Chronbachs Alpha = 0,922
Control variables. 3.4.4 Self-construal.
In order to control for the orientation of consumers, we made use of the self-construal scale. This scale predicts, based on whether people are more oriented to the self or to the universe, ecological corporation. A metapersonal self is more concerned for all living things instead of only focused on the harms for the individual self. The selfconstrual was measured by making use of the Metapersonal Self Scale (MPS) (DeCicco & Stroink, 2000). Questions like “I feel a send of responsibility and belonging to the universe…”where asked. This 10-item scale was reliable with a Chronbachs Alpha = 0.822
3.4.5. Environmental-concern.
The environmental concerns of respondents were measured by making use of the NEP (New Ecological Paradigm scale). Dunlap et. Al. (2000) came up with this scale, which originally contained fifteen items. Participants were asked to answer questions, concerning the relationship between humans and the environment (five point scale). Doorn & Verhoef (2011) shortened this scale to seven items on the basis of a pretest conducted with 300 respondents. I adopted this amount of items, in order to keep the questionnaire as small as possible. This scale was reliable with a Cronbachs Alpha = 0.780
3.5. Data analysis.
The questionnaires used for the experiment are executed by the survey software Qualtrics. The data derived from Qualtrics are included in one SPSS file, in order to compare the means of the different conditions. Each condition is labelled, based on the type of benefit and the presence of a price promotion.
I have created a variable from the self-benefit and environmental-benefit; 1= self-benefit, 2= environmental-benefit and 3= both benefit. The other variable will be non-price promotion = 1; price promotion = 2. In order to test the hypotheses about the direct effect of self-benefit versus environmental benefit type of the claim on the price perception, perceived quality and purchase intention (the dependent variables) we analyzed the results in SPSS. Since the appeal variable consist of more than two conditions, and we would like to know whether type of appeal results in different effects, an univariate analysis will be used. The moderating hypotheses will be tested by executing an analysis of univariance; GLM. This test able to check whether there are significant differences between the means of the pricepromotion/non-price promotion appeal conditions.groups, with continuous data (Field, 2009). The control variables environmental concern, and self-construal will be the covariates.
4. Results.
4.1 Descriptive results.
187 respondents participated in the experiment. Out of these participants, 62 persons were male and 125 persons were female. This is not equally distributed, however we did not expect this to be of influence on the results. The most common age was 25-35 years (42,8%), followed by 24 years or younger (27,8%). This could be a point of interest. The unequal age distribution; is probably due to the fact that my personal circle of relatives and friends has been approached, and they fall into the same category. This declares the high mean of education level. 44,9% of the respondents has an HBO-education, and 38,0% represents University-level. A bit surprisingly, despite the fact that Age and Educational level are not equally distributed, the respondents reflect an equal distribution of income; as can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 8: Age Figure 9: Salary
4.2 Main Results
This part deals with the evaluation of the hypotheses. The confidence interval is set at 95%, i.e. in order to be significant, the condition of p < .05 had to fulfilled.
4.2.1 Influence of appeal
For the direct effect of appeal on the dependent variables, a because the benefit variable consist of more than two conditions, was conducted to compare the effect of appeal on purchase intention, quality perception and price perception in self-benefit appeal, environmental benefit appeal and both-benefit appeal conditions. The test has been run three times; one time for the purchase intention, one time for quality perception and one time for price perception.
Purchase.intention.
The first hypothesis states that there is a difference concerning the types of appeal and purchase intention. The results from Anova shows that the mean of the Self-Benefit condition (M=4,37 SD = 1,67) and the environmental benefit condition n (M=4,34, SD= 1,76) and the control condition (M=4,51, SD=1,46) differ. Participants show a higher purchase intention towards the self-benefit than the environmental benefit. These results are in line with the hypothesis that state that self-benefit more positively influences purchase intentions, comparing to the self-benefit. However, the differences between the appeals is not significant, F(2,184)= 0.190, p (0.89) >0.05. The control variable was not hypothesized. However, participants show the highest purchase intention for the chocolate advertised with benefits for both the self and the environment.
Quality Perception.
The second hypothesis states that there is a difference concerning the types of appeal and quality perception. The results show that the mean of the Self-Benefit condition (M=5,38, SD = 0,89) and the environmental benefit condition (M=4,85 SD= 0,96) and the control condition (M=5,45, SD=0,92). Participants show a higher purchase intention towards the self-benefit than the environmental benefit. However, participants show the highest purchase intention for the chocolate advertised with benefits for both the self and the environment. These hypotheses are in line with the hypothesis that state that self-benefit more positively influences quality perceptions, comparing to the self-self-benefit. The control variable was not hypothesized. The differences is significant F(2,184) = 7.596, p (0.001)<0.05.
Post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni test indicated that the mean difference for the self-benefit appeal (M=5,38, SD = 0,89) and the environmental benefit appeal is (M=4,85 SD= 0,96) is significant; p=(0.05)= 0.05. The difference for the environmental benefit appeal (M=4,85 SD= 0,96) and the both-benefit appeal (M=5,45, SD=0,92) is also significant p=(0,01) < 0,05. However, the self-benefit appeal and the both benefit appeal did not significantly differ p=1,0 > 0.05. Taken together, these results suggests that both-benefit appeal do have the highest effect on the quality perception. Specially, our results suggests that when marketers will use both benefit appeal or self-benefit appeal in in the advertisement for green products, this will positively influence the quality perception. Environmental-benefit do not appear to significantly increase quality perception. Price Perception.
The third hypothesis states that there is a difference concerning the types of appeal and price perception. The results from the one way-anova show that the mean of the Self-Benefit condition (M=5,34, SD = 1,07) and the environmental benefit condition n (M=4,75 SD= 1,48) and the control condition (M=5,36 SD=1,12). Participants show a higher purchase price perception towards the self-benefit than the environmental benefit. However, participants show the highest price perception for the chocolate advertised with benefits for both the self and the environment. These hypotheses are in line with the hypothesis that state that self-benefit more positively influences quality perceptions, comparing to the self-self-benefit. The control variable was not hypothesized. The differences is significant F(2,184) = 4,741, p (0.010)<0.05.
Post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni test indicated that the mean difference for the self-benefit appeal (M=5,34, SD = 1,06) and the environmental benefit appeal is (M=4,75 SD= 1,48) is significant. p=(0,027) < 0.05. The difference for the environmental benefit appeal (M=4,85 SD= 0,96) and the both-benefit appeal (M=5,36 SD=1,12) is also significant p= 0,02 < 0,05. However, the self-both-benefit appeal and the both benefit appeal did not significantly differ p=1,0 > 0.05. Taken together, these results suggests that both-benefit appeal do have the highest effect on the price perception. Specially, our results suggests that when marketers will use self-benefit appeal or other-benefit appeal in in the advertisement for green products, this will positively influence the quality perception. Environmental benefit do not appear to significantly increase quality perception.
4.2.2. Effect of price promotion
The hypotheses are that price promotion has a moderating effect on the relationship between appeal and purchase intention respectively quality perception. The Moderating effect of price promotion on the relationship between appeal and price perception has not been hypothesized, since this relationship is not expected based on the literature. The hypotheses are tested by running an analysis of univariance in SPSS.
Effect of price promotion on purchase intention.
The general mean for purchase intention in the self-benefit condition = (M= 4,4, SD = 1,67). This overview shows that in the self-benefit appeal condition, the mean for purchase intention by showing advertisement without price promotion (M=4,03, SD =1,62) is lower than the mean for self-benefit advertisement which contains a price promotion (M=4,76, SD= 1,67). This outcome is in line with Hypothesis 3A ; which states that adding a price promotion in the self-benefit condition, positively influences the relationship between self-benefit appeal and purchase intention, and therefore serves as a positive moderation in the relationship between self-benefit appeal and purchase intention.
Post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni test indicated that the mean difference for the self-benefit-condition without price promotion the self-benefit self-benefit-condition with a price promotion, is not significant (Mdifference= -0,7282, p>0,05). Showing that there is no significant difference in the self-benefit condition, by showing a price promotion and without a price promotion.
The general mean for purchase intention in the environmental-benefit condition = (M= 4,34, SD=1,76). The mean of the environmental condition without a price promotion is (M=4,24, SD=1,96), is lower than the mean for self-benefit advertisement which contains a price promotion (M=4,41, SD=1,62). This is in contrast with our hypothesis, since we assumed that adding a price promotion in the environmental appeal condition would have no effect. Post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni test indicated that the mean difference for the environmental-benefit-condition without price promotion and the environmental-benefit condition with a price promotion, is not significant (Mdifference= -0,1757, p>0,05). Showing that there is no significant difference in the environmental-benefit condition, by showing a price promotion and without a price promotion.
4.2.2.1 Moderating effect price promotion on quality perception.
The general mean for quality perception in the self-benefit condition = (M= 5,39). This overview shows that in the self-benefit appeal condition, the mean for quality by showing advertisement without price promotion (M=5,23) is lower than the mean for self-benefit advertisement which contains a price promotion (M=5,55). This outcome is in not in line with Hypothesis 3B ; which states that adding a price promotion in the self-benefit condition, negatively influences the relationship between self-benefit appeal and quality perception, and therefore serves as a negative moderation in the relationship between self-benefit appeal and quality perception. This is in contradiction with the hypothesis I have conducted. Post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni test indicated that the mean difference for the self-benefit-condition without price promotion the self-benefit self-benefit-condition with a price promotion, is not significant (Mdifference= -0,3263 p>0,05). Showing that there is no significant difference in the self-benefit condition, between the price promotion-condition and the condition without a price promotion.
The general mean for quality perception in the environmental-benefit condition = (M= 4,75). This overview shows that in the environmental-benefit appeal condition, the mean for quality perception by showing advertisement without price promotion (M=4,99) is higher than the mean for environmental-benefit advertisement which contains a price promotion (M=4,41). This is not in line with Hypothesis 3b.
Post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni test indicated that the mean difference for the self-benefit-condition without price promotion the self-benefit condition with a price promotion, is not significant (Mdifference=0,2312, p>0,05). Showing that there is no significant difference in environmental -benefit condition, by showing a price promotion and without a price promotion.
5 Conclusion and Discussion.
In this part, the findings will be interpreted and discussed. We will answer the research question of the study;
“What is the effect of green advertisements, especially self-benefit versus environmental appeal, on quality perception, price perception and purchase intentions and to what extent is this relationship
affected by price promotion?”
We will discuss the theoretical contributions and managerial implications. This study contains limitations as well, after discussing these limitations we will give suggestions for future research.
5.1 Conclusion.
Hypothesis Outcome
H1a: There is a positive relationship between appeal and purchase intention.
Supported.
H1b: There is a positive relationship between appeal and quality perception.
Supported.
H1c: There is a positive relationship between appeal and price perception.
Supported.
H2a: Stressing on self-benefits of an advertised green product will have a more positive influence on the purchase intention, comparing to stressing on environmental benefits.
Not supported.
H2b: Stressing on self-benefits of an advertised green product will have a more positive influence on the quality perception, comparing to stressing on environmental benefits.
Supported
H2c: Stressing on self-benefits of an advertised green product will have a more positively influence on price perception, comparing to stressing on environmental benefits.
Supported
H3a: Price promotion has a moderating effect on the relationship between self-benefit appeal and purchase intention.
Not supported.
H3b: Price promotion has a moderating effect on the relationship between appeal and quality perception.
Not supported.
Table 2: Overview hypotheses.
The study was conducted in order to test the effectiveness of type of appeal, in particular self-benefit and environmental self-benefit appeal. Furthermore, the moderating effect of price promotions are tested. In table 2, an overview of the hypotheses can be find. This experiment supports our expectation, that appeal positively influence quality perception, price perception and purchase intention. Stressing on self-benefit in advertisements has a more positive influence for the three dependent variables, comparing to stressing on the environmental benefit appeals. We provide empirical evidence suggesting that advertisements highlighting both self-benefit and environmental-benefit appeals may have the most impact in shaping consumers’ perceptions towards green products. These findings are consistent with our hypotheses. We did not set up hypothesis for the both-benefit conditions, since we included this condition as control advertisements.
Surprisingly, we found that consumers show the highest purchase intention, quality perception and price perception towards the advertisement containing both self-benefit and environmental benefit. A possible explanation for this, could be the fact that maybe not the combination of both benefit contributed towards the positive perceptions and intentions of the chocolate advertisement, but instead it could be the result of more (or fewer) message points which are presented in the different conditions. In other words; it was not the amount of information, rather than the content presented (Petty and Cioppo, 1984).
The study found no significant results regarding to effect of price promotions on the relationship between appeal and purchase intentions respectively quality perception. A possible explanation for this could be the fact that we did not measure whether respondents were price conscious. This could affect the results as well. If the population we have used for this experiment was not price conscious at all, results could be biased. However, 85% perceived the price-promotion advertisement as correct, this result could be of influence as well.
5.2 Theoretical Contribution en Managerial Implication.
The outcome of the study shows that product advertised with a both-benefit created the highest quality perception, and chocolate advertised with an environmental benefit shows the lowest quality perception. This implicates that in product categories for which the product attribute quality is important (i.e. luxury products,); marketers should advertises solely with both-benefit appeal or with self-benefit appeal. A critical point here is the way self-benefit appeal should be emphasized in each product category.
The same goes for price perception; people perceive the price as the lowest, when products are advertised with both-benefits. The price of chocolate is perceived as the highest, when products are advertised with self-benefit appeal. This is in line with research; which shows that people do not want to pay higher prices for green products. We did not find a significant effect of adding a price promotion in either the self-benefit condition or the environmental-benefit condition. Price promotion therefore do not create a 33
more positive respectively negative perception of green products. It could be interesting to test whether other forms of promotion, in example extra product promotions could be more effective.
Previous work has stressed the need to reach green consumers (Dettmann and Dimitri, 2010) and especially the way consumers reacted to appeal in green advertising (Leonidou and Leonidou, 2011). Different research shows that price was an important threshold for consumers to buy green products. This thesis contributes to this domain be providing a theoretical understanding of the underlying factors which may drive green consumers, by providing the self-construal theory, we provided a theoretical background of green consumers. Unlike previous self-construal research, we included the meta-personal self contrual; which is more reliable for controlling how consumers react towards environmental issues. Via testing different types of appeal in advertising, we add to the knowledge of the use of different types of appeal in green advertisements. This research is a starting-point for more research concerning the types of appeal in different product categories. Advertisers should consider designing advertising messages that should relate to both-benefit appeal and self-benefit appeal.
5.3 Limitations and future research.
Although this study generates some interesting findings, limitations must be noted. Firstly, chocolate was a relatively low involvement product. Sustainable and organic product are now prevalent in low and high involvement products, and consumers may show different price perceptions or purchase intentions for, in example luxury goods. In order to increase the validity of the findings in this research, a wider range of products should be subject of experiments. Besides the need for making a distinction between low-involvement and high low-involvement products, it would be interesting to investigate what the result would be when the same experiment is executed, with high-environmental impact products. More research should be done in order to test whether this result is representative for more product categories.
Chocolate is an example, for which the product does not contain a lot of (complicated) product attributes. Van Doorn and Verhoef (2011) distinct in their research concerning purchase motivations for organic food, that a distinction should be make towards vice foods (e.g. product that immediately serve as a pleasurable experiences, for example good taste), virtue foods (e.g. is food which is less gratifying and appealing in the short term, but have less negative-long term consequences comparing to the vices, for example yoghurt). By testing consumers responses towards green advertising, a distinction could be made between those product categories.
In addition, the use of a fictitious brand also limits the external validity of the study. In reality, it is likely that consumers would be exposed to a green ad which involves a familiar brand.
