June 24, 2016
SALES PROMOTIONS: THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF SAVINGS WEEKS
AND THE ROLE OF PRICE FRAMING
Author: Willem Verkade
Student number: 10994890
E-‐mail: willemverkade@hotmail.com
Study: MSc. Business Administration – Marketing Track
Institution: University of Amsterdam (UvA)
Supervisor: dr. J.Y. Guyt
Department: Faculty of Economics and Business
University: University of Amsterdam
E-‐mail: J.Y.Guyt@uva.nl
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Willem Verkade who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Acknowledgements
This thesis is the final writing for my Masters in Business Administration (track Marketing) at the University of Amsterdam. It explores the effect of sales promotions on the revenue of a retailer, how this effect is moderated by Savings Weeks, and how price framing influences this relationship.
It would not have been possible to complete my study and this thesis without the help of a number of people. I would like to extend my gratitude towards them for their help.
Firstly, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Dr. J.Y. Guyt. His guidance and expertise have given me the support I needed while writing my thesis. Especially during the molding of my research topic, Jonne was of significant support and I have experienced his supervision as very pleasant.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my study colleagues for their feedback, support and accompanying presence in the library during the past months. Without them, the process of writing this thesis would have been significantly more cumbersome.
And last but certainly not least, I’d like to extend a great thanks to all of my respondents for participating in this study.
Abstract
A recent and largely unexplored phenomenon in grocery retailing is the use of “Savings Weeks” as a new way for deploying sales-promotion tactics. Savings Weeks can be defined as large-scale promotional events in which retailers advertise promotions across multiple categories simultaneously, under a common theme, and across several weeks.
This article focuses on the possible effects of Savings Weeks on the revenue of a retailer. Specifically, the aim of this study is to address the following question: What is the effect of sales promotions on the revenue of a retailer and how is this relation moderated by the concept of Savings Weeks? Additionally, do consumers perceive the value of a deal differently when the price is presented within a different frame, such as “50% off”, or “buy-one-get-one-free”? In other words, how can retailers design their sales promotions in order to achieve the highest revenue? For this study, the Savings Weeks of leading Dutch grocery chain Albert Heijn’s “Hamsterweken” is the unit of analysis.
Through an experimental design, this study examines the effects between five conditions: no form of promotion (control condition); 50% price promotion; 50% price promotion and Hamsterweken; product promotion (buy-one-get-one-free); and extra-product promotion and Hamsterweken.
Results show no significant difference between conditions regarding the retailer’s revenue. Savings Weeks and the nature of framing do not appear to influence consumer’s shopping behavior. These findings provide a certain understanding of consumer responses to sales promotions, specifically Savings Weeks, and their implications can be of significance to managers in finding ways to optimize their sales promotions.
Table of Contents
Statement of originality I
Acknowledgements II
Abstract III
1. Introduction 1
2. Literature Review 3
2.1 Sales Promotions 3
2.2 The Effects of Sales Promotions 4
2.3 Promotion Instruments 6
2.4 Introducing: Savings Weeks 7
2.4.1 Savings Weeks and its Characteristics 7
2.4.2 Brand Equity and Halo Effects 8
2.5 Supportive Non-‐Price Promotions and Price Framing 9
2.6 Conceptual Model 11
2.6.1 Graphical Presentation and Hypotheses 11
2.6.2 Description of Variables 12
3. Method 14
4. Results 18
4.1 Descriptive statistics 18
4.2 Hypothesis testing 20
5. Discussion and Conclusion 26
5.1 Discussion and conclusion of the results 26
5.2 Contribution 28
5.2.1 Theoretical implications 28
5.2.2 Managerial Implications 29
6. Limitations and Future Research 30
7. References 31
8. Appendices 35
8.1 Appendix 1: survey condition 5 (in Dutch) 35
8.2 Appendix 2: SPSS output 44
1. Introduction
Retailers and manufacturers within the consumer-packaged goods market increasingly use sales promotions as the main tool for the increase of sales (Guyt & Gijsbrechts, 2014). The causes for this include the fact that customers are more willing to visit multiple stores (Baltas et al., 2010), and a decreasing willingness to pay premium prices for high-end brands (Steenkamp et al., 2010). Much research has been done into sales promotions within the field of consumer-packaged goods. Specifically, previous research shows that sales promotions have the ability to attract customers to the store and to influence consumer shopping routines (Ailawadi, 2001), and lead to brand switching, stockpiling, and purchase acceleration (Gupta, 1988). Others have found that they can have negative effects (Ailawadi, 2007), and that they stimulate the purchases of non-promoted complementary items in store as well (Walters, 1988).
Until the past few years, grocery retailers used sales promotions primarily as short term, individual actions, within certain food categories. However, a recent and largely unexplored phenomenon in grocery retailing is the use of “Savings Weeks” as a new way for deploying sales-promotion tactics. Savings Weeks can be defined as large-scale promotional events in which grocery chains advertise promotions across multiple categories simultaneously, under a common theme, and across several weeks. Guyt (2015) indicates that the use of Savings Weeks can substantially increase customer visits and spending for the retailer, but that these events can differ significantly in their effectiveness.
The concept of Savings Weeks remains largely unexplored and deserves further attention. For instance, it remains unclear how these events differ from regular sales promotions regarding the revenue for the retailer. A rigorous analysis of this is currently absent within the literature, a lack that motivates the current research. Specifically, the aim of this research is to addresses the following question: What is the effect of sales promotions on
the revenue of a retailer and how is this relation moderated by the concept of Savings Weeks? In other words, can a retailer substantially increase its revenues by using Savings Weeks instead of regular sales promotions? And if so, how can this effect be explained? For this study, the Hamsterweken of leading Dutch grocery chain Albert Heijn is the unit of analysis.
Furthermore, this study contributes to considerations into the potential effect of price framing on consumers’ perception of the value of “equivalent” deals. It addresses two types of promotional offers: price promotions (50% discount), and extra-product price promotion (buy-one-get-one-free).
Through an experimental design, this study explores the effects between five conditions: no form of promotion (control condition); 50% price promotion; 50% price promotion and Hamsterweken; product promotion (buy-one-get-one-free); and extra-product promotion and Hamsterweken.
The second chapter provides a detailed review of previous literature within the field of sales promotions. Subsequently, the theoretical framework is presented and several hypotheses are developed. The third chapter explains how this research was conducted and offers a description of the sample and measurement developments. In chapter 4, the results of this study are presented. Chapter 5 outlines a discussion and conclusion of the results, followed by the limitations and recommendations for future research in chapter 6. In chapter 7, a full list of references is included, and the appendices are presented in chapter 8.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Sales Promotions
The fact that marketing variables affect consumers’ purchase decisions is not new. Marketing researchers and managers continue to explore how marketing-mix variables (product, price, place, promotion) influence consumers’ purchase decisions and thus the sales of a brand (Huang & Sarigöllü, 2012; Luan & Sudhir, 2010). Supermarket store managers continuously test new strategies and tactics that could provide them with short and/or long-term competitive advantages (Smith & Sinha, 2000). A widely used tactic that provides both short-term strategic advantages and longer-term tactical flexibility is sales promotions.
Sales promotions can be defined as “the media and non-media marketing pressure applied for a predetermined, limited period of time at the level of consumer, retailer, or wholesaler in order to stimulate trial, increase consumer demand, or improve product availability” (American Marketing Association1, 2016). Manufacturers and retailers frequently use sales promotions as a marketing tool in their day-to-day business (Gedenk et al., 2006). Manufacturers use this marketing tool in order to increase sales to retailers (also known as trade promotions), and to increase sales to consumers (also known as consumer promotions). This study focuses on the retailer’s promotions, which are used to increase sales to consumers.
The intention of the retailer is to create short-term differentiation, which is necessary in order to attract the consumer to the retailer’s supermarket, versus that of a competitor (Gourville, 1998; Ailawadi et al., 2001). Additionally, sales promotions have the ability to adjust customer-shopping2 routes by using discount prices, thereby attracting customers to
www.ama.org
different parts of the store (Ailawadi et al., 2001). Together, these effects lead to an increase in the short-term sales performance of a retailer.
Previous research shows that sales promotions can have effects that go well beyond an increase of short-term sales (Peattie, 1997). Longer-term advantages that arise through the use of sales promotions occur in terms of consumer awareness, attitudes, and loyalty. However, most researchers focussing on retail promotions concur that their primary function is to increase retailer sales, and thereby retailer profit (Walters, 1991).
The following paragraph offers a more detailed overview of the effects of sales promotions.
2.2 The Effects of Sales Promotions
Nearly all retailers and consumer-goods producers use sales promotions as temporary incentives aimed at changing purchase behavior (Wakefield & Barnes, 1997). Though manufacturers can see the uplift in sales during a promotion period, the question remains what causes this uplift. According to Gupta (1988), the effectiveness of a sales promotion can be examined by decomposing the “sales bump” during a promotion period into sales increase, which occurs due to brand switching (what to buy), purchase time acceleration (when to buy), and stockpiling (how much to buy). He examined the impact of promotions on consumer decisions of what, when, and how much to buy. The results showed that, for coffee, 84% of the sales increase was due to promotion from brand switching (secondary demand effects), that 14% of the sales increase was due to purchase acceleration (primary demand effects), and that stockpiling (primary demand effects) accounted for less than 2% of the sales increase due to the promotion. Across more of these decomposition studies (covering numerous categories and brands) the effects of brand switching account for an average of 74% of the total elasticity, and 26% is due to primary-demand effects (van Heerde et al., 2003).
Primary-demand effects can have negative as well as positive consequences. The negative impact arises from the possibility that consumers would have bought a product at a later moment, at full margin (Ailawadi et al., 2007). But the increase in consumer inventory also has some benefits. Firstly, increased category consumption and pre-emptive brand switches occur. The latter can be defined as “the additional inventory of the promoted brand that pre-empts the consumer’s purchase of a competing brand in the future” (Ailawadi et al., 2007, pp. 450). Furthermore, there is a potential benefit due to the repeat purchases that consumers make after the promotion period.
Previous research by Walters (1988) shows that promotions also affect consumer-purchasing patterns by stimulating purchases of non-promoted complementary items in store (e.g. non-promoted ketchup with promoted burgers). These complementary effects are of special interest to retailers, as increases in sales of complementary products that are sold at full-margin can offset decreases in sales of brands substituting the promoted product. In such cases, one promotion can increase the sales of multiple products. The impact of sales promotions on retailer profit depends on the magnitude of these effects, and logically, on the gross margin of the products sold (Walters, 1991).
Together, this study expects that the effects of sales promotions lead to an increase in (short-term) sales of a retailer. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1: Sales promotions have a positive effect on the revenue of the retailer.
Some marketers and academics consider the increased use of sales promotions to be a consequence of price competition by shortsighted management (Mela et al., 1997). Critics argue that, in the long run, sales promotions increase price sensitivity and destroy brand equity. As a result, many experts call for more effective promotions that rely less on price
knowledge is needed on how sales promotions of consumer-packaged goods affect sales of the retailer (Walters, 1991). To attain a better overview of the various types of sales promotions, the following paragraph offers a summary of the existing promotion instruments that are used by retailers.
2.3 Promotion Instruments
Retailers use various types of sales promotions in order to affect the perception of the consumer regarding the value of a deal. Figure 1 shows an overview of the promotion instruments that retailers use, developed by Gedenk et al. (2006).
Figure 1: Promotion Instruments (Gedenk et al., 2006)
In categorizing promotion instruments, the first distinction that can be made is that between price and non-price promotions. Temporary price reductions (TPR) are the most frequently used type of instrument, but other forms of price promotions are possible. More specifically, retailers use promotion packs and loyalty discounts that force consumers to buy several units, or coupons. This requires consumers to bring the coupon to the store in order to
get a discount, and rebates which consumers can use it to get a discount afterwards by sending in the receipt (Gedenk et al., 2006).
“Supportive” non-price promotions can be considered to be communication instruments, which are used to alert consumers to a product or to other promotion instruments. They are often used to draw attention to price promotions that are featured or displayed. However, they can also be used without price promotions, such as a feature that advertises a new product (Gedenk et al., 2006).
Lastly, retailers can use “true” non-price promotions, in which the focus lies on the brand or store level, rather than on the price reduction. However, techniques such as sampling and premiums are frequently used by manufacturers, and not by retailers (Gedenk et al., 2006).
Promotions within the consumer-packaged goods market are mostly based on a single item, brand, or category. As in many cases this results in multiple store shopping, several retailers have brought forth a new type of sales promotions, called Savings Weeks. The following paragraph offers an introduction to this concept.
2.4 Introducing: Savings Weeks
2.4.1 Savings Weeks and its Characteristics
This kind of sales promotion is quite different from business-as-usual discount promotions. Savings Weeks are large-scale promotional events in which retailers advertise promotions across multiple categories simultaneously, under a common theme, and across several weeks. This study focuses on the Savings Weeks of the Dutch grocery chain Albert Heijn (a subsidiary of Ahold). Their concept is called Hamsterweken, and offers a broad set of products at a buy-one-get-one-free pricing mechanism, over consecutive weeks. The goal of the retailer is to attract additional customers to the store and to increase current customers’
This promotional event differs from regular sales promotions in content, communication, and timing (Guyt, 2015). In terms of content, the promotions differ in the sense that they are presented under an overarching theme: Hamsterweken. This promotional event offers deals in a broad range of categories throughout the store, with unusually deep discounts that are mostly quantity based (buy-one-get-one-free).
Albert Heijn’s communication for their theme Hamsterweken also differs from their other promotions. This theme is not only expressed in-store, but also with out-of-store promotions that support it (e.g. nation-wide TV-advertisements, and special folders). Additionally, Hamsterweken applies in-store, as well as on the website of Albert Heijn.
Concerning timing, though the promoted products rotate on a weekly basis (around 50 products per week), Albert Heijn’s Hamsterweken is extended over a longer period than regular promotions (around three weeks, compared to the usual one week). Furthermore, Hamsterweken is a recurring event that is mostly held two times a year: usually in January (after Christmas), in May/June (before the holidays), or in August (after the holidays), as these are the periods in which people are strapped for cash. However, Albert Heijn communicates only shortly before the start of the event. In this way, customers cannot prepare themselves for the discount weeks.
2.4.2 Brand Equity and Halo Effects
In addition to attracting new customers to the store and increasing current customers’ spending, it is possible that Albert Heijn uses Hamsterweken because the retailer attempts to increase its overall brand equity. A commonly accepted definition of brand equity is that it “represents the value of a product, above that which would result for an otherwise identical product without the brand’s name” (Leuthesser et al., 1995, pp. 57). In other words, brand equity represents the value of the brand’s name alone. Keller (1993) states that brand equity is viewed from the perspective of the individual consumer. He therefore introduces the concept
of customer-based brand equity (CBBE), which he defines as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (Keller, 1993, pp. 2). Positive (negative) CBBE arises when consumers react more (less) favorably to an element of the marketing-mix of a brand than to the same marketing-mix element when it is attributed to another version of the product by a different brand (Keller, 1993).
Brand equity has very much in common with the “halo effect”, a cognitive bias in which an individual’s overall perception of an entity influences his or her perception of that entity’s attributes (Leuthesser et al., 1995). With the Hamsterweken, Albert Heijn attempts to influence consumers’ perception of the retailer (the entity) by offering unusually deep discounts, thereby creating positive brand equity. According to the halo-effect theory, this can cause consumers to rate the entities’ attributes similarly. In this case, this means that consumers will have a more positive attitude towards the individual products that are promoted (attributes of the entity) because of their attitude towards the retailer. In other words, by holding the Hamsterweken, consumers’ perception of Albert Heijn will generally be more positive. Due to their positive perception, it is possible that consumers also rate Albert Heijn’s products more positively, thereby stimulating their buying behavior.
Due to the characteristics of Savings Weeks and the possible resulting halo effects, this study expects the impact of the Hamsterweken on the revenue of the retailer to be higher than regular sales promotions. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H2: During Savings Weeks, sales promotions have a stronger positive effect on the
revenue of the retailer.
2.5 Supportive Non-Price Promotions and Price Framing
Retailer promotions can cause a large bump in short-term sales of a promoted brand or product. Increases of 100+ percent are not uncommon. However, price elasticities differ
across categories and are dependent of the promotion instruments that are used (Gedenk et al., 2006). For instance, supportive non-price promotions can be used to stimulate the effects of price promotions by drawing attention to them. Narasimhan et al. (1996) have found that unsupported price discounts of 15% yield an average sales increase of 34% (across 108 product categories), whereas the same discount percentage supported by a feature generates a 161% increase, and a 15% price cut supported by a display even generates a 293% increase.
Supportive non-price promotions can also serve to frame a deal as they appear different depending on the frame one places around it (Gedenk et al., 2006). For example, retailers may use external reference prices (normally €3.95, now €1.95), price cuts expressed in percentages (50% off), or absolute discounts (€2 off). This type of price framing can have strong effects by influencing consumers’ value-perception of a deal. The objective of the retailer in these deals is clearly to communicate superior deal-value to the consumer. The most interesting attribute of this strategy is that sellers benefit not by lowering the price amounts of the deals, but simply by using an appropriate “framing” for the deals that they offer. By doing so, retailers attempt to enhance consumers’ perceived transaction-values without lowering the actual price (Sinha & Smith, 2000).
In their research, Sinha & Smith (2000) evaluate three types of deals: price promotion (50% discount), extra-product promotion (buy-one-get-one-free), and mixed promotion (buy 2, get 50% discount). They found that 49% of their respondents reported that they perceived the highest value from the price promotion, that 21% preferred the extra-product promotion, and that only 4% preferred the mixed promotion. This can partially be explained by the study of Russo (1977), which shows that consumers are more capable to process price in absolute, rather in than unit terms. Consumers therefore perceive higher transaction-value from the price promotion than from the extra-product promotion (Russo, 1977), implying that consumers are more likely to buy price-promoted products. Though the price promotion and
the extra-product promotion are within the same terms regarding unit costs, it has to be taken into account that the price promotion entails the lowest total cost as the extra-product promotion forces the consumer to buy at least two products.
This study compares the effect of the use of price promotion (50% discount) and extra-product promotions (buy-one-get-one-free) during Savings Weeks. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: A discount price promotion has a stronger positive effect on the revenue of the retailer than extra-product promotion.
2.6 Conceptual Model
2.6.1 Graphical Presentation and Hypotheses
H1: Sales promotions have a positive effect on the revenue of the retailer.
H2: During Savings Weeks, sales promotions have a stronger positive effect on the revenue of the retailer.
H3: A discount price promotion has a stronger positive effect on the revenue of the retailer than extra-product promotion.
Sales promotions (0/1/2) Revenue of the retailer Savings Weeks (yes/no) + H1 + H3 + H2
2.6.2 Description of Variables
Sales promotions (independent variable): Sales promotions can be defined as “the
media and non-media marketing pressure applied for a predetermined, limited period of time at the level of consumer, retailer, or wholesaler in order to stimulate trial, increase consumer demand, or improve product availability. Usually, the price being promoted is a reduction from a previously established price and may take the form of a lower price, a coupon to be redeemed or a rebate to be received” (American Marketing Association, 2016). This study focuses on price promotions (50% discount) and extra-product promotion (buy-one-get-one-free).
Price Framing (categories of independent variable, 0/1/2): Price framing is a strategy
that retailer’s use in order to influence consumer’s value perception of a deal. They attempt to “frame” the deal as well as possible in the eyes of the consumer, without lowering the actual price. This study compares the effect of the use of price promotion (50% discount, category 1 in the model), and extra-product promotions (buy-one-get-one-free, category 2 in the model). A control condition is also incorporated (no discount, category 0 in the model), in order to confirm that the results from this study are not a coincidence.
Revenue of the retailer (dependent variable): Revenue can be measured at different
levels (e.g. product, category, or retailer). This study focuses on revenue at the level of the retailer, as the goal is to examine the increase in the retailer’s total revenue that results from the promotion. The dependent variable is not only measured by the total amount spent, in euros, but also by the number of products sold. As the prices of the products vary between conditions, it is useful to look at the number of products sold as well.
Savings Weeks (moderator): Savings Weeks are large-scale promotional events in
common theme, and across several weeks. This study focuses on the Savings Weeks of the leading grocery chain in The Netherlands: Albert Heijn’s Hamsterweken.
3. Method
The aim of this study is to measure the effect of sales promotions on the revenue of the retailer, how this relation is moderated by the concept of Savings Weeks, and if price framing can influence it. In order to test the proposed hypotheses, a quantitative research was conducted. The collection of data was done by means of surveys, which measure the revenue of the retailer Albert Heijn (the leading supermarket in The Netherlands).
Five different surveys were set up, each representing a different condition (see table 1). In condition 1, respondents can shop at Albert Heijn while there is neither a discount nor Savings Weeks. Conditions 2 and 3 allows respondents to shop against a 50% price discount, while in condition 2 there is no communication about the Savings Weeks that are presented. In conditions 4 and 5, a different price frame is used and respondents can shop against a buy-one-get-one-free price mechanism. Only in the latter is the concept of Savings Weeks expressed. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the five surveys by clicking on the Master Survey link they received, and were not aware of other treatments, in order to ensure complete independence.
Table 1: Conditions
Condition: Discount Savings Weeks
1 No No
2 50% No
3 50% Yes
4 1+1 No
5 1+1 Yes
Firstly, respondents were asked a few questions about themselves and their shopping behavior in the supermarket in order to obtain some descriptive statistics. Secondly, an introductory text was presented to them, which told respondents how they could do their
groceries in the coming time. Depending on the survey, respondents were redirected to the randomizer, in which the terms of their particular condition were outlined.
A list of 20 products (see table 2) was presented and respondents were asked to indicate whether they would like to buy the product (yes/no). The products were chosen from the latest real-life Savings Week of Albert Heijn and were randomly presented to the respondents. In order to force respondents towards a more active processing of the survey, 5 of the 20 products were offered at their fixed price in all conditions. In order to prevent the possibility that they simply buy everything that is offered to them, it was commented to respondents that, though it is not their own money with which they shop, they must try to make conscious choices. Finally, respondents were asked whether they are familiar with the concept Hamsterweken and questions were asked about their response to discounts in supermarkets. Respondents evaluated this by means of a five-point Likert scale.
A copy of the survey of condition 5 (extra-product-promotions + Hamsterweken) can be found in appendix 1. It should be noted that the introduction text of Q9 differs between conditions, which is the priming phase, in which respondents were confronted with the terms of their condition. Furthermore, the prices of the products in Q10-Q29 differ between conditions, which logically also entails that the photos of the products with price banners attached to them differ. As previously stated, these questions were presented to respondents in a randomized order so that their buying behavior would not be influenced by the order of the presented products.
After all of the respondents had filled in the surveys, the data needed in order to analyze the difference in the revenue of retailer Albert Heijn, between conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were provided. The difference in revenue between conditions 1&2 explains the sales bump that results from a regular sales promotion. More importantly, the difference in revenue between conditions 3&2 explains the sales bump that results from the additional effects that
Savings Weeks can trigger, in addition to the price discount. Furthermore, the difference in revenue between conditions 2&4 and 3&5 explains the differential effect that price framing can cause.
The surveys were designed in Qualtrics (a private research software company), and distributed via the internet, mainly on social media. Prior to distributing the surveys, a pre-test was done in order to examine whether the surveys functioned, as they should. A small group of respondents were asked to fill in the surveys and to provide feedback. Small adjustments in the surveys were made accordingly. Since this study focuses on consumer shopping behavior in the Dutch supermarket Albert Heijn, only Dutch people were included in the final sample. There were no further restrictions for the sample to be representative. A total of 387 surveys were collected within one week of distribution.
Table 2: Products in survey
* These products are offered at the fixed price in all conditions
Categorie Product Vaste prijs
AGF AH gepaneerde schnitzel €2,75
AGF AH rundertartaar €2*
AGF AH italiaanse roerbakmix €1,99
AGF AH uien middel €1,19*
Maaltijden & Conserven AH verse spaghetti €1,99
Maaltijden & Conserven AH hollandse stamppot boerenkool €3,09
Maaltijden & Conserven AH pannenkoeken naturel €2*
Maaltijden & Conserven Unox tomatensoep mascarpone €1,95
Zuivel AH verse roomkaas met kruiden €1,46
Zuivel AH Goudse jong 48+ plakken €1,85
Zuivel Mona intense vla rijke vanilla €1,49*
Dranken Crystal Clear sparkling lemon €1,29
Dranken Pickwick ice tea lemon €1,61
Snoep Sportlife smashmint €2,29
Snoep Klene muntdrop mild zoet €1,32
Non-food WC Eend toiletreiniger €1,85
Non-food Sun vaatwastabletten €6,59
Non-food Oral-B tandpasta 3D white €3,79
Non-food Dove deeply nourishing douchecrème €2,99*
Non-food Robijn wasmiddel color €6,19
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics
In total, 387 respondents completed the five surveys. However, 69 respondents incorrectly filled out the survey and were excluded from further analyses. Furthermore, the items concerning the purchase of the products needed to be recoded into different variables in order to perform further analyses. The items were recoded from yes = 1 and no = 2, to yes = 1 and no = 0. Finally, the dependent variable (revenue of the retailer) was created in two ways: Revenue_number, which represents the sum of the number of purchased products, and Revenue_value, which represents the total amount spend (in euros). The latter was computed in several ways as the prices of the products differ between conditions. Descriptive statistics, skewness, kurtosis, and normality test were performed. Revenue_number (M = 7.93, S = 3.04) had a skewness of .34 and a kurtosis of .54, and revenue_value (M = 16.82, S = 8.22) had a skewness of .72 and a kurtosis of .2, which indicated that the distribution is close of being normal for both variables.
The distribution between men and women was unevenly divided: 35.8% male, 64.2% female. The average age of the respondents was 40.12 years old and there were two groups in majority: people <30 (44%) and people 50-60 (36.2%) years old. The overrepresentation of the females and the latter groups was most probably due to the self-selective nature of the data-collection procedure and the networks used to find respondents. On average, respondents live in a household with over three people (M = 3.66, S = 2.33), go almost four times per week to the supermarket (M = 3.74, S = 2.02), and spend over a 100 euros per week at groceries (M = 103.51, S = 87.25). Furthermore, the descriptive statistics indicated that out of the 318 respondents the vast majority has a preference for supermarket Albert Heijn (76.4%) over Jumbo (8.2%) and respondents that have other or no preferences for a supermarket
(15.4%). Lastly, nearly all respondents (96.2%) stated that they are familiar with the Hamsterweken of Albert Heijn. For detailed distribution of the sample see table 3.
Table 3: descriptive statistics of sample (N = 318)
Frequency In % Gender Male 112 35.8 Female 201 64.2 Age (years) M = 40.12, SD = 16.39 <30 140 44 30-49 40 12.6 50-60 115 36.2 >60 23 7.2 Persons household M = 3.66, S = 2.33
Times to supermarket per week M = 3.74, S = 2.02
Amount spend per week (in €) M = 103.51, S = 87.25
Preference supermarket Albert Heijn 243 76.4
Jumbo 26 8.2
Other/no 49 15.4
Familiar with Hamsterweken Yes 306 96.2
No 12 3.8
The randomizer of the Master survey in Qualtrics evenly presented the different surveys to respondents. Notable is that condition 3 had a lot more (32.1%) respondents than the other surveys, but an explanation for this is lacking. However, this had no negative impact on the research as it only meant that more reliable conclusions could be drawn from condition 3. Table 4 gives an overview of the distribution of surveys across respondents.
Table 4: Distribution of conditions across sample
Condition Frequency Percent
1 48 15.1 2 57 17.9 3 102 32.1 4 56 17.6 5 55 17.3 Total 318* 100
* This is the total of valid responses
4.2 Hypothesis testing
This paragraph shows the results of the hypotheses derived from the proposed conceptual model. Firstly, a one-way ANOVA was used to test whether there were differences between conditions regarding the revenue of the retailer. Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics of the ANOVA. Table 6 shows that the model is not significant for Revenue_number with F(4, 313) = 1.65, p = .161. However, Revenue_value showed to be significant with F(4, 313) = 36.03, p = .00. Sales promotion also explains a significant proportion of the variance in Revenue_value (R² = 0.315).
Yet, the latter effect was caused by the different prices of the products in condition 2 and 3. In table 5 can be seen that Revenue_value of condition 2 (M = 13.11, S = 4.58) and condition 3 (M = 11.77, S = 4.27) differs considerably from Revenue_value of the other conditions. This can be explained by the fact that (most of) the products in these conditions have a discount of 50%. Therefore, the total revenue will logically be lower. Since the analyses already showed us there is no significant difference in Revenue_number, it can be concluded that it is not the model of this study that explains the effect in Revenue_value, but the different product prices in condition 2 and 3. Since Revenue_value is biased by discounts of condition 2 and 3, the dependent variable is from now on only measured in Revenue_number.
Table 5: Descriptive statistics one-‐way ANOVA Condition Mean (Revenue_number) Std. deviation Mean (Revenue_value) Std. deviation 1 8.7708 3.56842 20.5408 9.37378 2 8.2632 3.03860 13.1146 4.57630 3 7.5686 2.58139 11.7654 4.26142 4 7.8571 2.88210 21.8032 7.97153 5 7.5818 3.40311 21.7113 8.65887 Total 7.9277 3.04091 16.8197 8.22399
Table 6: ANOVA statistics
Sum of squares
df Mean
square
F Sig.* Revenue_number Between groups 60.546 4 15.137 1.650 .161
Within groups 2870.790 313 9.172
Total 2931.336 317
Revenue_value (€) Between groups 6759.600 4 1689.900 36.030 0.000 Within groups 14680.379 313 46.902
Total 21439.979 317
* Statistical significance: p < .05
Firstly, this study tested whether sales promotions have a positive effect on the revenue of the retailer. Secondly, it was tested if Albert Heijn’s Hamsterweken have an additional effect to this relationship. And finally, whether manipulating the price frames of the products between different conditions can influence this effect. In other words, do the Hamsterweken strengthen the effect of sales promotions on revenue of the retailer in case of a sales promotion? Subsequently, do consumers show different buying behavior when the prices of the products are framed differently? To test the corresponding hypotheses, a contrast
Table 7 shows the contrast coefficients that are based on the hypotheses of this study. Every group received a score in line with the hypothesis. Groups that were not included in the hypotheses received a zero as a score. In this way, it was possible to run multiple contrasts and all hypotheses were tested.
Contrast 1 represents hypothesis 1, and tested whether sales promotions have a positive effect on the retailer. To approve this hypothesis, contrast 1 has to be significant, with p < .05. As the test of homogeneity of variances (see table 8) shows to be significant for Revenue_number (p = .038), variances must not be assumed equal. The output of the contrast test (see table 9) indicated that contrast 1 is not significant with a contrast value of 3.81, t (60.61) = 1.735, p = .088. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is rejected.
H1: Sales promotions have a positive effect on the revenue of the retailer.
(rejected)
Contrasts 2 and 3 together represent hypothesis 2 and tested whether sales promotions have a stronger positive effect on the revenue of the retailer. Again, variances are not assumed to be equal as the test of homogeneity showed to be significant for Revenue_number. The contrast test shows that contrast 2 was not significant with a contrast value of .69, t (101.16) = 1.26, p = .15. Contrast 3 is also not significant with a contrast value of .28, t (105.48) = .46, p = .65. This means there is no difference between the conditions with Savings Weeks (3&5) and the conditions without Savings Weeks (2&4) regarding the number of products sold. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is rejected.
H2: During Savings Weeks, sales promotions have a stronger positive effect on the revenue of the retailer (rejected)
Finally, contrast 4 and 5 represent hypothesis 3 and tested whether a discount price promotion has a stronger positive effect on the revenue on the retailer than extra-product promotion. Once again, variances are not assumed to be equal. Contrast 4 has a contrast value of .41, with t (110.86) = .73, p = .47 and contrast 5 had a contrast value of -.01, with t (88.17) = -.03, p = .98. This implicates that neither contrast 4 nor contrast 5 is significant and hypothesis 3 is therefore also rejected.
H3: A discount price promotion has a stronger positive effect on the revenue of the retailer than extra-product promotion (rejected)
Table 7: Contrast coefficients
Contrast Condition 1 2 3 4 5 1 4 -1 -1 -1 -1 2 0 1 -1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 -1 4 0 1 0 -1 0 5 0 0 1 0 -1
Table 8: Test of homogeneity of variances
Levene statistic df1 df2 Sig.*
Revenue_number 2.567 4 313 .038
Table 9: Contrast test Contrast Value of contrast Std. Error t df Sig.* (2-tailed Revenue_number
Does not assume equal variances 1 3.8126 2.19790 1.735 60.605 .088 2 .6945 .47677 1.257 101.156 .148 3 .2753 .59908 .460 105.483 .647 4 .4060 .55706 .729 110.864 .468 5 -.0132 .52526 -.025 88.168 .980 * Statistical significance: p < .05
In sum, the results implicate that there is no difference in the revenue of the retailer between conditions, thereby rejecting all hypotheses. Out of interest in the research topic, a minor additional analysis was performed to test whether the non-promoted products were bought more/less frequently in certain conditions. Although no hypothesis on this matter was formulated in advance, it could still be interesting to examine whether the promoted products stimulate the purchase of the non-promoted items.
In order to do so, the dependent variable was encoded to Revenue_value (non-promo) and the same contrast test as before was used. As table 10 suggests, variances may not be assumed equal. The output of the contrast test (see table 11) indicates that contrast 1 was significant, with a contrast value of 2.72, t (81.02) = 4.96, p = .00. Based on the contrast coefficients in table 7, this study found that there is a significant difference between condition 1 and the remainder conditions. Since the value of contrast 1 was positive, this means that in condition 1 more non-promoted products were sold than in the remainder conditions. The table also shows that there is no significant difference of number of non-promoted products sold between the other conditions (contrast 2-5).
Output of the statistical analysis can be found in appendix 2. The next chapter gives a brief conclusion and discussion of the results.
Table 10: Test of homogeneity of variances
Levene statistic df1 df2 Sig.*
Revenue_number (non-promo)
4.115 4 313 .003
* Statistical significance: p < .05
Table 11: Contrast test
Contrast Value of contrast Std. Error t df Sig.* (2-tailed Revenue_number (non-promo) Does not assume
equal variances 1 2.7207 .54861 4.959 81.021 .000 2 .1677 .18866 .889 92.039 .376 3 -.0597 .19753 -.302 108.186 .763 4 .2055 .21217 .969 107.076 .335 5 -.0219 .17203 -.127 98.286 .899
5. Discussion and Conclusion
5.1 Discussion and conclusion of the results
This study considered the effects of sales promotions on the revenue of the retailer and how this relation is moderated by a recent and largely unexplored phenomenon in grocery retailing: Savings Weeks. In addition, it examined the potential effect of price framing on consumer perceptions of the value of equivalent deals. Specifically, the aim of this research is to addresses the following question: What is the effect of sales promotions on the revenue of a retailer and how is this relation moderated by the concept of Savings Weeks? For this study, the Hamsterweken of the leading Dutch grocery chain Albert Heijn is the unit of analysis. Five conditions were set up and data was retrieved by means of surveys, which were completed by 318 respondents.
Firstly, the results of this study show no significant evidence that sales promotions have a positive effect on the revenue of the retailer, thereby rejecting hypothesis 1. Respondents did not buy more products in conditions 2-5, which all have some form of discount, compared to condition 1 (control condition), which does not have a discount on the products. The finding that sales promotions do not have a positive effect on the revenue of the retailer is somewhat questionable since a significant amount of research states otherwise (e.g. Gourville, 1998; Ailawadi et al. 2001). Subsequently, this study examined the moderating effect of Savings Weeks on the relation between sales promotions and the revenue of the retailer. Despite the characteristics of the concept, the results show that the Hamsterweken had no significant effect on Albert Heijn’s revenue. This implies that consumers are not more agitated to buy more products when the Hamsterweken are active, and hypothesis 2 is also rejected. This finding is also contradictory since the research by Guyt (2015) indicates that the use of Savings Weeks can substantially increase customer visits and spending of the retailer.
promotions (buy-one-get-one-free) in order to test the possible effect of price framing. In their research, Smith & Sinha (2000) found that consumers preferred price promotions to extra-product promotions. This study expected this theory to hold for Savings Weeks as well. However, results from this study show that consumers are indifferent to this matter. Hypothesis 3 is therefore also rejected.
Additionally to the original research, this study found that in condition 1 more non-promoted products were sold than in the remainder conditions. This implicates that the sales promotions of condition 2-5 did not stimulate consumers’ buying behavior on the non-promoted products. In fact, the exact opposite occurred. An explanation for this could be that the non-promoted products were not entirely complementary in nature. Besides that, the number of non-promoted products was quite low (five in total), which can cause consumers are only interested in the products that have a discount.
Somewhat surprisingly, there was no support for any of the hypotheses in this study. To answer the research question, this study is bound to conclude that sales promotions do not have any significant effect on the revenue of the retailer. Secondly, Savings Weeks do not influence this relationship. And finally, there is no evidence that price framing can be used to increase the revenue of the retailer.
The following question arises: How is it possible that the results of this study are not as expected? Is there an explanation for this? Firstly, it is possible that the theoretical model is not sufficiently accurate. For instance, certain effects could cancel each other out: an issue which future research can explore. Secondly, it is questionable whether consumers’ awareness of Hamsterweken exists sufficiently for conclusions on the subject to be drawn. However, a manipulation check was performed to control whether respondents were familiar with the concept of Hamsterweken. As 96.2% of the sample stated being familiar with Albert ‘s Hamsterweken, it can be ruled out that this played a role. Furthermore, it is possible that the
expected differences in revenue between groups are too small to be measurable within the sample size of this research. In order to enhance the validity of the research, a larger pool of respondents is needed. Another possible reason for the outcomes of this study is the set-up of the five conditions. As the manipulation between the conditions is the determining factor in this study, it is questionable whether the manipulations worked, as they should. Due to the characteristics of the research method of this study, it is quite difficult to manipulate respondents. Additionally, respondents were asked to shop with fictitious money rather than their own, making it conceivable that they made different choices than they would have in real life. As it is possible that these factors played a role in the outcomes of this study, it can be doubted whether the adequate research method was adopted.
However, the previously mentioned explanations for the results of this study are somewhat speculative in nature. Clearly, more research is needed to address the questions that arise from the findings of this study. Chapter 6 elaborates on the limitations, and on recommendations for future research.
5.2 Contribution
5.2.1 Theoretical implications
Sales promotions of consumer-packaged goods are a widely studied subject within the literature (Gupta, 1988; Ailawadi, 2007; van Heerde et al., 2003). However, a recent and largely unexplored phenomenon in grocery retailing is the use of Savings Weeks as a new way for deploying sales promotion tactics. This study elaborates on previous work by Guyt (2015), which shows that Savings Weeks can increase consumer spending and visits at the retailer. The concept of Savings Weeks remains largely unexplored and deserves further attention. This study contributes to considerations regarding the potential effect of price framing on consumers’ perception of the value of “equivalent” deals. Unfortunately, this
study did not find empirical evidence that Savings Weeks, nor the use of price framing could substantially increase the revenue of the retailer. It nonetheless contributes to the literature on sales promotions and Savings Weeks specifically, by providing new insights that can be of value for further research.
5.2.2 Managerial Implications
This study provides new insights for managers of retail chains into the effectiveness of sales promotions, and specifically Savings Weeks, as well as the role of price framing. Though no support for the proposed hypotheses was found, retail managers can use these insights in optimizing their sales promotions. Knowledge into how retail sales promotions affect the revenue of the retailer is critical, as retailers attempt to increase the effectiveness of their sales promotions, thereby improving their competitive position within the marketplace. As a result, sales during promotions can increase and eventually benefit the profit of the retailer. This information will also be useful for product manufacturers, as the outcomes of sales promotions in a grocery chain are of great value for a brand. In this way, manufacturers can optimize their promotion mechanisms in order to increase sales of their brand.
6. Limitations and Future Research
There are some limitations in this study. Firstly, the sample that was used is not representative for the entire Dutch population, as respondents are approached by means of convenience sampling. In order to enhance the validity of the research, a larger pool of respondents is needed. As the findings of this study are somewhat questionable, it can be questioned whether an adequate method was used. However, time constraints and the unavailability of resources allowed for no other methods to be adopted within this research. As previously stated, another possible reason for the outcomes of this study is the set-up of the five conditions. As the manipulation between the conditions is the determining factor in this study, it is questionable whether this can be executed in a better way. Additionally, this study focused only on Albert Heijn’s Hamsterweken. In order to make more reliable statements about Savings Weeks in general, future research should include multiple Savings Weeks of different retailers. Mainly due to the methodological limitations, future research should explore whether there is more adequate way to pursue similar research. Based on the results of this study, it is advisable to pursue future research within a more realistic setting, such as in-store shopping. The concept of Savings Weeks remains largely unexplored and deserves further attention.
7. References
Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., & Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing the value-conscious consumer: store brands versus national brand promotions. Journal of marketing, 65(1), 71-89.
Ailawadi, K. L., Gedenk, K., Lutzky, C., & Neslin, S. A. (2007). Decomposition of the sales impact of promotion-induced stockpiling. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 450-467.
Baltas, G., Argouslidis, P. C., & Skarmeas, D. (2010). The role of customer factors in multiple store patronage: A cost–benefit approach. Journal of Retailing, 86(1), 37-50.
Bell, D. R., Chiang, J., & Padmanabhan, V. (1999). The decomposition of promotional response: An empirical generalization. Marketing Science, 18(4), 504-526.
Bijmolt, T. H., Heerde, H. J. V., & Pieters, R. G. (2005). New empirical generalizations on the determinants of price elasticity. Journal of marketing research, 42(2), 141-156.
Gedenk, K., Neslin, S. A., & Ailawadi, K. L. (2006). Sales promotion. In Retailing in the 21st Century (pp. 345-359). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Gourville, J. T. (1998). Pennies-a-day: the effect of temporal reframing on transaction evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 395-403.
Gupta, S. (1988). Impact of sales promotions on when, what, and how much to buy. Journal of Marketing research, 342-355.
Guyt, J. (2015). Consumer choice models on the effect of promotions in retailing. Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
Guyt, J. Y., & Gijsbrechts, E. (2014). Take Turns or March in Sync? The Impact of the National Brand Promotion Calendar on Manufacturer and Retailer Performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(6), 753-772.
Van Heerde, H. J., Gupta, S., & Wittink, D. R. (2003). Is 75% of the sales promotion bump due to brand switching? No, only 33% is. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 481-491
Huang, R., & Sarigöllü, E. (2012). How brand awareness relates to market outcome, brand equity, and the marketing mix. Journal of Business Research, 65(1), 92-99.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 1-22.
Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C. S., & Harich, K. R. (1995). Brand equity: the halo effect measure.
European Journal of Marketing, 29(4), 57-66.
Luan, Y. J., & Sudhir, K. (2010). Forecasting marketing-mix responsiveness for new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 444-457.
Mela, C. F., Gupta, S., & Lehmann, D. R. (1997). The long-term impact of promotion and advertising on consumer brand choice. Journal of Marketing research, 248-261.
Narasimhan, C., Neslin, S. A., & Sen, S. K. (1996). Promotional elasticities and category characteristics. The Journal of Marketing, 17-30.
Peattie, K., Peattie, S., & Emafo, E. B. (1997). Promotional competitions as a strategic marketing weapon. Journal of Marketing Management, 13(8), 777-789.
Russo, J. E. (1977). The value of unit price information. Journal of Marketing Research, 193-201.
Sinha, I., & Smith, M. F. (2000). Consumers' perceptions of promotional framing of price. Psychology & Marketing, 17(3), 257-275.
Smith, M. F., & Sinha, I. (2000). The impact of price and extra product promotions on store preference. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 28(2), 83-92.
Steenkamp, J. B. E., Van Heerde, H. J., & Geyskens, I. (2010). What makes consumers willing to pay a price premium for national brands over private labels?. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1011-1024.
Tellis, G. J. (1988). The price elasticity of selective demand: A meta-analysis of econometric models of sales. Journal of marketing research, 331-341.
Wakefield, K. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1997). Retailing hedonic consumption: a model of sales promotion of a leisure service. Journal of Retailing, 72(4), 409-427.
Walters, R. G. (1988). Retail Promotions and Retail Store Performance: A Test of S. Journal of Retailing, 64(2), 153.
Walters, R. G. (1991). Assessing the impact of retail price promotions on product substitution, complementary purchase, and interstore sales displacement. The Journal of Marketing, 17-28.
8. Appendices
8.1 Appendix 1: survey condition 5 (in Dutch)
Albert Heijn - Conditie 5 Q1 Beste,
Dank voor het deelnemen aan mijn onderzoek ter afronding van mijn studie.
Dit onderzoek is bedoeld om meer inzicht te krijgen in het koopgedrag van consumenten in de Nederlandse supermarkt.
De resultaten zijn volledig anoniem en worden alleen gebruikt voor academische doeleinden. Het invullen van de enquête duurt slechts 3-4 minuten.
Succes! Q2 Wat is uw geslacht? ! Man ! Vrouw Q3 Wat is uw leeftijd? ________
Q4 Uit hoeveel personen bestaat uw huishouden? ________
Q5 Wat is uw vaste supermarkt? ! Albert Heijn
! Jumbo ! Anders/geen
Q6 Hoe vaak gaat u gemiddeld per week naar de supermarkt? ________
Q7 Hoeveel besteedt u gemiddeld per week bij de supermarkt? Antwoord in € ________
Q34 Bent u bekend met de Hamsterweken van Albert Heijn? ! Ja
! Nee
Q8 Op de volgende pagina volgt een korte introductie tekst. Lees deze goed door voor het beantwoorden van de vragen!
Q9 (stel je voor) Je bent klant bij Albert Heijn en je wilt boodschappen gaan doen voor de komende tijd.
Sinds 2 weken zijn de Hamsterweken* bij Albert Heijn! Inslaan dus!
Er volgt nu een lijst met producten, waarbij je bij de meeste de 2e GRATIS krijgt. Per product kan je aangeven of je het product in je mandje wil gooien of niet.
* "Hamsterweken" is een reclamecampagne van Albert Heijn waarin zij vele producten, uit verschillende categorieën, voor meerdere weken tegen hoge kortingen verkoopt.
Q10 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? AH Gepaneerde Schnitzel (2stuks)
2 voor €2,75
! Ja ! Nee
Q11 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? AH Rundertartaar (2stuks)
€2
! Ja ! Nee
Q12 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? AH Italiaanse Roerbakmix
2 voor €2,99
! Ja ! Nee
Q13 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? AH Uien (middel)
€1,19
! Ja ! Nee
Q14 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? AH Verse Spaghetti
2 voor €1,99
! Ja ! Nee
Q15 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? AH Hollandse Stamppot Boerenkool
2 voor €3,09
! Ja ! Nee
Q16 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? AH Pannenkoeken Naturel
€2
! Ja ! Nee
Q17 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? Unox Tomatensoep Mascarpone
2 voor €1,95
! Ja ! Nee
Q18 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? AH Verse Roomkaas Met Kruiden
2 voor €1,46
! Ja ! Nee
Q19 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? Goudse Jong 48+ Plakken
2 voor €1,85
! Ja ! Nee
Q20 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? Mona Intense Vla Rijke Vanille
€1,49
! Ja ! Nee
Q21 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? Crystal Clear Sparkling Lemon
2 voor €1,29
! Ja ! Nee
Q22 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? Pickwick Ice Tea Lemon
2 voor €1,61
! Ja ! Nee
Q23 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? Sportlife Smashmint (4-Pack)
2 voor €2,29
! Ja ! Nee
Q24 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? Klene Muntdrop Mild Zoet
2 voor €1,32
! Ja ! Nee
Q25 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? WC-eend Toiletreiniger
2 voor €1,85
! Ja ! Nee
Q26 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? Sun Vaatwastabletten Citroen
2 voor €6,59
! Ja ! Nee
Q27 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? Oral-B Tandpasta 3D White Brilliance
2 voor €3,79
! Ja ! Nee
Q28 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? Dove Deeply Nourishing Douchecrème
€2,99
! Ja ! Nee
Q29 Wilt u het volgende product kopen? Robijn Wasmiddel Klein & Krachtig Color
2 voor €6,19
! Ja ! Nee
Q30 Bedankt voor het shoppen bij Albert Heijn! Nog een paar korte vragen en dan zit de enquête erop.
Q32 Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
Geheel oneens
Oneens Neutraal Eens Geheel eens
Ik ben een prijsbewuste
shopper bij het doen van boodschappen
! ! ! ! !
Ik ben gevoelig voor aanbiedingen
bij het doen van boodschappen
! ! ! ! !
8.2 Appendix 2: SPSS output
Frequency Table
Conditie
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No discount, no SW 48 15,1 15,1 15,1 50%, no SW 57 17,9 17,9 33,0 50%, yes SW 102 32,1 32,1 65,1 1+1. no SW 56 17,6 17,6 82,7 1+1, yes SW 55 17,3 17,3 100,0 Total 318 100,0 100,0 Wat is uw geslacht?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Man 112 35,2 35,8 35,8
Vrouw 201 63,2 64,2 100,0
Total 313 98,4 100,0 Missing System 5 1,6
Total 318 100,0
Wat is uw vaste supermarkt?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Albert Heijn 243 76,4 76,4 76,4
Jumbo 26 8,2 8,2 84,6
Anders/geen 49 15,4 15,4 100,0
Total 318 100,0 100,0
Uit hoeveel personen bestaat uw huishouden?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 36 11,3 11,5 11,5 2 85 26,7 27,2 38,7 3 38 11,9 12,1 50,8 4 69 21,7 22,0 72,8 5 48 15,1 15,3 88,2 6 15 4,7 4,8 93,0 7 3 ,9 1,0 93,9 8 6 1,9 1,9 95,8 9 3 ,9 1,0 96,8 10 2 ,6 ,6 97,4 12 1 ,3 ,3 97,8 13 6 1,9 1,9 99,7 14 1 ,3 ,3 100,0 Total 313 98,4 100,0 Missing System 5 1,6 Total 318 100,0
Hoe vaak gaat u gemiddeld per week naar de supermarkt?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 0 1 ,3 ,3 ,3 1 1 ,3 ,3 ,6 1 29 9,1 9,1 9,8 2 57 17,9 18,0 27,8 3 80 25,2 25,2 53,0 4 48 15,1 15,1 68,1 5 55 17,3 17,4 85,5 6 19 6,0 6,0 91,5 7 18 5,7 5,7 97,2 8 1 ,3 ,3 97,5 9 1 ,3 ,3 97,8 10 5 1,6 1,6 99,4 14 2 ,6 ,6 100,0 Total 317 99,7 100,0 Missing System 1 ,3 Total 318 100,0
Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:-Ik ben een prijsbewuste shopper bij het doen van boodschappen
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Geheel oneens 20 6,3 6,3 6,3
Oneens 44 13,8 13,8 20,1
Neutraal 91 28,6 28,6 48,7
Eens 129 40,6 40,6 89,3
Geheel eens 34 10,7 10,7 100,0
Total 318 100,0 100,0
Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:-Ik ben gevoelig voor aanbiedingen bij het doen van boodschappen
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Geheel oneens 9 2,8 2,8 2,8
Oneens 27 8,5 8,5 11,4 Neutraal 54 17,0 17,1 28,5 Eens 183 57,5 57,9 86,4 Geheel eens 43 13,5 13,6 100,0 Total 316 99,4 100,0 Missing System 2 ,6 Total 318 100,0 Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic
Std. Error Revenue_Numbe r 318 ,00 20,00 7,9277 3,04091 ,337 ,137 ,536 ,273 Revenue_Value 318 ,00 43,39 16,8197 8,22399 ,719 ,137 ,199 ,273 Valid N (listwise) 318
