The role of price framing, product category and content personalisation on consumers’ willingness to redeem mobile coupons

(1)

The role of price framing, product category and content

personalisation on consumers’ willingness to redeem mobile

coupons

Program: MSc Business Administration

Program: Msc Business Administration

Track Specializations: Digital Business

Student: Enka Merko

Student number: 10676074

Supervisor: Raoul Kübler

Submission Date: June 22nd, 2018

Word Count: 16 382

(2)

2 Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Enka Merko 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.

(3)

3 Abstract

Purpose: This research analysis the extent to which price framing, product category and content personalization influence consumers’ willingness to redeem mobile coupons.

Design: The answer to the research question is given through an online survey experiment. The experiment adopts a 2x2x2 between-subject design.

Findings: The empirical results of this research show that product category directly influences consumers’ willingness to redeem m-coupon, such that they are more likely to redeem hedonic m-coupons. Price framing influences willingness to redeem only when this relationship is moderated by product category. Specifically, the willingness to redeem increases when hedonic products are combined with non-monetary promotions and when utilitarian products are combined with monetary promotions. The results also show that content personalization is more effective in utilitarian m-coupons than in hedonic m-coupons. Theoretical implications: This research demonstrates that focusing on internal m-coupon characteristics aids increasing redemption rates. It also emphasizes on the importance of moderators on examining the factors that influence consumers’ willingness to redeem and tackling contradicting findings in the existing literature. Hence, it initiates a new method for research on m-coupon redemption determinants.

Managerial Implication: The findings directly assist m-coupon practitioners on how to combine m-coupons’ characteristics to increase willingness to redeem. Particularly, marketers should combine hedonic coupons with non-monetary promotions and utilitarian coupons with monetary promotion. Marketers should also focus on personalising utilitarian product coupons.

Keywords: m-commerce, m-coupons, product category, price framing, content personalization, willingness to redeem

(4)

4

5

3.3 The moderating role of Product Category ... 37

3.4 The moderating role of Content Personalization ... 38

4. Methodology ... 41

4.1 Research Strategy... 41

4.1.1 Experimental Design ...42

4.2 Sample... 43

4.3 Data collection technique ... 45

4.4 Manipulation and Research Originality ... 46

4.5 Pre-Test ... 47 4.6 Measurement Scales... 48 4.7 Data Analysis ... 50 5. Results ... 51 5.1. Variable Measurement ... 51 5.1.1 Normality Check ...51 5.1.2 Reliability Analysis ...52 5.1.3 Factorial Analysis ...53 5.1.4 Correlation Analysis ...55 5.2 Hypothesis testing ... 57

5.2.1 Product Category and Price Framing ...57

5.2.2 The moderating effect of Product category...60

5.2.4 The moderating effect of content personalization...65

(6)

6

6. Discussion and Conclusions ... 71

6.1 Product Category ... 73

6.2 Price Framing ... 74

6.3 Moderating role of Product Category ... 75

6.4 Moderating role of Content Personalization ... 77

6.5 Theoretical Implications ... 78

7. Managerial Implications ... 80

8. Limitations and Future Research ... 81

9. Bibliography ... 82

Appendix A. Questionnaire ... 90

Appendix A1: Front Page ... 90

Appendix A2: Forced Response ... 90

Appendix A3: Vignette ... 91

Appendix A4: Random Clicking ... 92

Appendix A5: Personalized Coupon ... 92

Appendix B. Results ... 93

Appendix B1: Robust PC, PF—WTR ... 93

Appendix B2: The Moderating role of PC on PF—WTR ... 94

(7)

7

List of Tables and Figures

Figure 2. 1. Summary of Literature Review ... 13

Table 2. 1. M-commerce definitions ... 14

Table 2. 2. M-commerce tools: Conceptualization and CPV ... 16

Table 2. 3. M-coupons promotion type ... 21

Table 2. 4. Summary of m-coupons redemption determinants ... 26

Table 2. 5. Summary of the existing findings ... 33

Figure 3. 1. Conceptual Model ... 34

Table 3. 1. Summary of hypotheses ... 40

Figure 4. 1. Methodology ... 41

Figure 4. 2. Conditions ... 42

Table 4. 1. Summary of participants ... 44

Table 4. 2 . CA and FL of the measurement scales ... 49

Table 5. 1. Skewness and Kurtosis ... 51

Table 5. 2. Reassessed Measurement Scales ... 52

Table 5. 3. Factorial Analysis ... 54

Table 5. 4. Correlation Matrix ... 55

Table 5. 5. Results obtained from hierarchical multiple regression analysis... 58

(8)

8

Table 5. 7. Independent-sample t-test results of Price Framing ... 60

Table 5. 8. Results obtained from Process Analysis on the impact of PC on PF—WTR... 60

Table 5. 9. Conditional effect of PF on WTR at levels of PC ... 61

Table 5. 10. Independent-sample t-test results of Condition 3 and 4 ... 62

Table 5. 11. Independent-sample t-test results of Conditions 1 and 2 ... 63

Table 5. 14. Results obtained from Process Analysis on the role of PC on PF—WTR ... 65

Table 5. 15. Conditional effect of PC on WTR at levels of CP ... 66

Table 5. 20. Regression results for willingness to redeem m-coupons ... 70

(9)

9 1. Introduction

Rapid digital evolution of the 21st century contributes to an increase in the number of communication tools between marketers and consumers. Mobile marketing has recently emerged as a new marketing technique and has attracted the attention of many scholars and practitioners on its implications and benefits (Shankar & Balasubramanian, 2009). Shankar & Balasubramanian (2009) define mobile marketing as two- or multi-way communication and promotion of an offer between a firm and its customers using mobile as a medium, device or technology. The two- multi-way communication nature allows for higher interaction between these two parties.

BIA/Kelsey’s (2017) predicts that mobile marketing spending will exceed $65 billion by 2020, therefore emphasizing its value recognition by firms. Specifically, in the retail market, promotional techniques are essential elements to generate sales and increase profits (Ailawadi, Beauchamp, Donthu, Gauri & Shankar, 2009). Hence, for firms to stay relevant in the increasingly competitive market, it is essential to understand how to capture value from mobile as a medium (Ailawadi et al., 2009). However, the personal nature of mobile devices, its instant connection to the Internet and the low resource capacity imply that businesses cannot directly transfer the rules of the stationary Internet to the mobile Internet (Chae & Kim, 2003). In sum, the recent focus of firms towards mobile marketing requires studies to emphasize the impact that these developments have on the firm tactics and consumers.

A crucial mobile marketing tool that has recently received a lot of attention is mobile coupons, which refers to digital coupons collected and stored in a mobile device carrying a text, picture, audio or videos until a customer decides to redeem them (Dickinger & Kleijnen, 2008). A study of 305 billion mobile coupons shows that on average merely 8-10% coupons are redeemed (Statista, 2016), raising speculations behind these low rates. This contradicts

(10)

10

the rational consumer choice theory, which argues that buyers make prudent and logical decisions in their highest self-interest, subject to their budget constraints (Hands, 2009). Consequently, we can expect the majority of consumers to redeem mobile coupons as they indeed offer economic benefits. This dilemma has caught the attention of many scholars, and a considerable amount of research has been performed on the drivers of mobile coupon redemption.

The existing literature recognizes two main streams of direct effects on coupon redemption. On the one hand, researchers focus on the impact of mainly external m-coupon characteristics on coupon redemption such as expiration length; coupon proximity; day of the week; time of the day and coupon order (Danaher, Smith, Ranasinghe & Danaher, 2015; Dickinger & Kleijnen, 2008). On the other hand, they seek to explain the impact of consumers’ characteristics and behavior on coupon redemption, including demographics (age and gender), prior coupon redemption, price consciousness, attitude, satisfaction, time value, and embarrassment (Swaminathan & Bawa, 2005; Khajehzadeh, Oppewal & Tojib, 2015).

However, only a few studies focus on the impact of internal mobile characteristics. For instance, Khan & Dhar (2010) argue that the way promotional offers are framed, form a perception of gain and losses on consumers’ minds, and can directly affect their purchase intentions. Hence, this study will square on the direct effect of price framing on consumers’ willingness to redeem m-coupons. Specifically, it will focus on comparing monetary with non-monetary promotions, that consist of the same face value. These types of frames are under-analyzed in the current literature. Scholars generally focus on the difference between monetary frames and percentage, not specifically for m-coupons.

Furthermore, the products or services associated with m-coupons can also influence consumers choices of redeeming coupons (Chandon, Wansink & Laurent, 2000). The

(11)

11

prospect theory argues that when products are categorized as hedonic or utilitarian, consumers behavior changes accordingly to perceptions of gains and losses. However, most of the existing studies do not emphasize on the different impact that these two types of product categories have on m-coupon redemption. Additionally, rather than merely looking at its direct influence, the moderating role of product category on the relationship between price framing and willingness to redeem will be analyzed. Data retrieved from mobile shoppers, allows marketers to advance segmentation and targeting techniques by combining different price frames with product categories.

Lastly, the literature on personalized marketing is somewhat contradicting. Constantinides (2004) argues that consumers are reluctant to share their data due to the fear of spamming, hacking and negative exploitation. Hence, they sacrifice personalization for self-protection. However, Han and Maclaurin (2002) argue that consumers are likely to choose personalization over protection. This study tries to resolve this contradiction by analyzing the moderating effect of content personalization rather than its direct effect on m-coupons. Hence, the following research questions are addressed:

1) To what extent does price framing, product category and content personalization influence consumers’ willingness to redeem m-coupons?

a) To what extent does product category moderates the relationship between price framing and willingness to redeem?

b) To what extent does content personalization moderates the relationship between product category and willingness to redeem?

There is a twofold contribution of this paper. With regards to theory, it brings new insights on how internal coupon characteristics influence willingness to redeem m-coupons. Besides, it emphasizes on the importance of the moderating role of determinants on

(12)

12

coupon-redemption, by suggesting future researchers to focus more on this aspect. To marketers, the findings can be used to increase m-coupon redemption rates by suggesting optimum combinations between price framing, product category, and content personalization. The answer to the research questions will be given through a classical online experiment, which allows controlling for each variable and its settings.

This paper is organized as follows. In the second section, the existing relevant theories and empirical results on coupon determinants will be presented. In the third section, the conceptual model and the relevant hypotheses are discussed. Next, the methodology and the data analysis of the research will be elaborated. Subsequently, the results of the survey will be presented followed by a discussion. Lastly, managerial implications, research limitations and suggestion for future research will be explained.

(13)

13 2. Literature Review

In this chapter, the existing literature is reviewed and structured in five sub-chapters, namely: m-commerce, m-coupons, existing determinants, proposed determinants and research gap. These sections will aid in identifying the research gap and building the hypotheses that this study will examine. Figure 2.1. below summarizes the topics that will be reviewed for each sub-chapter.

Figure 2. 1. Summary of Literature Review

2.1 Mobile Commerce

As m-commerce is increasingly attracting the attention of several scholars and practitioners, it is essential to examine the current definitions to provide a shared understanding of its implications and benefits to firms and consumers. It is also important to highlight the m-commerce differences with electronic m-commerce to discover the determinants and tools that might influence their success, respectively. Thus, the upcoming sections elaborate more on these aspects.

2.1.1 M-Commerce Conceptualization

While examining the existing literature on the definition of m-commerce, it was noted that scholars did not agree on a single shared definition. However, an agreement is crucial in promoting a shared understanding of m-commerce financial and behavioral implications, and

(14)

14

benefits (Balasubramanian, Peterson & Jarvenpaa, 2002). Table 2.1. below summarize the most cited definitions given by scholars, which will assist in identifying the common terms used among these definitions.

Table 2. 1. M-commerce definitions

Authors Definitions

Kaplan (2012) Any marketing activity conducted through a ubiquitous network to which consumers are constantly connected using a personal mobile device.

American Mobile Marketing Association (2009)

Using a wireless medium (mobile phone or PDA) for an integrated distribution of certain content and a direct response in an integrated marketing programme.

Tiwari& Buse (2007)

Any transaction, involving the transfer of ownership or rights to use goods and services, which is initiated and/or completed by using mobiles access to computer‐mediated networks with the help of mobile devices

Shankar &

Balasubramanian, (2009)

Two- or multi-way communication and promotion of an offer between a firm and its customers using mobile as a medium, device or technology

Varnali & Toker (2010)

Mobile marketing as a channel which allows business entities to establish a ubiquitous electronic presence alongside their customers anytime, anywhere.

A closer inspection of these definitions reveals that m-commerce refers to the communication of firms with consumers to either promote or sell goods and services, using mobile devices as a medium. Contrary to Tiwari & Buse (2007), m-commerce is not merely a transaction, but it’s an integrated experience where the aim is also to build strong relationships with consumers (Varnali & Toker, 2010). Hence, for m-commerce to succeed ubiquitous internet connection and a mobile device is required.

(15)

15

2.1.2 Distinction with e-commerce

According to Chae and Kim (2003), the attributes and rules of m-commerce cannot directly transfer to the traditional stationary Internet commerce. The authors base their arguments on three main perspectives. Firstly, the user’s perspective argues that mobile devices are more private than conventional stationary Internet devices. People are more likely to share their PCs than their mobile phones, which makes mobile devices continually bear the user’s identity. Secondly, the environmental perspective refers to the instant connection to the Internet of mobile devices due to their portable nature. Conversely, e-commerce works solely on the stationary Internet. Thirdly, the system’s perspective distinguishes between the two types of commerce on the availability of resources. Specifically, mobile devices have smaller screens, are less appropriate for input/output facilities and have low multimedia processing capabilities than stationary devices.

However, Nohria & Leestma (2001) argue that the e-commerce is not different from m-commerce, but is simply a new form of consumerism and a more powerful way to approach and communicate with consumers. The authors also argue that firms should be able to identify opportunities in m-commerce to thoroughly understand its benefits. Nevertheless, this infers that stationary e-commerce techniques cannot be transferred to m-commerce. Hence, this research favors the initial argumentation of distinguishing m-commerce from traditional e-commerce, mainly because the tools applied are different.

2.1.3 M-Commerce Tools

Varnali & Toker (2010) conduct a thorough classification of 255 peer-reviewed journal articles on m-commerce based on theory; strategy; consumer behavior and legal and public policy. The most common mobile tools presented include mobile payment, location-based

(16)

16

services, mobile gaming, and mobile coupons. Currently, researchers use these terms interchangeably to refer to m-commerce in general. However, their definition and the values they bring to consumers differ from each other as it is also shown in Table 2.2. below.

Table 2. 2. M-commerce tools: conceptualization and CPV

Mobile tool Conceptualization Consumer Perceived Value Mobile payment M-payments refer to making

payments online using mobile devices as a medium (Chen, 2008).

Consumers perceived value (CPV) is highly dependent on perceived risk, usefulness and emotions for such tool. It needs to be convenient, ubiquitous and time-saving for the CPV to increase. (Wu, Liu & Huang. 2017).

Location-based service

(LBS)

Defined as the ability to identify consumer’s or object’s location at a certain point in time to shape the service (Pura, 2005).

CPV can increase because of social interaction and convenience. However, privacy and trust issues decrease CPV (Pura, 2005).

Mobile gaming

Service that allows users to participate in interactive multiplayer games (MPG) against other mobile users irrespectively of time or location (Kleijnen, Ruyter & Wetzels, 2004).

CPV can differ per user, however it is highly dependent on the product category, navigation ease and design. High perceived risk, complexity and compatibility can decrease CPV (Kleijnen et al, 2004).

Mobile coupons

Defined as digital coupons received and stored in a mobile device carrying a text, picture, audio or videos until a costumer decides to redeem them (Dickinger & Kleijnen, 2008).

CPV increases mainly because of the economic benefit, but also convenience of not having to carry the coupon around. However, it can decrease with privacy issues and learning costs (Dickinger & Kleijnen, 2008).

(17)

17

2.2 Mobile Coupons

This section elaborates more on one of the commerce tools mentioned above, namely, m-coupons. As stated in the Introduction section, there is a need for practitioners on how to increase the redemption rates of m-coupons. However, it is crucial to understand the concept itself, the difference with electronic coupons, its firm values, and types, in order to identify the factors that influence the redemption rates. This is mainly because the m-coupons internal characteristics might also have an impact on consumers’ willingness to redeem.

2.2.1 M-coupon conceptualization

Dickinger & Kleijnen (2008) define m-coupons as digital coupons received and stored in a mobile device, which carry a text, picture, audio or video until a customer decides to redeem them. Besides, Danaher et al. (2015) define m-coupons as “a particular form of mobile direct-response advertising, delivered by SMS, which offers consumers a price discount that must be redeemed before the expiration date.” With regards to the technical aspect, m-coupons are conceptualized as coupons that are stored in a digital format through a digital coupon carrier (DCC) such as mobile phones or personal digital assistant (PDA) and downloaded over the Web. The redeeming process occurs when an electronic coupon terminal (ECT) accesses the consumer’s DCC and applies the relevant discount. Consequently, the consumer does not physically touch the coupon (Trika, Marshall, Lake & Knauerhase, 2005)

2.2.2 Evolution toward m-coupons

Traditional coupons refer to discounted offers distributed through magazines, mail or newspapers. Most of the existing literature focuses particularity on this form of coupon, where empirical results show that approximately only 1-2% of all distributed coupons are

(18)

18

redeemed (Khan & Dhar, 2010). Traditional coupon strategies aim to increase sales, manage inventory and promote products. However, the low redemption rates indirectly infer that traditional coupons have several limitations (Reichhart, Pescher & Spann, 2013). Firstly, they entail practicality issues, where consumers have to carry the coupon to the store. Therefore, the perceived ease of use is decreased, which according to Jayasingh & Eze (2015), is an essential determinant of consumers’ intention to redeem coupons. Secondly, physical coupons involve distribution costs such as printing and magazine or newspaper space. Thirdly, as personalization is not possible1, they appear to all consumers in the same way (Reichhart et al., 2013).

Conversely, e-coupons and m-coupons aid overcome these limitations. Both allow for higher personalization, easier use and lower distribution costs. However, m-coupons allow higher personalization and better targeting of different consumers than e-coupons, because of location-based targeting and its instant Internet connection. Hence, with regards to the abovementioned limitations, e-coupons aid in overcoming the second and the third limitation, but not the first. While, m-coupons help to overcome all the three limitations (Reichhart et al., 2013) by eliminating distribution costs, creating an easier redemption process and offering a better personalized content.

(19)

19

2.2.3 Firm value of m-coupons

Coupon distribution is a promotional activity, from which marketers mainly aim to increase sales (Reichhart et al., 2013). The literature on the firms’ perspective conveys three purposes of its use: attracting new consumers to a particular product category, stimulating existing consumers to switch brands and encouraging frequent purchases. While the literature on the consumer’s perspective argues that the primary benefit from coupon redemption is buying the desired good or service at a discounted price (Clark, Zboja, Goldsmit 2013).

These perspectives are also relevant for digital coupons. However, recent publications on m-coupons deliver a richer understanding of its firm value. For instance, time and location-sensitivity of m-coupons allow companies to target their consumers at times when generated sales are low2_{(Dickinger & Kleijnen, 2008). Furthermore, customizing and} personalizing offers can improve company to consumer relationships. For example, firms can send coupons to unhappy consumers3_{in order to increase consumer retention. They can also} target difficult to reach audience such as younger generations. Besides, m-coupons are relatively inexpensive, easily dispersed and can convey a reasonable amount of information. Companies can also use push-based4_{m-coupons to encourage m-coupon acceptation and} redemption (Dickinger & Kleijenen, 2008). Other values retrieved from m-coupons include:

2_{Time of the day or seasonality can lower the sales.}

3_{Big Data empowers firms with more knowledge about their consumers. They can tract consumers complaint}

behavior, their stage in the costumer journey and build consumer profiles based on their preferences and needs.

4_{Push marketing strategy refers to the firms’ tactics of sending promotions to consumers even if they don’t have}

(20)

20

moving excess inventory, creating awareness for new and existing products and build customer loyalty.

Nevertheless, the full potential of m-coupons cannot be captured unless it is integrated into the firm’s marketing mix. Marketers should be able to derive value from real-time data, such as when a potential consumer is in the vicinity of its store, a lower discount can be applied, and the redemption rates will remain the same (Danaher et al., 2015).

2.2.4 Types of m-coupons

Scholars and practitioners discern the m-coupon types based on the communications strategy and their promotion type.

Communication strategy refers to the way firms try to induce consumers to use or even promote m-coupons. Dickinger and Kleijnen (2008) differentiate between coupons for which consumers are not interested to receive and coupons that they have wish to receive. Traditionally, the former is referred to as a push marketing strategy, in which the firm pushes the coupon to consumers, despite their initial preference. While the latter refers to pull marketing strategy, in which m-coupons are pulled from consumers themselves as they have pre-interest in receiving promotional offers (Dickiner & Kleijnen, 2008).

With regards to the second type, Table 2.3. below provides a summary of the most common promotional types of m-coupons (Achadinha, Jama, Nel, 2014).

(21)

21

Table 2. 3. M-coupons promotion type

2.3 M-coupon redemption determinants

This section will review the factors studied by scholars that lead users to redeem m-coupons. It is essential to do so in order to identify the reasons behind the low redemption rates and identify the under-evaluated factors, which will further aid in building the research gap.

2.3.1 Existing determinants

In a longitudinal study of 8500 visitors from 38 stores in a shopping mall, Danaher et al. (2015) developed a customer response model to determine the factors that influence m-coupons redemption. The authors performed an in-store observation by analyzing both traditional and new coupon characteristics. The analysis was mainly based on external m-coupon influencers. Their empirical findings show that m-coupons redemption rates increase

Promotion type Description

Discount Coupons are offered in form of “percentage off” or “money off”. Buy one, get one free This is also known as bundle promotion. The consumer pays only

for one piece and get the an extra one from the same category.

Multiple purchase Consumer should buy more than one for a certain product category. Ex: 20% off in the second product.

Time release The coupons received have different expiration date to motivate repeated purchase.

Self-destruct Consumers have to choose one deal over the other as the coupons are intentionally distributed to overlap.

Crossruff Consumers receive product-related coupon when purchasing another.

Sweepstakes-entry/personalized Consumers can only use the coupons at certain locations.

Universal coupon High value coupons distributed for multiple products within the distributor’s product line

(22)

22

with an increase in the face value and decreases with a more extended expiration date. Hence, suggesting mobile marketers to shorten m-coupons expiry length.

The findings of this research also show that the longer the distance to the store, the lower the m-coupon redemption rate. The day of the week and the time of day matters too, where Mondays and Thursdays have the highest redemption rates. Another interesting finding is that the order of the coupons also affects redemption rates, in which consumers are more likely to redeem the coupon that appears first on the list. Lastly, it was shown that consumer prior redemption experience influences future redemption intentions.

However, although this article has a long-time span, a large number of participants and diversity of m-coupons, the findings are limited only to one shopping mall in one country. Furthermore, as this research employs a longitudinal study, consumers are more likely to understand the aim of the study and adjust their behavior accordingly5_{(Hershey &} Schoemaker, 1980).

Dickinger and Kleijnen (2008) conduct an online survey on 370 smartphone users in Australia to determine the factors that influence their intentions on redeeming coupons. The authors find that redemption efforts are critical in consumer’s attitude toward coupons, where higher efforts involved lower the redemption rates. Furthermore, potential interferences in consumer’s mobile phones negatively affect their attitude toward receiving m-coupons, such that perceived control of their contents has stronger impacts for value seekers6_{than other}

5_{This can bias the internal consistency of the findings.}

6_{According to Dickinger and Kleijnen (2008), value seekers group are particularly coupon prone and get}

satisfaction from using coupons, which is also the reason why disturbing, unsolicited mobile ad messages undermine their feeling of control.

(23)

23

types of users. Similar to Danaher et al. (2015), the authors also find that the m-coupon’s face value is essential in influencing redemption intentions.

Moreover, they argue that demographics such as gender and age do not significantly influence m-coupons redemptions. Past redemption of m-coupon and future intention redemption are negatively related because value seekers are more intrinsically motivated, meaning that habits do not influence their m-coupon redemption attitude. There are two main limitations of this study. Firstly, it treats value seekers as moderating the m-coupon characteristic—redemption relationship, while not all the consumers who use m-coupons are continuously seeking them out. Secondly, the authors base their findings only on utilitarian products, leaving hedonic product out of focus.

Another relevant research that determines the factors that lead consumers to redeem coupons is the one conducted by Achadinha et al., (2014). The hypothesized model developed by the authors analyzes the impact that economic gain, convenience benefit, consumer attitude, perceived control and social benefits have on consumers’ behavior. Similar to Dickinger and Kleijnen (2008) and Yakasai and Jusoh (2015)7_{, they find that} positive consumer attitude has an essential impact on m-coupon redemption, where the latter is mainly influenced by economic and convenience benefits retrieved from redemption.

Furthermore, the findings suggest that consumers want to be in control of the number of coupons they receive, in which a push marketing strategy leads consumers to consider m-coupons as intrusive. Lastly, they argue that if firms emphasize more on the benefits retrieved

7_{Yakasai & Jusoh (2015) conduct an online survey study on 392 students in Malaysia, where they find that}

(24)

24

from using m-coupon, redemption rates might increase. However, this is merely an assumption and not tested in this study.

As mentioned in the above paragraph, consumers perceive push marketing strategy as intrusive, which means that it creates a barrier to use m-coupons (Achadinha et al., 2014). Scholars base this finding on two main arguments Firstly, the increase in the number of mobile spams creates a barrier to the acceptation of real mobile promotions, because people become incapable of distinguishing between them (Dickinger & Kleijnen, 2008). Secondly, as smartphones are considered to be more personal than any other device, a personalized, targeted message could influence consumers’ perception about their privacy. Hence, although, m-coupons aim to provide economic benefits to the users, the need for control is higher (Dickinger & Kleijnen, 2008; Achadinha et al., 2014).

The “price discrimination theory” distinguishes amongst price-sensitive and non-price sensitive consumers, where the former type of consumers are more likely to use m-coupons to retrieve economic benefits. However, according to Narasimhan (1984), consumers make compromises on the economic benefits and time and efforts costs associated with redeeming the coupons. Therefore, for a rational person to drive action, the economic benefits should outweigh the costs (Narasimhan, 1984). This is also in line with Clark et al. (2013), who find that price consciousness8_{indeed plays an essential role in coupon redemption rate. The} empirical results of this research show that the higher the level of price consciousness, the more likely consumers are to redeem coupons, compared to low price consciousness consumers who perceive that the savings do not equal (or are not higher than) the efforts of

(25)

25

redeeming a coupon. However, a disadvantage of this research is that it focusses merely on traditional coupons. The same findings might not apply to m-coupons, where redemption efforts are low, and coupons are frequently redeemed online.

Lastly, consumers’ demographics, such as gender, age, education and income might also influence consumers’ redemptions intentions. However, the findings are mixed and overlapping each other. For instance, Danaher et al. (2015) find that women redeem fewer coupons than men (1.10% vs. 1.26%), while the opposite is true to Clark et al., (2013). With regards to income, Lee, Bai & Murphy (2012) argue that consumers with incomes $80,000 or more are less likely to use discounts. However, for incomes higher than $100,000 the opposite is true to Clark et al., (2013). With regards to education, Lee et al.’s (2012) empirical results show that less educated consumers are highly involved in using discounts than better-educated consumers.

To conclude, the existing literature on coupon redemption is divided into two main streams. In the first stream, researchers focus on the effect of external coupon characteristics on coupon redemption. While in the second stream, they seek to explain the impact that consumers’ characteristics and behaviours have on coupon redemption. Table 2.4. below provides a summary of the current findings concerning these two main streams.

(26)

26

Table 2. 4. Summary of m-coupons redemption determinants

Coupon characteristic determinants Consumer determinants Face value

Expiration length Coupon proximity Day of the week Time of the day Coupon order

Marketing strategy (push/pull)

Demographics

Prior coupon redemption Price consciousness Attitude

Pride Time value Fear of spamming

2.3.2 The influence of Pricing Format

During the examination of the m-coupons tools in Section 2.2.4., it was argued that the way m-coupons are framed could influence consumers’ perceptions and their redemption intentions. However, the literature to date is limited to the m-coupon aspect. Thus, this section will review the literature on promotional framing effects, in general.

Genuine promotions are important sources of increasing demand for products. Nevertheless, some promotions are more effective than the others. Bayer & Ke (2013) argue that it’s not only the face value that plays an important role, but also the way promotions are presented to consumers can significantly influence their behavior.

Scholars have looked at how different ways of framing a promotional package, such as a bundle; gift; amount off or percentage off, affect consumers perception and their behavior.

(27)

27

This is also known as the “framing effect,”9_{which means that people respond differently to} different portrayals of the same decision (Yin & Dubinsku, 2004). For instance, Drechsler, Leeflang, Bijmolt & Natter (2017) compare the difference between multi-unit promotions (MUPs) expressed as quantity and dollars. The authors’ empirical findings suggest that for expensive products, consumer prefer offers that are shown as amount off rather than quantity as they often relate quantity promotions to low-quality products. However, the opposite is true for low priced products.

Furthermore, Yin & Dubinsky (2004) show that coupons with the same face value, but different price frames (cents-off or percentage off), have different impacts on redemption intentions. This is due to the efforts involved in understanding the discount. For instance, coupons framed as cents-off require less mental efforts because consumers can recognize the discounted price straightforwardly. The opposite applies to the percentage-off format. This argumentation is also in line with mental accounting, where high cognitive efforts decrease purchase intentions (Thaler, 1985).

In sum, the current literature shows that the framing of promotions indeed influences consumers’ purchasing intentions. However, the most common price frames analyzed include the percentage off and monetary amount off, where the focus on m-coupon framing is limited. The impact of different pricing frames that entail the same levels of mental accounting is also not thoroughly studied. Hence this paper will emphasize more on the difference between a quantity offer (X+ N free) and a monetary offer (X for €Y), for the same face value and level of mental accounting.

(28)

28

2.3.3 The influence of Product Category

Consumers purchase decisions choices are often affected by utilitarian and hedonic considerations. These considerations form independent components of product assessments and attitudes, which make consumers discriminate between goods and services under their hedonic or utilitarian nature (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000).

Kivetz & Simonson (2002) argue that hedonic product purchases are motivated by the desire for enjoyment, need for exploration and value expression. They are often characterized by affective and sensory experience and include frivolous and lavish products such as vacations, designer clothes, music, movies, etc. (Kivetz & Simonson, 2002). On the other hand, utilitarian product purchases are motivated by the need to accomplish a functional task. Their consumption is often cognitively and instrumentally driven, where the consumer has a specific goal in mind (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). Utilitarian products include school supplies, medicines, work trips, etc.

However, Okada (2005) argues that the distinction between hedonic and utilitarian products is a continuum rather than a dichotomy, and is subject to marketing framing, which means that a single product can be presented both as hedonic and utilitarian.

While hedonic products provide more enjoyment and are usually more enticing than utilitarian products, Dhar & Wertenbroch (2012) argue that consumers face justification constrains when it comes to their consumption. Therefore, they try to limit the access to tempting options through pre-commitment. This is also supported by Khan & Dhar (2010) who argue that consumers are likely to experience guilt for hedonic products. The authors discuss that hedonic products are discrete, which makes their benefits hard to quantify. For these two reasons, consumers require a higher need for justification.

(29)

29

The likelihood for purchasing hedonic products increases with promotional offers because the discount obtained serves as a form of justification tool (Khan & Dhar, 2010). However, the same setting does not apply to utilitarian goods because they are purchased with a particular goal in mind and fill specific needs. Hence, consumers are going to buy them even if they are not at a discount (Khan & Dhar, 2010).

In sum, the current literature explains that consumers behave differently for different product categories. However, there is a lack of integrated insight on how consumers respond regarding promotions, particularly, m-coupons. Among the studies that do so, they merely focus on one product category. Hence, this research attempts to clarify the difference between hedonic and utilitarian products for m-coupons.

2.3.4 The influence of Content Personalization

Online trust is another important topic that researchers often associate with consumers’ online shopping behavior. Elliot and Fowell (2000) empirical results show that fifty percent of online transactions were rated unsatisfactory because of consumers privacy concern for the security of transaction details as well as personal privacy details. Security concerns include hacking, spamming, fraud, user authentication, data and transaction security (Constantinides, 2004). Mobile devices allow marketers to offer personalized deals to mobile users anytime and anywhere through location sensing technologies such as GPS. For instance, marketers can provide location-based m-coupons whenever the users are in the proximity of their stores. However, users often perceive the reveal of their location in exchange for service as a threat to their privacy. Hence they frequently employ negative attitudes, such as preventing, ignoring or faking real names and confidential information (Constantinides, 2004).

(30)

30

Nevertheless, the literature available is contradictory. Keith’s et al., (2013) empirical results show that only a weak relationship exists between the intention to disclose private information and actual disclosure. Han and Maclaurin’s (2002) findings also indicate that most people are rationally satisfied with firms’ efforts to safeguard their privacy because they do not opt out from sharing their data even in spite of having the option to do so.

A possible explanation for these findings could be due to content personalization, which is unlikely to occur without some loss of privacy. Disclosing personal and preferential information allows companies to tailor experiences at the individual level. People are willing to trade privacy with information disclosure, considering that a positive experience compensates for the loss of privacy (Culnan & Bies, 2003). For instance, Cameron, Gregory & Battaglia (2012) show that buyers are not willing to put high efforts to explore through all the coupons received and are not able to discern the promotion that they are most likely to use. Hence, personalizing m-coupons might aid in overcoming these problems by enabling a quick way for consumers to choose through products.

Personalisation also supports the optimisation of the value of the coupon through determining the perfect mix and the frequency of delivery. Subsequently, it helps retailers engage more with consumers and offer a unique experience (Cameron et al., 2012). Nevertheless, Sheng et al. (2008) argue that consumers’ willingness to sacrifice their privacy for a more personalized service is situational dependent. Hence, rather than treating personalization as a direct influencer, this research moderates for its influence in increasing redemption rates through combining it with hedonic and utilitarian products.

(31)

31

2.4 Research Gap

A considerable amount of marketing investments goes for mobile marketing, especially m-coupons. Successful companies such as McDonald’s and Unilever are following this trend by also creating a chain effect for other firms to follow as well. However, such practices are still not fully integrated into the firms’ marketing mix (Dikinger & Kleijnen, 2008).

The economic and the game-theory literature assume that the monetary discount obtained are the only benefits that consumers derive from promotions. However, the reality of the low redemption rates and several robust empirical findings show that consumers derive multiple benefits from a promotion (Chandon et al., 2000). Hence, as m-coupons are increasingly becoming essential revenue generators and their potential is not yet fully exploited, this research aims to square further in the factors that increase m-coupon redemption rates.

Although in Section 2.2 a considerable number of determinants were explained, several other ones are still under-analyzed in the context of m-coupons. According to Swaminathan and Bawa (2005), product category contributes to 89 percent accuracy in predicting m-coupon rates. However, the present findings are mainly based on traditional m-coupons, and the differences10_{they share with m-coupons emphasize on reassessing the impact of the product} category on this type of coupon.

Price framing is also under-analyzed in the current literature. M-coupons can be shaped as either a free product, a percentage discount or an absolute dollar value discount. According to Danaher et al. (2015), these forms can differently influence consumers. However, most of

(32)

32

the studies focus mainly on the percentage format type and single unit products, while others merely focus on the face value of the coupon. The level of effort involved to calculate the savings from the discount also influence consumers’ willingness to redeem (Danaher et al. 2015). Hence, this research will analyse two other different price frames namely, “X for €Y” and “X+N free” for the same face value and mental accounting, and their impact on consumer’s willingness to redeem.

Furthermore, Chandon et al. (2000) argue that consumers can derive multiple benefits from an offer, at a time. Hence, in comparison to other research, this paper also studies the moderating role of product category on the relationship between price framing and willingness to redeem. According to Khan & Dhar (2010), the possible combinations of product categories with price framings create perceptions of gains and losses on consumers’ minds and are likely to affect their behaviour.

Lastly, the role of personalization on the product category and willingness to redeem is also studied. This might aid solve the contradicting findings of the current literature presented in Section 2.3.4. because it treats personalization as a moderator rather than a direct influencer. Table 2.5. below provides a summary of the literature discussed earlier, as well as the aim of this research.

These limitations of the current literature lead to the following research questions: 1) To what extent does price framing, product category and content personalization influence consumers’ willingness to redeem m-coupons?

a) To what extent does product category moderate the relationship between price framing and willingness to redeem?

b) To what extent does content personalization moderate the relationship between product category and willingness to redeem?

(33)

33

Table 2. 5. Summary of the existing findings

Variables IV PF IV PC M PC M CP C D C PE C SU CT

Danaher et al. (2015) - * - * + + - Physical& Electronic Dickinger & Kleijnen

(2008)

- * - - + + - Mobile

Achadinha et al., (2014) - - - - + + - Mobile Swaminathan & Bawa

(2005)

+ - - - Mobile

Gonzalez et al. (2016) * - - + - - - Electronic Drechsler et al., (2017) + + - - - Mobile Cameron et al., (2012) - - - + - - - Electronic

This research + + + + + + + Mobile

Note: IV= Independent Variable; C= Control Variable, M= Moderator, CT= Coupon Type; PF=Price Framing; PC=Product Category (Hedonic, Utilitarian); CP= Content Personalization; D=Demographics; PE= Prior Experience; SU= Smartphone Usage. -. Not included, +. Included *. Partially included

(34)

34 3. Conceptual Framework

After determining the research gap and the factors that need further analysis, the conceptual model was formed. The recommended model illustrated in Figure 3.1. below, describes the way variables are linked to consumers’ willingness to redeem as well as to the other variables.

Figure 3. 1.Conceptual Model

Price framing of m-coupon is conceptualized to have a direct effect on willingness to redeem m-coupons. Product category has a two-sided effect. It can directly influence the willingness to redeem, as well as moderate the relationship between price framing and willingness to redeem. Hence, when this variable is present, the willingness to redeem m-coupons changes depending on if the product is hedonic or utilitarian. Personalization is also conceptualized to have a moderating effect, such that willingness to redeem either increases or decreases with high or low levels of personalization. The model also controls for the effect of covariates such as demographics and smartphone and past coupon usage. Hence, with regards to this model, the hypotheses are build and explained in the upcoming sub-chapters. Please refer to Table 3.1. at the end of this section for a summary of the hypotheses.

(35)

35

3.1 Product Category

Hedonic product purchases are mainly used for self- expression, and enjoyment (Chandon et al., 2000). However, as mentioned earlier in Section 2.3.3., purchases are often associated with feelings of guilt and needs for justification (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; 2012). Hence, consumers try to delay buying hedonic products (Khan & Dhar, 2010). Nevertheless, promotional discounts, such as in this research – m-coupons – can serve as a justification tool for this type of product category (Khan & Dhar, 2010). For instance, when consumers are presented with a discount for hedonic products, they are more likely to buy the product rather than when the product is not in a discount.

Furthermore, with regards to the regulatory focus theory, people adapt either a promotion focus or a prevention focus. The former is associated with seizing as many opportunities as possible and fit the hedonic motivation perspective. Whilst, the latter is often related to a vigilance strategy of reducing the possibility of making mistakes and fit utilitarian motivation perspective (Khajehzadeh et al., 2015).

Dhar & Wertenbroch (2000) further argue that utilitarian products are perceived as needs and consumers are going to buy them even if they are not at a discount. Drawing on these findings the following hypotheses are generated:

H1a. Product category has a direct impact on consumers’ willingness to redeem

m-coupons.

H1b. Hedonic product m-coupons have a higher direct impact on consumers’

(36)

36

3.2 Price Framing

Vast amounts of studies have examined the impact of promotional framings on consumers purchase behaviors (Khan & Dhar, 2010; Gonzalez et al., 2016). The hypotheses of this paper are built on the prospect theory, mental accounting and the literature on gift giving. The prospect theory relates to the perception of promotional framings as gains or losses. When an offer is framed as “X for €Y”, consumers usually perceive it as a decrease in “the loss” because it emphasizes on the decrease of the initial product price. The mental accounting theory argues that non-monetary promotions such as “X + N free”, are perceived as increases in “the gain” because they underline the free additional unit (Drechsler et al., 2017).

Additionally, the prospect theory explains that when gains and losses are of the same amount, consumers are influenced more by decreases in losses than increases in gains (Long& Nasiry, 2014). This argumentation is also in line with the loss aversion theory, which shows that people focus more on preventing losses than receiving gains (Karle, Kirchsteiger & Peits, 2015).

Furthermore, the literature on “gift giving” also emphasizes on the impact of price framing on consumer choices. According to the microeconomic theory, money is more attractive than gifts, especially for consumers who do not overestimate the gift’s value (Waldfogel, 1996). Mao (2016) empirical study shows that even a monetary promotional framing of a minimal fee is more effective than a gift. Overall, these argumentations lead to the following hypotheses:

H2a. Price framing has a direct influence on consumers’ willingness to redeem

m-coupons.

H2b. M-coupons framed as “X for €Y” have a higher positive direct impact on

(37)

37

3.3 The moderating role of Product Category

Despite the direct effect that product category has on consumers’ willingness to redeem m-coupon, Chandon et al. (2000) argue that it can also have a moderating role on the relationship between price framing and willingness to redeem.

The authors discuss that non-monetary promotions are more efficient for hedonic than utilitarian product categories. Non-monetary promotions emphasize more on the fun of buying and consuming the extra product, rather than focusing on the amount spent. Besides, as non-monetary promotions underline on the additional product (service) received, consumers are more likely to perceive it as a gift. Following this argumentation, receiving gifts is certainty a hedonic experience, where enjoyment and fun are at the center of consumer’s perception (Chandon et al.,2000). The price frame of “X+N free” indeed comprises fewer financial clues and emphasizes on the benefit of receiving an extra product (Drechsler et al., 2017). Chandon’s et al. (2000) empirical results also show that non-monetary promotions are also assessed for quality. Therefore, when firms associate utilitarian products with non-monetary promotions, the quality of the products is likely to decrease.

Furthermore, regarding the monetary promotional price frames of “X for €Y”, Chandon’s et al. (2000) argue that it increases utilitarian product purchase because they emphasize more on the savings11_{rather than on the fun of buying and exploring the product.}

Based on these argumentations, the following hypotheses are formulated:

(38)

38

H3a. Product category moderates the relationship between price framing and

consumers’ willingness to redeem m-coupons.

H3b. M-coupons framed as “X+N free” have a higher impact on willingness to redeem

for hedonic products than for utilitarian products.

H3c. M-coupons framed as “X for €Y” have a higher impact on willingness to redeem

for utilitarian products than for hedonic products.

H3d. M-coupons for hedonic products framed as “X+N free” lead to higher

willingness to redeem than m-coupons framed as “X for €Y.”

H3e. M-coupons for utilitarian products framed as “X for €Y” lead to higher

willingness to redeem than m-coupons framed as “X+N free.

3.4 The moderating role of Content Personalization

Sheng et al. (2008) argue that the contradicting findings of the current literature regarding the trade-off (Section 2.3.4) between disclosing personal information and receiving personalized content is highly situational dependent. Consumers purchase decisions cannot be merely measured by whether the content is personalized or not, but also on whether personalization aids in increasing/decreasing purchase decisions (Riquelme et a., 2012). Due to the scope of this research, only the moderating role of personalization on the product category and willingness to redeem m-coupons is assessed.

Millan & Reynolds (2014) findings’ show that customization of services brings unique experiences to consumers and allow them to express their identities easier. Specifically, Pantano et al., (2017) show that advanced personalized technologies such as gamification significantly increase consumers’ intention to purchase hedonic product offers, which consumers buy for self-expression and excitements. Moreover, Luo, Andrewes, Fang & Phang’s (2014) empirical results show that when personalizing movie tickets m-coupons on

(39)

39

consumer location, the willingness to redeem is higher than when the m-coupon is not-personalized. Hence, when the content is not personalized, the relationship between hedonic products and willingness to redeem remains the same as argued in H1b.

Although personalized offers can make the redemption process easier, Constantinides (2004), argues that consumers may find them intrusive and ominous to their privacy. This explanation is suitable to the utilitarian product category as the need for self-expression is low, and consumers do not derive additional benefits, apart from the discounted value (Tam & Ho,2005). Furthermore, in the case of mobile phones, the perception of privacy violation is higher than in other means of communication. Hence, sacrificing personal information for services that the added value does not significantly differ from not disclosing personal information decreases consumers’ willingness to accept and redeem m-coupons for utilitarian products. Based on these argumentations the following hypotheses are formulated:

H4a. M-coupon personalization moderates the relationship between product category

and willingness to redeem.

H4b. Personalized m-coupons lead to higher willingness to redeem than

non-personalized m-coupons, for hedonic products.

H4c. Personalized m-coupons do not differ from non-personalized m-coupons on the

impact on consumers’ willingness to redeem, for utilitarian products.

H4d. Personalized hedonic m-coupons lead to higher willingness to redeem than

personalized utilitarian m-coupons.

H4e. Non-personalized hedonic m-coupons lead to higher willingness to redeem than

(40)

40

Table 3. 1. Summary of hypotheses

H1a. Product category has a direct impact on consumers’ willingness to redeem m-coupons.

H1b. Hedonic product m-coupons have a higher direct impact on consumers’ willingness to redeem than

utilitarian product m-coupons.

H2a. Price framing has a direct impact on consumers’ willingness to redeem m-coupons.

H2b. M-coupons framed as “X for €Y” have a higher positive direct impact on consumers’ willingness to

redeem than m-coupons framed as “X+N free”.

H3a. Product category moderates the relationship between price framing and consumers’ willingness to

redeem m-coupons.

H3b. M-coupons framed as “X+N free” have a higher impact on willingness to redeem for hedonic products

than for utilitarian products.

H3c. M-coupons framed as “X for €Y” have a higher impact on willingness to redeem for utilitarian products

than for hedonic products.

H3d. M-coupons for hedonic products framed as “X+N free” lead to higher willingness to redeem than

m-coupons framed as “X for €Y”.

H3e. M-coupons for utilitarian products framed as “X for €Y” lead to higher willingness to redeem than

m-coupons framed as “X+N free”

H4a. M-coupon personalization moderates the relationship between product category and willingness to

redeem.

H4b. Personalized m-coupons lead to higher willingness to redeem than non-personalized m-coupons, for

hedonic products.

H4c. Personalized m-coupons do not differ from non-personalized m-coupons on the impact on consumers’

willingness to redeem, for utilitarian products.

H4d. Personalized hedonic coupons lead to higher willingness to redeem than personalized utilitarian

m-coupons.

H4e. Non-personalized hedonic m-coupons lead to higher willingness to redeem than non-personalized

(41)

41 4. Methodology

This chapter explains the method used to analyze the hypotheses presented in Section 3. and give an answer to the research question. Firstly, the research strategy is described, by elaborating on the experimental approach. Next, sampling and data collection techniques are discussed. Lastly, the scales used to measure the variables of interests and the data analyzation techniques are described. The methodology of this research is summarized in

Figure 4.1. below.

Figure 4. 1. Methodology

4.1 Research Strategy

The answer to the research question will be given through a deductive approach. The proposed conceptual model is tested through a self-completed, classical-online survey-experiment. Likert-type, as well as open-ended questions, were used to identify consumers intentions toward m-coupons. This research strategy is ideal especially when assessing consumer behavior because the environment can be controlled for the variables of interest (Kohavi & Longbotham, 2007). The approach of this research is also in line with Dickinger & Kleijnen (2008), Achadinha et al. (2014) and Drechsler et al., (2017).

(42)

42

4.1.1 Experimental Design

The experiment of this research employs a 2x2x2, between-subject design, inferring that there are eight possible conditions. However, participants are randomly assigned to only one of the conditions and cannot participate in the other ones. For a detailed description of the conditions, please refer to Figure 4.2. below. A between-subjects design is more appropriate than a within-subject design for this specific research. Specifically, it prevents “carryover effects,” where participants can learn the aim of the experiment, and adjust their behavior according to what they perceive as the right answer (Jones & Kenward, 2014). However, if the research would aim to analyze the way individuals’ behaviors change over time, a within-subject design would be more appropriate.

Furthermore, a between-subject design is suitable to compare behaviors, which indeed is the aim of this research (Jones & Kenward, 2014). However, according to Hershey and Schoemaker (1980), a between-subject design can also lead to potential biases of the results, especially when subjects are purposefully assigned to a condition, such as based on age, gender, education, etc. However, this research utilizes equal random sampling of participants12_{without a particular criterion.}

Figure 4. 2.Conditions

(43)

43

4.2 Sample

According to Saunders & Lewis, (2009) random probability sampling aids generalizing the findings because all respondents have equal chances of being allocated to one of the eight conditions. However, a possible drawback of this technique could be that participants may differ a lot from each other in terms of age, education, income, etc. Within the scope of this research, this does not possess a severe problem, because m-coupons users indeed differ from each other. Nevertheless, to have better insights on these differences, demographics are used as control variables.

To increase the accuracy of the findings, minimally 50 participants were assigned per condition. Their statuses change from most of the existing studies (Dickinger & Kleijnen, 2008) that mainly target students. According to Sears (1986), students are not ideal representatives of the whole population due to educational and income differences. Specifically, m-coupons are redeemed by all types of users13_{and utilizing the general} audience can generate real-life results. In total 403 responses were obtained. However, in the data cleaning process, 12 participants were removed from the database because of random clicking, which led to 391 usable questionnaires. Furthermore, the data cleaning process also showed that there is no missing value and all the surveys were filled to the end. Table 4.1. provides a summary of the sample characteristics and behaviors.

(44)

44

Table 4. 1. Summary of participants

Out of the 391 respondents, 161 (41.2%) were males, and 230 (58.8%) were females. The majority of respondents, specifically 231 (59.1%), were in the second age group, ranging from 18 to 24. These findings are also consistent with Dickinger & Kleijnen (2008) and Achadinha et al. (2014), who argue that younger generation are more likely to save using technology, such as in this case – m-coupons. With regards to the educational background,

The role of price framing, product category and content personalisation on consumers’ willingness to redeem mobile coupons