Stand-Alone Sale of a Free Gift: Is it Effective to Accentuate Promotion Value?

Kim, Hee Jin; Koo, Jieun

doi:10.2224/sbp.2015.43.10.1593

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, comparing results from Nigeria and other populations in developing counties should be done with caution, as participants in the current study, done in Central America, received free amplification. Research by Kim and Koo [20] indicated that offering a product as a free gift will influence the consumer's value of that gift. It is possible that the free amplification given to the patients in the current study may have caused them to report greater satisfaction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Hearing Aid Benefit in Nicaragua using Cultural Considerations

White

Dietz

Mincey

et al. 2017

Clin Arch Commun Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results: Responses on the IOI-HA for adults in the current study were comparable to reported results from other countries. Interview responses from over half of participants fell into four broad areas: speech (in quiet and noise), traffic sounds, listening to music, and birds. Conclusions: Nicaraguan responses on the IOI-HA were similar to previous reports from other countries. However, it was difficult for patients to complete the questionnaire independently, supporting the need for a culturally relevant assessment tool. Based on the literature review and the responses of participants, a hearing aid benefit tool was constructed for use with amplification recipients in Nicaragua.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Hearing Aid Benefit in Nicaragua using Cultural Considerations

White

Dietz

Mincey

et al. 2017

Clin Arch Commun Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, consumers may infer the fair price of a product from a sales promotion by thinking about the cost structure and the normal margin (Raghubir, 2006). Consumers may discount the stand-alone value of the gift product as well, because being given away for free implies its low cost (Kim and Koo, 2015;Raghubir, 2004). Similarly, consumers may make negative inferences about the promoted product in response to a free gift promotion because of the appearance that the incentive gift is needed to generate sales.…”

Section: Free Gift Promotions and Persuasion Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

When free gifts hurt the promoted product

Park

2019

EJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The present study aims to demonstrate that providing a free gift upon purchase may induce consumers to devaluate the main product promoted with the offer. The mediating role of persuasion knowledge and the moderating role of consumer shopping orientation are also examined. Design/methodology/approach Three studies with between-subject designs are conducted to test the influence of product–gift fit on evaluations of the promoted product. Findings When a low-fit gift (vs a high-fit gift) is provided as a promotional offer, consumers’ evaluations of the promoted product are undermined. These negative effects are driven by consumers’ activation of persuasion knowledge on the company’s ulterior motive to entice consumers to make a purchase. Such devaluation effects occur especially for consumers with a task-focused shopping orientation, whereas they are mitigated for consumers with an experiential shopping orientation. Research limitations/implications This research extends the conceptualization of product–gift fit and challenges the common claim that free gift promotions maintain the value of the promoted product. By instigating a mechanism underlying consumers’ objections toward low-fit gifts, this research implies that consumers may think of an implicit cost to a free offer based on their knowledge of companies’ tactics. Practical implications Marketers should be aware of the fact that a certain gift may come at a cost for companies and bring about negative inferences regarding the main product. They need not only to select a gift that drives sales but also to be cautious about the gift’s influence on perceptions of the main product. Marketers should ensure that the gift has a good fit with the product while trying to discover a unique gift for consumers. Marketers should also provide an offer that matches shopping orientation of the target consumers. Originality/value This research reveals counterevidence to prior research claiming that free gift promotion does not hurt the perceived value of the promoted product. It enhances a theoretical understanding of devaluation effects and provides useful implications for designing and targeting free gift promotion.

show abstract

“…supplementary product). Studies have shown that providing free gifts in a promotion has been one of the most pervasive marketing strategies (Kim and Koo, 2015; Sexton, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does repurchase timing matter in promotional framing effect?

Wang

2022

MIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeAlthough the evidence exists for the effect of promotional frame on repurchase intention, it is unclear whether the timing of repurchase can moderate the effect. In this paper, three experiments were conducted to answer this question.Design/methodology/approachIn Experiment 1, a 2 (framing: bundle vs. gift) × 2 (repurchase target: focal vs. supplementary) × 2 (timing: short vs. long) between-subjects design was used. In Experiment 2, an identical design was used except that repurchase target being the within-subjects factor. In Experiment 3, the design was based on that of Experiment 2 and brand was added a between-subjects factor.FindingsExperiment 1 showed that, with a short interval, repurchase intention under gift frame was higher than that under bundle frame. With a long interval, there was no significant difference between the gift and bundle frames. Experiment 2, however, indicated no effects for expensive products. Experiment 3 showed that brand (private versus national brand) moderate the interaction between framing, repurchase target and timing. Particularly, for private brand, no significant comparisons were found; for national brand, repurchase intention for the focal product was significantly higher than for the supplementary product, but only under the conditions of long interval and gift frame (rather than bundle frame).Originality/valueTaken together, findings from the current study contributes to the literature by showing for the first time that repurchase timing can moderate the promotional frame effect (i.e. higher repurchase intention under gift framing relative to bundle framing occurs in the short interval but not long interval) and that brand type can moderate the joint effects of framing, timing and repurchase target (i.e. national brand, rather than private brand, paired with long interval and gift frame results in higher repurchase intention for the focal product). The findings provide marketers with important knowledge in terms of how to adjust a promotional frame depending on when consumers repurchase a product and whether the product has a private or national brand.

show abstract

Stand-Alone Sale of a Free Gift: Is it Effective to Accentuate Promotion Value?

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Measuring Hearing Aid Benefit in Nicaragua using Cultural Considerations

Measuring Hearing Aid Benefit in Nicaragua using Cultural Considerations

When free gifts hurt the promoted product

Does repurchase timing matter in promotional framing effect?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About