1999
DOI: 10.1177/002224379903600206
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

When Do Price Promotions Affect Pretrial Brand Evaluations?

Abstract: The authors investigate the conditions in which price promotions affect pretrial brand evaluations. A price promotion is theorized to be informative about brand quality when it stands out because it deviates from either its own past behavior or industry norms. Product category experts, who have alternative sources of information to make quality judgments, are expected to make less use of price promotions as a quality cue than novices are. The authors describe three laboratory studies in the context of a price … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
72
0
8

Year Published

2004
2004
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 170 publications
(93 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
2
72
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, Hunt and Keaveney (1994) argued that consumers can make attributions in response to price promotions and can actually use ''price promotions as a positive piece of information about the brand rather than as an internal signal about buying the product only to get a price deal'' (p. 513). We concur with Raghubir and Corfman (1999) and argue price promotions may serve more than an economic function and may result in negative evaluations when they are not common in the industry.…”
Section: Quality Worthsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Moreover, Hunt and Keaveney (1994) argued that consumers can make attributions in response to price promotions and can actually use ''price promotions as a positive piece of information about the brand rather than as an internal signal about buying the product only to get a price deal'' (p. 513). We concur with Raghubir and Corfman (1999) and argue price promotions may serve more than an economic function and may result in negative evaluations when they are not common in the industry.…”
Section: Quality Worthsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Participants then read: (a) information on the fictitious company, House of Pizza, which, purportedly, came from the company's website; (b) an article on the company, which article was supposedly reproduced from a local publication; this article manipulated company reputation, so those in the positive company reputation condition saw a different version than that seen by participants in the negative company reputation condition (see Appendix); (c) an article, supposedly from The Wall Street Journal, which discussed a non-fulfillment involving the fictitious company. In this way, we hoped to successfully include experimental information with non-experimental information, as in the procedure used by Raghubir and Corfman (1999). In the case of the non-fulfillment, participants were told the following:…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other market researchers have also pointed to asymmetric effects of positive and negative information (for example, Taylor, 1991): negative experiences are more elaborated upon than positive experiences (Fiske, 1980) and, according to Raghubir and Corfman (1999), ''people search more for negative (versus positive) information when making judgments, and they weight this information more heavily because they find it more diagnostic than positive information'' (p. 213).…”
Section: Consumer Use Of Negative Informationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This meaning arises from the presence of these features in a goal hierarchy, which relates "concrete goals" such as the desire for a bicycle of a particular specification to more "abstract goals" such as a desire to be able to cycle in woodlands (Barsalou 1991;Peterman 1997). In essence this goal hierarchy hypothesizes a causal link between what a supplier has to offer and the customer's goals-the concept of attribution (Raghubir and Corfman 1999). The desired customer experience and the customer's evaluation of the actual experience depend on these goals; a shopping trip for ingredients for dinner, for example, will be judged against its contribution to this goal (Rohm and Swaminathan 2004).…”
Section: Customer Experience Quality and Value-in-usementioning
confidence: 99%