ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

The effect of consumer’s psychographic variables upon deal-proneness
Eva Martı´ nez, Teresa MontanerÃ
´micas y Empresariales, Gran Vıa, 2, 50005 Zaragoza, Spain ´ Universidad de Zaragoza, Facultad de Ciencias Econo

Abstract Companies are increasingly attaching more importance to sales promotion within their communication programs. The main reason for the increase in the use of promotions is their immediate effect on the consumers. However, there are some consumers that do not respond to promotions. This study analyses the psychographic traits associated with deal-proneness. A personal survey has been conducted with a sample of 425 individuals who regularly buy package food and cleaning products. In the study, three kinds of deal-proneness are differentiated: proneness towards store flyers, proneness towards coupons and proneness towards in-store promotions. The results prove that there are relationships between some psychographic characteristics of consumers and dealproneness. In general, price-conscious consumers are deal-prone. However, savings are not the only reason to buy a product on promotion. Deal-proneness is influenced by other aspects as impulsiveness, innovativeness or shopping enjoyment. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sales promotion; Market segmentation; Consumer behaviour

1. Introduction Promotional marketing is increasingly gaining importance in communication budgets of companies. Marketing managers attribute this high investment in sales promotion to the immediate effects of these actions on sales (Schultz et al., 1998). Because of the little empirical evidence for the response and effectiveness of different promotional instruments, over the last decades numerous studies have tried to provide organisations with some decision-making guidelines for the design of promotional campaigns. Some studies have focused on analysing whether all consumers show the same response to sales promotion, defining the profiles of more sensitive consumers to this type of action (Webster, 1965; Ailawadi et al., 2001). Several types of variables have been used to define these
ÃCorresponding author. Tel.: +34 976 761 000; fax: +34 976 761 767. E-mail addresses: emartine@unizar.es (E. Martı´ nez), montagut@unizar.es (T. Montaner).

profiles. Initial research paid more attention to sociodemographic aspects of consumers, but the results were not fully conclusive and some other variables were suggested (Schneider and Currim, 1991; Grover and Srinivasan, 1992). Some studies have emphasised the psychographic profile of the deal-prone consumer obtaining remarkable results (Montgomery, 1971; Lichtenstein et al., 1990; Ailawadi et al., 2001). Consequently, this research will focus on analysing the importance of the consumer’s psychographic profile in their behaviour towards sales promotions. More specifically, we will attempt to identify different types of response to promotional actions. In addition, the relationship between these responses will be related with different psychographic traits. This paper proceeds as follows: First, we revise the literature which analyses the consumer response to promotional actions and relates proneness to promotions with different psychographic traits of consumers. In the next section we define the hypotheses to be contrasted in the study and explain the methodology used in the empirical part of our study. We proceed then

0969-6989/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2005.08.001

ARTICLE IN PRESS
158 ´ E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168

to analyse the major psychographic features of the dealprone consumer. Finally, we present the main conclusions of our research.

research we differentiate, as do Ailawadi et al. (2001), between in-store and out-of-store promotions. 2.2. Characterisation of the deal-prone consumer From the marketing management perspective, knowing the profile of deal-prone consumers will enable us to design better promotional campaigns (Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987; Blattberg and Neslin, 1990; Laroche et al., 2003). The first studies which attempted to characterise the deal-prone consumer fundamentally based this characterisation on socio-demographic variables. Having obtained inconclusive results, psychographic and purchasing habit variables have been recommended to identify the deal-prone consumer (Schneider and Cur´ rim, 1991; Grover and Srinivasan, 1992; Sanchez and Del Barrio, 1998). Because sales promotions affect the purchase process ´ (Alvarez, 2002), we may explain the different responses to promotions by analysing the variables which influence the purchase process. Some researchers have used economic benefits or purchase costs as a reference to characterise deal-prone consumers (Blattberg et al., 1978; Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987). Other authors have emphasised the hedonic benefits generated by the purchase of a promoted product (Shimp and Kavas, 1984; Schindler, 1989). However, Chandon et al. (2000) integrate both perspectives and consider that consumers respond to sales promotions due to the positive experience provided and thus they attempt to explain how both economic and hedonic benefits and costs influence deal-proneness. This paper is based on this perspective and therefore we will briefly describe these benefits or costs in order to relate them to the buyers’ characteristics. Economic or functional benefits are tied to the product’s attributes, they provide the customer with functional information and they refer to tangible or objective aspects product-related. Among those functional benefits we should highlight savings and quality (Chandon et al., 2000; Ailawadi et al., 2001). Promotions provide a saving feeling and reduce the pain of paying. They may also grant the access to higher quality brands which could not be bought at their normal price. Hedonic benefits are tied to intangible attributes and they are experiential and affective. Some outstanding hedonic benefits of promotional actions are entertainment, exploration and expression. For example, for those consumers who enjoy shopping, some promotions may be amusing and increase this entertainment benefit provided by the product purchase. Along the purchase decision process, the consumer weighs up both the benefits and the costs of a promotion. Some costs related to the purchase of promoted products, as it will be explained below, may be switching, search and inventory costs.

2. Literature review 2.1. Deal-proneness The literature which analyses the consumer’s response to sales promotion frequently refers to the term ‘‘dealprone consumer’’. Proneness to promotions may be defined, overall, as the tendency to use promotional information as a reference to make purchase decisions. As the response to promotions varies across individuals (Webster, 1965; Montgomery, 1971; Blattberg et al., 1978; Vazquez and Ballina, 1996), deal-prone consumers will be those who modify their purchase behaviour so as to benefit from the temporary incentive offered by a promotion (Wakefield and Barnes, 1996). Several authors, when studying the consumer’s response to promotional actions, have analysed whether a consumer who is prone to purchase a certain promoted product will also respond to any other promotional action. The results of that research are not fully conclusive. Some studies reveal that dealproneness is a generalised construct, that is, an individual who modifies his or her purchase behaviour in certain promotions is likely to modify his or her behaviour in any other promotion (Shimp and Kavas, 1984; Price et al., 1988). Other authors maintain that deal-proneness is domain specific and that consumers may respond to a certain type of promotional mechanism but not to others (Schneider and Currim, 1991; Ailawadi et al., 2001). In this respect, Schneider and Currim (1991) differentiate between active and passive proneness. Active proneness refers to the consumers’ sensitivity to store flyers and coupons. This proneness requires an intense search from the consumer to find interesting promotions. Nevertheless, passive proneness demands a limited search developed at the point of sales. Such a proneness is reflected in the consumers’ sensitivity to in-store displays. Ailawadi et al. (2001) establish a similar differentiation between proneness to out-of-store promotions and proneness to in-store promotions. For these authors, out-of-store promotions are those which take place out of the shops and demand some effort from the consumer; they would be related to the active proneness proposed by Schneider and Currim (1991). On the other hand, in-store promotions are those which are developed inside the point of sales and discovered by the consumer when shopping. These types of promotions require a reduced effort from the buyer and they are associated to passive proneness. In the present

ARTICLE IN PRESS
´ E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 159

The importance of these benefits and costs for each consumer would differentiate deal-prone from non-dealprone consumers. Some authors have identified sociodemographic and psychographic traits of the consumer associated to each of these benefits and costs and they have related them to deal-proneness. In the following section we will emphasise the psychographic traits which might be related to deal-proneness.

H2. Consumers with financial constraints: (a) are prone to in-store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store promotions. Quality is another utilitarian benefit associated with the purchase of a product. Promotional actions may produce a negative effect on the perceived quality of products (Grewal et al., 1998) and considering that quality-conscious consumers attach little importance to price, quality-conscious people are expected to show low proneness to promotions. H3. Quality-conscious consumers: (a) are not prone to in-store promotions and (b) are not prone to out-ofstore promotions. 3.2. Consumer characteristics associated to the hedonic benefits of promotions Hedonic benefits refer to experiential and affective aspects and they are not based on the objective aspects of the product or the promotion. When buying a promoted good, the consumer may obtain hedonic benefits such as entertainment, exploration and selfexpression. The entertainment benefit is important for people who enjoy shopping. People who enjoy shopping equally enjoy searching for information on available promotions (Beatty and Smith, 1997), obtain an additional utility tied to low-price buying (Urbany et al., 1996) and therefore they use discount coupons and glance through store flyers (Kolodinsky, 1990). Overall they present a higher proneness to use both in-store and out-of-store promotions (Ailawadi et al., 2001) since these activities increase the benefit they obtain with the purchase. H4. Consumers who enjoy shopping: (a) are prone to in-store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store promotions. On the other hand, the exploration benefit, as noted by Ailawadi et al. (2001), evokes characteristics such as innovation, variety seeking and impulsiveness which are commented on below. Innovative people may show a favourable attitude to promotions since these actions encourage them to try new products (Massy and Frank, 1965; Montgomery, 1971 or Teel et al., 1980) and therefore H5. Innovative consumers: (a) are prone to in-store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store promotions. The market also presents a segment of consumers who enjoy constantly trying out different brands, the socalled variety seekers. Brand switching provides them with more satisfaction than always buying the same product. These consumers are more sensitive to

3. Hypotheses In the characterisation of the deal-prone consumer we will consider the traits that Ailawadi et al. (2001) associated with the aforementioned benefits and costs. First, we will set the hypotheses related to the consumer’s characteristics associated with the utilitarian benefits of promotion purchase. We will then establish the hypotheses related to hedonic benefits. Finally, we will present the hypotheses related to the costs of promotion purchase. Furthermore, when setting the hypotheses, we will distinguish between both types of proneness mentioned before: proneness to in-store promotions and proneness to out-of-store promotions. We consider that the differences between both types of promotion will make some consumers respond to certain promotions but not to others. 3.1. Consumer characteristics associated to the economic benefits of promotions Some promotions may provide savings for the consumer reducing the pain of paying. Consequently, some consumers will purchase promoted products to obtain these economic benefits. Savings will be remarkable for those price-conscious consumers and for those with financial constraints. People with a higher economic level are usually less price conscious (Ailawadi et al., 2001), they are less sensitive to price changes (Kim et al., 1999), they make little effort to find a product’s best price (Putrevu and Lord, 2001) and they use promotions less (Ballina and Vazquez, 1996). Nevertheless, consumers with a lower economic level tend to be more price-sensitive, they thoroughly search for price information (Kim et al., 1999) and they are willing to make an additional effort to benefit from a promotion (Chen et al., 1998). Most research has concluded that price-conscious consumers with financial constraints respond well to promotional actions. H1. Price-conscious consumers: (a) are prone to instore promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store promotions.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
160 ´ E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168

promotions because they stimulate brand switching (Dodson et al., 1978). H6. Variety-seeking consumers: (a) are prone to instore promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store promotions. Impulsive shopping is a common behaviour at the store. The increase of promotions at the point of sale drives consumers to make decisions there (Narasimhan et al., 1996). Impulsive consumers will use in-store promotions, but not out-of-store promotions, which require an additional effort prior to the purchase (Ailawadi et al., 2001). H7. Impulsive shoppers: (a) are prone to in-store promotions and (b) are not prone to out-of-store promotions. Self-expression refers to an emotional benefit obtained by some consumers when they express their ‘‘self’’ in front of others. This self-expression benefit is related to being a market maven. Feick and Price (1987) define market mavens as ‘‘individuals who have information about many kinds of products, places to shop, and other facets of markets and initiate discussions with consumers and respond to requests from consumers for market information’’. Mavens pay attention to the media as a base for knowledge and they are likely to read direct mail and local advertising (Higie et al., 1987). In addition, they are heavy users of coupons (Price et al., 1988). Market mavens enjoy planning their shopping (Price et al., 1988) and they use functional criteria in their decisions (Williams and Slama, 1995), thus they are prone to use out-of-store promotions. Nevertheless, they are not characterised by purchasing in-store promotion products (Ailawadi et al., 2001). Consequently, we hypothesise: H8. Market mavens: (a) are not prone to in-store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store promotions. 3.3. Consumer characteristics associated to the costs of promotions Buying promoted products may entail brand switching or store switching. These changes may generate important costs for those who are loyal to brands or establishments. The more the store loyalty, the higher the costs the consumer has to bear for store switching (Mittal, 1994). Therefore, there will be a negative relationship between proneness to out-of-store promotions and store loyalty, since these promotions often require store switching (Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987). Furthermore, the customers who are loyal to an establishment tend to be less sensitive to prices and they are not influenced by

coupons nor store flyers (Kim et al., 1999), but they feel satisfied with the promotions developed at that ´ point of sales (Alvarez et al., 1999). H9. Consumers who are loyal to the establishment: (a) are prone to in-store promotions and (b) are not prone to out-of-store promotions. Customers who are loyal to brands present a lower level of proneness to promotions since they attach more importance to the product than to the price (Massy and Frank, 1965; Wakefield and Barnes, 1996), whereas nonloyal consumers are more prone to buy promoted products because they attach more importance to the price than to the product’s attributes (Webster, 1965; Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987). H10. Brand loyal consumers: (a) are not prone to instore promotions and (b) are not prone to out-of-store promotions. In order to obtain the benefits provided by promoted products some search activities are often necessary. These activities may have a remarkable cost for some consumers. The search costs will vary according to the extent the consumer plans their shopping and the time pressure they may have. Consumers who plan their shopping are likely to consider out-of-store promotions since these promotions encourage and help them to plan the shopping (Henderson, 1985; Ailawadi et al., 2001). In addition, planning shoppers eventually learn the promotional patterns of the establishments and they adapt their decisions to these patterns acquired inside the store (Krishna et al., 1991). H11. Consumers who plan their shopping: (a) are prone to in-store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store promotions. On the other hand, consumers with time pressure will not use out-of-store promotions; the cost of their free time is high and very often the low prices of products do not compensate for the effort required to benefit from them (Blattberg et al., 1978; Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987; Putrevu and Lord, 2001). These results would be applicable to both out-of-store promotions and coupons (Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987), and in-store promotions (Park et al., 1989). H12. Consumers with time pressure: (a) are not prone to in-store promotions and (b) are not prone to out-ofstore promotions. Inventory costs are related to the perceived availability for storage space. People with storage space constraints cannot stock up on many units of the promoted product (Blattberg et al., 1978), whereas shoppers with more storage space will respond better to promotions (Ailawadi et al., 2001).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
´ E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 161

H13. Consumers with storage space constraints: (a) are not prone to in-store promotions and (b) are not prone to out-of-store promotions.

4. Method 4.1. Sample and data collection To contrast the hypotheses we have designed a selfadministered survey aimed at people who buy all or part of the package food and cleaning products for the home. A pre-test questionnaire was administered to 175 citizens in the city of Zaragoza (Spain). This pre-test was developed to discover any possible weakness in the questionnaire. It was revised and, in March and April 2003, a final questionnaire was administered to a random sample of 475 individuals. A total of 425 were valid (89.6%). So, the sample error level was 4.85%, for an infinite population, p ¼ q ¼ 0:5 and the reliability level was 95.5%. The questionnaire was divided into four differentiated sections. First, respondents were asked about their shopping habits so as to verify that they belong to the target population of the study. In the second section, the questionnaire intended to measure the degree of proneness to promotions. The third section included questions related to psychographic variables. Finally, the questionnaire concluded with some socio-demographic questions. 4.2. Measurements We have used two different scales to achieve the research goals, a promotion-proneness scale and a scale which enables assessment of the psychographic profile of the respondents. The measurement of promotion proneness was based on the scale proposed by Ailawadi et al. (2001). This scale had produced positive results in the pre-test. Overall we used eight items where the respondent, in a five-point Likert scale (1 Never and 5 Very often), had to indicate the frequency of some actions related to promotions. For example, they were asked to say how often they read flyers. When defining the scales to measure the different components of the psychographic profile of consumers related to promotion proneness, we considered the pretest results. In that pre-test we had considered the scales used by Ailawadi et al. (2001), but when we analysed the data of that exploratory research, some items did not allow us to measure some dimensions properly. For this reason, Ailawadi et al.’s (2001) original scale was adapted and completed using other authors’ proposals. For those psychographic dimensions where the pre-test results showed good psychometric properties, we main-

tained the scales used by Ailawadi et al. (2001); this is the case of ‘‘price consciousness’’, ‘‘innovation’’, ‘‘impulsiveness’’, ‘‘market mavenism’’, ‘‘time pressure’’, ‘‘store loyalty’’ and ‘‘storage space perception’’. However, in the rest of the dimensions we proceeded to find alternative scales which allowed us to measure these constructs more adequately. Consequently, to measure the degree of ‘‘financial constraints’’ and ‘‘shopping enjoyment’’ we opted for the scale proposed by Urbany et al. (1996). To assess if the consumer is a variety seeker we utilised Chandon et al.’s scale. The degree of ‘‘brand loyalty’’ was analysed with the scale used by Mittal (1994). Finally, ‘‘shopping planning’’ was studied with Putrevu and Lord’s, (2001) scale. Appendix A gathers all the psychographic indicators used in this research. All through the psychographic scale the respondents are asked to show their agreement or disagreement with such indicators. They had to assess them in a five-point Likert scale (1 I totally disagree and 5 I totally agree).

5. Results 5.1. Reliability and validity of the scales Prior to contrasting the proposed hypotheses, the psychometric properties of the scales have to be assessed. Therefore, we first utilise an exploratory factor analysis to refine the initial scales and verify that the number of dimensions identified coincided with the number initially proposed. The exploratory factor analysis was performed by means of the statistical programme SPSS and we used the method of principal components with Varimax rotation to determine the factors. The convergent and discriminant validity of the scales was analysed with the confirmatory factor analysis. This confirmatory factor analysis was performed using EQS for windows and the robust estimation method. We also analysed the reliability of the scales through Cronbach’s alpha, the composite reliability index and the analysis of extracted variance. We finally evaluated the data goodness of fit. We begin by commenting the results of the validation process and the psychometric properties of the proneness scale and then we study the psychographic scale properties. The exploratory factor analysis of the deal-proneness scale identified three dimensions (Table 1). These three dimensions, which explain 85% of the variance, are proneness to use store flyers, proneness to use coupons and proneness to use in-store promotions. For Ailawadi et al. (2001), proneness to use flyers and coupons constituted a single dimension which the authors denominated proneness to use out-of-store promotions; this coincided with Schneider and Currim’s active proneness. These works were based on the USA data where coupons are widely known and used (Schultz

ARTICLE IN PRESS
162 ´ E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 Table 1 Factor analysis results of the deal-proneness scale Deal proneness factors (a ¼ 0:8488) Store flyers: Store flyers usage scale (a ¼ 0:8797) I use store flyers to decide what to buy I Scan store flyers for sales before going shopping I use store flyers to decide where to buy Coupons: Coupon usage scale (a ¼ 0:8872) I clip coupons from newspapers and magazines I tale along coupons and use them when I go shopping In-store: In-store promotion usage scale (a ¼ 0:8426) I am influenced buy special displays in the store I take advantage of specials in the store l standardized Variance explained (%) 34.22 0.882 0.854 0.845 25.92 0.916 0.916 25.02 0.892 0.889 85.16 KMO 0.738; Bartlet’s test of sphericity: po0:000; M.S.A.40.5; Communalities40.5. The item ‘‘I use a coupon if I see it on a package or in the store’’ was eliminated as its factor loading was not significant.

et al., 1998). In Spain, however, the distribution and the use of coupons is very low (AECOC, 2001). For example, in the United States almost 90% of consumers reported using coupons and, on average, of about 80 coupons per household were redeemed annually (Schultz et al., 1998). In Spain, 67% of consumer admitting using coupons at least occasionally but on average, only 3.25 coupons per household were redeemed in 2003 (Hermoso de Mendoza, 2004). However, the Spanish consumer received weekly flyers from different stores in their post boxes. Some authors have verified that the response to promotions may be conditioned by the consumers’ familiarity with the techniques (Huff and Alden, 1998). So, this may explain the difference between the proneness to use store flyers and the one to use coupons. Moreover, some authors have observed that deal-proneness is a multidimensional construct and response to promotions might differ between promotional tools (Lichtenstein et al., 1997b). The confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the existence of the three dimensions and allowed analysis of the discriminant and convergent validity of the scale. The analysis of the confidence intervals of the covariances in the three dimensions guaranteed the discriminant validity. No interval presented value 1; therefore, we may conclude that the dimensions we considered refer to clearly different concepts (Peter, 1981). On the other hand, the high factor loadings of the indicators in the proneness scale, above 0.65, corroborate the convergent validity of that scale (Table 1). Additionally, the reliability of the scale has been analysed. Table 2 presents the reliability indicators for each dimension. All Cronbach’s alpha indicators are above 0.8, composite reliability coefficients show values above 0.7 and the extracted variance analyses are above 0.5 (Hair et al., 1999). These values guarantee the scale’s reliability.

Table 2 Reliability and validity of the deal-proneness scale Cronbach’s alpha In-store Store flyers Coupons 0.843 0.880 0.887 Total reliability 0.842 0.884 0.887 Extracted variance 0.728 0.720 0.797

For the psychographic scale, the 13 factors were identified in the exploratory factor analysis. The identified dimensions were subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis through robust maximum likelihood. In this confirmatory analysis, and after a refinement of the scale where low standardised loadings or low R2 items were removed, the psychographic profile was eventually defined by 13 dimensions, depicted in Table 3, that explain 81% of the variance. The study of the confidence intervals of the covariance in the 13 psychographic dimensions guaranteed the discriminant validity of the scale since neither of the intervals had value 1. On the other hand, the high standardised factor loadings in each indicator allow verification of the convergent validity of the psychographic scale (Table 3). Finally, the reliability of the scale is guaranteed because all Cronbach’s alpha indices are above 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978) and the composite reliability indices and the extracted variance analysis exceed the values considered as optimum (Table 4). Additionally, we analysed the data’s goodness of fit to the dimensions identified in each scale (Table 5). The standardised residuals for both scales are below 0.05, which guarantees a satisfactory fit (Luque, 2000). On the other hand, although Satorra-Bentler statistical w2 shows a high value in both scales, the other goodness of fit indicators are above 0.9 or very close to this value (Hair et al., 1999; Luque, 2000). Consequently, the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
´ E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 Table 3 Factor analysis results of the psychographic scale Psychographic factors(a ¼ 0:7375) l standardized Variance explained (%) 7.66 0.903 0.832 0.739 7.54 0.978 0.776 0.731 7.43 0.922 0.784 0.758 7.31 0.890 0.793 0.701 7.12 0.844 0.778 0.737 7.10 0.890 0.750 0.705 5.95 0.926 0.922 5.74 0.904 0.902 5.29 0.941 0.732 5.29 0.830 0.818 5.11 0.808 0.772 5.02 0.809 0.729 5.01 0.779 0.773 81.58 KMO 0.706; Bartlet’s test of sphericity: po0:000; M.S.A.40.5; Communalities40.5. 163

Mavenism: Market maven (a ¼ 0:8598) People think of me as a good source of shopping information I am somewhat of an expert when it comes to shopping I enjoy giving people tips on shopping Quality: Quality consciousness (a ¼ 0:8618) always buy the best It is important for me to buy high-quality products I will not give up high quality for a lower price Time: Time pressure (a ¼ 0:8426) I always seem to be in a hurry I never seem to have enough time for the things I want to do Most days, I have no time to relax Innovativeness (a ¼ 0:8363) I like to try new and different things I am often among the first people to try a new product When I see a product somewhat different form the usual, I check it out Brand: Brand loyalty (a ¼ 0:8275) I and my family will consume only certain brands, not others For most supermarket items, I have favorite brands and limit my purchase to them In most product categories in the supermarket, there are certain brands for which I have a definitive preference Planning (a ¼ 0:8147) I am a well-organized grocery shopper I know what products I am going to buy before going to the supermarket I prepare a shopping list before going grocery shopping Space: Storage space (a ¼ 0:9209) I have plenty of storage space at home I have a lot of room at home to stock extra grocery Enjoyment: Shopping enjoyment (a ¼ 0:8984) I think grocery shopping is a chore (reverse score) I think grocery shopping is boring (reverse score) Price: Price consciousness (a ¼ 0:8149) I find myself checking the prices even for small items I compare the prices of at least a few brands before I choose one Constraints: Financial constraints (a ¼ 0:8089) My budgeting is always tight I frequently have problems making ends meet Impulsiveness: Impulsive behavior (a ¼ 0:7671) I often find myself buying products on impulsive in grocery store I often make an unplanned purchase when the urge strikes me Variety: Variety seeker (a ¼ 0:7399) I feel like trying new brands I can avoid buying always the same brands Store: Store loyalty (a ¼ 0:7510) Usually, I care a lot about which particular grocery store I shop at I am willing to make an effort to shop at my favorite grocery store

ARTICLE IN PRESS
164 ´ E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 Table 4 Reliability and validity of the psychographic scale Cronbach’s alpha Mavenism Quality Time Innovativeness Brand Planning Space Enjoyment Price Constraints Impulsiveness Variety Store 0.860 0.862 0.843 0.836 0.828 0.815 0.921 0.852 0.815 0.809 0.767 0.740 0.751 Total reliability 0.866 0.872 0.863 0.839 0.830 0.827 0.921 0.898 0.829 0.809 0.769 0.744 0.752 Extracted variance 0.685 0.698 0.680 0.637 0.620 0.617 0.854 0.815 0.711 0.679 0.624 0.593 0.602

Table 5 Goodness of fit parameters Index AASR AO-DASR Incremental fit Chi-Cuadrado (g.l.) p-value Satorra-Bentler GFI RMSEA Absolute fit AGFI NFI NNFI IFI CFI Deal-proneness scale 0.012 0.017 31.916 (11) o0.0001 25.067 0.980 0.067 0.949 0.981 0.976 0.988 0.987 Psychographic scale 0.028 0.030 697.632 (389) o0.0001 582.7391 0.908 0.043 0.876 0.898 0.871 0.953 0.952

analysis confirms the existence of the identified dimensions. The relationship between the psychographic variables and deal-proneness will be analysed through three logistic regressions. The dependent variables on those regressions will be proneness or no proneness to in-store promotions, flyers or coupons respectively, and, as independent variables, we will introduce the 13 psychographics obtained. In order to obtain the proneness dichotomous variables, we first calculated the arithmetic mean of the items in each proneness. Then we created the three dependent variables considering that a consumer is prone to in-store promotions if the value of the factor ‘‘proneness to in-store promotions’’ is above 3, and it will be considered as non-prone when the value is below or equal to 3; the same procedure has been followed for store flyers and coupons. In the questionnaire respon-

dents were required to rate the frequency of the actions in a scale 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). As for independent variables, we used the factor score of the 13 factors obtained in the validation of the psychographic scale. We used the method of regression to calculate the factor score. In the logistic regression analysis we used Wald’s method and the significance of the final model was assessed by the statistical w2 . In addition, we used the values of –2LL (À2 Log of the verisimilitude function) and Hosmer and Lemeshow statistical (G) as a measurement of the fit to the model. Table 6 summarises the results obtained. Subsequently, we will contrast the proposed hypotheses separately. We must remember that when setting the hypotheses we had anticipated two types of proneness: proneness to in-store promotions and proneness to out-of-store promotions. Nevertheless, after the validation of the scales, three types of proneness were identified. The first one refers to instore promotions and the other two types may be considered as out-of-store promotions: store flyers and coupons. The first hypothesis predicted a positive relationship between price consciousness and the consumer’s response to promotional actions. By analysing the b coefficients of the ‘‘price’’ variable in the three regressions we can verify that the more price conscious the consumer is, the higher the probability to be prone to instore promotions (b ¼ 0:837); to store flyers (b ¼ 0:573) and to coupons (b ¼ 0:561). Therefore, H1a and H1b are accepted. However, H2a and H2b cannot be accepted, since neither of the coefficients of the ‘‘financial constraints’’ variable is significant. Unlike we had predicted, those consumers with more financial constraints do not seem to be more deal-prone than other consumers with a higher economic level. An explanation to this result might be the one provided by Bell et al. (1999), who noticed that people with fewer financial constraints, or with a higher economic level, not only responded to promotional actions but they also did it with a higher frequency because they may afford to purchase more units of the promoted product than those people with a low economic level. In consequence, financial constraints are not an adequate variable to identify dealprone consumers (Lichtenstein et al., 1997a; Laroche et al., 2003). The third hypothesis considered that quality-conscious consumers were not prone to any type of promotion. By analysing the results of Table 6 we see that this relationship is true for in-store promotions and flyers, but it cannot be confirmed for coupons. The more quality conscious the consumer is, the lower the probability to be prone to in-store promotions (b ¼ À0:463) or store flyers (b ¼ À0:353). The coefficient of this variable in the regression of coupon

ARTICLE IN PRESS
´ E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 Table 6 Logistic analysis In-store promotions b (Wald statistic) Out-of-store promotions b (Wald statistic) Store flyers Mavenism Quality Time Innovativeness Brand Planning Space Enjoyment Price Constraints Impulsiveness Variety Store C % À2LL G w2 0.837*** (46.07) — À0.463*** (15.42) 0.374*** (10.53) 0.253** (4.76) 0.327*** (8.08) 0.329*** (8.00) — — — 0.380*** (10.70) — 0.203* (3.09) 0.423*** (14.21) 72.5 471.016 105.558 7.277 0.573*** (21.17) — À0.353*** (9.778) 0.266** (5.02) — — — 0.437*** (13.96) — — 0.452*** (12.92) — — À1.019*** (69.695) 69.6 457.298 61.086 10.973 Coupons 0.561*** (15.54) — — — 0.316** (5.90) — — 0.299** (5.39) — — — — — À1.608*** (132.12) 80.9 382.909 28.197 9.270 165

*Significant at the level 0.10; **significant at the level 0.05; ***significant at the level 0.01; C ¼ Constant; À2LL ¼ À2 Log Likelihood; G ¼ Goodness of fit; w2 ¼ Chi-squared statistic.

proneness is not significant. Therefore, H3a and H3b are accepted, being H3b only referred to flyers. Regarding shopping enjoyment, as expected, consumers who enjoy shopping are prone to in-store promotions (b ¼ 0:374); they tend to be people who do not mind spending time on this task and they enjoy seeking offers and promotions, which confirms H4a and H4b for store flyers. We verify that the more the consumers enjoy shopping, the higher the probability to be prone to flyers (b ¼ 0:266). However, in the case of coupons the relationship does not exist. In the fifth hypothesis we studied the relationship between the consumer’s innovation degree and dealproneness. On the one hand, as the hypothesis predicted, innovative people show a higher proneness to buy instore promoted products (b ¼ 0:253); the offers they find encourage them to try out the new products. In addition, innovative people usually respond to coupons (b ¼ 0:316), which confirms H5b. In this case we have to consider that this promotional tool is used to support the introduction of new products into the market. Nevertheless, innovative people do not seem to be specially prone to store flyers. As H6a predicted, people who enjoy frequent brand switching are more prone to in-store promotions (b ¼ 0:327) because the promotions encourage them to switch brands and thus obtain a higher benefit in the purchase. According to the revised literature, variety seekers often decide what to buy when they are inside the store, their choice depends on the offer at the point

of sales. However, store flyers and coupons do not seem to have any effect on this kind of people; thus, H6b cannot be accepted. Impulsive shoppers present a higher proneness to instore promotions, but they do not modify their behaviour with store flyers or coupons. These promotions require a prior effort and planning. Therefore, H7a and H7b are accepted. Nevertheless, market mavens show a reverse behaviour; they do not modify their behaviour with in-store promotions and they show a higher proneness to out-ofstore promotions, either flyers (b ¼ 0:437) or coupons (b ¼ 0:299). These results corroborate H8a and H8b. Store loyalty does not seem to condition a higher or lower proneness to any type of promotion, the coefficients of this variable in the three regressions are not significant. In relation to in-store promotions, on the one hand, loyal customers are satisfied with the promotions offered by the store they are loyal to (Sirohi et al., 1998) and, therefore, these consumers will respond to its promotions. On the other hand, non-loyal customers are less familiar with the store and they need to go around the store until they find the product they need. During this process, as they are exposed to a lot of promotional stimulus, they might be more deal-prone (Park et al., 1989). With regard to out-of-store promotions, it seems logical that consumers who are loyal to a store are not influenced by other stores’ promotions (Sirohi et al., 1998), as they will support high switching costs. However, these consumers might pay special

ARTICLE IN PRESS
166 ´ E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168

attention to the their favourite store’s flyers. Moreover, many coupons can be redeemed at any store and loyal customers might use them in their habitual store. Brand loyalty does not seem to condition a higher or lower proneness to any type of promotion, the coefficients of this variable in the three regressions are not significant. People who are loyal to a brand may respond to that brand’s promotions, but not to the competitors’ promotions (Grover and Srinivasan, 1992; Henderson, 1994; Ailawadi et al., 2001). Therefore, H9a, H9b, H10a and H10b are not accepted. On the other hand, and contrary to H11a, the more time consumers spend on shopping planning, the more likelihood of them responding to in-store promotions (b ¼ 0:380). The explanation may be that when these people find an interesting promotion while shopping, they calculate and buy the amount they may need until the next promotion of the product. In addition, planners may use store flyers to prepare their shopping list according to the products promoted there (b ¼ 0:452). However, planners are not specially coupon prone, probably due to the scarce use of this promotional tool in our country. Therefore, H11b would be accepted in the case of store flyers. In our study we have found no significant relationship between time constraints and purchasing promoted products; thus, H12a and H12b cannot be accepted. Finally we had predicted that people with more storage space present a higher proneness to buy promoted products; this relationship is corroborated for in-store promotions (H13a) but not for store flyers and coupons (H13b). After analysing the coefficients of the three logistic regressions established in this research, we can state that most hypotheses have been confirmed. In the conclusions below we will summarise the psychographic profiles which characterise the consumers prone to each type of the identified promotions.

6. Conclusions and implications The basic purpose of this study was to delve into the knowledge of the characteristics of consumers who respond to sales promotions and to attempt to differentiate between the consumer who responds to in-store promotion and the one who responds to out-ofstore promotional actions. In order to define the consumer’s profile we have focused on the study of the psychographic variables and we have verified that those consumers who modify their behaviour with in-store promotions present different psychographic profiles than those consumers who respond to any type of promotion with an external stimulus.

The results reveal three types of deal-proneness: instore promotion proneness, store flyers proneness and coupon proneness. These results somehow differ from those obtained in studies developed in other countries where some authors had proved that people who modified their shopping behaviour with coupons also responded to store flyer. This may not occur in Spain because coupons have not been widely used so far and our market is not used to this type of promotional tool. However, some authors have stated that coupon proneness differs from other deal-proneness (Lichtenstein et al., 1997b; Guimond et al., 2001). The consumers who respond to in-store promotions are characterised by their price consciousness and attach less importance to the product quality. They enjoy planning and shopping; when they do their shopping they usually buy impulsively, they enjoy brand switching frequently and they feel attracted by new products. In addition, they consider they have enough storage space for their extra purchase. The consumers who use store flyers to decide the products to purchase and the stores to buy are also price conscious. These consumers consider themselves as market mavens, they plan their shopping trips and they enjoy doing it. Furthermore, these shoppers are less quality conscious. Finally, coupon-prone consumers are price conscious and they usually consider themselves as market mavens and innovative. These results are relevant for the companies which include sales promotions in their communication programme since not all the consumers have the same response to sales promotions. When designing promotional campaigns we should consider the target public and the most effective instruments to attract them. The results of the study, as noted above, have been based on the answers to a questionnaire where respondents were asked directly about their response to promotional actions. It would be interesting to contrast these results and measurements with real figures about shopping behaviour obtained from panel data. This type of information would allow to contrast if the degree of deal-proneness depends on the category of the product. Further studies could be done to study the situational factors which may affect the relationships found between the consumer’s psychographic profile and their response to promotions, as Wakefield and Inman (2003) suggest.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to express their gratitude for the financial help received from the Government of Aragon through the GENERES project (ref. SO9) and the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
´ E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 167

project PM062/2004, and from the Science and Technology Ministry by means of the CICYT project (SEC 2002-03949).

Appendix A. Psychographic scale Price consciousness  I find myself checking the prices even for small items  I compare the prices of at least a few brands before I choose one  It is important to me to get the best price for the products I buy Financial constraints  My budgeting is always tight  I frequently have problems making ends meet  I often have to spend more money than I have available Quality consciousness  I always buy the best  It is important for me to buy high-quality products  I will not give up high quality for a lower price Shopping enjoyment  I enjoy grocery shopping  Grocery shopping is a chore  Grocery shopping is boring  Grocery shopping is a pain  I view grocery shopping in a positive way Innovativeness  I like to try new and different things  I am often among the first people to try a new product  When I see a product somewhat different from the usual, I check it out Variety seeking  I feel like trying new brands  I can avoid buying always the same brands Impulsiveness  I often find myself buying products on impulsive in grocery store  I often make an unplanned purchase when the urge strikes me Mavenism  People think of me as a good source of shopping information  I am somewhat of an expert when it comes to shopping  I enjoy giving people tips on shopping

Store loyalty  I prefer to always shop at one grocery store  Usually, I care a lot about which particular grocery store I shop at  I am willing to make an effort to shop at my favourite grocery store Brand loyalty  I and my family will consume only certain brands, not others  For most supermarket items, I have favourite brands and limit my purchase to them  In most product categories in the supermarket, there are certain brands for which I have a definitive preference Planning  I am a well-organised grocery shopper  I know what products I am going to buy before going to the supermarket  I prepare a shopping list before going grocery shopping Time pressure  I always seem to be in a hurry  I never seem to have enough time for the things I want to do  Most days, I have no time to relax Storage space  I have plenty of storage space at home  I have a lot of room at home to stock extra grocery

References
AECOC, 2001. ECR-El Camino a la Eficiencia. www.aecoc.es Ailawadi, K.L., Neslin, S.A., Gedenk, K., 2001. Pursuing the valueconscious consumer: store brands versus national brand promotions. Journal of Marketing 65, 71–89. ´ ´ Alvarez, B., 2002. El Proceso de Eleccion de Marca por el Consumidor. Incidencia de los Precios de Referencia y las Promociones, Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Oviedo. ´ ´ Alvarez, B., Vazquez, R., Ballina, F.J., Santos, M.L., 1999. Evidencias ´ Empı´ ricas de la promocion de ventas en establecimientos detallistas, Documento de trabajo 167/99. Universidad de Oviedo. ´ Ballina, F.J. de la, Vazquez, R., 1996. La Promocion de Ventas de Productos de Gran Consumo: Confirmaciones Empı´ ricas. Actas del VIII Encuentro de Profesores Universitarios de Marketing, Zaragoza, pp. 429–441. Bawa, K., Shoemaker, R.W., 1987. The effects of a direct mail coupon on brand choice behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 24, 370–376. Beatty, S.E., Smith, S.M., 1997. External search effort: an investigation across several product categories. Journal of Consumer Research 14, 83–95. Bell, D.R., Chiang, J., Padmanabhan, V., 1999. The decomposition of promotional response: an empirical generalization. Marketing Science 18 (4), 504–526.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
168 ´ E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 ´ ´ ´ Luque, T., 2000. Tecnicas de Analisis de Datos en Investigacion de ´ Mercados. Piramide, Madrid. Massy, W.F., Frank, R.E., 1965. Short term price and dealing effects in selected market segments. Journal of Marketing Research 2, 171–185. Mittal, B., 1994. An integrated framework for relating diverse consumer characteristics to supermarket coupon redemption. Journal of Marketing Research 31, 533–544. Montgomery, D.B., 1971. Consumer characteristics associated with dealing: an empirical example. Journal of Marketing Research 8, 118–120. Narasimhan, C., Neslin, S.A., Sen, S.K., 1996. Promotional elasticities and category characteristics. Journal of Marketing 60, 17–30. Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York. Park, C.W., Iyer, E.S., Smith, D.C., 1989. The effects of situational factors on in-store grocery shopping behavior: the role of store environment and time available for shopping. Journal of Consumer Research 15, 422–433. Peter, J.P., 1981. Construct validity: a review of basis issues and marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research 18, 133–145. Price, L.L., Feick, L.F., Guskey-Federouch, A., 1988. Couponing behaviors of the market maven: profile of a super couponer. Advances in Consumer Research 15, 354–359. Putrevu, S., Lord, K.R., 2001. Search dimensions, patterns and segment profiles of grocery shoppers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8, 127–137. ´ ´ Sanchez, G., Del Barrio, S., 1998. La Promocion de Ventas Detallista: Un Estudio Diferencial de la Gran Superficie Versus la Tienda ´ Tradicional. Investigacion y Marketing 58, 13–21. Schindler, R.M., 1989. The excitement of getting a bargain: some hypothesis concerning the origins and effects of smart-shopper feelings. Advances in Consumer Research 16, 447–453. Schneider, L.G., Currim, I.S., 1991. Consumer purchase behaviors associated with active and passive deal-proneness. International Journal of Research in Marketing 8, 205–222. Schultz, D.E., Robinson, W.A., Petrison, L.A., 1998. Sales Promotion Essentials, Third ed. NTC Business Books, Chicago. Shimp, T.A., Kavas, A., 1984. The theory of reasoned action applied to coupon usage. Journal of Consumer Research 11, 795–809. Sirohi, N., McLaughlin, E.W., Wittink, D.R., 1998. A model of consumer perceptions and store loyalty intentions for a supermarket retailer. Journal of Retailing 74 (2), 223–245. Teel, J.E., Williams, R.H., Bearden, W.O., 1980. Correlates of consumer susceptibility to coupons in new grocery product introductions. Journal of Advertising 9 (3), 31–46. Urbany, J.E., Dickson, P.R., Kalapurakal, R., 1996. Price search in the retail grocery market. Journal of Marketing 60, 91–104. ´ Vazquez, R., Ballina, F.J. de la, 1996. Estrategias de Promocion de Ventas para las Empresas Detallistas: Influencia sobre las Percepciones y el Comportamiento de Compra de los Consumidores. Cuadernos Aragoneses de Economı´ a 6, 389–419. Wakefield, K.L., Barnes, J.H., 1996. Retailing hedonic consumption: a model of sales promotion of a leisure service. Journal of Retailing 72 (4), 409–427. Wakefield, K.L., Inman, J.J., 2003. Situational price sensitivity: the role of consumption occasion, social context and income. Journal of Retailing 79 (4), 199–212. Webster, F.E., 1965. The ‘‘deal-prone’’ consumer. Journal of Marketing Research 2, 186–189. Williams, T.G., Slama, M.E., 1995. Market mavens’ purchase decision evaluative criteria: implications for brand and store promotion efforts. Journal of Consumer Marketing 12 (3), 4–21. Blattberg, R.C., Neslin, S.A., 1990. Sales Promotions: Concepts, Methods and Strategies. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Blattberg, R., Buesing, T., Peacock, P., Sen, S., 1978. Identifying the deal prone segment. Journal of Marketing Research 15, 369–377. Chandon, P., Wansink, B., Laurent, G., 2000. A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research 39, 65–81. Chen, S.F.S., Monroe, K.B., Lou, Y.C., 1998. The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing 74 (3), 353–372. Dodson, J.A., Tybout, A.M., Sternthal, B., 1978. Impact of deals and deal retraction on brand switching. Journal of Marketing Research 15, 72–81. Feick, L.F., Price, L., 1987. The market maven: a diffuser of market place information. Journal of Marketing 51, 83–97. Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., Borin, N., 1998. The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing 74 (3), 331–352. Grover, R., Srinivasan, V., 1992. Evaluating the multiple effect of retail promotions on brand loyal and brand switching segments. Journal of Marketing Research 29, 76–89. Guimond, L., Kim, C., Laroche, M., 2001. An investigation of coupon-prone consumers: their reactions to coupon feature manipulations. Journal of Business Research 54, 131–137. ´ Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1999. Analisis Multivariante, 5a ed. Prentice Hall, Madrid. Henderson, C.M., 1985. Modeling the coupon redemption decision. Advances in Consumer Research 12 (1), 138–143. Henderson, CM., 1994. Promotion heterogeneity and consumer learning: refining the deal-proneness construct. Advances in Consumer Research 21, 86–94. ´ Hermoso de Mendoza, C., 2004. Mas por Menos. Cupones y Vales de Descuento Ayudan a Promover la Venta de Productos en el Mercado. IPMARK 626, 54–58. Higie, R.A., Feick, L.F., Price, L.L., 1987. Types and amount of wordof-mouth communications about retailers. Journal of Retailing 63 (3), 260–278. Huff, L., Alden, D.L., 1998. An investigation of consumer response to sales promotions in developing markets: a three-country analysis. Journal of Advertising Research May–June, 47–56. Kim, B.D., Srinivasan, K., Wilcox, R.T., 1999. Identifying price sensitive consumers: the relative merits of demographic vs. purchase pattern information. Journal of Retailing 75 (2), 173–193. Kolodinsky, J., 1990. Time as a direct source of utility: the case of price information search for groceries. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 24 (1), 89–109. Krishna, A., Currim, I.S., Shoemaker, R.W., 1991. Consumer perceptions of promotional activity. Journal of Marketing 55, 4–16. Laroche, M., Pons, F., Zgolly, N., Cervellon, M.C., Kim, C., 2003. A model of consumer response to two retail sales promotions techniques. Journal of Business Research 56, 513–522. Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G., Burton, S., 1990. Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: an acquisitiontransaction utility theory perspective. Journal of Marketing 54, 54–67. Lichtenstein, D.R., Burton, S., Netemeyer, R.G., 1997a. Psychological correlates of a processes to deals: a domain specific analysis. Advances in Consumer Research 24, 274–280. Lichtenstein, D.R., Burton, S., Netemeyer, R.G., 1997b. An examination of deal proneness across sales promotion types. Journal of Retailing 73, 283–297.