Sales promotion and the purchasing behavior of food consumers

Apromoção de vendas e o comportamento de compra do consumidor de alimentos 1Joselita Pancine Vigna

Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.

Sales promotions involve tactics that can have an effect on consumer purchasing behavior, linking directly to the sales volume of organizations (Alnazer, 2013; Vitor, Ayimey & Gayibor, 2013). Its use proposes an exchange with benefits, which may influence the purchase and impact sales (Gilbert & Fackaria, 2002; Yusuf, 2010). Because of its importance, marketing studies have raised questions about its role in the context of communication and its ability to drive short-term sales, encouraging consumers to purchase a product or service (Pagiavlas & Francisco, 2013; Vitor et al., 2013).

According to Santini, Lubeck and Sampaio (2015a), research on sales promotions has been conducted since the 1970s. Since then, the number of studies has increased at the same time as there were higher promotional expenditures given by organizations (Wierenga & Soethoudt, 2010) and greater availability of consumer behavior data for a promotional offer (Teunter, 2002).

Abroad, there were several studies developed during the 1980s and 1990s addressing the theme, such as Peattie and Peattie (1995) and we note a continuity of research during the 21st century (Bailey, 2005; Fam, Yang & Tanakinjal, 2008; Gilbert & Fackaria, 2002; Laran & Tsiros, 2013; Kotni, 2011; Mcneill, 2013; Michael & Ogwo, 2013; Montanari, Rodrigues, Giraldi & Neves, 2018; Pagiavlas & Francisco, 2013; Palazon & Delgado-Ballester, 2011; Ramanathan & Dhar, 2010; Shankar & Bolton, 2004; Vitor et al., 2013; Wierenga & Soethoudt, 2010; Yang, Cheung, Henry, Guthrie & Fam, 2010). In Brazil, although they are far less numerous, studies highlight the effect of sales promotion in consumers’ purchase intention (Freitas & Hamerski, 2017, Santini et al., 2015a; Santini, Ladeira, Sampaio & Falcão, 2105b). As may be noted, in the academic field, studies are directed at understanding the influences of sales promotion on consumer purchasing behavior (Bailey, 2005; Fam et al, 2008; Gilbert & Fackaria, 2002; Laran &Tsiros, 2013; Michael & Ogwo, 2013; Mcneill, 2013; Pagiavlas & Francisco,2013; Ramanathan & Dhar, 2010; Simpson, 2006; Turki & Kammoun, 2013; Vitor et al., 2013; Wah Lee, 2002). From the managerial point of view, sales promotion has been approached and gaining importance as a marketing strategy (Santini et al., 2015a).

Even with a wide theoretical framework abroad, in Brazil, this theme is still under analyzed, enabling advances in research that can contribute to a better understanding of sales promotion behaviors and their relationship to consumer purchasing intention in a relevant emerging market (Alvarez Alvarez & Vázquez Casielles, 2005; D’Astous & Landreville, 2003; Jones, 2008; Ramos, Ferreira, Freitas & Rodrigues, 2018; Santini, et al., 2015b). We emphasize that most sales promotion research has been conducted in developed countries, with the findings of this research not necessarily resulting in applicability in the reality of emerging markets, including Brazil, reinforcing the need for specific research for such markets.

Thus, this study is aligned with the search for knowledge on the subject, considering that in the Brazilian context, publications on sales promotions are few, despite the diversity of studies abroad. We intend to verify the effectiveness of sales promotion in increasing consumers' purchase intention, which was initially evidenced by Santini et al. (2015a) and Santini et al. (2015b).

Thus, this study seeks to broaden the understanding of the effect of using sales promotion on consumer purchasing behavior of Brazilian food retailers. We must consider that this sector is one of the fastest growing in Brazil. According to ABIA (2017) (Brazilian Food Industry Association), in 2016, the food sector had revenues that exceeded BRL 613 billion, representing 19.7% of total Brazilian exports. Because of its representativeness in the Brazilian economy, it is relevant to study how the use of sales promotion has contributed to the purchase of food.

Considering the expressiveness of food retail and its growth in the country, as well as the different approaches to stimulating purchases, the following research question arises: What types of sales promotion affect the purchasing behavior of the Brazilian food consumer? Therefore, the objective of this research is to identify the effects of using discounts, free samples, prize draw and promotional gifts in Brazilian retail food purchasing behavior. We keep the importance of this information in mind to facilitate the definition of marketing actions promoted by the various food chain agents (Tong, Lai & Tong, 2012; Santini et al., 2015a).

For this purpose, we conducted a survey with 235 consumers from the application of a questionnaire that tested, based on validated statements in the study by Gilbert and Fackaria (2002), Brazilian consumer behavior regarding the use of sales promotion. We performed data analysis using proportion measurements (percentages), descriptive statistics and a multiple linear regression model.

This study is theoretically justified by seeking to understand the influence of sales promotions on consumer purchasing behavior in an emerging market, which is the case of the Brazilian market. This approach differs from the original study used as a parameter of this research, which was conducted in the UK by Gilbert and Fackaria (2002), to investigate English consumer response to the four most commonly used promotional offers in UK supermarkets: coupons, discounts, free samples, and “buy one, get one free”. These authors found that only discount obtained statistical significance to influence the purchasing behavior of the English consumer. From the empirical indications of the study by Gilbert and Fackaria (2002), we opted to broaden the proposed discussions by studying the effect of usual types of promotions in the Brazilian market, specifically discounts, samples, prize draws and promotional gifts. Because Brazilian retailers recurrently use promotions to drive sales, it is important to provide marketing managers with insights so they can make decisions, since sales promotions have a direct effect on business results. In this sense, the study is justified by proposing the expansion of investigations on sales promotions, since they have been shown to be efficient and have their use expanded in Brazilian retail, mainly in order to circumvent the effects of crises that generally affect the sector (Semedo, 2014). It is recommended to use developed knowledge of consumer behavior to shape more assertive strategies and promotions.

We hope the study results can help marketers and communications professionals develop practical assessments of consumer behavior, as the study provides behavioral data on the dynamics of food product acquisition on sale. With the results, these professionals can design a promotional process based on consumer behavior and product purchase mode evaluation, to better define communication messaging and financial resource allocation (Schultz & Barnes, 2001).

Marketing communication provides the means by which organizations present themselves to their audience, covering advertising, sales promotion, personal selling, public relations and marketing. In this study, we addressed sales promotion that, according to D’Astous and Landreville (2003) and Liao (2006), is a marketing tool used to stimulate the consumption of products and services. It includes a set of tools designed to drive purchase of a product, affecting sales immediately or piquing interest in a brand or product category (Pagiavlas & Francisco, 2013; Vitor et al., 2013). Using it encourages consumers to respond directly by offering additional benefits (Peattie & Peattie, 1995), which can change the perceived value equation for money (Fam et al., 2008), mainly in competitive contexts and short-term pressure (Wah Lee, 2002).

Sales promotion is thus, an incentive to accelerate the sales process (Mali & Ahir, 2013) and when it is used to deliver benefits consistent with those of the promoted product, it becomes effective in influencing consumer behavior (Chandon, Wansink & Laurent, 2000). Such is its importance that, according to the AMPRO-Ibope 2011 survey (AMPRO, 2011), companies continue to invest in promotion.

Defining the right promotional tool is therefore a challenge for organizations, as this choice may or may not trigger consumer behavior consistent with the company's communication goals (Peattie & Peattie, 1995). Companies should be aware that reconciling the right promotional tool with the intended objectives can represent the transformation of potential buyers into actual buyers through incentives (Gherasim, 2012), favoring the company’s market share (Vitor et al., 2013).

It also stimulates desired consumer response (Gilbert & Fackaria, 2002), allowing to test the demand for a product (Chandon, 1995), capturing new customers by persuading to change brands that have higher profit margins or simply inducing the customer to buy more (Yang et al., 2010).

Given the diversity of promotional types, companies face the challenge of choosing a promotional tool that is appropriate for their brand and product. For this purpose, they must know consumer preferences in order to define the promotional actions that will most influence consumer purchasing behavior (Mali & Ahir, 2013; Palazon & Delgado-Ballesterm, 2011).

In this perspective, the study by Chandon (1995) points out that frequent users of sales promotions are price sensitive, responsive to information and brand changes and they are frequent buyers of the products on sale. In addition, they stock and accelerate their purchases due to sales promotion. When consumers come across sales promotions, according to Gilbert and Fackaria (2002), they can choose to trade, store the product on sale, speed up shopping, and even stock up on products with promotional appeal. For these reasons, knowing the factors that influence purchasing can provide relevant marketing ideas for an organization (Vilcassim & Jain, 1991).

Considering the theoretical contributions about different consumer behaviors in the face of a promotion, for this study, we chose to analyze brand switching or brand loyalty, stocking, purchase acceleration, and product choice behaviors. The research on brand switching or loyalty had as theoretical support the studies by Gilbert and Fackaria (2002) and Currim and Schneider (1991). The storage behavior was studied from the theoretical proposals by these same authors added to the findings of the study by Raju, Srinivasan and Lal (1990). Purchase acceleration (unplanned purchase) and product choice were investigated with reference to the proposal by Gilbert and Fackaria (2002), Fam et al. (2008) and Currim and Schneider (1991).

For Currim and Schneider (1991), promotions are associated with the acceleration of purchases in terms of increasing the quantity purchased and reduce the time of repurchase, and can lead to brand switching. In their study of consumer engagement with sales promotions, the authors point out that the motivations for brand switching and purchase acceleration during a promotion may be tied to saving money as well as psychological satisfaction of the consumer by considering themselves as “smart consumers” when taking advantage of sales promotion.

As for brand loyalty, Raju et al. (1990) point out that when brands in a market have high loyalty, it is not profitable to use sales promotions. However, as competition increases, the likelihood of using sales promotions also increases. Regarding product choice, Fam et al. (2008), point out in their study of promotional techniques that the use of sales promotion can persuade consumers to consume higher-margin brands, in addition to inducing them to buy more, that is, stock the promoted product. Gilbert and Fackaria (2002) point out that not all consumers are influenced by promotional tools in the same way, and therefore companies need to be able to evaluate the current effectiveness of the resources they allocate to promotional activities to drive sales.

Thus, the studies presented allow us to consider that consumers are influenced by sales promotions. It is not possible to state that, for any kind of promotion used, the expected behavior of the consumer is the same. Therefore, choosing which type of promotion depends on what behavior marketers want to arouse in consumers. Moreover, developing and monitoring promotional strategies requires analyzing how consumers respond to the different expectations and benefits offered by promotional types that companies can use (Palazon & Delgado- Ballester, 2011).

In view of the objective outlined for this study, we conducted a cross-sectional quantitative methodological research and survey. We seek to define the relationship between the use of a promotional type and its effects on consumer purchasing behavior.

To respond to the objective of this study, the population able to participate in the survey comprises all those who bought food on sale. Because it is a large, varied and unknown population, we opted for non-probabilistic convenience sampling, involving the most available respondents who could provide the necessary information for the study. Thus, the sample consisted of higher education students from a private college and the technical course of a commercial education institution, in addition to personal contacts and the social network Facebook, making a total of 243 respondents. The sample obtained was 65% larger than the original study that supports this research, Gilbert and Fackaria (2002), approached 160 respondents in their study.

To collect data, we applied a questionnaire from February to March 2014 to consumers of food on sale. We seek to measure respondents’ perceptions of the use of four types of sales promotion: discounts, free samples, promotional gifts, and prize draws. From the conceptual framework offered in the study by Gilbert and Fackaria (2002) on the use of sales promotions, it was possible to evaluate consumer behavior in four situations: brand loyalty; product stocking; experimentation with new products; purchase acceleration.

Following the same procedures as Gilbert and Fackaria (2002), first, after an initial explanatory text, respondents should state whether they buy promotional food. Then respondents were able to rate on a five-point Likert scale (from totally agree to totally disagree) how they would behave when using a specific type of sales promotion. For each type of promotion surveyed, statements were made about its influence on consumer purchasing behavior. These statements were intended to assess whether, for each type of promotion, consumers would stock the product, make unplanned purchases (purchase acceleration), try a new product, and even if using promotions, the consumer would remain loyal to brands not in promotion.

It is noteworthy that, for the interpretation of the variable “brand loyalty”, the scale used was inverted. The statement made in the questionnaire to test such behavior referred to the consumer’s habit of always purchasing the same food brand, even when other brands offered discounts or free samples or prize draws or promotional gifts. A positive answer (totally agree and partially agree) to this question indicated that the consumer would probably remain loyal to the brands that were commonly purchased and that the sales promotion had no effect on their behavior. Similarly, a negative answer (strongly disagree and partially disagree) indicated that consumers were influenced by sales promotion, which could lead them to switch brands.

In addition, we included statements in the questionnaire about the influence of promotions on food purchase decisions, consumer preference for food on sale and statements as to whether the respondent was a frequent food consumer due to promotional incentives. Finally, the last part of the questionnaire aimed to characterize the respondent regarding gender, age, income and education.

After performing the first version of the questionnaire, we conducted a test with 20 undergraduate students that comprised the research target audience. They received a link generated by the Google Docs tool that remained active for one week in February 2014. Pretest results signaled minor adjustments in questionnaire formatting, for a better understanding of the questions used. We made changes to the order of the questions, adjusting them so that one question did not influence the next. Moreover, to help the understanding of the questions, a sales promotion concept was included in the survey header as well as the free sample concept.

After we completed the adjustments indicated in the pretest, we sent the questionnaires via a new link generated by the Google Docs tool. Respondents were able to access this link during February and March 2014. Of the questionnaires sent, 243 were answered. After analyzing the responses received, 235 questionnaires were validated, excluding 8 questionnaires in which respondents indicated that they did not buy promotional food and therefore did not compose the study population.

For data analysis, we used proportion measures (percentages) to assist in the evaluation of sample characteristics. In addition, descriptive statistics contributed to the understanding of respondents’ average perception of the indicators evaluated. For each type of purchasing behavior (brand loyalty, purchase acceleration, stocking, and product choice), triggered by a specific type of sales promotion (discounts, free samples, prize draws and promotional gifts), we calculate a mean and its respective standard deviation. For example, for the discount construct, we get a mean of brand loyalty, one of purchase acceleration, one of stocking and one of product choice, making four means. Then a fifth average was calculated for the discount construct. This fifth average simultaneously considered all types of consumer behavior toward a sales promotion that uses discounts (brand loyalty, purchase acceleration, stocking and product choice), thus obtaining the average for the construct under discussion. The same interpretation was applied to the other study constructs (free samples, prize draws and promotional gifts).

In addition to the means and standard deviations for the researched behaviors, we calculated a mean for the variable, another for the preference variable and one for the frequency variable. From these three variables a variable called sales promotion was created, which simultaneously reflects the influence, preference and frequency of purchases, and for this variable we also calculated the mean and standard deviation.

Finally, just as conducted by Gilbert and Fackaria (2002), we performed a multiple linear regression model to explain the relationship between the sales promotion dependent variable and the study’s independent variables, represented by means of discounts, free samples, prize draws, and promotional gifts. The dependent variable is reported as consumer behavior in relation to frequency, preference and influence on the purchase of promoted products. Independent variables were the four consumer promotions that exhibited different types of purchasing behavior. As mentioned, these behaviors included brand loyalty, stocking, purchase acceleration, and product experimentation. From the proposed model, it was possible to observe the relationship between the use of sales promotion and consumer behavior.

The proposed study sought to contribute to a better understanding of the purchase behavior of promotions by food consumers, evaluating different promotional types used by companies in this sector in the Brazilian market. Among the implications of this research are the verification of the effectiveness of using discounts for purchase acceleration, stocking products and product choice; from using free samples to choosing a particular food, impacting on purchase acceleration; from prize draws to brand switching and purchase acceleration; and promotional gifts for product selection and stocking. We also demonstrated the interference of the use of discounts, free samples and prize draws to affect consumers of sales to purchase promotional food, prefer this particular food to those not on sales and purchase it often.

In academic terms, the study contributed by investigating different promotional types from those already investigated, noting the impact of using sales promotion on consumer behavior in a different market than those already researched (Alvarez Alvarez & Vázquez Casielles, 2005; Low & Mohr, 2000; Simpson 2006), the identification of promotional types that may influence, generate preference and motivate the frequency of purchase of products promoted by Brazilian consumers (Santini et al., 2015a, Santini et al., 2015b), in addition to the analysis of stocking behaviors, purchase acceleration, product choice and brand loyalty that can change the choice of a promotional type in a promotional campaign (D’Astous & Landreville, 2003; Liao, 2006).

With these results, it is possible to understand that to increase the effectiveness of a sales promotion, the choice of the promotional type to use is relevant. It is important to reinforce that the use of discounts, samples, prize draws and promotional gifts stimulate different reactions in the purchasing behavior of promotion consumers. By understanding these effects, one can achieve better results with sales promotion. Thus, in practical terms, the study proposed to contribute with new subsidies to managers, for planning and executing their promotional campaigns in the food sector, since many decisions are still often made according to managers' intuitions rather than supported by scientific evidence (D’Astous & Landreville, 2003).

We thus point out that a broader understanding of the purchasing behaviors caused by the types of promotion examined should be relevant to organizations concerned with the topic. Companies can take an active role in managing their communications by defining the best sales promotion tactic, choosing the one that is most beneficial to the organization, including establishing actions to face competition (Manzano, 2013). We recommend that organizations pay special attention to using discounts, especially in the context of food retailing, as sales promotion and, above all, discount actions are extensively used in this environment (Gilbert & Fackaria; 2002; Simpson, 2006; Santini, et.al, 2015a). Therefore, the results of this research can serve managers as a tool for effective leverage of Brazilian retail sales (Santini et al., 2015a).

However, despite the proposed contributions, it is important to point out the limitations of the study. Initially, we highlight that the data were collected with students, mostly. In this case, we recommend expanding the sample to include other audiences, such as supermarket customers, which would produce new results. We also suggest that when conducting the study to understand consumer purchasing behavior in retail environments, the researcher identifies what type of food is being investigated, facilitating the evaluation of respondents.

Another limitation refers to the use of the non-probabilistic convenience sample, which did not allow generalizing the results to the target population. We suggest that further studies use another sampling method that allows inference. For example, using longitudinal sectioning and choosing another sampling technique would allow inferences about causality. In this sense, a longitudinal study would be relevant to measure the perceptions of food consumers over time.

As a suggestion for future research, we suggest conducting this study addressing other types of sales promotions, such as, “buy one, get one free”, tenders, refunds, frequent purchase programs, among others. We emphasize that the suggestion is for an extension, in order to understand if, by adding other types of promotion, the types used in the first study would lose their importance or would still influence consumer purchasing behavior of promotions in the same way. A second suggestion is to conduct the study for another type of product for comparison. We can also consider cultural factors when using sales promotion, to see how they facilitate or prevent the use of certain promotional types. Another suggestion for future research would be to understand how non-shoppers could start purchasing, what kind of promotion would suit them best or why they do not buy it on sale. It would be interesting to explore the demographic variables with the others in the study to confirm or not the findings by Gilbert and Fackaria (2002), who found no evidence that gender, employment, education and age are important in consumer response to a brand’s promotional offers.

Finally, concluding this study, based on proposals by Byun and Jang (2015), we can suggest that the results have important practical implications for Brazilian marketing managers. First, marketing managers may consider using discounts, free samples, prize draws and promotional gifts to attract food consumers. Second, managers may consider that the effectiveness of using these promotional types may differ in order to trigger consumer purchasing behavior. Finally, managers can understand consumer purchasing behavior to develop tailored promotions because, depending on the type of sales promotion used, the consumer will present different types of purchasing behavior.

How to cite the article:: Vigna, J. P., Mainardes, E. W. (2019). Sales promotion and the purchasing behavior of food consumers. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 18(3), 101-126.

This research was supported by Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq/Brazil), project 304209/2018-0, by Foundation for Research Support of Espírito Santo (FAPES/Brazil), projects 84513772 (599/2018) and 85395650 (228/2019), by Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT/Portugal) through NECE (Núcleo de Estudos em Ciências Empresariais), project UID/GES/04630/2019, and by IFTS (Instituto Fucape de Tecnologias Sociais), project 2018-2021.