Search

PurposeThis paper aims to examine the effect of framing price promotion on consumers' purchase intentions. Retailers typically use the term “save” to present their price deal offers. However, prospect theory predicts that people will be more willing to waive the gain of a certain amount of money, but less willing to lose the same amount of money.Design/methodology/approachUsing an experimental design, 497 participants were randomly assigned to two groups that differed only in the framing manipulations of two vignettes: positive framing (“save if you purchase”) or negative framing (“lose if you don't purchase”).FindingsThe prediction was not confirmed: participants did not show more willingness to purchase products offered in sales promotions of discount when presented with a negative frame relative to their presentation in the conventional positive frame.Research limitations/implicationsFuture research could confirm the predictions of prospect theory, indicating that methodological characteristics prevented this study from confirming the hypothesis. However, if future research fails to confirm the predictions of prospect theory, it is possible that these predictions are limited to situations of forced choice between two alternatives, and do not apply to situations with a default option of not making a choice (e.g. price deals).Practical implicationsIf future research confirms the predictions of prospect theory, then retailers would improve their price promotion effectiveness by replacing their use of “save if you purchase” with “lose if you don't purchase”.Originality/valueThis study is the first attempt to examine the predictions of goal framing effect in the context of price deals.

PurposeThis research seeks to demonstrate the effect of framing on consumers' willingness to buy private brands.Design/methodology/approachUsing an experimental design, 500 participants answered a questionnaire addressed to examine their willingness to buy four private brand products framed either in positive (save) or negative (lose) terms.FindingsConsumers' willingness to buy private brands was higher when the information was presented in negative (loss) framing relative to presenting the very same information in positive (save) framing.Research limitations/implicationsThis research examined the effect of framing on willingness to buy private brands. Future research is needed to examine the effect of framing on actual purchasing behavior and regarding other products retailers wish to promote, other than private brands.Practical implicationsRetailers typically try and promote sales of private brands using messages suggesting that consumers will save money by buying their brand. The results of this study suggest that retailers could improve their marketing of private brands by framing their products negatively in terms of the loss consumers incur when not purchasing private brands.Originality/valueThe paper suggests adopting Levin et al.'s typology that distinguished between various types of framing. The typology explains apparently contradictory results found in the literature. While goal framing more accurately describes the more effective messages discussed in this study, attribute framing would better describe the more effective messages mentioned in other contexts.