Typology and Ranking of Different Price Discount Formats: A Mixed-Methods Study

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Prof., Department of Marketing and Market Development, Faculty of Business Management, College of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 PhD Candidate, Department of Business Management, Kish International Campus, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Objective
In recent years, various approaches have been used to implement marketing activities and achieve companies' sales goals. One of the most widely adopted strategies is using different discount formats. A key challenge for companies is the effective utilization of product-appropriate discount formats. The lack of coherent knowledge about the types of discount formats and their impact on sales motivates this research. This study employed a mixed-methods approach and was conducted in two consecutive phases: qualitative and quantitative. One of the key issues in price discounts is framing them correctly and using appropriate formats that align with the product and discount conditions to maximize their effectiveness. Therefore, it is crucial to provide a comprehensive list of discount format types and consult sales experts to assess their effectiveness.
 
Methodology
A mixed-methods approach was used, and the research was conducted in two consecutive phases. The first stage was carried out by systematically reviewing studies carried out in the last 10 years and using the three-step process of Turnfield et al. (2003), through which 87 articles were selected and analyzed. Then, the typology method was used for classification. To implement the typology stage, discount formats in the articles were coded using MAXQDA software, and a total of 55 codes for various discount formats were identified. This comprehensive list of discount codes is essential for the next step of researching and ranking discount formats. The codes of various discount formats were classified in a matrix based on the opinions of professors and experts, and the typology of discount formats was performed. The logic of the typology is based on whether the discount is cash or non-cash and the type of discount dependency (depending on the time of purchase, type of product, etc.). In the second stage, a quantitative study was conducted with a community of sales experts, and data was collected through a questionnaire. The discount formats identified in the first step were ranked, and the most effective discount formats on the company’s profit were identified, using the fuzzy TOPSIS method. Theoretical validity was assessed by gathering experts' opinions through theoretical pluralism. Quality was also evaluated by assessing reliability. To determine reliability, a doctoral student in Business Administration with a background in coding was invited to participate and we used the intra-subject agreement method of two coders (repeatability index), which was deemed acceptable with a reliability percentage above 60%. Moreover, the reliability of the codings was determined, and it can be claimed that the reliability of the articles’ analysis is acceptable through the systematic review. Of the 87 reviewed articles, 344 codes were extracted, of which 55 were non-repeated. The researchers asked the coding colleague to code 5 articles, and the results are presented in a table showing the reliability percentage. In the second phase, using the fuzzy TOPSIS technique, the decision matrix is purely a mathematical matrix through which the options are evaluated against the criteria. Therefore, the conceptual variable is not measured by criteria like statistical questionnaires, but only the score of each option in each criterion is determined by an expert. It does not represent a statistical questionnaire. Hence, since it is not a questionnaire, the validity and reliability do not apply to the decision matrix.
 
Findings
Based on the data analysis, in the first phase, the identified discount formats were classified into six categories, and in the second phase, the ranking list of ten selected formats was obtained. In the second stage of the research, after analyzing the data, managers and business experts were consulted to determine how and in what order they prioritized discount formats based on their impact on the company's profit. The results revealed the following prioritization: 1) Cash discount, 2) Percent discount, 3) Volumetric discount, 4) Event discount, and 5) Discount on customer performance.
 
Conclusion
If companies wish to implement discount programs in sales, they must first evaluate the suitable discount formats and then select the most appropriate one with careful consideration. Managing discounts by considering factors such as discount type, threshold, and timing can help prevent profit leakage and maximize the value provided by the firm

Keywords

Main Subjects


 
Agmeka, F. Wathoni, R.N. & Santoso, A.S. (2019). The Influence of Discount Framing towards Brand Reputation and Brand Image on Purchase Intention and Actual Behaviour in e-commerce. Procedia Computer Science, 161(5), 851-858.
Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques (Vol. 12). Sage.
Banjo, S. & Germano, S. (2014) .The end of the impulsive shopper-the web has made consumers more intentional, smarter. Wall Street Journal, 32 (22), 157-185.
Büyükdağ, N., Soysal, A.N. & Kitapci, O. (2020). The effect of specific discount pattern in terms of price promotions on perceived price attractiveness and purchase intention: An experimental research. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34(9), 102-112.
Chen, S. M., & Hwang, J. R. (2000). Temperature prediction using fuzzy time series. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics)30(2), 263-275.
Chen, S.F., Monroe, K. & Lou, Y.C. (1998). The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers’ perception and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 353-372.
Choongbeom, C. & Mattila, A. (2013). The effects of promotion framing on consumers price perception. Journal of Service Management, 25 (1), 149-160.
Darke, P.R. & Dahl, D. (2003). Fairness and the subjective value of a bargain. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 328-338.
Daun, W. & Klinger, R. (2006). Delivering the message: how premium hotel brands struggle to communicate their value proposition. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(3), 246-52.
DelVecchio, D., Krishnan, H.S. & Smith, D. (2007). Cents or percents? The effects of promotion framing on price expectations and choice. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 158-70.
Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for framing effects, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(3), 399-429.
Gendall, P., Janet, H. & Tracy, P. (2006). Message Framing Effects on Price Discounting. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15 (7), 458-465.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory, Aldine Publishing Company. Chicago.
Gough, D., Oliver, S. & Thomas, J. (2012). An Introduction to Systematic Reviews, London, Sage Publications Ltd.
Hardesty, D.M. & Bearden, W.O. (2003). Consumer evaluations of different promotion types and price presentations: the moderating role of promotional benefit level. Journal of Retailing, 79(17), 25-29.
Hasseldine, J., & Hite, P. (2006). Alternative Methods of Taxing Alternative Methods of Taxing Personal Income: Administrative Issues.
Iranmanesh, M., Jayaraman, K.S., Jamaludin, R. & Taghizadeh, S.K. (2013). A Business Model of Purchase Stimulus on the Consumer Intention to Buy Products under Volume Discount through Consumer Behavior Factors. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(7), 874-882.
Isabella, G. (2012). Influence of Discount Price Announcements on Consumer's Behavior. RAE: Revista De Administração De Empresas, 52 (6), 657–671.
Janiszewski, C. & Cunha Jr. M. (2004). The Influence of Price Discount Framing on The Evaluation of A Product Bundle. Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (4), 534-546.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge University Press.
Khan, U. & Dhar, R. (2010). Price-framing Effects on The Purchase of Hedonic and Utilitarian Bundles. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1090-1099.
Krishna, A., Briesch, R., Lehmann, D. R. & Yuan, H. (2002). A Meta analysis of the Impact of Price Presentation on Perceived Savings. Journal of Retailing, 78 (2), 101-118.
Lee, K.Y., Choi, Y. & Park, J.W. (2018). A Study on Effect of Time Pressure Perceived by Users of Airport Duty- free Shop on Impulsive Purchasing Behavior and repurchanase Interntion. International Business Research, 11(1), 23-33.
Lee, M. & Law, F. (2018). The discount framing in different pricing schemes: Combined versus partitioned pricing. Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 705-725.
Leseure, M. J., Bauer, J., Birdi, K., Neely, A. & Denyer, D. (2004). Adoption of Promising Practices:Asystematic Review of the Evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(3), 169–190.
Liang, W. & Corkindale, D. (2019). How eWord of Mouth valences affect price perceptions. International Journal of Market Research, 61(1): 50- 63.
McKechnie, S., Devlin, J., Ennew, C. & Smith, A. (2012). Effects Of Discount Framing In Comparative Price Advertising. European Journal of Marketing, 46 (11/12), 1501–1522.
Monroe, K.B. & Chapman, J.D. (1987). Framing effects on buyer’s subjective product evaluations, in Wallendorf, M. and Anderson, P. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, 14(2), 193-197.
Nazari, M. & Ghezelbash, M. (2017). The Effect of Social Commerce Capabilities on Customers' Attitude to Ward Buying by the Mediator Role of Trust (Case Study: Instagram Users). Journal of commercial management, 9(1), 193-211.)in Persian)
Oliveira-Castro, J., Foxall, G. & James, V. (2008). Individual differences in price responsiveness within and across food brands, Service Industries Journal, 28(6), 733-753.
Pacheco, B.G. & Rahman, A. (2015). Effects of sales promotion type and promotion depth on consumer perceptions: the moderating role of retailer reputation. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 25(1), 72-86.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D. & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(3), 137–168.
Raghubir, P. (2004). Coupons in context: discounting prices or decreasing profits?, Journal of Retailing, 80(1), 1-12.
Rostami, F. & Nazari, M. (2019). Framework of Consumer Perceptions of Discounts and Perceptions Management of Value Creative and Value Destruction. Journal of Executive Management11(22), 57-85. doi: 10.22080/jem.2020.17642.3041 (in Persian)
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A. & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using Knowledge within Small and Medium-Sized Firms: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(7), 257–281.
Tranfield, D. Denyer, D. & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(2), 207–222.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases, Science, 185(4157), 1124-30.
Wakefield, T. & Wakefield, L. (2018). Article an Examination of Construal Effects on Price Perceptions in the Advance Selling of Experience Services. Journal of Service Research, 21(2), 235-248.