Non-monetary sales promotion effects on credit cards

J Financ Serv Mark DOI 10.1057/s41264-017-0017-6 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Non-monetary sales promotion effects on credit cards Rochele Isabel Bagnolini Boschetti1 • Marcelo Gattermann Perin2 • Márcia Dutra de Barcellos3 • Cláudio Hoffmann Sampaio2 • Kenny Basso4 Revised: 9 January 2017 Ó Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017 Abstract This study fills an important gap in the literature by exploring the effects of the attractiveness of a nonmonetary promotion with premiums on credit card purchase intention and brand selection. Two experimental studies involving 386 undergraduates were done. Nonmonetary sales promotions with attractive premiums have a positive influence on the credit card purchase intention, compared to non-monetary sales promotions with unattractive premiums. On brand choice, non-monetary sales promotions with attractive premiums increase the likelihood of brand choice promoted. Premiums attractiveness is an important variable in the evaluation of a promotional offer that aims to increase the intention purchase and motivate the selection of brand. This study helps managers in choosing the types of premiums that are valued by consumers in a promotion. Most of the studies & Marcelo Gattermann Perin [email protected] Rochele Isabel Bagnolini Boschetti [email protected] Márcia Dutra de Barcellos [email protected] Cláudio Hoffmann Sampaio [email protected] Kenny Basso [email protected] 1 Banco Cooperativo Sicredi, Porto Alegre, Brazil 2 School of Business, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil 3 School of Management, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil 4 IMED Business School, Faculdade Meridional – IMED, Passo Fundo, Brazil explore monetary promotions, while this study contributes to literature by exploring the gap about the effects of nonmonetary sales promotions on purchase intention and brand selection, especially in the bank services environment. Keywords Sales promotion
Non-momentary promotion
Purchase intention
Brand choice
Financial services Introduction This study aims to evaluate the effects of premium-based non-monetary promotions on purchase intentions and brand choice in the retail financial services market, specifically with credit card products. Liao (2006) defined sales promotion as all marketing communication activities that go beyond those associated with advertising, personal sales, and public relations. More specific descriptions of the sales promotion concept state that the construct includes marketing activities done sporadically over a time period, with the offer of an additional benefit that encourages a direct response from consumers or intermediaries to create incentives for purchasing a specific product or service (Peattie and Peattie 1995; Alvarez and Casielles 2005). The interest in research of the sales promotion issue is also supported by the fact that the very nature of the sales promotion effects continues to be misunderstood, with divergent studies regarding the influence of sales promotion in purchase intention (Laroche et al. 2003) and in the process of choosing a brand (Lee 2002; Nagar 2009). Sales promotion is divided into monetary sales promotion, geared toward price, and non-monetary sales promotion, i.e., a promotion that does not directly involve the price of the product or service (Mela et al. 1997; Liao R. I. B. Boschetti et al. 2006). In this article, we address non-monetary sales promotion that includes the distribution of free samples, drawings with distributed prizes, contests, loyalty or reward programs, and the distribution of free gifts (Lee 2002). Although some recent studies have investigated the effects of premium-based non-monetary sales promotion on purchase intentions and brand choice (Valette-Florence et al. 2011; Lowe and Barnes 2012), non-monetary sales promotion has received little academic attention in the management field (Valette-Florence et al. 2011). Most of the existing literature about retail sales promotion is concentrated on price and discount related promotions, with little or no attention given to non-monetary promotions (Liao 2006; Carpenter and Moore 2008). Based on the scarcity of the non-monetary promotions literature, especially on bank marketing, this study proposes to verify the effects of non-monetary sales promotions on purchase intentions and brand selection. Specifically, we use sales promotions with premium distribution through drawings, since drawings with distributed premiums hold a special place in promotional strategy (Palazon and Delgado-Ballester 2009). Regarding the premiums, D’Astous and Jacob (2002) discovered that the positive impact of a promotion on consumer reactions can be moderated by the premium activity, an idea already presented by Simonson et al. (1994), Peattie and Peattie (1995) and corroborated by D’Astous and Landreville (2003) and Liao (2006). With this in mind, this study considers the attractiveness of the premiums a condition that is capable of influencing the effects of non-monetary promotion in the intent to purchase and the brand selection. In order to expand the research related to sales promotion in the service environment (Peattie and Peattie 1995), the retail financial services market was selected, specifically the Brazilian credit card market. According to the Association of Brazilian Credit Cards and Services Companies (ABECS 2015), in 2015 the volume in transactions increases 9.2% in comparison with 2014, reaching around R$ 1.1 trillion in shopping using credit cards. In addition, Roberto Scharf and Fernandes (2013) point out that Brazilian retail bank segment is one of the most competitive around the world. The results of this study can contribute to literature regarding promotion and bank marketing in two ways. First by deepening the knowledge about the effects of sales promotions on purchase intention (Laroche et al. 2001; Chang 2009; Nagar 2009) and on brand selection (Laroche et al. 2001; D’astous and Landreville 2003; Nagar 2009), especially in regard to non-monetary sales promotions, which is considered a gap to be studied (Lee 2002). Secondly, by expanding the study of sales promotion in the retail bank environment, an important and growing sector that lacks literature on non-monetary sales promotion. Non-monetary sales promotion In marketing, the literature about sales promotion is basically divided into two types (Lee 2002; Liao 2006). First, monetary or price-related promotions that seek short term sales results (Carpenter and Moore 2008), encourage brand switching (Alvarez and Casielles 2005), attract new clients and maintain business with clients that like specials (Garretson and Clow 1999), and induce experimental usage (Laroche et al. 2003). Secondly, sales promotions that are not price related or are non-monetary. Those are generally used as long-term strategies (Lee 2002) aiming for image and brand promotion, market-share increase (Chandon et al. 2000; Liao 2006), as well as brand reinforcement as a means of remembering the brand’s existence or to promote client loyalty (Kendrick 1998). In general, sales promotions have been investigated as a tool for promoting or reinforcing the value of a brand, not only seeking the short term sale, but the promotion of the brand image and the increase in market-share over the long term (Valette-Florence et al. 2011). Lee (2002) suggests analyzing how non-monetary promotions can be better used to strengthen the relationship between the consumer and the brand. Strengthening the relationship with clients is important to reduce the negative effects of service failures on clients’ loyalty (Dos Santos and Basso 2012). Along the same lines, Peattie and Peattie (1995) agreed that sales promotions are an important part of the long-term strategy to increase the notoriety of the brand, generate brand loyalty, as well as create, win over, and maintain clients. Peattie and Peattie (1995), however, cite as an example for this purpose the non-monetary promotions, such as contests. A contest can add value to services through knowledge (remembrance) or by minimizing the perception risk that the price and quality are being harmed, offering retailers an opportunity to differentiate their purchase experience from the purchase of their competitors (Carpenter and Moore 2008). On the other hand, discounts can have deleterious effects and provoke a reduction of the consumer’s benchmark prices (Hardesty and Bearden 2003), undermining the quality perception of the product or service (Darke and Chung 2005) and the brand image (Mela et al. 1997). Also, regarding a non-monetary sales promotion with the distribution of premiums, it is important to know that its evaluation suffers the positive impact of attractive premiums or non-attractive premiums, the latter being valid as long as they are related to the offered product Non-monetary sales promotion effects on credit cards category (D’astous and Landreville 2003) or transmit hedonic benefits (Bodur and Grohmann 2005). The result of the study by Simonson et al. (1994) supports a forecast that premiums which are seen as not very attractive by many consumers can lead to a reduction in sales and that this effect is even more negative when consumers have doubts regarding their preferences. This way, the authors demonstrated that the attractiveness of the premium is an important factor in forecasting brand selection during sales promotions. Sales promotions and their effect on purchase intention According to Ajzen (1991), intentions represent the motivational factors that conduct the expression of behaviors. They indicate how committed a subject is to the expression of a given behavior, i.e., what is the probability of a behavior occurring. Generically, there is an agreement that consumers react differently to the stimuli of a sales promotion (Liao 2006). Pauwels et al. (2002) and Low and Mohr (2000) found a negative correlation between (a) the use of sales promotions with a high level of frequency over a prolonged period of time and (b) less favorable attitudes of the consumer in relation to the brand. On the other hand, Low and Mohr (2000) considered that some types of sales promotions, such as contests and drawings, can affect the results differently than the promotions that offer a discount. But in terms of their ability to affect purchase intention, Luk and Yip (2008) report that the non-monetary promotions do not have the preference of consumers; and the study by Palazon and Delgado-Ballester (2009) indicates that, when the promotional benefit is high, discounts are more effective than premiums to generate purchase intention. In order to explain how the different types of sales promotion can cause different promotional responses, Laroche et al. (2003) discovered an influence of sales promotion on the purchase intention for the promoted product. Along the same lines, Palazon and Delgado-Ballester (2009) discovered that, when consumers value one type of promotion more than another, they will manifest a greater purchase intention and less interest in the search for another promotion. Also, as for the interest in the promotional offer, Simonson et al. (1994), D’Astous and Jacob (2002) and D’Astous and Landreville (2003) demonstrated that the premium’s attractiveness is a significant variable in explaining how the consumers react to a sales promotion based on premiums. In their perspective, the larger the interest of the consumer in the premium, the more positive their reactions to the promotional offer will be. Therefore, it is believed that non-monetary promotions with more attractive premiums may generate more purchase intention, when compared to non-monetary promotions with less attractive premiums. Therefore, since the objective of a non-monetary sales promotion is not just to have a positive impact on consumer evaluations, but also to unchain the purchase behavior (Chang 2009), the first hypothesis of this study is stated as: H1 Greater attractiveness (vs low attractiveness) of the non-monetary sales promotion premiums provides a positive effect on purchase intentions of the promoted service. Sales promotion and their effects of brand selection The brand selection comes from a set of brand alternatives and is the result of the purchase decision. The choice involves the evaluation of alternative actions or behaviors and the formation of a behavioral intention or plan to get involved in the selected behavior (Alvarez and Casielles 2005). DelVecchio et al. (2006) argue that sales promotions can be a tool to help increase knowledge about the brand and an incentive to experiment a new product. That can also act as reinforcement for those people who know the brand (users), because these consumers are reminded to purchase the brand sustained by their preferences. Some studies also suggest that non-monetary sales promotion strategies, such as promotional contests, can be assumed as an important part of the brand’s long-term strategies (Kendrick 1998). These promotions involve a set of broader objectives, such as an increase in brand notoriety, client loyalty and retention, and winning over new clients (Peattie and Peattie 1995), than just the increase in sales volume (Peattie and Peattie 1995; Kendrick 1998). Buil et al. (2013) stated that sales promotions, including the non-monetary ones with premium distribution, affect the brand selection of consumers and can help decide what brand to buy when both brands are equally attractive to the consumer. On the other hand, Santini et al. (2015) demonstrate that the promotion of non-attractive premiums can harm that image and attitude of the brand, causing a reduction. Therefore, the attractiveness of the promotion premium is an important factor in the brand’s choice (D’Astous and Jacob 2002) and in consumers’ brand perception (Liao 2006). In summary, the literature asserts that brand selection can be influenced by promotional activities (Alvarez and Casielles 2005), since the perception of value of the sales promotion by the consumers influences their behavior (Peattie and Peattie 1995). Also, the attractiveness of the premium impacts the perceived quality of the brand and the generation of positive attitudes toward it (D’astous and R. I. B. Boschetti et al. Landreville 2003; Liao 2006). Thus, promotions with more attractive premiums can generate a greater amount of brand selection when compared to promotions with premiums that are less attractive to the client. Based on this, an analysis of how a non-monetary sales promotion with attractive premiums can affect the chance of choosing a specific brand gives meaning to the following hypothesis: H2 More attractive (vs less attractive) premiums for non-monetary sales promotions increase the chance of selecting the promoted brand. Research method and results In this section, the research method and results of the two experimental studies that were conducted to test the hypothesis are presented. Study 1 The objective of this first study was to verify the effect of non-monetary sales promotion with premium distribution on purchase intention. An experimental research proposal was adopted and the correlational-causal transversal research model was used. Study design The experimental research was preceded by exploratory research to identify the beliefs of consumers about sales promotions in general and about non-monetary sales promotion. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine subjects selected by judgment from the population. The subjects were students with ages between 18 and 24 years, current account holders in a financial institution for at least six months, and credit card users too. The script for the interviews was based on the literature review, and its validation was carried out by two marketing specialists. This exploratory research also allowed consumer behavior to be evaluated in certain sales promotion circumstances, such as the type of benefit or premium. The findings of the exploratory research were used to elaborate the scenarios applied in the experiments, especially in defining the types of premiums and their attractiveness level. For this study, we use a single factor (promotion attractiveness: high vs low), between-subjects design with random assignment. To manipulate promotion attractiveness, two scenarios were created; one was a promotion with high attractiveness (e.g., cars, trips, see Scenario A) and the other a promotion with very low attractiveness (e.g., home appliances, see Scenario B). The scenarios are presented in ‘‘Appendix’’. Participants The participants were 197 students with the following characteristics: 63.5% of the sample was composed of men, mostly of up to 25 years of age (79.6%). Individuals’ monthly family income was well distributed, with a slight concentration in the range above USD 4450.00 (41.6%). Almost the entire sample had some type of checking account (91.4%). The distribution by experimental condition was as follows: 93 participants for Scenario A and 104 for Scenario B. Procedure To manipulate non-monetary promotion attraction, we simulated a situation of purchasing a credit card. In this situation, the participants were exposed to one of two conditions, in the highly attractive condition, the participants were exposed to a situation of purchasing a credit card based on a non-monetary sales promotion with premiums considered to be attractive (Scenario A). In the condition with unattractive premiums, the participants were exposed to a situation of purchasing a credit card based on a non-monetary sales promotion with premiums considered to be unattractive (Scenario B). However, before being presented with one of the experimental conditions, each participant answered a question about credit card purchase intention. Next, each group of subjects was submitted to one of the conditions (scenarios) and, after that, answered the purchase intention question again and the remainder of the questionnaire, which included questions about the non-monetary sales promotion that was presented, the level of attractiveness of the promotion to check the manipulation, and socio-demographic information. It is worth noting that during the definition of the stimuli, special attention was given to brand knowledge and loyalty (due to the absence of the known brand, presenting fictitious brands in both experiments), the type of user (for sample homogeneity), the promotion mechanics (by not detailing the mechanics of the promotions in the experiment scenarios), and the means of applying the experiments (the available time for performing the experiments, the visual identity of the flyers presented to subjects, the interaction between the respondents, and the available resources). Measurements To check the manipulation of the nonmonetary sales promotion with the distribution of premiums and different levels of attractiveness, a scale adapted from D’Astous and Jacob (2002) was used to measure the attractiveness of each experimental condition. We measured the following items using a 7-point Likert scale (a = .888): ‘‘it pleases me’’; ‘‘it is quality’’; ‘‘it interests me’’; ‘‘it motivates me to purchase the offered credit card’’; and ‘‘it transmits a good image of the credit card being offered.’’ To measure the dependent variable of purchase intention for a credit card, we used a 7-point bipolar semantic differential scale adapted form Bruner and Hensel (1998). This scale included 5 items (aafter = .911 and Non-monetary sales promotion effects on credit cards abefore = .935): ‘‘my intention of purchasing a credit card is:’’ and with the following response alternatives: ‘‘Improbable/Probable’’; ‘‘Nonexistent/Existent’’; ‘‘Implausible/Plausible’’; ‘‘Impossible/Possible’’; ‘‘Uncertain/ Certain.’’ As control variables, the participation frequency in nonmonetary sales promotions was controlled, using 7-point Likert scale (Never Participate/Always Participate), age, and income range of the respondent. Findings First of all, it was necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the manipulation, i.e., the verification of the significant difference between the levels of perceived attractiveness by the respondents in relation to the promotions exhibited in Scenarios A and B. Specifically, the Scenario A – promotion with a highly attractive premium (M = 3.90) – was perceived as more attractive than the Scenario B – promotion with very low attractiveness premiums (M = 3.10; t = 3.84; p \ .01). To verify the effect of the non-monetary sales promotion on purchase intention – hypothesis H1, the data generated were submitted to three statistical analyses: (a) an ANCOVA to verify the variance of purchase intention after the promotion treatment between the high and low promotion attractiveness scenarios, with the control of covariables, including the purchase intention before the treatment; (b) t test for paired samples, seeking to evaluate the differences of averages between purchase intentions before and after the application of each of the scenarios. The ANCOVA results showed that the promotion attractiveness has a positive effect on the purchase intention after the exposition of the subject to the promotion [F(1, 191) = 12.975; p \ .001]. Specifically, participants Fig. 1 Purchase intention 9 promotion attractiveness (Study 1). Note: Covariates appearing in the model: age, income, promotion previous experience, purchase intention before treatment exposed to high attractiveness condition present a higher purchase intention than participants exposed to the low attractiveness condition. This finding suggests that the nonmonetary sales promotions with more attractive premiums influence purchase intentions more strongly than those promotions that had premiums that were considered less attractive, supporting hypothesis H1. This finding is presented in Fig. 1. It is important to note that there is no difference in purchase intention before the exposition to the non-momentary sales promotion, since subjects in the high attractiveness condition (M = 2.97) presented similar purchase intention to the subjects exposed to the low attractiveness condition (M = 3.12; t = .61; p [ .10). To qualify the differences, we tested the pre- and posttest purchase intentions. Table 1 presents the findings of this comparison. Specifically, participants exposed to a high attractiveness condition present a significant difference in the purchase intention before (M = 2.97) and after the exposition to the non-monetary promotion (M = 3.39; t = 2.90; p \ .01). This finding was aligned to the hypothesis H1, since the exposition to highly attractive premiums influences positively the purchase intention of the credit card. By contrast, participants exposed to the low attractiveness condition reveal a nonsignificant difference between before (M = 3.12) and after presentation of the non-monetary promotion (M = 2.88; t = -1.62; p [ .10). It is also important to highlight that the group submitted to the promotion with unattractive premiums (Scenario B) exhibited a reduction in purchase intention, but it was not statistically significant. This result was previously R. I. B. Boschetti et al. Table 1 Purchase intention (Study 1) Group DV Scenario A – high attractiveness Scenario B – low attractiveness N Mean ta SD PI before 93 2.97 1.64 PI after 93 3.39 1.76 PI before 104 3.12 1.68 PI after 104 2.88 1.45 2.90* -1.62ns PI purchase intention, ns nonsignificant * p \ .01 a Paired-samples t test described by Simonson et al. (1994), who noted that premiums viewed as not very attractive by many consumers can cause a reduction in sales – an important aspect for future studies to consider. Study 2 Study 2 sought to verify the effect of non-monetary sales promotion with premium distributions on the probability of choosing a brand. Design and procedure This second study manipulated the non-monetary sales promotion on two levels (highly attractive premiums/medium attraction premiums) based on the attractiveness of the premiums. Since the scenarios would be evaluated simultaneously by the subject, we opted not to use a very low attractiveness promotion (Scenario B) to avoid a type of comparison bias between overly extreme cases. Unlike Study 1, this study was conducted within subjects. Each respondent evaluated both experimental conditions at the same time, and each one of them was presented with a different brand of credit card: alpha or beta. We controlled for order effects and did not find a significant effect of order (p [ .10). After being submitted to the treatments, the subjects answered the measures. Participants The participants were 189 undergraduate students of Business Administration. The sample was composed of 57.1% men, most of whom were individuals of up to 25 years of age (86.8%). Individuals’ monthly family income was well distributed, with a slight concentration in the range above USD 4450.00 (34.4%). Almost the entire sample had some type of bank account (94.2%). The cases were distributed between the groups in the following manner: 83 subjects were exposed to the conditions order: high and medium attractiveness; 106 subjects were exposed to the conditions order: medium and high attractiveness. Measurements The dependent variable – brand selection probability – was measured based on a single item through a 7-point bipolar semantic differential, adapted from Simonson et al. (1994). The participant evaluated the ‘‘probability of selecting this brand is (highly improbable/ highly probable)’’ for each of the two presented brands. A multiple-choice scale was also used, adapted from Erdem and Swait (2004), where the respondent recorded which of the two brands he/she would ‘‘seriously consider purchasing.’’ Also, regarding the brand selection probability, the respondent was questioned about which ‘‘brand he/she would be most likely to buy,’’ building a categorical scale of single choice, where the chosen preferential brand should be pointed out. The manipulation check was done using the same attractiveness scale used in Study 1 (aalpha = .873 and abeta = .924). Findings In the manipulation check, the perceived attractiveness for the promotion with highly attractive premiums (M = 5.52) was significantly higher than the perceived attractiveness for the promotion with medium attractiveness premiums (M = 4.18; t = 12.89; p \ .01). This confirms the efficacy of the manipulation of premium attractiveness. According to hypothesis H2, we expected that the nonmonetary sales promotion with more attractive premiums would increase the probability of brand selection, comparing to non-monetary sales promotion with premiums of medium attractiveness. To test H2, we evaluate the probability of the subject to choose the brand. Specifically, subjects in a non-monetary sales promotion with highly attractive premiums (M = 5.78) presented a higher probability to choose than subjects in the non-monetary promotion with medium attractiveness premiums condition (M = 4.30). This finding, that supports H2, is presented in Table 2. To reinforce the support of H2, we analyze the frequency of choice of each brand and both. The brand attached to the non-monetary sales promotion with highly Table 2 Selection probabilities between the brands (Study 2) Brand N Mean SD t Brand with high attractiveness 187 5.78 1.60 9.30* Brand with low attractiveness 187 4.30 1.58 * p \ .01 Non-monetary sales promotion effects on credit cards attractive premiums was chosen in the selection 83.07% of the time, in 47.62% it was the only choice, and in 35.45% it was selected along with the brand with medium attractiveness premiums. However, the brand with medium attractiveness premiums was chosen 43.92% of the time, of which in 8.47% of the cases it was chosen as an exclusive brand. Finally, in 8.47% of the cases, the participant does not choose any brand. The results demonstrate that the brand promoted with the more attractive premiums has a higher probability of being chosen in a purchase. For complement, the frequency and probability of the choice of brands in isolation was also analyzed, i.e., when the respondents were asked to choose a single brand. The results showed that the brand presented with highly attractive premiums was the most chosen, with 79.37% of the choices. In second place, with 12.70%, was the brand with the non-monetary promotion with medium attractiveness premiums. In 7.93% of the cases, no brand was selected. All these findings promote support for H2 and reinforce the affirmation of Alvarez and Casielles (2005) that the brand selection models that incorporate the effects of sales promotion obtain better estimates than those where the effect is not accounted for. In summary, the results obtained in all the analysis demonstrated that the probability of selecting the brand presented with a non-monetary sales promotion with highly attractive premiums was always higher, corroborating the affirmation that this type of sales promotion has a more positive influence of the probability of selecting the promoted brand. Final considerations This study contributes to marketing and bank marketing literature. To marketing, this study presents the effects of sales promotion on purchase intentions and brand selection from the point-of-view of non-monetary sales promotions, which is a theme that has not been studied much, although it is important for companies’ strategic actions (Carpenter and Moore 2008). In this sense, it fulfilled the function of evaluating variables that are dependent on non-monetary sales promotions that are closer to the consumer’s behavior, contributing to the better understanding of the theories regarding non-monetary sales promotion with the distribution of premiums, as suggested by D’Astous and Landreville (2003) and Chang (2009). Moreover, our study also shows original results that offer new perspectives on the effects of sales promotions on purchase intention and brand selection in retail financial services, something previously restricted to consumer products. The confirmation of the study’s two hypotheses reinforces the literature regarding the effects of non-monetary sales promotion on purchase intention and brand selection (Palazon and Delgado-Ballester 2009), offering new evidence that the tools of sales promotion have a significant impact on consumer behavior and that this impact includes the premium attractiveness when dealing with non-monetary sales promotions with premium distribution. Unlike monetary sales promotion (where the purchase intention did not significantly increase when the consumers were exposed to a better offer) in the case of the nonmonetary sales promotion, more attractive premiums indeed increased the purchase intention. One can infer that even though generous offers for price discounts draw consumer intention, they can also suffer from saturation (Gupta and Cooper 1992) and lack of credibility, which would not occur (or would occur in smaller scale) with non-monetary promotions with premium distribution, since they can generate fewer negative results (Carpenter and Moore 2008), maintain the perception of high quality, and transmit the true value associated with the promotion (Darke and Chung 2005). A discovery of this paper with academic and managerial implications is that the evaluation of a premium-based nonmonetary sales promotion can present different results when the promotion is seen in isolation and when evaluated along with other promotions of the same type. This inference is based on the fact that the evaluation of the attractiveness level of the same promotion (Scenario A – with highly attractive premiums) for two groups of the same population showed significantly differences when done in isolation (Study 1) versus together in the other promotion (Study 2). In Study 1, the perceived promotion attractiveness with highly attractive premiums (M = 3.9) was lower than the that perceived in Study 2 (M = 5.52; t = 9.927; p \ .01). A possible explanation for the same promotional scenario to be evaluated so differently is that the evaluation of the premium can make a reference to the perception of the recipient regarding the importance of this premium (Bodur and Grohmann 2005). In other words, according to Bodur and Grohmann (2005), a relatively small premium with monetary value can be evaluated positively if it symbolizes a positive relationship or is desirable for the consumer. In this case, the value attributed to the premium goes beyond its financial value, corroborating the study by Chandon et al. (2000) about the hedonic benefits of a sales promotion. Regarding the managerial implications, this study indicates that the attractiveness of the premiums offered by non-monetary sales promotion not only influences the evaluation of a promotional offer but also determines the responses of consumers for retail financial services, aiding R. I. B. Boschetti et al. managers in choosing the types of premiums that are valued by consumers in a promotion. Additionally, the results can allow managers to infer that when consumers evaluate different brands in non-monetary promotions, the chosen brand will be the one that offers the best premiums according to the client’s evaluation. This means that when promotional activity in the market is high, more care is necessary in evaluating the premiums offered in a promotion meant to draw interest. On the other hand, marketing professionals should be aware of the promotional activities of their competitors because, according to the results found here, that same promotion can have different attractiveness evaluations, depending on the benchmark established by the competitors. Such implication is corroborated by the literature in the affirmation that a sales promotion can be a satisfactory and effective way to get around the competition and increase market participation (Lee 2002), since before making a purchase decision the consumer considers the existence or non-existence of a promotion (Alvarez and Casielles 2005). Therefore, participating in promotional activities seems better that refraining from them; at least as long as the effects are profitable (Pauwels et al. 2002). Limitations and suggestions for future studies The first limitation is that we have researched only the attractiveness variable of the premium in regard to the evaluation of a non-monetary sales promotion with the distribution of premiums. Even if this is the variable with the most impact on consumer reaction to this type of promotion (D’astous and Jacob 2002), we hope that future studies can expand the discussion, including other variables to explain the behavior of consumers faced with non-monetary sales promotions in the retail financial services sector, such as the monetary value of the premiums, the quantity of premiums, the pleasure in participating in the promotion, and the chances of winning, for example. Moreover, the population studied included undergraduate students. Thus, even ensuring homogeneity of the sample and considering that the students have bank account and use credit cards, the study lacks external validity and should be replicated with other population segments, especially since there are various segments that present different responses to sales promotions (Alvarez and Casielles 2005). Future investigations can verify how the socio-demographic differences influence the results on non-monetary sales promotions for the different segments, an issue which was not the purpose of this study. Also, in regard to the external validity of the research, the effects of the non-monetary sales promotion on purchase intention and brand selection were verified in a controlled environment. Therefore, more studies need to be done that include real data, also in other segments, types of services, and brands. Non-monetary sales promotion effects on credit cards Appendix: Scenarios References ABECS - Associação Brasileira das Empresas de Cartões de Crédito e Serviços (2015) Indicadores de Mercado. http:// www.abecs.org.br/indicadores-de-mercado. Accessed 22 May 2016. Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179–211. Alvarez, B., and R.V. Casielles. 2005. Consumer evaluations of sales promotion: The effect on brand choice. European Journal of Marketing 39(1/2): 54–70. Bodur, H.O., and B. Grohmann. 2005. Consumer responses to gift receipt in business-to consumer contexts. Psychology and Marketing 22(5): 441–456. Bruner, G.C., and P.J. Hensel. 1998. Marketing scales handbook: A compilation of multi-item measures. Chicago: American Marketing Association. R. I. B. Boschetti et al. Buil, I., L. De Chernatony, and T. Montaner. 2013. Factors influencing consumer evaluations of gift promotions. European Journal of Marketing 47(3/4): 574–595. Carpenter, J.M., and M. Moore. 2008. US consumers’ perceptions of non-price retail promotions. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 36(2): 111–123. Chandon, P., B. Wansink, and G. Laurent. 2000. A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing 64(4): 65–81. Chang, C. 2009. Effectiveness of promotional premiums: The moderating role of affective state in different contexts. Psychology and Marketing 26(2): 175–194. D’Astous, A., and I. Jacob. 2002. Understanding consumer reactions to premium-based promotional offers. European Journal of Marketing 36(11/12): 1270–1286. D’Astous, A., and V. Landreville. 2003. An experimental investigation of factor affecting consumers’ perceptions of sales promotions. European Journal of Marketing 37(11/12): 1746–1761. Darke, P.R., and C.M.Y. Chung. 2005. Effects of pricing and promotion on consumer perceptions: It depends on how you frame it. Journal of Retailing 81(1): 35–47. Delvecchio, D., D.H. Henard, and T.H. Freling. 2006. The effect of sales promotion on post-promotion brand preference: A metaanalysis. Journal of Retailing 82(3): 203–213. Dos Santos, C.P., and K. Basso. 2012. Do ongoing relationships buffer the effects of service recovery on customers’ trust and loyalty? International Journal of Bank Marketing 30(3): 168–192. Erdem, T., and J. Swait. 2004. Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research 31(1): 191–198. Garretson, J.A., and K.E. Clow. 1999. The influence of coupon face value on service quality expectations, risk perceptions and purchase intentions in the dental industry. Journal of Services Marketing 13(1): 59–72. Gupta, S., and L.G. Cooper. 1992. The discounting of discounts and promotion thresholds. Journal of Consumer Research 19(3): 401–411. Hardesty, D.M., and W.O. Bearden. 2003. Consumer evaluations of different promotion types and price presentations: The moderating role of promotional benefit level. Journal of Retailing 79(1): 17–25. Kendrick, A. 1998. Promotional products vs price promotion in fostering customer loyalty: A report of two controlled field experiments. Journal of Services Marketing 12(4): 312–326. Laroche, M., F. Pons, N. Zgolli, M. Cervellon, and C. Kim. 2003. A model of consumer response to two retail sales promotion techniques. Journal of Business Research 56(7): 513–522. Laroche, M., F. Pons, N. Zgolli, and C. Kim. 2001. Consumers use of price promotions: A model and its potential moderators. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8(5): 251–260. Lee, C.W. 2002. Sales promotions as strategic communication: The case of Singapore. Journal of Product and Brand Management 11(2/3): 103–114. Liao, S. 2006. The effects of nonmonetary sales promotions on consumer preferences: The contingent role of product category. Journal of American Academy of Business 8(2): 196–203. Low, G.S., and J. Mohr. 2000. Advertising vs sales promotion: A brand management perspective. Journal of Product and Brand Management 9(6): 389–414. Lowe, B., and B.R. Barnes. 2012. Consumer perceptions of monetary and non-monetary introductory promotions for new products. Journal of Marketing Management 28(5): 621–651. Luk, S.T.K., and L.S.C. Yip. 2008. The moderator effect of monetary sales promotion on the relationship between brand trust and purchase behavior. Journal of Brand Management 15(6): 452–464. Mela, C.F., S. Gupta, and D.R. Lehmann. 1997. The long-term impact of promotion and advertising on consumer brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research 34(2): 248–261. Nagar, K. 2009. Evaluating the effect of consumer sales promotions on brand loyal and brand switching segments. Journal of Business Perspective 13(4): 35–48. Palazon, M., and E. Delgado-Ballester. 2009. Effectiveness of price discounts and premium promotion. Psychology and Marketing 26(12): 1108–1129. Pauwels, K., D.M. Hanssens, and S. Siddarth. 2002. The long-term effects of price promotions on category incidence, brand choice, and purchase quantity. Journal of Marketing Research 39(4): 421–439. Peattie, K., and S. Peattie. 1995. Sales promotion—A missed opportunity to service marketers. International Journal of Service Industry Management 6(1): 22–39. Roberto Scharf, E., and J. Fernandes. 2013. The advertising of corporate social responsibility in a Brazilian bank. International Journal of Bank Marketing 31(1): 24–37. Santini, F.O., C.H. Sampaio, M.G. Perin, L.B. Espartel, and W.J. Ladeira. 2015. Moderating effects of sales promotion types. Brazilian Administration Review 12(2): 169–189. Simonson, I., Z. Carmon, and S. O’Curry. 1994. Experimental evidence on the negative effect of product features and sales promotions on brand choice. Marketing Science 13(1): 23–40. Valette-Florence, P., H. Guizani, and D. Merunka. 2011. The impact of brand personality and sales promotions on brand equity. Journal of Business Research 64(1): 24–28. Rochele Isabel Bagnolini Boschetti is Product and Marketing Coordinator at Banco Cooperativo Sicredi, Porto Alegre-RS, Brazil. Her research interest is about Bank Marketing, Branding and Promotion. Marcelo Gattermann Perin is Professor of Marketing at the Business School of Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre-RS, Brazil. His research mainly focuses on strategic orientations, innovation management, university–industry relations and technology transfer. His work has been published in journals such as International Marketing Review, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, Latin American Business Review, Brazilian Administration Review, among others. Márcia Dutra de Barcellos is Associate Professor at the Postgraduate Programme in Management at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (PPGA/UFRGS) and Director of the Center for Studies and Research in Management (CEPA). She coordinates projects in Brazil (CNPq and FAPERGS) and collaborates in international projects financed by the European Union (EU) and other EU national funds. Her research is published in international journals such as Journal of Cleaner Production, International Marketing Review, Appetite, International Journal of Consumers Studies, Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, amongst others. Her interest research areas are marketing, innovation, sustainability and international business strategy. Cláudio Hoffmann Sampaio is Professor of Marketing at the Business School of Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre-RS, Brazil. His research mainly focuses on strategic orientations, innovation management and performance. His work has been published in journals such as Industrial Marketing Management, Canadian Journal of the Administrative Sciences, Brazilian Administration Review, Journal of Marketing for Higher Non-monetary sales promotion effects on credit cards Education, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, Latin American Business Review, among others. Kenny Basso is Professor of Marketing at the IMED Business School, Faculdade Meridional - IMED, Brazil. His research interests include consumer behavior, retailing, and services marketing. He has published articles in the Journal of Service Research, Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, International Journal of Bank Marketing and Journal of Product & Brand Management.