A comparative study of perceptions toward “scratch and save” promotions in Canada and Korea
| Published date | 18 July 2008 |
| Pages | 265-271 |
| Date | 18 July 2008 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420810887617 |
| Author | Sungchul Choi,Moontae Kim |
| Subject Matter | Marketing |
Pricing strategy & practice
A comparative study of perceptions toward
“scratch and save” promotions in Canada
and Korea
Sungchul Choi
School of Business, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, Canada, and
Moontae Kim
College of Social Sciences, Catholic University of Pusan, Pusan, Korea
Abstract
Purpose – The paper seeks to examine cross-cultural differences in how consumers evaluate “scratch and save” (SAS) promotions (which are
characterized by uncertainty of savings outcomes) between Canada and Korea, where the promotion tool is widely used but the countries have different
cultural values.
Design/methodology/approach – An experiment was conducted to examine cross-cultural differences in SAS promotion evaluations between
Canada (
n
¼77) and Korea (
n
¼78).
Findings – SAS promotions effectively stimulate favorable shopping intentions in Canada, a country with a low uncertainty avoidance culture, more so
than in Korea, a country with a high uncertainty avoidance culture. However,subjects in Korea show consistently higher savings expectations from SAS
promotions than subjects in Canada. Thus, the results report that consumers with the highest savings expectations do not necessarily have the highest
intention to shop. In addition, in Korea, a SAS promotion with guaranteed minimum savings is found to be very effective due to reduced ambiguity
about its outcome.
Research limitations/implications – The study suggests cross-cultural differences in the applicability of the disjunction effect.
Practical implications – Thefindings suggest that when SAS promotions are presented in a country with high uncertainty avoidance, retailers should
explicitly indicate the value of the guaranteed minimum savings. By promising guaranteed savings, retailers can reduce consumers’ relatively high
concerns about unknown SAS outcomes, which results in a greater advantage in building favorable perceptions.
Originality/value – Very little work has been undertaken into SAS promotions and no known empirical research has been undertaken into cross-
cultural differences. This paper fills some of the gaps.
Keywords , Promotional methods, Discounts, Cross-cultural studies, South Korea, Canada
Paper type Research paper
“Scratch off” cards are increasingly being applied to promote
stores’ sales by stimulating short-term purchase behavior. In
particular, “scratch and save” (SAS) promotions, which offer
discounts on the purchase, according to the revealed scratch
card at the point of purchase, are very popular in Canada. For
example, in the winter of 2006, various retailers such as Sears
and The Bay (department stores), Home Hardware and Rona
(home improvement stores), SportMar t (sporting goods
store), Sunquest and Mytravel (travel agencies) used SAS
promotions. This promotional tactic is also used widely in
Korea by different types of retailers such as department
stores, telecommunication service agencies, supermarkets,
and even convenience stores. The majority of scratch-off
cards promotions in Korea have offered gifts or free products
(instead of price discounts) for winners. However, SAS
promotions that offer discounts are receiving more attention
from retailers in Korea. For instance, a major department
store in Korea, Shinsegae, has recently offered price discounts
with a SAS promotion.
SAS promotion advertising is very similar to tensile pr ice
claims, in that discount ambiguity is incorporated. Both
promotional tools offer potential price discounts in which the
exact discount is not specified (e.g. “save up to xpercent”).
However, those price promotional tools differ in terms of the
cognitive effort required to process price discount
information. SAS promotions require more cognitive effort
to process than tensile price claims because the promotion’s
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
17/4 (2008) 265–271
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610420810887617]
This work was supporte d by the University of Nor thern British
Columbia’s Research Seed Grant (2007-0326).
265
To continue reading
Request your trial