Rebate redemption requirements – Can they discourage redeeming?. (July 2016)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Rebate redemption requirements – Can they discourage redeeming?. (July 2016)
- Main Title:
- Rebate redemption requirements – Can they discourage redeeming?
- Authors:
- Currie, Shane
Mizerski, Dick - Abstract:
- Abstract: Mail-in rebates are a popular price promotion that receive substantial negative criticism due to high consumer resentment and mistrust. There is little research examining rebate redemption requirements and it seems no attempt has been made to develop a measure of what constitutes a reasonable and, perhaps more importantly, an unreasonable set of compliance requirements. This paper reports on a study of rebate promotion redemption requirements and the differences in their perceived onerousness. Furthermore, we test the effect of rebate requirement onerousness on consumers' intention to redeem. Results show that consumers do perceive difference in the relative onerousness of rebate requirements. Furthermore, through the use of Best-Worst Scaling it was possible to rank the onerousness of requirements and demonstrate that the most onerous were up to 50 times more likely to deter consumers from redeeming than the least onerous. These results will help marketers better understand how to promote products using rebate promotions that do not foster consumer angst. Findings offer implications for retailers, product marketers, policy makers, and regulators. Highlights: Best-Worst Scaling is used to rank the onerousness of rebate promotion requirements. It is demonstrated that consumers can distinguish between redemption requirements on the basis of perceived onerous. The level of perceived onerous does influence consumer's intention to redeem a rebate. A set of unreasonableAbstract: Mail-in rebates are a popular price promotion that receive substantial negative criticism due to high consumer resentment and mistrust. There is little research examining rebate redemption requirements and it seems no attempt has been made to develop a measure of what constitutes a reasonable and, perhaps more importantly, an unreasonable set of compliance requirements. This paper reports on a study of rebate promotion redemption requirements and the differences in their perceived onerousness. Furthermore, we test the effect of rebate requirement onerousness on consumers' intention to redeem. Results show that consumers do perceive difference in the relative onerousness of rebate requirements. Furthermore, through the use of Best-Worst Scaling it was possible to rank the onerousness of requirements and demonstrate that the most onerous were up to 50 times more likely to deter consumers from redeeming than the least onerous. These results will help marketers better understand how to promote products using rebate promotions that do not foster consumer angst. Findings offer implications for retailers, product marketers, policy makers, and regulators. Highlights: Best-Worst Scaling is used to rank the onerousness of rebate promotion requirements. It is demonstrated that consumers can distinguish between redemption requirements on the basis of perceived onerous. The level of perceived onerous does influence consumer's intention to redeem a rebate. A set of unreasonable compliance requirements is distilled. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Journal of retailing and consumer services. Volume 31(2016)
- Journal:
- Journal of retailing and consumer services
- Issue:
- Volume 31(2016)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 31, Issue 2016 (2016)
- Year:
- 2016
- Volume:
- 31
- Issue:
- 2016
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2016-0031-2016-0000
- Page Start:
- 117
- Page End:
- 126
- Publication Date:
- 2016-07
- Subjects:
- Rebate promotion -- Redemption requirements
Retail trade -- Periodicals
Service industries -- Periodicals
Customer services -- Periodicals
Commerce de détail -- Périodiques
Service à la clientèle -- Périodiques
Customer services
Retail trade
Periodicals
658.87 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09696989 ↗
http://www.elsevier.com/journals ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.03.015 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0969-6989
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 5052.041000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 337.xml