Marketing Letters

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 603–614 | Cite as

What type of framing message is more appropriate with nine-ending pricing?

Article
First Online:

Abstract

While the effect of nine-ending prices on purchases has been well documented, studies that examine the impact of this pricing technique in the context of advertisements are rare. This paper examines the joint effect of the pricing technique and message frames on the advertisement efficacy. Since a nine-ending price is compatible with gain-framed messages due to its gain image, we propose that nine-ending pricing strengthens the effectiveness of gain-framed messages (versus loss-framed messages) on the overall advertisement efficacy. The results of two experiments provide support for this hypothesis.

Keywords

Nine-ending prices Gain-framed messages Loss-framed messages Advertisement Regulatory fit 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C., & Rosenthal, L. H. (1996). Information bias in contingent valuation: Effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. E., & Jolson, M. A. (1980). Technical wording in advertising: Implications for market segmentation. Journal of Marketing, 44(1), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bizer, G. Y., & Schindler, R. M. (2005). Direct evidence of ending-digit drop-off in price information processing. Psychology and Marketing, 22(10), 771–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “Feeling Right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Detweiler, J. B., Bedell, B. T., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18(2), 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fazio, R. H., Chen, J., McDonel, E. C., & Sherman, S. J. (1982). Attitude accessibility, attitude–behavior consistency, and the strength of the object-evaluation association. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18(4), 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodstein, R. C. (1993). Category-based applications and extensions in advertising: Motivating more extensive ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gueguen, N., & Legoherel, P. (2004). Numerical encoding and odd-ending prices: The effect of a contrast in discount perception. European Journal of Marketing, 38(1/2), 194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Higgins, E. T., & Spiegel, S. (2004). Promotion and prevention strategies for self-regulation. Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford Press. pp 171–187Google Scholar
  12. Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Higgins, E. T., Idson, L. C., Freitas, A. L., Spiegel, S., & Molden, D. C. (2003). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1140–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.Google Scholar
  15. Kalyanam, K., & Shively, T. S. (1998). Estimating irregular pricing effects: A stochastic spline regression approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(2), 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manning, K. C., & Sprott, D. E. (2009). Price endings, left-digit effects, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 328–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1991). Thought systems, argument quality, and persuasion. Advances in social cognition, 4, 147–161.Google Scholar
  20. Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2009). Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Quigley, C. J. Jr., & Notarantonio, E. M. (1992). An exploratory investigation of perceptions of odd and even pricing. Developments in marketing science. In: V. L. Crittenden (Ed), Chestnut Hill, MA: Academy of Marketing ScienceGoogle Scholar
  22. Ramanathan, S., & Dhar, S. K. (2010). The effect of sales promotions on the size and composition of the shopping basket: Regulatory compatibility from framing and temporal restrictions. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 542–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schindler, R. M. (2006). The 99 price ending as a signal of a low-price appeal. Journal of Retailing, 82(1), 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schindler, R. M., & Kibarian, T. M. (1996). Increased consumer sales response though use of 99-ending prices. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schindler, R. M., & Kibarian, T. M. (2001). Image communicated by the use of 99 endings in advertised prices. Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 95–99.Google Scholar
  26. Schindler, R. M., & Kirby, P. N. (1997). Patterns of rightmost digits used in advertised prices: implications for nine-ending effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 192–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomas, M., & Morwitz, V. (2005). Penny wise and pound foolish: The left-digit effect in price cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing, School of BusinessUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of Accounting and Information Systems, School of BusinessUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  3. 3.Department of Management, College of Business and EconomicsTowson UniversityTowsonUSA

Personalised recommendations