Marketing Letters

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 221–233 | Cite as

Brand promotions as a lottery

  • Sanjay K. Dhar
  • Claudia González-Vallejo
  • Dilip Soman


This paper shows that imprecisely stated discounts in brand promotions offered in the form of a low-probability lottery can lead to higher sales (purchase intentions) and consequently profits than equally costly conventional promotions offering a precise discount on the entire stock. Results from two different experimental studies support our findings. For high-probability lottery-like promotions, imprecise discounts lead to a lower performance for the brand than conventional promotions. We attempt to explain the findings by drawing on the behavioral decision theory literature.

Key words

Price promotions impact of promotions decision making under ambiguity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Becker, Selwyn W., and Fred O. Brownson. (1964). “What Price Ambiguity? or the Role of Ambiguity in Decision-Making,”Journal of Political Economy, 72, 62–73.Google Scholar
  2. Biswas, Abhijit, and Scot Burton. (1993). “Consumer Perceptions of Tensile Price Claims in Advertisements: An Assessment of Claim Types Across Different Discount Levels,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing 21(3), 217–229.Google Scholar
  3. Biswas, Abhijit, and Scot Burton. (1994). “Experimental Assessments of Effects Associated with Tensile Price Claims,”Journal of Business Research 29, 65–73.Google Scholar
  4. Curley, Shawn P., and J. Frank Yates. (1985). “The Center and Range of the Probability Interval as Factors Affecting Ambiguity Preferences,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36, 273–287.Google Scholar
  5. Curley, Shawn P., and J. Frank Yates. (1989). “An Empirical Evaluation of Descriptive Models of Ambiguity Reactions in Choice Situations,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology 33, 397–427.Google Scholar
  6. Einhorn, Hillel J., and Robin M. Hogarth (1985). “Ambiguity and Uncertainty in Probabilistic Inference,”Psychological Review 92, 433–461.Google Scholar
  7. Einhorn, Hillel J., and Robin M. Hogarth. (1986). “Decision Making Under Ambiguity,”Journal of Business 59, 225–250.Google Scholar
  8. Gonzalez-Vallejo, C., A. Bonazzi, and A.J. Shapiro. (1992). “Effects of Vague Probabilities and of Vague Payoffs on Preference: A Model Comparison Analysis,” Working Paper, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Gupta, Sunil, and Lee G. Cooper. (1992). “The Discounting of Discounts and Promotion Thresholds,”Journal of Consumer Research 18, 401–411.Google Scholar
  10. Kahn, Barbara, and Rakesh Sarin. (1988). “Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions Under Uncertainty,”Journal of Consumer Research 15, 265–272.Google Scholar
  11. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,”Econometrica 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  12. Lichtenstein, Donald R., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Scot Burton. (1990). “Distinguishing Coupon Proneness from Value Consciousness: An Acquisition—Transaction Utility Theory Perspective,”Journal of Marketing 54 (July), 54–67.Google Scholar
  13. Mobley, Mary, William Bearden, and Jesse Teel. (1988). “An Investigation of Individual Responses to Tensile Price Claims,”Journal of Consumer Research 15 (September), 273–279.Google Scholar
  14. Tversky, Amos, Shmuel Sattath, and Paul Slovic. (1988). “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,”Psychological Review 95, 371–384.Google Scholar
  15. Wallsten, Thomas, David Budescu, Amnon Rapoport, Rami Zwick, and Barbara Forsythe. (1986). “Measuring the Vague Meanings of Probability Terms,”Journal of Experimental Psychology (General), 115(4), 348–365.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanjay K. Dhar
    • 1
  • Claudia González-Vallejo
    • 2
  • Dilip Soman
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of BusinessThe University of ChicagoChicago
  2. 2.Center for Policy ResearchUniversity of Albany, SUNYUSA

Personalised recommendations