Lead Offer Spillovers

References

• Ahluwalia R, Unnava HR, Burnkrant RE (2001) The moderating role of commitment on the spillover effect of marketing communications. J. Marketing Res. 38(4):458–470.Crossref, Google Scholar
• AlixPartners (2011) Price is important, but shoppers want more than low prices from grocers, according to alixpartners survey. Press Release, AlixPartners, New York.Google Scholar
• Anderson ET, Simester D (2013) Advertising in a competitive market: The role of product standards, customer learning, and switching costs. J. Marketing Res. 50(4):489–504.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson ET, Simester DI (2004) Long-run effects of promotion depth on new vs. established customers: Three field studies. Marketing Sci. 23(1):4–20.Link, Google Scholar
• Anderson RE (1973) Consumer dissatisfaction: The effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. J. Marketing Res. 10(1):38–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2003) Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quart. J. Econom. 118(1):73–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Atalay AS, Bodur HO, Rasolofoarison D (2012) Shining in the center: Central gaze cascade effect on product choice. J. Consumer Res. 39(4):848–866.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balachander S, Ghose S (2003) Reciprocal spillover effects: A strategic benefit of brand extensions. J. Marketing 67(1):4–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bawa K, Shoemaker RW (1987) The effects of a direct mail coupon on brand choice behavior. J. Market Res. 24(4):370–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buhrmester MD, Talaifar S, Gosling SD (2018) An evaluation of amazon’s mechanical turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 13(2):149–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Dean M, Martin D (2011) Search and satisficing. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(7):2899–2922.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandon P, Hutchinson JW, Bradlow ET, Young SH (2009) Does in-store marketing work? effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. J. Marketing 73(6):1–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chapman RG (1986) Assessing the profitability of retailer couponing with a low-cost field experiment. J. Retailing 62(1):19–40.Google Scholar
• Dreze X, Hoch SJ, Purk ME (1994) Shelf management and space elasticity. J. Retailing 70(4):301–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elberg A, Gardete PM, Macera R, Noton C (2017) Dynamic effects of price promotions: Field evidence, promotion search and supply-side implications. Working paper, Stanford Business School, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• eMarketer (2016) Coupons are a major purchase influencer. Press Release, eMarketer, New York.Google Scholar
• Erdem T (1998) An empirical analysis of umbrella branding. J. Marketing Res. 35(3):339–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erdem T, Sun B (2002) An empirical investigation of the spillover effects of advertising and sales promotions in umbrella branding. J. Marketing Res. 39(4):408–420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fisher G (2017) Intertemporal choices are causally influenced by fluctuations in visual attention. Working paper, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
• Fong NM (2017) How targeting affects customer search: A field experiment. Management Sci. 63(7):2353–2364.Link, Google Scholar
• Fong NM, Zhang Y, Luo X, Wang X (2016) Targeted promotions and cross-category spillover effects. Working paper, Temple University, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Frederick SW, Mochon D (2012) A scale distortion theory of anchoring. J. Experiment. Psych General 141(1):124–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goodman JK, Cryder CE, Cheema A (2013) Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of mechanical Turk samples. J. Behav. Decision Making 26(3):213–224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green D, Jacowitz KE, Kahneman D, McFadden D (1998) Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resour. Energy Econ. 20(2):85–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guimond L, Kim C, Laroche M (2001) An investigation of coupon-prone consumers: their reactions to coupon feature manipulations. J. Bus. Res. 54(2):131–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee CK, Loewenstein GF, Blount S, Bazerman MH (1999) Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psych. Bull. 125(5):576–590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Inmar (2014) Inmar 2014 coupon trends: 2013 year-end report. White paper, Inmar, Winston-Salem, NC.Google Scholar
• Janakiraman R, Sismeiro C, Dutta S (2009) Perception spillovers across competing brands: A disaggregate model of how and when. J. Marketing Res. 46(4):467–481.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Schkade DA (1989) Bias in utility assessments: Further evidence and explanations. Management Sci. 35(4):406–424.Link, Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Willemsen MC (2008) Process models deserve process data: Comment on brandstätter, gigerenzer, and hertwig (2006). Psych. Rev. 115(1):263–273.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Management 22(1):57–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khaw M, Glimcher P, Louie K (2017) Normalized value coding explains dynamic adaptation in the human valuation process. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 114(48):12696–12701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kőszegi B, Rabin M (2006) A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quart. J. Econom. 121(4):1133–1165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Armel C, Rangel A (2010) Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience 13(10):1292–1298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• LeClerc F, Little JD (1997) Can advertising copy make FSI coupons more effective? J. Marketing Res. 34(4):473–484.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lu J, Hutchinson W (2017) Split-second decisions during online information search: Static vs. dynamic decision thresholds for making the first click. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Mochon D, Frederick S (2013) Anchoring in sequential judgments. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 122(1):69–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neslin SA, Shoemaker RW (1983) A model for evaluating the profitability of coupon promotions. Marketing Sci. 2(4):361–388.Link, Google Scholar
• Orquin JL, Loose SM (2013) Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica 1(144):190–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paolacci G, Chandler J (2014) Inside the turk: Understanding mechanical turk as a participant pool. Current Direction Psych. Sci. 23(3):184–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raghubir P (1998) Coupon value: A signal for price? J. Marketing Res. 35(3):316–324.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raghubir P, Inman JJ, Grande H (2004) The three faces of consumer promotions. Calif. Management Rev. 46(4):23–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reutskaja E, Nagel R, Camerer CF, Rangel A (2011) Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: An eye-tracking study. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):900–926.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sahni NS (2016) Advertising spillovers: Evidence from online field experiments and implications for returns on advertising. J. Marketing Res. 53(4):459–478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sahni NS, Zou D, Chintagunta PK (2017) Do targeted discount offers serve as advertising? evidence from 70 field experiments. Management Sci. 63(8):2688–2705.Link, Google Scholar
• Schkade DA, Johnson EJ (1989) Cognitive processes in preference reversals. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes. 44(2):203–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sütterlin B, Brunner TA, Opwis K (2008) Eye-tracking the cancellation and focus model for preference judgments. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 44(3):904–911.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Torralba A, Oliva A, Castelhano MS, Henderson JM (2006) Contextual guidance of eye movements and attention in real-world scenes: the role of global features in object search. Psych. Rev. 113(4):766–786.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesan R, Farris PW (2012) Measuring and managing returns from retailer-customized coupon campaigns. J. Marketing 76(1):76–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Willemsen M, Johnson E (2010) Visiting the decision factory: Observing cognition with mouselabweb and other information acquisitions methods. Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Kuehberger A, Ranyard R, eds. A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research: A Critical Preview and User's Guide (Psychology Press, London), 19–42.Google Scholar
• Yoon S, Fong NM, Dimoka A (2013) The robustness of anchoring effects on market good valuations. Working paper, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH.Google Scholar