Companies often use promotions to instigate consumer needs and increase consumer loyalty (Q. Liu & Zhang, 2019). For example, Amazon and Tmall.com typically send discount coupons to consumers who might purchase products on their platform. In practice, two types of promotion framing are commonly utilized by companies to attract consumers (Q. Liu & Zhang, 2019): Some companies highlight that their promotions target all the customers of their shopping platform, such as, “To celebrate the upcoming new year, all customers will enjoy a 25% discount on all kinds of products.” In contrast, other companies emphasize that their promotions target the individual customer, such as, “Congratulations! You are the lucky recipient of a 25% discount promotion; use this coupon on all kinds of products.” However, the companies actually send this seemingly individual promotion message to all their customers. In this research, we compared these two types of promotion, which provide identical benefits to consumers but differ in how they are framed. Accordingly, we defined these framing types as platform-based and individual-based promotions.

The aim of this research was to determine whether platform-based or individual-based promotion framing was more effective for triggering consumers’ positive perception and intention to participate in a promotion. To answer this question we framed the same promotion with an identical discount as either platform- or individual-based and then compared customers’ willingness to participate.

Framing Effects and Promotion Framing

Framing effects occur when alternative frames for a given option influence both the way information is perceived and the ultimate decision making (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). Prior research has provided empirical evidence to support the effects of framing in psychology, behavioral economics, and consumer decision-making contexts (e.g., Levin et al., 1998; Park et al., 2000; Puto, 1987). For example, the positive framing of a meat product attribute (e.g., 75% lean) was found to result in more positive evaluations than was the negative framing of the same attribute (e.g., 25% fat; Donovan & Jalleh, 1999).

In the context of marketing promotion, framing type may have different effects on consumers’ perceptions and purchase behaviors (e.g., Kim & Kramer, 2006; Lehtimäki et al., 2019). For instance, Chen et al. (1998) found that presenting a price promotion in dollar terms (vs. percentage terms) for a high-price product was evaluated more favorably with a more significant perceived price reduction, and the opposite was true for a low-price product. In addition to price promotion framing, product promotion framing (e.g., presenting a promotional product as a bundle or free gift with the purchase of the promotion’s focal product) can influence consumers’ purchase intention. Specifically, when a promotional package contained two different products, consumers in the free gift (vs. bundle) condition assigned a higher price to the focal (vs. supplementary) product, perceived a smaller price increase, and exhibited a higher repurchase intention toward the focal (vs. supplementary) product after the promotion ended (H.-H. Liu & Chou, 2015).

However, the existing literature on consumers’ response to promotion framing has focused primarily on the characteristics of a promotion itself (e.g., price promotion or product promotion; Sinha & Smith, 2000), with limited attention paid to the framing of promotion targets. Specifically, while an individual-based promotion emphasizes that the promotion is specific to the targeted customer who receives the promotion message (e.g., “This promotion is just for you”), a platform-based promotion targets all customers of a shopping platform (e.g., “This promotion is for all customers”). Thus, we examined whether the different types of promotion target framing (i.e., platform-based promotion vs. individual-based promotion) could influence consumers’ perception and willingness to participate.

Promotion Framing and Perceived Savings

Perceived savings, which refers to consumers’ perception of how much they can save, is the most common variable used to measure consumer responses to promotions (Krishna et al., 2002; Lee & Stoel, 2016). A considerable amount of marketing research has demonstrated that perceived savings can be influenced by contextual (e.g., promotion framing) and individual (e.g., sense of power) factors. For example, when a price promotion is framed in a dollars-off rather than percentage-off format, low-power (vs. high-power) consumers perceive significantly more savings (Choi & Mattila, 2014).

As we mentioned above, the critical distinction between a platform-based promotion and an individual-based promotion is promotion targets (i.e., all customers vs. an individual customer). Currently, with the prevalence of consumerism and the development of e-commerce, many businesses and marketers have launched platform-based promotions on special occasions or holidays, such as Black Friday in America or Double Eleven in China (Huang, 2021; Malin, 2021). During such shopping seasons, online retailers advertise widely that these platform-based promotions can give consumers the best deal of the year, and usually with the most savings on almost any kind of product. Online retailers often launch individual-based promotions without offering large discount deals on ordinary days. Consequently, an association between platform-based promotions and the best deals (i.e., maximum price discount) can be established and strengthened in consumers’ minds. Previous research has also shown that consumers’ perception of a price discount can positively influence their perceived savings (Lee & Chen-Yu, 2018). As a result, we suggested that consumers would be inclined to perceive a platform-based promotion as offering greater savings than an individual-based promotion, although these two types of promotion provide the same benefits.

Prior research has shown that price promotions positively influence consumers’ perception of savings and their subsequent purchase decisions (Chen et al., 1998). When consumers perceive more savings, their feelings of gain can enhance their perceived value and thereby increase their purchase intention (Grewal et al., 1998; Zeithaml, 1988). For instance, Weisstein et al. (2014) demonstrated that consumers’ perceived savings positively influenced their green purchase intention. These findings support the proposition that the higher the perceived savings, the more likely consumers are to participate in a promotion and make purchasing decisions.

On the basis of the above discussion, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Framing a promotion as platform-based (vs. individual-based) will increase consumers’ willingness to participate, even when the benefits received by consumers from promotions are constant.
Hypothesis 2: Consumers will perceive greater savings in a platform-based promotion than in an individual-based promotion, which will cause consumers to be more willing to participate in a platform-based promotion than in an individual-based promotion.

Consumers’ Sensitivity to Promotion

The promotion framing effect also depends on consumers’ sensitivity to promotion. Several conceptualizations of promotion sensitivity have been created. Some researchers have considered it a general construct that reflects consumers’ character or personality (Verma, 2001). Others have suggested that it is a domain-specific construct, whereby consumers exhibit different sensitivities to various promotion types, such as coupons, features, or in-store displays (Lichtenstein et al., 1997). We adopted the former conceptualization, anticipating that consumers who tend to be promotion sensitive would exhibit such sensitivity across all promotion activities, whereas promotion-insensitive consumers would exhibit their indifference to promotions on a generalized basis. In line with Schneider and Currim (1991), the more promotion sensitive consumers are, the more likely their purchase decisions are to be influenced by promotions.

We further anticipated that consumers’ promotion sensitivity would moderate the relationship between promotion framing and consumers’ willingness to participate. That is, only consumers who are sensitive to a promotion will associate a platform-based promotion with greater benefits (i.e., perceived savings). In contrast, those who are promotion insensitive can usually resist a promotion’s temptations, and it is difficult for them to discern the promotion-and-perceived-savings association. As a result, we expected that the greater impact of a platform-based over an individual-based promotion on consumers’ willingness to participate would be attenuated or disappear among promotion-insensitive consumers. Accordingly, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Framing a promotion as platform-based (vs. individual-based) will increase the willingness to participate only among consumers who are promotion sensitive, and not among those who are promotion insensitive.

We conducted two experiments with different sample pools to test our hypotheses.

Study 1

In Study 1 we examined whether consumers are more likely to participate in a platform-based promotion than in an individual-based promotion. Participants were randomly assigned to either the platform-based or individual-based promotion condition. We predicted that framing a promotion with the same benefits (i.e., discounts), whether platform- or individual-based, would increase consumers’ willingness to participate, but that a platform-based promotion would result in greater perceived savings than would an individual-based promotion.

Method

Participants
We collected as many participants as resources allowed for in the allotted timeframe (2 days), so that 97 students from various disciplines at a large public university, located in Shanghai, participated in the study (51 women, 46 men; M_age = 18.73 years, SD = 1.40, range = 17–24). They were recruited to respond to a 10-minute online survey on daily consumption habits in return for compensation of CNY 10 (USD 1.50). All participants signed a consent form specifying that their data would be used only for research purposes. This article adheres to the authors’ national ethics guidelines.

Procedure
We adopted a two-way (platform-based promotion vs. individual-based promotion) between-subjects study design. Online, the participants were told that an online shopping company was launching a promotion campaign and that the marketers would like students’ feedback on it. We then briefly introduced this company and the promotion campaign. Next, we showed the participants the promotional message delivered by this company. Keeping the promotion benefits constant, we manipulated only the framing of promotion targets. In the platform-based promotion condition, the participants received the following promotional message: “Happy Snack House is offering 25% off for all customers visiting this online store! This discount is for three days and for all kinds of products. Come on and grab these great-value buys!” In the individual-based promotion condition, the participants received the following promotional message: “Happy Snack House is offering 25% off just for you! This discount is for three days and for all kinds of products. Come on and grab these great-value buys!” Then, the participants reported their willingness to participate in the promotion campaign and their perceived savings in relation to the discount promotion. Finally, they provided demographic information before they were thanked and received monetary compensation. We then debriefed them and explained that we were investigating consumers’ perception of different types of promotion framing.

Measures
We measured participants’ willingness to take part in the discount promotion by asking, “How willing are you to participate in this promotion campaign?” We assessed their perceived savings by asking, “How much do you think you can save if you participate in this promotion?” (1 = not at all, 7 = very much).

Results and Discussion

Willingness to Participate
An independent samples t test indicated there was a significant effect of promotion framing on willingness to participate, t(95) = 2.01, p = .048, d = 0.41. Specifically, the participants were more willing to take part in the platform-based promotion (M = 3.11, SD = 1.45) than in the individual-based promotion (M = 2.56, SD = 1.23).

Perceived Savings
Consistent with our prediction, participants in the platform-based promotion condition (M = 3.51, SD = 1.16) reported greater perceived savings than did those in the individual-based promotion condition (M = 2.86, SD = 1.07), t(95) = 2.88, p = .005, d = 0.58.

Mediation
We used PROCESS for SPSS Model 4 (Hayes, 2013) to conduct a mediation analysis with the manipulation of promotion framing (platform-based promotion = −1, individual-based promotion = 1) as the independent variable, perceived savings as the mediating variable, and willingness to participate as the dependent variable. The results reveal that the effect of promotion framing on willingness to participate was mediated by participants’ perceived savings, indirect effect = −.22, SE = 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−0.403, −0.074], on the basis of 5,000 bootstrapped resamples. Compared to the individual-based promotion, the platform-based promotion induced stronger perceived savings (β₂ = −.33, SE = 0.11, p = .005). These stronger perceived savings subsequently increased consumers’ willingness to participate in the promotion campaign (β₃ = .67, SE = 0.10, p < .001; see Figure 1).

Our findings suggest that consumers were more likely to participate in a platform-based promotion than in an individual-based promotion, even when the two types of promotion provided the same benefits. Additionally, Study 1 provided direct evidence for our proposed mechanism that perceived savings would underlie the effect of promotion framing on consumers’ willingness to participate, thus supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2.

Study 2

In Study 2 we tested our central hypothesis that framing a promotion as platform-based (vs. individual-based) could increase consumers’ willingness to participate, and examined whether this effect disappeared among consumers who are promotion insensitive. We predicted that if consumers were not promotion sensitive, the belief that a platform-based promotion offers greater savings would be less likely to be activated, thereby attenuating or even eliminating the promotion framing effect.

Method

Participants
Similar to Study 1, we collected as many participants as resources allowed for in the allotted timeframe (2 days), so that 195 members of a large public online platform (147 women, 48 men; M_age = 23.02 years, SD = 2.55, range = 18–32) took part in an online survey in exchange for monetary compensation of CNY 10 (USD 1.50). All participants signed a consent form specifying that their data would be used only for research purposes.

Procedure
The study adopted a promotion framing (platform-based promotion vs. individual-based promotion) × promotion sensitivity mixed design, in which promotion framing was manipulated as a between-subjects factor, and promotion sensitivity was measured as an individual difference factor. The cover story informed participants that an online shopping company was launching a promotion campaign and that we were collecting customers’ feedback on it. Then, we manipulated the framing of promotion targets by showing the participants different promotional messages that were randomly assigned by a computer program. As in Study 1, the participants in the platform-based promotion condition received the following promotional message: “Happy Snack House is offering 25% off for all customers visiting this online store! This discount is for three days and for all kinds of products. Come on and grab these great-value buys!” In the individual-based promotion condition, participants received the following promotional message: “Happy Snack House is offering 25% off just for you! This discount is for three days and for all kinds of products. Come on and grab these great-value buys!” After the participants indicated their willingness to participate in this discount promotion, they were asked to report their general promotion sensitivity. Finally, they provided their demographic information, and we thanked them and provided monetary compensation. We then debriefed them and explained we were investigating consumers’ perception of different types of promotion framing.

Measures
First, the respondents completed a two-item measure to assess their willingness to participate in the discount promotion: “How willing are you to participate in this promotion campaign?” and “To what extent are you satisfied with this promotion campaign?” (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). These two items formed a single factor and were averaged to create an index of willingness to participate (Cronbach’s α = .84). We also asked participants to indicate their general promotion sensitivity: “To what extent are your purchasing decisions influenced by promotions?” (1 = not at all, 7 = very much).

Results and Discussion

Willingness to Participate
A linear regression analysis of willingness to participate in the promotion using promotion framing (platform-based promotion = −1, individual-based promotion = 1), promotion sensitivity, and the interaction term as predictors yielded a main effect of promotion framing, b = −0.33, t(191) = −3.22, p = .001, 95% CI [−0.53, −0.13], f² = 0.05. This suggests that the participants were more willing to take part in the platform-based promotion than in the individual-based promotion, which further supported Hypothesis 1. The main effect of promotion sensitivity was also significant, b = 0.35, t(191) = 4.14, p < .001, 95% CI [0.18, 0.51], f² = 0.09, indicating that participants who were more promotion sensitive were more willing to participate in the promotion. In addition, both main effects were qualified by the promotion framing × promotion sensitivity interaction term, b = −0.22, t(191) = −2.62, p = .010, 95% CI [−0.39, −0.05], f² = 0.04.

To probe this interaction, we conducted a floodlight analysis using the Johnson–Neyman technique to identify the regions of significance (i.e., the range of promotion sensitivity at which the promotion framing effect became significant; Spiller et al., 2013). Supporting Hypothesis 3, the platform-based promotion (vs. individual-based promotion) increased the willingness to participate among respondents whose promotion sensitivity was greater than 4.84 (0.49 less than the mean of 5.33 for promotion sensitivity; b = 0.22, SE = 0.11, p = .05). For the participants whose promotion sensitivity was less than 4.84, however, the effect of promotion framing on their willingness to participate was not significant (see Figure 2).

Study 2 therefore demonstrated that when consumers were promotion sensitive, they were more likely to take part in a platform-based promotion than an individual-based promotion. However, when consumers were less promotion sensitive, the promotion framing effect was attenuated. These findings supported not only Hypothesis 3 but also the process by which a platform-based promotion increased consumers’ willingness to participate by increasing perceptions of savings among promotion-sensitive (vs. promotion-insensitive) consumers.

General Discussion

Promotions serve as a key marketing tool to encourage consumer purchases and increase company sales (Chandon et al., 2000; Neslin, 2002). Prior investigations of promotion framing have mainly focused on the specific characteristics of a given promotion (Darke & Chung, 2005; Tan & Chua, 2004). However, whether different framing of promotion targets can drive consumers’ perception and consequently influence their willingness to participate in these promotions remained unexplored.

We demonstrated that compared with an individual-based promotion (i.e., a promotion targeting the individual consumer) with the same discount benefits, a platform-based promotion (i.e., a promotion targeting all consumers of a shopping platform) induced greater willingness to participate. Our two studies provide converging evidence for this promotion framing effect, the underlying mechanism of perceived savings, and the moderating effect of consumers’ promotion sensitivity. Specifically, in Study 1, we found that consumers were more likely to participate in a platform-based promotion because they perceived it to provide greater savings than an individual-based promotion did. Study 2 showed that the observed promotion framing effect occurred only among consumers who were usually promotion sensitive, and disappeared among those with low promotion sensitivity.

These findings contribute to research on consumers’ interpretation of information framing. Echoing the earlier literature on how information should be presented (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984; Park et al., 2000) and how consumers react differently to types of framing (Biswas & Burton, 1993; Qiu et al., 2016), we have demonstrated that promotion target framing in marketing can influence consumers’ perception and decision making. Specifically, when the actual benefits are constant, framing a promotion as platform based (vs. individual based) increases consumers’ willingness to participate.

Our results also advance understanding of promotion effectiveness. As Study 1 shows, consumers perceive a platform-based promotion to offer greater savings than an individual-based promotion does; consequently, they are more willing to participate in a platform-based promotion. We find this point particularly interesting because while the two types of promotion offer identical discount benefits, consumers perceive them differently, suggesting that the effectiveness of a promotion depends on both the promotion itself and how consumers perceive it.

More broadly, our work enhances the literature on consumer motivation. Going beyond the influence of extrinsic information, such as message information and source, on consumer decisions, we found that consumers’ individual differences or past experience can interact with information to affect their perceptions and intentions.

From the managerial perspective, our research provides practical implications for how to communicate marketing promotions to consumers. Companies currently offering an individual-based promotion should alter their framing type into a platform-based promotion, which entails zero cost due to the general advantage of platform-based over individual-based framing, to increase consumers’ participation. Moreover, according to our findings, companies should identify consumers who are promotion sensitive and send them a platform-based promotional message.

This research has several limitations. First, the sample size was relatively small and only one item was used for the measurement of some variables in the two studies. Future research could enlarge the sample size and adopt multiple-item measures for relevant variables to improve the reliability. Second, we measured only participants’ perceptions and willingness to participate. Future research could extend our investigation to encompass the behavioral consequences of the promotion framing effect by using field experiments. Finally, we strictly controlled for any other information framing to focus specifically on the framing of promotion targets. Do promotion target framing and information framing jointly influence consumers’ perceptions and willingness to participate? Future research could consider this possibility.

In summary, we investigated how platform-based versus individual-based promotion framing influences consumers’ willingness to participate in promotion campaigns. The results from two studies indicate that consumers were more likely to participate in a platform-based promotion than an individual-based promotion, even when the two types of promotion provide the same benefits to consumers. This effect occurred because consumers perceived saving more money from the platform-based promotion. Moreover, the effect existed only among consumers who were promotion sensitive, not those who were promotion insensitive. Our findings contribute to the literature on information framing and promotion effectiveness. The results also provide insights to platform marketers or managers about how to communicate marketing promotions to consumers.

References

Biswas, A., & Burton, S. (1993). Consumer perceptions of tensile price claims in advertisements: An assessment of claim types across different discount levels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(3), 217–229.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070393213005

Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 65–81.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.4.65.18071

Chen, S.-F. S., Monroe, K. B., & Lou, Y.-C. (1998). The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 353–372.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80100-6

Choi, C., & Mattila, A. S. (2014). The effects of promotion framing on consumers’ price perceptions: The moderating role of a personal sense of power. Journal of Service Management, 25(1), 149–160.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2012-0234

Darke, P. R., & Chung, C. M.-Y. (2005). Effects of pricing and promotion on consumer perceptions: It depends on how you frame it. Journal of Retailing, 81(1), 35–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2005.01.002

Donovan, R. J., & Jalleh, G. (1999). Positively versus negatively framed product attributes: The influence of involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 16(7), 613–630.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199910)16:7<613::AID-MAR4>3.0.CO;2-F

Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 46–59.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200204

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050

Huang, K. (2021). Double 11: The Biggest Online Shopping Festival in the World. China Highlights.
https://bit.ly/3HMuq3q

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341

Kim, H. M., & Kramer, T. (2006). “Pay 80%” versus “get 20% off”: The effect of novel price framing on consumers’ deal evaluation. Marketing Letters, 17(4), 311–321.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-006-9309-7

Krishna, A., Briesch, R., Lehmann, D. R., & Yuan, H. (2002). A meta-analysis of the impact of price presentation on perceived savings. Journal of Retailing, 78(2), 101–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(02)00072-6

Lee, J. E., & Chen-Yu, J. H. (2018). Effects of price discount on consumers’ perceptions of savings, quality, and value for apparel products: Mediating effect of price discount affect. Fashion and Textiles, 5(1), Article 13.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-018-0128-2

Lee, J. E., & Stoel, L. (2016). An unintended consequence of exaggerated maximum-discount tensile price claims. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(7), 700–709.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-01-2016-1091

Lehtimäki, A.-V., Monroe, K. B., & Somervuori, O. (2019). The influence of regular price level (low, medium, or high) and framing of discount (monetary or percentage) on perceived attractiveness of discount amount. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 18(1), 76–85.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41272-018-0152-2

Levin, I. P., Jasper, J. D., & Forbes, W. S. (1998). Choosing versus rejecting options at different stages of decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(3), 193–210.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199809)11:3<193::AID-BDM297>3.0.CO;2-G

Lichtenstein, D. R., Burton, S., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1997). An examination of deal proneness across sales promotion types: A consumer segmentation perspective. Journal of Retailing, 73(2), 283–297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90007-5

Liu, H.-H., & Chou, H.-Y. (2015). The effects of promotional frames of sales packages on perceived price increases and repurchase intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(1), 23–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.06.005

Liu, Q., & Zhang, F. (2019). Study on the influencing factors of mobile users’ impulse purchase behavior in a large online promotion activity. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations (JECO), 17(2), 88–101.
https://doi.org/10.4018/jeco.2019040108

Malin, Z. (2021). Amazon’s Black Friday deals are still live — Here are the best 19 deals. NBC News.
https://nbcnews.to/3zScnH9

Neslin, S. A. (2002). Sales promotion. In B. A. Weitz & R. Wensley (Eds.), Handbook of marketing (pp. 311–338). Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608283.n14

Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Macinnis, D. J. (2000). Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 187–202.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.2.187.18731

Puto, C. P. (1987). The framing of buying decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 301–315.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209115

Qiu, L., Cranage, D., & Mattila, A. S. (2016). How anchoring and self-confidence level influence perceived saving on tensile price claim framing. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 15(2), 138–152.
https://doi.org/10.1057/rpm.2015.49

Schneider, L. G., & Currim, I. S. (1991). Consumer purchase behaviors associated with active and passive deal-proneness. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(3), 205–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(91)90012-V

Sinha, I., & Smith, M. F. (2000). Consumers’ perceptions of promotional framing of price. Psychology & Marketing, 17(3), 257–275.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200003)17:3<257::AID-MAR4>3.0.CO;2-P

Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Mcclelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0420

Tan, S.-J., & Chua, S. H. (2004). “While stocks last!” Impact of framing on consumers’ perception of sales promotions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(5), 343–355.
https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760410549168

Verma, H. V. (2001). Sales promotion types and customer sensitivity. Paradigm: A Management Research Journal, 5(2), 12–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0971890720010203

Weisstein, F. L., Asgari, M., & Siew, S.-W. (2014). Price presentation effects on green purchase intentions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(3), 230–239.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0324

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1251446

Biswas, A., & Burton, S. (1993). Consumer perceptions of tensile price claims in advertisements: An assessment of claim types across different discount levels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(3), 217–229.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070393213005

Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 65–81.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.4.65.18071

Chen, S.-F. S., Monroe, K. B., & Lou, Y.-C. (1998). The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 353–372.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80100-6

Choi, C., & Mattila, A. S. (2014). The effects of promotion framing on consumers’ price perceptions: The moderating role of a personal sense of power. Journal of Service Management, 25(1), 149–160.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2012-0234

Darke, P. R., & Chung, C. M.-Y. (2005). Effects of pricing and promotion on consumer perceptions: It depends on how you frame it. Journal of Retailing, 81(1), 35–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2005.01.002

Donovan, R. J., & Jalleh, G. (1999). Positively versus negatively framed product attributes: The influence of involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 16(7), 613–630.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199910)16:7<613::AID-MAR4>3.0.CO;2-F

Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 46–59.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200204

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050

Huang, K. (2021). Double 11: The Biggest Online Shopping Festival in the World. China Highlights.
https://bit.ly/3HMuq3q

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341

Kim, H. M., & Kramer, T. (2006). “Pay 80%” versus “get 20% off”: The effect of novel price framing on consumers’ deal evaluation. Marketing Letters, 17(4), 311–321.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-006-9309-7

Krishna, A., Briesch, R., Lehmann, D. R., & Yuan, H. (2002). A meta-analysis of the impact of price presentation on perceived savings. Journal of Retailing, 78(2), 101–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(02)00072-6

Lee, J. E., & Chen-Yu, J. H. (2018). Effects of price discount on consumers’ perceptions of savings, quality, and value for apparel products: Mediating effect of price discount affect. Fashion and Textiles, 5(1), Article 13.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-018-0128-2

Lee, J. E., & Stoel, L. (2016). An unintended consequence of exaggerated maximum-discount tensile price claims. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(7), 700–709.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-01-2016-1091

Lehtimäki, A.-V., Monroe, K. B., & Somervuori, O. (2019). The influence of regular price level (low, medium, or high) and framing of discount (monetary or percentage) on perceived attractiveness of discount amount. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 18(1), 76–85.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41272-018-0152-2

Levin, I. P., Jasper, J. D., & Forbes, W. S. (1998). Choosing versus rejecting options at different stages of decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(3), 193–210.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199809)11:3<193::AID-BDM297>3.0.CO;2-G

Lichtenstein, D. R., Burton, S., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1997). An examination of deal proneness across sales promotion types: A consumer segmentation perspective. Journal of Retailing, 73(2), 283–297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90007-5

Liu, H.-H., & Chou, H.-Y. (2015). The effects of promotional frames of sales packages on perceived price increases and repurchase intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(1), 23–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.06.005

Liu, Q., & Zhang, F. (2019). Study on the influencing factors of mobile users’ impulse purchase behavior in a large online promotion activity. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations (JECO), 17(2), 88–101.
https://doi.org/10.4018/jeco.2019040108

Malin, Z. (2021). Amazon’s Black Friday deals are still live — Here are the best 19 deals. NBC News.
https://nbcnews.to/3zScnH9

Neslin, S. A. (2002). Sales promotion. In B. A. Weitz & R. Wensley (Eds.), Handbook of marketing (pp. 311–338). Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608283.n14

Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Macinnis, D. J. (2000). Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 187–202.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.2.187.18731

Puto, C. P. (1987). The framing of buying decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 301–315.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209115

Qiu, L., Cranage, D., & Mattila, A. S. (2016). How anchoring and self-confidence level influence perceived saving on tensile price claim framing. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 15(2), 138–152.
https://doi.org/10.1057/rpm.2015.49

Schneider, L. G., & Currim, I. S. (1991). Consumer purchase behaviors associated with active and passive deal-proneness. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(3), 205–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(91)90012-V

Sinha, I., & Smith, M. F. (2000). Consumers’ perceptions of promotional framing of price. Psychology & Marketing, 17(3), 257–275.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200003)17:3<257::AID-MAR4>3.0.CO;2-P

Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Mcclelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0420

Tan, S.-J., & Chua, S. H. (2004). “While stocks last!” Impact of framing on consumers’ perception of sales promotions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(5), 343–355.
https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760410549168

Verma, H. V. (2001). Sales promotion types and customer sensitivity. Paradigm: A Management Research Journal, 5(2), 12–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0971890720010203

Weisstein, F. L., Asgari, M., & Siew, S.-W. (2014). Price presentation effects on green purchase intentions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(3), 230–239.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0324

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1251446

This work was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science of China (72102069).

Xiaoyue Wu, School of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, 130 Meilong Road, Shanghai 200237, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]