Consumer perceptions of ambiguous price promotions: scratch and save promotions versus tensile price claims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how consumers respond differently to “scratch and save (SAS)” promotions versus “tensile price claims (TPC).” SAS promotions provide a possible discount (determined probabilistically) but conceal the exact amount until purchase. Tensile price claims (e.g. “up to 25 percent off on items marked with a red tag”) make imprecise price promotional claims. In addition to making indefinite price claims, SAS promotions (e.g. scratch and save up to 25 percent off) include gambling elements; the exact discount is determined randomly for individual consumers by a scratch‐off card. Design/methodology/approach Two experimental studies are conducted. Findings Evidence from two experiments indicates that consumers perceive SAS promotions to be more ambiguous than tensile price claims. In addition, the results demonstrate consumer uncertainty towards SAS promotions but also consumer willingness to gamble: deep discount SAS promotions are perceived as more attractive than limited‐scope tensile price claims. Practical implications The findings suggest that consumers perceive SAS offers more enticing than limited tensile price claims as the proposed discount increases. Furthermore, establishing a minimum savings offer could be used to encourage consumers to shop at retailers offering SAS promotions. Originality/value Limited work has focused on examining how consumers respond to SAS promotions because SAS promotions are a relatively new store‐level promotional tool. Furthermore, no research effort has been extended to directly compare consumers' perceptions of SAS promotions with tensile price claims.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".