Modern Economy, 2011, 2, 124-131
doi:10.4236/me.2011.22017 Published Online May 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/me )
Free Product as a Complement o r Substitute for a
Purchased Product—Does it Matter?
Uriel Spiegel1,2 , Uri Benzion3, Tal Shavit4
1Department of Management, Bar-Ilan University, Ramt Gan, Israel
2Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, USA
3Department of Economics, Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel
4School of Business Administration, C ollege of Management, Rishon-Le’Zio n, Israel
Received February 1, 2011; revised March 2, 201 1; accepted April 10, 2011
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine whether price discounts or buy one get a different item free (BOG-
DIF) offers are more attractive to consumers. This paper examines empirically (through the use of two dif-
ferent questio nnaires) the effect t hat the relationsh ip between the pu rchased and the free p roduct has on con-
sumer preference. A rational framework is presented and tested empirically for differing scenarios. When
comparing a 50% discount to BOGDIF, it is found that the promotion’s attractiveness is influenced by the
relationship between the produ cts, i.e. whether th e pro ducts are su b stitut es or compl ements. Interesti ngly , we
find that the empirical results are inconsistent with the rational framework. This inconsistency is explained
by the effect of a desired “gift”. The results are important for theoreticians and practitioners who desire to
develop efficient tools and innovative avenues for sales promotions.
Keywords: Discount, Present, BOGDIF, Promotions, Substitutability, Complementability
1. Introduction
Producers, sellers, department stores and supermarkets
frequently offers sales and promotions, often using direct
price reductions (such as a 50% discount) or effective
price discounts, using a policy of “buy one ge t one free”
where buying an item at full p rice grants the buyer a free
item. The free item might be another unit of the same
item (BOGOF) or a different item (“buy one get a dif-
ferent item free”, BOGDIF), of the same nominal value.
The purpose of this paper is to present the rational
hypothesis and examine the promotion effect that is de-
rived from the relationship between the purchased prod-
uct and the free product, including their substitutability
or co mplementability, as w ell as the attractiveness of the
offer being made, either pri c e discount or BOGDIF .
A quick glance at the advertisements to which con-
sumers are exposed in weekend and daily newspapers or
by way of snail mail, e-mail, and other media outlets re-
veals that different discount policies are offered for dif-
ferent items and in varying combined promotions. For
example, Kohl’s or Macy’s stores might send customers
advertisements by regular or electronic mail guar anteeing
a 50% price discount on some shirts, while other shirts
are sold together w ith another shirt, either identical or not.
Still other sh irts are sold for full price b ut bundled with a
free pair of trousers. Sometimes the items bundled in a
BOGDIF offer seem unrelated to each other, sometimes
they are substitutes for each other, and sometimes the
items are complements. Moreover, on many occasions we
note that pricing policies are “activated” according to
seasonal cycles, but sometimes they seem spontaneous,
unexpected, random or arbitrarily determined by the su-
per ma rket or department store. This may lead an outside
viewer to conclude that there is no consistent, solid, ma-
ture, or scientific method for promoting brand or store
loyalty, or for increasing companies’ sales and profits.
The confusing facts of pricing policies by practitioners on
one hand, and the academic explanations for consumers’
attitudes towards gifts and price discounts as reported in
the literature of marketing and economics, as described
below, on the other hand, motivated us to investig ate this
issue. The purpose is to develop a guideline for explain-
ing people’s behavior that can serve as an efficient tool
for successful sales promotions, to the benefit of both
sellers and customers. Furthermore, in BOGDIF even

U. SPIEGEL ET AL.
125
more inconsistency and con- fusion on the part of policy
makers was found. Sometimes, the free item has no mea-
ningful relationship to the purchased item, and there is a
real question as to whether it is preferable that the items
be related, either as substitutes or as complements, or for
them to be unrelated. If indeed the relationship between
the products has some effect on co nsumer behavior that
should be considered when decid- ing on a promotional
policy. To the best of our knowledge, this issue has not
yet been discussed in the literature.
Research on the question of discounts versus free units
is inconclusive1. Some researchers suggest that a dis-
count policy is questionable because it is sometimes
“translated” as a devaluation of the product [2-4] discuss
a key difference between price discounts and providing a
free additional unit (such as BOGOF), since a price dis-
count reduces loss (or saves spending) while an addi-
tional unit increases gain (benefit from the free unit).
Since loss aversion means that losses loom larger than
gains of the same amount, discounts are preferable to a
free additional unit. Conversely, [5] found that partici-
pants prefer extra units of the product rather than a price
discount.
[6] tested the difference between price discounts and
free units. They asked students to rank the transaction
value of three different possibilities on a scale of 1 - 5.
The possibilities were 50% discount, buy one get one
free, and buy two and get a 50% discount on both. Par-
ticipants preferred the 50% discount over the other two
promotions. Further, they found a higher transaction
value for the BOGOF promotion over the buy two and
get a 50% discount on both offers.
[7] examined experimentally the extent to which dif-
ferent framing increased perceptions of deal values. They
found that consumers often consider the discount price
rather than the initial price claim to be the true price of
the item. However, when a free gift is offered, consum-
ers establish their quality judg ment as to the full price of
the item without accounting for the value of the gift.
They claim that the free gift offer maintained quality
perceptions, whereas the discounted product was vul-
nerable to negative quality inferences. As a result the
free gift offer increases the value of the deal relative to
the control conditions, while the discount frame does not.
[8,9] conducted experiments that tested responses to
products that were offered as free gifts in conjunction
with the purchase of a different product. She shows that
when a product is given away free upon buying another
product at full price, participants tend to infer that it is
merely a cheap gift and assume a low produc tion cost for
the free product. Based on this assumption, costumers
may reduce the demand for the product in the future and
be willing to pay a lower price. In another paper, [10]
examined whether the economic value of discount cou-
pons is considered a reliable source of information for
consumers. She further examined whether an introduc-
tory price p lus the coupon ’s value serve consumers as an
indicator of quality. She found that increasing the cou-
pon’s value does not necessarily improve the product’s
evaluation. This reflects the general tendency of people
to under-evaluate a free item that is given as a gift when
making subjective value judgments. The acceptance of
such a gift by consumers may lead to a lower evaluation
of the product in the future.
As mentioned before, to the best of our knowledge
there is no research that examines empirically the effect
of the relationship between the purchased product and
the free product (substitutability or complementability)
on the attractiveness of the offer. Based on the rational
hypothesis we argue that the degree of attractiveness of a
50% discount when the consumer has to buy the two
items simultaneously and BOGDIF are in effect identical.
The rational argument is true for complementary prod-
ucts as well as for substitute products. For the same item
an offer of a 50% discount dominates the offer of buy
one and get another unit of the same item free (BOGOF).
These are a-priori rational hypotheses and we test them
in two questionnaires. We find that the attractiveness of
the promotion is influenced by the substitute and com-
plement relationships between the products. However,
we do find different results reg arding promotion ranking
where “customers” revealed preferences towards BO-
GOF rather than s 50% discount offer. We suggest that
consumers are affected by the “free” item in BOGDIF or
BOGOF [11,12]. The desire for a “free” gift increases
the attractiveness of BOGDIF or BOGOF. However, for
complement products the effect of “free” product does
not hold since the two complement products are per-
ceived as one in the eyes of the customer.
In the next section, we describe the formal rational
hypothesis, followed by a section where we report details
on the questionnaires’ evidence that tests the predictions
and suggest some behavioral explanations. We end with
a general summary.
2. The Rational Hypothesis
We can apply the above scenario to the consumers’ be-
havior. Assume a consumer who considers buying two
products X and Y. Assume also that the price of each
product is 1 and C represents the total expenditure on
other goods.
The utility function is U(X, Y, C), while the budget is
given by I.
For the simple case assume that X and Y are the same
1For a meta-analysis of the impact of price presentation see [1].

U. SPIEGEL ET AL.
126
product. If a person pays 50% of the price for each unit
of the same product or buys one unit and gets another
unit of the same product for fr ee (BOGOF ), both pro mo-
tions should be the same if the person buys the same
amount. However 50% is a promotion without any re-
striction on how many units must be purchased, while
BOGOF forces the customer to buy units in pairs. This
means that the 50% discount should be more attractive
due to more degrees of freedom. For any given utility
function all possible solutions in the BOGOF promotions
are contained in the 50% discount promotion.
To conclude we argue that Scenario 1 is preferred over
Scenario 2 for the same item.
Scenario 1 (50% discount): U(X,C), s.t 0.5X+C = I,
for
0 1,2,3,4,XI<= <
i.e; X is integer)
and
Scenario 2 (BOGOF): U(X,C), s.t 0X+1X+C = I, 0 <
2,4,6,8,XI= <
(i.e; X in pairs)
Hypothesis 1: A 50% discount on a product is prefer-
able to buying one unit and getting another unit of the
same product fre e (BOGOF).
Next, we compare the policy of offering a 50% dis-
count when the consumer buys two items simultaneously
to a BOGDIF policy.
The simple economic approach assumes consumers’
neutrality towards the financing sources (i.e., consumers
are indifferent between the consumption of a purchased
item versus an item that is received as a gift) of a specific
product that they consume. This indicates that the utility
will be the same if a person pays 50% of the price for each
product or pa ys full pri c e for one of the product s and gets
the other for free if both products have the same price.
This means that a consumer is indifferent to these two
different budget constrain t scenarios:
Scenario 1 (50% discount): U(X,Y,C), s.t. 0.5X +
0.5Y + C = I,
and
Scenario 2 (BOGDIF): U(X,Y,C), s.t. either 1X + 0Y
+ C = I or 0X + 1Y + C = I.
Hypothesis 2: When purchasing two different products
with the same price, the consumer is indifferent between
50% off the price of each product and paying full price for
one of the products and getting the other free (BOGDIF).
3. Preliminary Test of the Rational
Hypothesis
3.1. Questionnaire 1
3.1.1. Sample Data Collection
Before using the ques tionna ire, we conducted a survey in
economic classes (105 students) and asked the partici-
pants to rank the degree of substitutability or compleme-
tability for several pa irs of goods. Based on the students’
answers we chose two pairs of goods. The first one was
elegant shoes and sneakers, which were ranked as having
a high degree of substitutability in the preliminary survey.
The second one was laundry detergent and fabric soften-
er which the preliminary survey ranked as being very
complementary.
The next step was to prepare another questionnaire
testing the preferences of individuals for different types
of promotions.
Sample: The sample included 66 non-student partici-
pants (64% males). The age range was 21-51 and the
average age was 29.6.
Questionnaire: On this questionnaire, we asked the
participants to rank the attractiveness of different sales
promotions for each pair of products on a scale of 1 to 10
(1 = completely unattractive; 10 = extremely attractive)2.
10-point numerical scale is used in European Customer
Satisfaction Index (ECSI) [16,17] and in the framework
of American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) [18-
20].
For each product, we asked the participants to rank the
attractiveness of a 50% discount and BOGOF. Next we
asked them to rank the attractiveness of buying one
product at full price and getting a unit of a different
product for free (BOGDIF). In the last problem, partici-
pants were asked to rank the attractiveness of 50% dis-
count on both products only if buying both products.
Since the customer in a BOGDIF deal actually gets two
products for the 50% discount, the last option is also be
restricted to buying both products. To avoid any ambigu-
ity regarding the products’ prices we asked the partici-
pants to assume that the prices of both types of shoes
were the same, and that the laundry detergent and fabric
softener were also identically priced. (See Appendix 1
for the questionnaire).
3.1.2. Results
Table 1 compares the average attractiveness index
(STDV) of a 50% discount on a single product to bu ying
one unit of the product at full price and getting one unit
of the same prod uc t for free (BOG OF ).
In general participants were indifferent between the
2Regarding the use of a10-point numerical scale instead of a 5-
point
numerical scale, some studies such as [13,14] argue th a
t questions with
a large number of response alternatives can reduce the quality of the
responses. [15] argues that “it is usually accepted that a small number
of points does not allow a good discrimination of responses (limiting
the ability to find signifi
cant differences between segments) and may
limit the data anal ysis methods that can be used. More points improve
the data metric, enrich the possible data analyses and facilitate the
calculation of covariance between variables, which are used in most
multivariate data analysis methods”.

U. SPIEGEL ET AL.
127
two promotions or preferred the option of BOGOF over
the option of a 50% discount. This preference is incon-
sistent with economic theory since buying a product at a
50% discount without any restriction as to how many
units must be purchased should dominate the restricted
option of BOGOF.
Next, in Table 2 we compare the average attractive-
ness index (STDV) of the two possibilities: 1) Buying
one product at full price and getting the other product for
free (BOGDIF), and 2) a 50% discount on each product
with the res trict i on of having t o buy both products.
For complementary products, the average attractive-
ness of the 50% discount on both products (when buying
both of them) and BOGDIF are not significantly differ-
ent, which is consistent with the rational hypothesis. For
substitute products we find that BOGDIF is more attrac-
tive than the 50% discount on both products, which is
inconsistent with the rational hypothesis.
It is also reasonable to assume that the prices of shoes
and sneakers are higher than the price of laundry deter-
gent and fabric softener, so the 50% discount has a high-
er monetary value for shoes and sneakers than for laun-
dry detergent or fabric softener. However, the average
attractiveness index for a 50% discount on both products
is significantly higher for the laundry detergent and fa-
bric softener which are complementary products (6.85
for the powder and softener) than for the shoes and
sneakers which are substitute products (5.07 for the
shoes) (two-tailed T-test: t(66) = 5.28, p = 0.00). This
indicates that when selling two different products, com-
plementary products have some added value over substi-
tute products. When complementary products are sold
together, they are worth more than substitute products
sold together. As a result, discounts on both products are
worth more for complementary products even if th ey are
worth less money.
3.2. Questionnaire 2
3.2.1. Sample Data Collection
To test the reliability of our results, we repeated the sur-
vey using another questionnaire and a sample drawn
from students studying economics. Students of econom-
ics are more familiar with the rational thought processes
regarding the relationships between products (comple-
ment or substitute), income and substitution effect, and
this knowledge might affect their decis ion s.
Sample: The sample included 217 individuals (47%
males) drawn from economics classes. The average age
was 19.8. The participants were divided into three groups
and each group was a sked a bout di ffe rent pairs of product.
Questionnaire: The complementary products were a
shaving set and deodorant for males (65 male partici-
pants) and perfume and cosmetics for females (66 female
participants). The substitute products were New Balance
sneakers and Nike s ne a kers (86 participants, 45% males).
As in the first questionnaire, we asked the participants
to rank the attractiveness of different sales promotions
for each pair of products on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = com-
pletely unattractive; 10 = extremely attractive). For each
product we asked the participants to rank the attractive-
ness of a 50% discount and buy one get the same product
for free (BOGOF), and the attractiveness of buying one
product at full price and getting a unit of the other prod-
uct for free (BOGDIF). In the last problem, participants
were asked to rank the attractiveness of a 50% discount
on both products only if buying both products. Again, to
avoid any ambiguity regarding the products’ prices we
Table 1. Attractiveness of 50% discount on each product and BOGOF.
Product 50% discount BOGOF Two tailed paired T-test
Sneakers 6.87 (2.21) 6. 15 (2.84) t(66) = 2.03, p = 0.05
Elegant shoes 6.07 (2.42) 5.69 (2.64) t(66) = 1.25, p = 0.22
Washing powder 6.60 (2.41) 6. 93 (2.62) t(66) = 1.03, p = 0.31
Fabric softener 6.67 (2.32) 6. 96 (2.64) t(66) = 0.86, p= 0.39
Table 2. BOGDIF and 50% discount on both products.
Group Full price Free BOGDIF 50% discount on both
products Two-tailed paired T-test
Substitute products Sneakers Elegant shoes 5.90 (2.85) 5.07 (2.73) t(66) = 2.63, p = 0.01
Elegant shoes Sneakers 6.09 (2.85) 5.07 (2.73) t(66) = 3.48, p = 0.00
Co mp l e m entary products Washing powder Fabric softener 7.15 (2.50) 6. 85 (2.40) t(66) = 1.00, p = 0.32
Fabric softener Washing powder 7.27 (2.48) 6. 85 (2.40) t(66) = 1.45, p = 0.15

U. SPIEGEL ET AL.
128
asked the participants to assume that the prices of the
products are the same.
3.2.2. Results
Table 3 compares the average attractiveness index (STDV)
of a 50% discount on a single product to buying one unit
of the product at full price and getting one unit of the
same product for free (BOGOF).
As in the first questionnair e, par ticipants in general a r e
indifferent to the two promotions or preferred the option
of BOGOF over the option of a 50% discount. This was
also true for students of economics who are familiar with
economic theory and the advantage of buying a product
at a 50% discount without any restriction on how many
units must be purchased, in comparison to the restricted
BOGOF option. For the second questionnaire we again
compared the attractiveness index of the two possibilities:
1) buying one product at full price and getting the other
product for free (BOGDIF), and 2) a 50% discount on
each product with no restri ctions of buying either or both.
The results are displayed in Table 4.
These results are similar to our findings for the first
questionnaire. For complementary products, the attrac-
tiveness of a 50% discount on both products (when buy-
ing both of them) and BOGDIF are not significantly dif-
ferent, which is consistent with the rational hypothesis.
For substitute products, we find that BOGDIF is more
attractive than the 50% discount on both products, which
is inconsistent with the rational hypoth e s is.
4. Discussion
In this paper, we compare the 50% restricted discount
which requires increased levels of spending (purchase of
both goods) to BOGDIF which is buy one get the other
product free. We find that the attractiveness of the pro-
motion is influenced by the interrelationship betw een the
products, if they are substitutes or complements. The
findings are inconsistent with the rational hypothesis.
There is extensive research regarding sales promotions in
the economic and marketing literature, but we have not
found much discussion on the effect of the substitute and
complementary relationship between products as factors
that may affect the attractiveness of the promotion.
Why then do we find differences between comple-
mentary and substitute products? In general, our claim is
that people like gifts, and often they even ignore the
gift’s estimated market value. We illustrate this with the
following examples: 1) Consider the case of a mother
who receives a low value gift from her son for her birth-
day. Presumably, she will not focus on the monetary
value of the gift but rather on the “good will” and the
attention that it represents. 2) Wedding g ifts in most cas-
es are worse than a cash or check of the same monetary
value, since with money the couple can buy the same
gifts but also have the flexibility to bu y other items
Table 3. Attractiveness of 50% discount on each product and BOGOF.
Product 50% discount BOGOF Two tailed paired T-test
Deodorant 5.14 (2.21) 5.22 (2.32) t(64) = 0.31, p = 0.76
Shaving set 4.48 (2.31) 4.83 (2.40) t(64) = 1.57, p = 0.12
Perfume 4.24 (2.07) 4. 61 (2.29) t(65) = 2.24, p = 0.03
Make up 4.27 (2.09) 4.61 (2.25) t(65) = 2.67, p = 0.01
New Balance Sneakers 5.44 (2.48) 5.47 (2.58) t( 85) = 0.09, p = 0.93
Nike Sneakers 5.93 (2.45) 5.99 (2.59) t(85) = 0.23, p = 0.82
Table 4. BOGDIF and 50% discount on both products.
Group Full price Free BOGDIF 50% discount on
both products Two tailed paired T-test
Substitutes produ cts New Balance sneake rs Nike sneakers 6.42 (2.40) 5.35 (2. 59) t(85) = 4.10, p = 0.00
Nike sneakers New Balance sneakers 6.03 (2.55) 5.35 ( 2.59) t(85) = 2.86, p = 0.00
Complementary
products – Male
Deodorant Shaving set 5.68 (2.48) 5.97 (2.44) t(64) = 1.08, p = 0.28
Shaving set Deodorant 5.75 (2. 43 ) 5.97 (2.44) t(64) = 0.69, p = 0.49
Complementary
products – Female
Perfume Make up 5.12 (2.43) 5.32 (2.61) t(65) = 0. 87 , p = 0.39
Make up Perfume 5.24 (2.41) 5. 32 (2.61) t(65) = 0.37, p = 0.71

U. SPIEGEL ET AL.
129
that they may prefer more. However, we will find that
some couples will take more pleasure in receiving a par-
ticular gift from close relatives and will appreciate it
more than receiving a cash gift from those same relatives
despite the extra flexibility that cash provides. 3) Receiv-
ing a low monetary value present from the American
President will be appreciated more than receiving a check
of the same amount from an anonymous clerk in the
President’s office.
[11] extended the research on the psychology of “ze-
ro” and examined its effect on customer behavior. In a
series of experiments, they demonstrated that when
people faced a choice between two products, one of
which is free, they “overreact” to the free product, as if a
zero price meant not only a low cost of buying the prod-
uct, but also an increased consumer valuation of the
product itself. They suggest that options with no down-
side (no cost) evoke a more positive affective response
than options that involve both benefits and costs. [12]
claims that, “free! gives us such an emotional charge that
we perceive what is being offered as immensely more
valuable than it really is” (p.57). He further notes,
“Whether it’s products or money, we just can’t resist the
gravitational pull of FREE!” (p.60). This approach con-
tradicts the approach of [10].
Based on the discussion above we derive a possible
explanation of our results. Two complementary products
are perceived as one product, such that the consumer
perceives it as a bundle3 of products. The consumer
perceives the prices of both products as a price of one
bundled product. As such the effect of one product free
from among the two is negligible since in actual real
terms he translates it as a discount on the bundle. Thus
the utility in both cases would be the same and consistent
with the rational hypothesis.
The literature on bundling discusses the influence of
sales promotion when a discount is given to a product
within the bundle and determines that the promotion ef-
fect depends on which product is discounted [31,32].
However, we suggest another important factor which is
the degree of the products’ interdependency within the
bundle that influences the attractiveness of the sales
promotion.
However, for substitute products, receiving a second
of the same or a similar product as a gift (BOGDIF) has
a positive psychological effect, consistent with the find-
ings of [11]. According to [12], consumers get such an
emotional charge from an item being offered free that
they perceive it as being much more valuable than it re-
ally is. It is possible th at this effect offsets the restr iction
in the BOGOF promotion and as a result the BOGOF is
more attractive. This can also explain why we find that
participants were indifferent between the two promotions
or preferred the option of one unit of the same product
for free (BOGOF) over the option of a 50% discount.
This preference is inconsistent with economic theory
since buying a product at a 50% discount without any
restriction as to how many units must be purchased
should dominate the restricted option of BOGOF. The
effect of a free item increases the attractiveness of BO-
GOF and cancels out the advantage of the degrees of
freedom of the 50% price discount without any limit on
the num be r of uni ts.
Furthermore, we claim that since the products are
substitutes, the subjective value of the purchased product
is a good indicator (“witness”) for the value of the
second product that is given as a gift. As a result, we
suggest that the general tendency of people is to
over-evaluate the subjective value of a free product, un-
like the claim made by [10] that a product that is given
away as a gift is undervalued. The above is a good ex-
planation of the finding that in the case of substitute
products the utility fro m BOGDIF is higher than the uti l-
ity of a 50% discount on each product.
5. Conclusions
Practitioners and marketers are constantly searching for
different avenues to promote sales, and thereby achieve
higher revenues and profits while utilizing unintended
accumulations of inventory, etc. A variety of possible
policies can be adopted to achieve these goals, including
advertising and price cuts. The rational framework pre-
dicts that when considering the best way to cut prices,
decision-makers should not consider the relationship
between the products. Our findings show that the rela-
tionship between the products should also be taken into
consideration due to the “GIFT EFFECT” in the case of
substitute products.
We suggest that marketers consider the results of our
research, when deciding on an appropriate promotion po-
licy and whether the gift item should be a complement or
substitute to the main product.
6. References
[1] A. Krishna, R. Briesch, D. Lehmann and H. Yuan, “A
Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Price Presentation on
Perceived Savings,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78, No. 2,
2002, pp. 101-118. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(02)00072-6
[2] R. Thaler, “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,”
Marketing Science, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1985, pp. 193-201.
doi:10.1287/mksc.4.3.199
[3] K. B. Monroe and J. D. Chapman. “Framing Effect on
Buyers’ Subjective Product Evaluation,” Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1987, pp. 193-197.
3For more research on bundling see [2 1-30].

U. SPIEGEL ET AL.
130
[4] W. D. Diamond and L. Campbell, “The Framing of Sales
Promotion: Effects on Reference Price Change,” In: T. S.
Srull, Ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16,
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, Utah, 1989,
pp. 241-247.
[5] W. D. Diamond and A. Sanyal, “The Effect of Framing
on the Choice of Supermarket Coupons,” In: M. E.
Goldberg, G. Gorn and R. W. Pollay, Eds., Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 17, Association for Consumer
Research, Provo, Utah, 1990, pp. 494-500.
[6] I. Sinha and M. F. Smith, “Consumers’ Perceptions of
Promotional Framing of Price,” Psychology and Market-
ing, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2002, pp. 257-275.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200003)17:3<257::AID-M
AR4>3.0.CO;2-P
[7] P. R. Darke and C. M. Y. Chun, “Effect of Pricing and
Promotion on Consumer Perceptions: It Depends on How
You Frame It,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 81, No. 1, 2005,
pp. 35-47. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2005.01.002
[8] P. Raghubir, “Free Gift with Purchase: Promoting or
Discounting the Brand?” Journal of Consumer Psychol-
ogy, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2004, pp. 181-185.
doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2_20
[9] P. Raghubir, “Framing a Price Bundle: The Case of ‘Buy/
Get’ Offers,” Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Vol. 14, No. 2, 2005, pp. 123-128.
doi:10.1108/10610420510592617
[10] P. Raghubir, “Coupons in Context: Discounting Prices or
Decreasing Profits?” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80, No. 1,
2004, pp. 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2004.01.001
[11] K. Shampan’er and D. Ariely, “How Small Is Zero Price?
The True Value of Free Products,” A Working Paper,
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Boston, 2006.
[12] D. Ariely, “Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces
That Shape Our Decisions, First Edition,” Harper Collins
Publishers, New York, 2008.
[13] R. Tourangeau, “Cognitive Sciences and Survey Me-
thods,” In: T. B. Jabine, M. L. Straf, J. M. Tanur and R.
Tourangeau, Eds., Cognitive Aspects of Survey Metho-
dology: Building a Bridge between Disciplines, National
Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1984, pp. 73-100.
[14] D. F. Alwin and J. A. Krosnick, “The Reliability of Atti-
tudinal Survey Measures: The Role of Question and
Respondent Attributes,” Sociological Methods & Re-
search, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1991, pp. 139-181.
doi:10.1177/0049124191020001005
[15] P. S. Coelho and S. P. Esteves, “The Choice between a
5-Point and a 10-Point Scale in the Framework of Cus-
tomer Satisfaction Measurement,” Working Paper, ISEGI
- Instituto Superior de Estatística e Gestão de Informação,
New University of Lisbon, 2010.
[16] A. D. Ball, P. S. Coelho and A. Machás, “The Role of
Communication and Trust in Explaining Customer
Loyalty: An Extension to the ECSI Model,” European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, No. 9-10, 2004, pp.
1272-1293. doi:10.1108/03090560410548979
[17] ECSI, European Customer Satisfaction Index, Report
Prepared for the ECSI Steering Committee, 1998.
[18] C. Fornell, M. D. Johnson, E. W. Anderson, J. Cha and E.
B. Bryant, “The American Customer Satisfaction Index:
Nature, Purpose and Findings,” Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 60, No. 4, 1996, pp. 7-18. doi:10.2307/1251898
[19] C. Fornell, M. D. Johnson, E. W. Anderson, J. Cha and E.
B. Brya nt, “The American Customer Satisfaction Index:
Methodology Report,” University of Michigan, Ann Ar-
bor, 1998.
[20] M. Johnson, A. Gustafsson, T. W. Andreason, L. Lervik
and G. Cha, “The Evolution and Future of National Cus-
tomer Satisfaction Index Models,” Journal of Economic
Psychology, Vol. 22, No.2, 2001, pp. 217-245.
doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(01)00030-7
[21] G. J. Stigler, “United States v. Loew’s Inc.: A Note on
Block-Booking,” The Supreme Court Review, 1963, pp.
152-157.
[22] R. Schmalensee, “Pricing of Product Bundles,” Journal
of Business, Vol. 57, No. 1, 1984, pp. 211-230.
doi:10.1086/296250
[23] G. J. Gaeth, I. P. Lewin, G. Chakraborty and A. M. Levin,
“Consumer Evaluation of Multi-Products Bundles: An
Information Integration Approach,” Marketing Letters,
Vol. 2, No. 1, 1990, pp. 47-57. doi:10.1007/BF00435195
[24] R. Walters, “Assessing the Impact of Retail Pri ce Promo-
tions on Product Substitution, Complementary Purchase,
and Inter-Store Sales Displacement,” Journal of Market-
ing, Vol. 55, No. 2, 1991, pp. 17-28.
doi:10.2307/1252234
[25] B. A. Harlam, A. Krishna, D. R. Lehmann and C. Mela,
“Impact of Bundle Type, Price Framing and Familiarity
on Purchase Intention for the Bundle,” Journal of Busi-
ness Research, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1995, pp. 57-66.
doi:10.1016/0148-2963(94)00014-6
[26] B. L. Simonin and J. A. Ruth, “Bundling as a Strategy for
New Product Introduction: Effects on Consumers’ Res-
ervation Prices for the Bundle, the New Product, and Its
Tie-in,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 33, No. 3,
1995, pp. 219-230. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(94)00071-L
[27] J. Harris, “The Effects of Promotional Bundling on Con-
sumers’ Evaluations of Product Quality and Risk of Pur-
chase,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24, 1997,
pp. 168-172.
[28] Y. Chen, “Equilibrium Product Bundling,” Journal of
Business, Vol . 70, No. 1, 1997, pp. 85-103.
doi:10.1086/209709
[29] M. Strahilevitz and J.G. Myers, “Donations to Charity as
Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend
on What You Are Trying to Sell,” Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1998, pp. 434-446.
doi:10.1086/209519
[30] R. G. Hubbard, A. Saha and J. Lee, “To Bundle or not to
Bundle: Firms’ Choices under Pure Bundling,” Interna-
tional Journal of the Economics of Business, Vol. 14, No.
1, 2007, pp. 59-83. doi:10.1080/13571510601097140
[31] M. Yadav and K.B. Monroe, “How Buyers Perceive
Savings in a Bundle Price: An Examination of a Bundle’s

U. SPIEGEL ET AL.
131
Transaction Value,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
30, No. 3, August 1993, pp. 350-358.
doi:10.2307/3172886
[32] C. Janiszewski and C. Marcus, “The Influence of Price
Discount Framing on the Evaluation of a Product Bun-
dle,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, No. 4,
March 2004, pp. 534-546. doi:10.1086/380287
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
Greetings. We ask that you answer the following ques-
tions. All your responses will remain anonymous, and we
guarantee that they will be used for research purposes
only. Please circle the correct response, or fill in the data
requested where applicable.
Personal Details
*Age:__________ *Gender: M/F
Please rank these promotions. Please rank each pro-
motion in a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is completely unat-
tractive and 10 is highly attractive.
The products are: Sneakers and elegant shoes.
The prices of the Sneakers and the elegant shoes are
the same.
1) A 50% dis count on S ne akers :
Rank: 1/2/3/4/ 5/ 6/7/8/9/10
2) A 50% discount on elegant shoes:
Rank: 1/2/3/4/ 5/ 6/7/8/9/10
3) One buying a pair of Sneakers at full price gets
another pair of Sneakers for free :
Rank: 1/2/3/4/ 5/ 6/7/8/9/10
4) One buying a pair of elegant shoes at full price gets
another pair of elegant shoes for free:
Rank: 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10
5) One buying a pair of Sneakers at full price gets a
pair of elegant shoes for free:
Rank: 1/2/3/4/ 5/ 6/7/8/9/10
6) One buying a pair of elegant shoes at full price gets
a pair of Sneakers for free:
Rank: 1/2/3/4/ 5/ 6/7/8/9/10
7) Someone buying both Sneakers and elegant shoes
gets a discount of 50% on each of them.
Rank: 1/2/3/4/ 5/ 6/7/8/9/10