Korean Journal of Agricultural Science (농업과학연구)

Institute of Agricultural Science, CNU (충남대학교 농업과학연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of factors influencing the deal proneness of consumers for processed foods

  • Park, Jaehong (Department of Food Economics and Services, Yeungnam University)
  • Received : 2018.04.10
  • Accepted : 2018.07.18
  • Published : 2018.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aims of this study were to examine whether there are consumer segments that have a propensity to be deal prone in purchasing processed foods and to identify those characteristics of consumers that reflect their deal proneness. Thus, raw data from the Korea Consumer Attitude Survey was analyzed by frequency, factor analysis, and Tobit regression. The major findings are as follows. Individual deal proneness are different according to regional and socio-economic characteristics, and the lifestyle of the consumers also affects deal proneness. Socio-economic variables that have significant impacts on deal proneness for processed foods are residential areas, preferred lifestyle types, sex, age, educational background of the household head and type of store mostly used. With regard to lifestyle, it was found that consumers with a lifestyle that includes convenience, brand pursuit, and convenience are more likely to have a higher degree of deal proneness for processed foods. From the results based on different food groups, it was found that deal proneness for different food groups is affected by the areas, types of sales promotion, and socio-economic characteristics of the consumers. This result suggests that the differences in the consumption of processed foods and deal proneness are indicative for the need to use marketing strategies that consider the characteristics of consumers.

Keywords

References

  1. Blattberg RC, Neslin SA. 1990. Sales promotion: Concepts, methods, and strategies. Prenric-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
  2. Chandon P, Wansink B, Laurent G. 2000. A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing 64:65-81.
  3. Donnelley Marketing. 1994. 16th Annual survey of promotional practices. Donnelley Marketing, Inc., Stamford, CT, USA.
  4. Gim ES, Baek KM. 2017. An analysis of the effects of Japan's nuclear power plant accident on Korean consumers' response to imported food consumption. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 44:636-641. [in Korean]
  5. Henderson C. 1987. Sales promotion segmentation: Refining the deal-proneness construct. Working Paper. The Amos Tuck School of Business Administration, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
  6. Kim HG, Lee DI. 2014. The effect of deal-proneness in the searching pattern on the purchase probability of customer in online travel services. Journal of the Korean Operations Research and Management Science Society 39:29-48. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.7737/JKORMS.2014.39.1.029
  7. Kim S, Ryu IH, Lee KY. 2016. A study on the purchase behavior of Chinese consumers about environmentfriendly agricultural products. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 43: 459-467. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.7744/kjoas.20160049
  8. Kotler P. 1997. Marketing management - analysis, planning, implementation, and control. 9th Ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.
  9. Lee MH, Yeo JS. 2003. The incentive effect and issues of sales promotions in consumer decision making. Journal of Korean Home Management Association 21:41-53. [in Korean]
  10. Lichtenstein DR, Netemeyer RC, Burton S. 1990. Distinguish coupon proneness from value consciousness: An acquisition transaction utility theory perspectives. Journal of Marketing 54:54-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251816
  11. Lichtenstein DR, Burton S, Netemeyer RG. 1997. An examination of deal proneness across sales promotion types: A consumer segmentation perspective. Journal of Retailing 73:283-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90007-5
  12. Long JS. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
  13. Maddala GS. 1983. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  14. Oh YS. 2000. A study on the perceived shopping value and consumer satisfaction as related to consumers deal proneness. M.S. thesis, Yonsei Univ., Seoul, Korea. [in Korean]
  15. Nam SW. 2003. An empirical study on the characteristics and antecedents of deal prone consumers. M.S. thesis, Korea Univ., Seoul, Korea. [in Korean]
  16. Rosett RN, Nelson FD. 1975. Estimation of the two-limit probit regression model. Econometrica 43:141-146. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913419
  17. Wakefield KL, Baker J. 1996. Retailing hedonic consumption: a model of sales promotion of a leisure service. Journal of Retailing 72:409- 427. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(96)90021-4
  18. Wooldridge JM. 2006. Introductory econometrics. 3rd. Thomson Higher Education, Mason, Ohio, USA.