TILBURG UNIVERSITY 2010

Literature review on sampling The undescribed effects of sampling on sales

Bachelor thesis by D. R. B. van Rijswijk ANR: Year: Study program: Subject area: Supervisor:

159208 2009-2010 Business studies Marketing and sales E. C. Osinga

Abstract This paper inquires the marketing activity “sampling” (handing out free product trials) and the effects it has on sales. There are several previously undescribed mediating variables which influence this relationship which will be explored in this thesis. This literature review will indentify these variables, describe them, and their effects on sales. Results of this paper suggest that several effects of sampling are often neglected, but it can be assumed that the “reinforcement effect” and the “visibility effect” positively affect sales, “brand sympathy effect” has an unknown effect on sales that mainly is determined by the execution of the sampling activity, and finally the “product evaluation effect” negatively influences sales.

Table of contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 2 Table of contents ......................................................................................................... 3 Preface .......................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 5 1.1 The problem background ................................................................................ 5 1.2 The problem statement ................................................................................... 6 1.3 Research Questions ........................................................................................ 6 1.4 Definitions and conceptual framework .......................................................... 7 1.5 Relevance.......................................................................................................... 9 1.6 Thesis structure .............................................................................................. 10 Chapter 2 What is meant by sampling?............................................................. 11 2.1 What is sampling? .......................................................................................... 11 2.2 Characteristics that influence sample use: ................................................ 13 2.3 How does sampling work? ............................................................................ 15 Chapter 3 the undescribed effects ..................................................................... 17 3.1 Reinforcement effect...................................................................................... 17 3.2 Brand sympathy effect ....................................................................................... 17 3.3 Visibility effect ................................................................................................. 19 3.4 Product evaluation ......................................................................................... 20 Chapter 4: The conclusions ................................................................................. 22 4.1 Problem statement ......................................................................................... 22 4.2 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 22 4.3 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 24 4.4 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 25 References ......................................................................................................... 26

Preface The topic of this thesis is “the effects of sampling on sales”. I choose this topic because I am employed by Demonstrate (formerly Provocations) a company that specializes in field marketing and communicative actions (Demonstrate website 2010). I have been involved in various types of marketing activities, and have always been fascinated by sampling (handing out free product trials). How does it work, what are the different aspects that make this kind of marketing campaign successful? Questions that were never satisfied during my studies, but now with this thesis I have been given the opportunity to dive into the subject, uncover some of the “anatomy” of sampling and integrate my own experiences and visions with those of scholars who researched the subject before me. Sampling has not been thoroughly researched at all (Bawa and Schoemaker 2004; Heiman et al 2001; Ben Amor and Guilbert 2009), few notable empirical studies have taken place, that have only skimmed the surface of sampling, (Bawa and Schoemaker 2004; Heiman et al 2001; Ben Amor and Guilbert 2009; Jain et al 1995; Marks and Kamins 1988) yet a study by Donnelley (1994) shows that 78% of the manufactures use sampling as a part of their promotional activities. I would like to gain a deeper understanding of the subject and describe new helpful insights that can aid future research and companies alike. I would like to thank my fellow scholar Michael Zuiverloon for his moral support, and E.C. Osinga for his patience and inspiration.

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1

The problem background

Companies use a variety of advertising techniques in order to increase sales. One of these promotional activities/advertising techniques is sampling. Sampling is a tool used by companies to generally increase sales, introduce of a new product, or gain market share (one goal does not exclude the other) (Heiman et al 2001; Eisman 1993). A survey conducted in 1994 among packaged good manufactures shows that 78% of enterprises used free samples as a form of marketing that year (Donnelly 1994) These activities are either put into effect by the company itself, but more likely by a company specializing in communicative marketing. These companies have young people employed who hand out samples to the public in order to introduce and/or promote a product. The effects of sampling as a promotional tool can be powerful, subjects exposed to only a sampling activity have shown to have more of an attitude change towards the product then when only confronted to an advertising campaign (Marks and Kamins 1988). But are there any effects to sampling that are overlooked? What is the influence of these effects? The focus so far was more on the general effect on sales, this thesis will split up the effects and investigate some undescribed effects of sampling. Due to the time restrains of my thesis I have limited number of effects analyzed for this research to four; the “reinforcing effect”, the “brand sympathy effect”, the “visibility effect” and the “product evaluation effect”. In general this thesis will be researching which undescribed effects of sampling have an influence on sales.

1.2

The problem statement

Which effects of sampling have an influence on sales?

1.3

Research Questions o What is meant by sampling? What are the currently described effects? o What are the undescribed effects of sampling? o What is meant by the reinforcement effect and does it influence sales? o What is meant by the brand sympathy effect and does it influence sales? o What is meant by the visibility effect an does it influence sales? o What is meant by the product evaluation effect and does it influence sales?

1.4

Definitions and conceptual framework

Sampling or product trials are handouts of free products for a consumer to try so they have little risk in consuming the product. Sampling knows different forms; door-todoor, personal handouts, strategically placed samples, provided at purchase. The focus of this paper will be mainly on the personal handouts sampling activity.

Dependent variable: Sales; the total number of products sold.

Independent variable: Sampling exposure; a consumer that is merely exposed to the sampling activity (i.e. looking at the stand or smell the food), but does not actually consume the sample). Sample use; the consumer engages in the trial of the product offered.

Mediating variables: Currently described effects: Acceleration effect; is the effect that consumers begin repeating the purchasing of the sampled product earlier than they otherwise would. (Bawa and Schoemaker 2004) Expansion effect; which is the increase in consumers who would not have tried of the product until they received the free trial. (Bawa and Schoemaker 2004) Cannibalization effect, which reduces the number of paid purchases because of the free trial that has been consumed. (Bawa and Schoemaker 2004) Undescribed effects: Reinforcement effect; is the effect samples might have on consumers who have tried the product before but it has been long since they have consumed the product. The trial could revive the incentive to include the sampled product in the consumers‟ habitual buying behaviour once again. It has been described by Solomon et al (2002) and Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) but has been neglected in sampling research.

Brand sympathy effect; consumers who are confronted with a sampling activity might develop certain attitudes towards a brand, which can influence incentive to buy a product. Visibility effect; The billboard effect of sampling, even if a consumer does not engage in a product trial, the visual exposure to the sampling materials can create product awareness just like a advertisement can. Product evaluation effect; Products which are being sampled can be perceived as lower quality because the perceived price of the product dropped upon engaging in a product trial. Graphical representation:

Figure 1: conceptual framework

1.5

Relevance

Heiman et al (2001), Bawa and Schoemaker (2004) and Ben Amor and Guilbert (2009) observed that the research done on the effects of sampling is limited even though it is a widely spread tool amongst manufactures. Also Srinivasan and Hanssens (2009) state that marketing contributions are not readily visible in quarterly sales and earnings, because the influence of marketing activities on intangible assets like brand equity and customer loyalty are not accounted for. This can also be said about lack of long term effects measured in sampling Heiman et al (2001) stress the importance of long term effects which are named “goodwill”, which is defined as “learning”, but fail to delve deeper into the matter than that. My goal is to provide new insights on a commonly used promotional activity. More specifically, provide a framework which enables companies to better predict the (long term) effects of sampling. I will try to solve and explain the influence the moderating variables have on the independent variable „sales‟. This information will come in use to many companies who consider sampling activities as a marketing tool, as well as educate scholars and professionals alike on the possibilities this tool has to offer.

This study is of academic relevance because there has hardly been any research done on the long term effects of sampling, and little research has been done on sampling as a whole. The research that has been done on sampling has failed to indentify these effects and take them into account. Some of these effects have been described in other research subjects, but have so far been failed to be taken into account by papers on this topic. The gap I am hoping to fill with this paper is that I will provide a clear overview of the variables influencing sales, and provide a basis for further research on the matter.

The study has managerial relevance because these effects have been neglected when searching for the best way to introduce or promote a product or brand. These unexpected benefits might tip the balance in favour of a sampling activity versus another type of promotion, or when making a costs-benefits overview in order to predict the change in firm value that will occur because of the sampling activity.

1.6 Thesis structure This thesis contains a total of four chapters. Chapter one introduces the subject matter, provides the reader with a theoretical framework for future reference as well as the problem statement and the research questions and explains the academic and managerial relevance of the subject at hand. Chapter two defines the activities meant with sampling, and indentify what characteristics of the product and consumer will influence the success of a sampling activity as well as define the effects of sampling previously described in literature. Chapter three will introduce effects of sampling which are meaningful when predicting the sales of a sampling activity. The reinforcement effect is described and it is clarified how the change in habitual buying is of importance to increase sales. Furthermore chapter three includes a definition of what is meant by brand sympathy effect, explain how it is created among consumers, and if this also applies to sampling and what effect this has on the behaviour towards a brand and/or product and finally sales. The visibility effect is investigated, how it is created, and how it influences sales. The last effect to be described is the product evaluation effect, which describes the influence sampling can have on the perceived quality and status of a product. Finally, in chapter four a conclusion will be presented from which some recommendations will be drawn, also the limitations of this thesis will be indentified and taken into account.

Chapter 2 What is meant by sampling? 2.1

What is sampling?

Sampling or product trials are handouts of free products for a consumer to try so they have little perceived risk in consuming the product. Sampling is one of the promotional activities a company can use in order to increase sales amongst coupons, price promotions and colour leaflets (Bawa and Schoemaker 2004). It is a sales promotion technique that encourages a consumer to try the product, which is also referred to as a “product trial” or “consumer trial” and is mainly used for consumable goods (Mcguinness et al 1992). The technique is popular amongst manufacturers to create or reinforce an incentive with a consumer (Donnelley 1991), and to change attitudes belief confidence and belief strength (Marks and Kamins 1988). This is achieved through low risk and no obligations upon accepting a sample and thus makes it attractive for a consumer to try. (Ailoni-Charas 1984). For some products the perceived risk may still lie too high to engage in the product trial, i.e. an unknown brand of face cream might cause rashes (Ben Amor and Guilbert 2009). Consumers can be targeted in various ways, through magazines (i.e. perfume or shampoo samples in cosmetic magazines (Fine 1985), Personal (i.e. a promotional team in a mall handing out samples to by passers who suit the products target group), door-to-door mail (households receive a sample through the mail), strategically placed samples (i.e. Sports cream samples at the local hockey shop, an extra upon purchasing a product from the shop (common with perfumes retailers) free musically orientated magazine at a concert (Meyer 1982). It has to be taken into account that sampling is more effective for certain product categories and brands than in others. If a sample can be consumed and purchased on location (M&M‟s sampled at the mall), the short term sales effect is much higher, then when the sample cannot be consumed and purchased on location (washing detergent at a household trade fair) (Heiman et al 2001). Smaller market share brands seem to benefit more from sampling because of the higher percentage of non-triers thus are more likely to have increase in long term sales. This in contradiction with coupon and/or price promotions where the perceived risk is higher because of the unfamiliarity with the brand/product. Larger market share brands are more likely to have more of an effect on short term sales. (Bawa and Schoemaker 2004). While some papers boldly state that short term sales increase due

to sampling promotions, some caution must be made when making that statement, Lawson and Mcguiness (1990) have shown that not only have sales decreased after sampling in the first two to four weeks (due to the cannibalistic effect described by Bawa and Schoemaker (2004), elaboration will follow). There is also a negative net revenue in the sampling week as a direct result from the costs involved sampling activity even though sales have drastically risen. Yet the paper does not regard sampling a useless tool for bread and meat. Because Lawson and Mcguiness (1990) assume an increase in product awareness which might lead to an increase in long term sales. The benefit for some products and brands will not immediately show in short term sales.

Sampling is an expensive means of promotion. Manufactures will have to set goals and then carefully develop a sampling campaign according to the goals. When considering a new product, companies will need an estimate of how many product innovators and early adopters there are in the market and try to target then as efficient as possible. Too many samples would be a waste of resources, whereas too few will not create enough word-of-mouth. Manufactures of new products often create a temporarily monopoly for their products because of the lead time over their competitors, which enables them to establish themselves in the market place. The model predicts that when dealing with a highly innovative product in the beginning of its product life cycle, it is unnecessary to sample at a high level, because too many people are unfamiliar with the product and will not use it (Heiman et al 2001). For a new product that is similar to what something the consumer is already familiar with, high sampling is necessary to gain attention of the consumers. For durable goods the neutral sampling percentage of the total potential market should never exceed 7% and for targeted sampling the upper bound is 9%. (Jain et al 1995) There still appears to be a lacuna in the literature as to how to deal with established products sampling. Because the strength of sampling lies in the low risk for the consumer to consume the product, one could say that for all sample products there is a low involvement hierarchy when it comes to consuming the sample. A consumer engages the sample and decides if it is worth the risk, if so, consumes the free sample and then forms an attitude about the sampled product.

2.2

Characteristics that influence sample use:

Ben Amor and Guilbert (2009) have researched the characteristics that influence sample use, below is a graphical representation of the characteristics to clarify the results of the paper. Further down below there are definitions of the characteristics as well as the kind of influence they have on sample use. This model provides a useful insight to determine if a product is suitable for sampling and leads to a better understanding. Ben Amor and Guilbert (2009) argue that certain product and consumer characteristics have an influence on likelihood of engaging in sample use. The product characteristics are characteristics that are intrinsic to the product which have an influence on sample use, which are: Product life cycle; A new product has relatively more non-triers and likely triers then an established product. (Non-triers being consumers who have never consumed the product and will not unless provided with a sample, likely triers being people who potentially have interest in the product.) Penetration; based on the risk aversion theory, a consumer will not use a product when one is not familiar with it. Also when a consumer assumes there is no need to consume the sample, one will not engage in a product trial. Brand awareness; Low awareness of a brand can result in risk adverse behaviour, thus a decision not to consume the sample. Even though the group of non-triers might be high in the unaware group so is the unfamiliarity with product. This considers the awareness of a brand to the total population. It has been shown that product price has no significant influence on the likelihood of sample usage. The consumer characteristics are characteristics that are intrinsic to the consumer which have an influence on sample usage, which are: Family brand user; if one already consumes products from the brand the perceived risk of engaging in a product trial is lower (i.e. people who drink Coca cola, will try out Coca cola zero sooner than a consumer who drinks Pepsi). Consumer annual spending within the product category; a general interest in the product category influences the likelihood to engage in a product trial (i.e.

a consumer who spends a lot on perfumes is more likely to try out a perfume sample, then a consumer who does not own any perfumes). Occupation; Non-working housewives are more likely to engage in a product trial then a working person (results support this hypothesis, the reason remains unknown). There is no significant influence for age and household annual income Ben Amor and Guilbert (2009) This figure is a clarification of the relationship between product characteristics and sample use, and consumer characteristics and sample use.

Figure 2 Characteristics influencing sample use (Ben Amor and Guilbert 2009)

2.3

How does sampling work?

The previous paragraph dealt with how we can create sales trough sampling, the next will focus on why this has an impact on consumers. The act of sampling has certain direct effects on consumer beliefs, attitudes, and purchase intentions. These effects are similar for most marketing activities. Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) have developed the graphical representation depicted down below which clarifies the steps a consumer goes trough when one encounters an advertising stimulus.

Figure 3 How advertising works Vakratsas and Ambler (1999)

With sampling the order is different, because there is little perceived risk, a product trial is a product type that can be assigned to low involvement hierarchy. A consumer who encounters a sample, will think (cognition) first, then act (experience), and later develop an attitude (affect) towards the product, which will result in consumer behaviour. In the low involvement hierarchy, product experiences are the most important, because they introduce or reinforce an attitude towards a product/brand (Ehrenberg 1994; Pechmann and Stewart 1989).

Sampling has its own effects upon consumers. The effects of being exposed to sampling can be categorized in three behavioural effects: the acceleration effect, expansion effect, and the cannibalistic effect. The acceleration effect is the effect that consumers begin purchasing of the sampled product earlier than they otherwise would. The expansion effect, which is the increase in sales from consumers who would not have tried the product until they received the free trial. The cannibalization effect, which describes the reduction of paid purchases because of the free trial that has been consumed. Sampling can be worthwhile because of the previously described effects the expansion effect and the acceleration effect both have a positive effect on sales (Bawa and Schoemaker 2004).

This paper assumes that there are more effects that have yet to be taken into account by research. The contribution of these effects might be overlooked and not awarded to the trial use of the product. Most of the papers who investigated sampling have focused mainly on the short term benefits, but have failed to indentify other effects that sampling might have on sales. Lavidge and Steiner (1961) state that advertising cannot and should not and is not ment to create immediate sales and that the effects are far more subtle and noticeable in the long term. In the following chapters I will address several effects that are assumed to have an effect on sales.

Chapter 3 the undescribed effects 3.1

Reinforcement effect

One effect that has been overlooked is the “reinforcement effect” that samples might have on consumers who have tried the product before but it has been long since they have consumed the product. The use of a sample could revive the incentive to include the product represented by the sample in the consumers habitual buying once again. This effect is named after the one of the four types of learning outcomes as suggest by Solomon et al (2002) where a positive event (in this case the use of the sample) strengthens a consumers believes on a positive outcome. Recognition of the importance of product trial and usage experience led to another class of models, which are called "low-involvement hierarchy" models (Ray 1973) Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) argue that product usage experience has a greater impact on beliefs, attitude formation, incentive and choice than advertising, which instead reinforces habits or frames usage experience. In this product category low-involvement hierarchy the approach is from “think” to “do” and then “feel”. Although "think" can be no more than mere awareness of products in which the consumer has low involvement. Ehrenberg's (1974) “awareness trial reinforcement model” states that product preferences are formed after an initial trial. In 1994 Ehrenberg states that with low-involvement hierarchies, product experience is the dominant factor in forming attitudes. Sampling reinforces existing habits and attitudes because it enables an easy access to the experiences a product has to offer. It can thus be concluded that the reinforcement effect that sampling has is likely to have a significant influence on sales, in the short run as well as the long run. Mere exposure to the sampling activity can also result in this effect, but less effective. The reinforcement of the forgotten habits should lead to more sales.

3.2 Brand sympathy effect Brand sympathy refers to the attitude a consumer has towards a type of brand or product (Miller 2005). This paper assumes that there is a positive correlation created by the overall experience of a product trial. This theory is supported by Fishbeins' theory for reasoned action which states that the person‟s behavioural intention depends on his attitude and subjective norm (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Intention

means the likelihood that a person will engage in this behaviour. This intention is thus guided by two variables, the attitude, which is the total belief about a certain behaviour weighted by evaluations of these beliefs. And the Subjective norm, which are the norms a person have that are created by his social environment. Other people have an influence to how a person thinks and acts, depending on the perceived social status by the consumer, an individual will weigh the importance of these beliefs. (Miller 2005) It has to be noted that attitudes and norms cannot be weighed in the same fashion for every behavioural intention case (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), nor does it set a benchmark for every individual, people are very different in their nature, some are easily influenced by others while others are hardly influenced by other people‟s opinions. (Miller 2005). According to Sheppard (1988) the Fishbeins‟ theory for reasoned action model predicts behavioural intension fairly well; it is also a good foundation to comprehend how consumer buying behaviour is influenced. When we look at sampling it can be assumed that overall people enjoy getting free samples. In some consumers this might lead to an attitude change towards the product and brand. The consumer might have a sense that the company is “giving back to society”, or “they are not all about making sales”. I find these effects similar to those emotions evoked by sponsorships of events and sports clubs, not only do these create visibility and thus awareness, they also influence brand image (Gwinner and Eaton 1999). Keller (1993) defines brand image as "perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in memory" this means that a brand image is based upon linkages a consumer holds in his memory structure regarding the brand, these structures are also known as knowledge structures. These knowledge structures can be formed by stimuli and experiences such as the product attributes, brand and category experiences, price information, positioning in promotional communications. Keller (1993) also suggest that brand associations can be influenced when a brand becomes linked to a celebrity or linked with a sports event trough sponsorship activities. In these cases the knowledge structures then also includes the emotions towards this sports club or event and if these emotions are positive, so is the new attitude towards the product/ brand. It can be concluded that sampling creates a positive attitude towards a product/brand, which transform in motivation and possibly can later result in behavior.

But there is also an undesired effect towards brand sympathy due to sampling, Xia et al (2010) have researched a phenomena knows as price fairness perception; consumers consider both perceived retailers motive and their own input into the sampling engagement. The effort to acquire a sample can enhance the consumers feeling of entitlement to the sample. When the sample is denied the consumers‟ expectations are not met which results in a decrease of both the fairness perception of the promotion as well as the eventual price paid. If the consumer fails to receive his sample, he will project these negative feelings which result from the wasted effort onto the producers/brand/product as well as the sampling activity. What this means is that certain conditions of the product trial (i.e. one sample per person, listing to a sales speech, completing a survey, not sampling outside the target group, running out of samples) can lead to the development of negative feelings towards the producer/brand/product. When an enterprise is designing a sampling activity, these factors need to be taken into account in order to minimize the undesired effects. For this mediating effect on sales a consumer does not need to actually engage in a product trial, these feelings can be evoked by simply acknowledging the effort the enterprise undertakes to hand out free samples of their product. Since there is both a desired effect as well as an undesired effect on sales trough the brand sympathy effect, and with weighs unknown, and a variable influence of the undesired effect based on the execution per activity, it is impossible to deduct a valid hypothesis without further empirical research. All that can be concluded is that brand sympathy does have an effect on sales. 3.3

Visibility effect

Another effect which has been neglected so far is the “visibility effect” of the sampling activity. The sheer presence of a promotional stand in a mall or supermarket alone creates visibility and thus some form of awareness even if the consumer did not try the sample, for any reason whatsoever. If a sample is provided with a magazine, it will most likely not go unnoticed by its reader. In order to explain the effect of a personal outdoor sampling activity it will compare the visibility effect of sampling with those of a billboard, even though a bypasser will most likely notice the sampling activity with greater awareness then a billboard. This perceptual selectivity is caused by the uniqueness of a sampling activity; banners, karts, sampling crew, people

gathered and attracted to the stand. These factors all add to the likelihood of breaking the advertising clutter and drawing the attention to the brand/product (Solomon et al 2002). Selective perception consists of four parts, which include selective exposure, attention, comprehension and retention (Burgoon, Hunsaker, and Dawson 1994). In billboards this means that an advertisement shouldn‟t contain too many words, have a clear background and it must be easy to identify the product/brand, have a simple message and be creative (Blasko 1985). These variables should be present in sampling activity as well. According to Taylor et al (2006) billboard advertising is successful in breaking the advertisement clutter because of its uniqueness and its ability to advertise where no other forms of advertisement or even no advertisement at all are present. Personal sampling usually takes place at locations with high density and high flow of consumers i.e. mall, train station, an event. These are all locations where no other major form of advertising (television and radio) is effective in the way it is intended. Billboards are overly represented at malls and train stations and are likely to have trouble reaching consumers due to advertising clutter. Yet the unique features of sampling ensure the awareness of the consumers. Once sampling has achieved awareness without the actual use of the sample it follows the normal track of an advertisement. From perception the stimuli are interpreted and now a feeling/attitude is created/altered towards the product/brand, which can later result in the actual purchase the product (Solomon et al 2002). It can thus be concluded that the visibility effect needs to be taken into account when accounting for all the effects a sampling activity has on increased sales and thus sales. There has been no mention of this effect all in previous studies, so also the same goes for door-to-door sampling, or sampling in magazines. Although it will not break the advertising clutter as good as personal sampling, it should still create awareness amongst consumers, and thus affect sales in a positive way.

3.4

Product evaluation

There are some subconscious negative effects to discounts and price promotions that have been described in papers by Scott (1976) and Scott & Yalch (1978) which deals with negative effects after a sample has been consumed. The effect is there for called the “product evaluation effect”. Product evaluations have found to be lower when a sample or coupon is handed out, because the free trial influences the rewards or incentives, the product becomes less expensive in perception and thus loses

desirability and status amongst consumers (Scott 1976; Scott and Yalch 1978). This discrepancy in consumer evaluation could mean that in the future the consumer decides to purchase another product instead, because the perceived rewards are higher for the competitive product than the sampled product, thus resulting in a loss of sales. Also the loss of status can decline sales, because in some (sub)cultures, status has a significant influence on buying behaviour, because consumers experience a general dissatisfaction in life when they fail to posses the desired status products (Budiman and O‟Cass 2007). Status has such an influence on buying behaviour that in some cultures people acquire status products before they have secured the basic needs such as food and shelter (Belk 1988). This concurs with Fishbeins‟ subjective norm which states that one of the two variables that guide intention is the subjective norm, which is the influence other people have on how a person thinks and acts (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Thus this only influences sales negatively when a product is sampled when a product has status in a (sub)culture and a person is susceptible to opinion of others..

Chapter 4: The conclusions 4.1

Problem statement

Which effects of sampling have an influence on sales of the sampling activity?

From the results of the literature review it can be assumed that the reinforcement effect, brand sympathy effect, the visibility effect and the product evaluation effect all influence sales.

4.2

Conclusion

Sampling can be a useful tool for companies to use to increase sales, especially if it is properly executed. Apart from the known effects, the effects described in this paper have shown to have an influence on sales; the reinforcement effect works in favour of sales because sampling reinforces existing habits and attitudes because it enables an easy access to the experiences a product has to offer. And thus has a significant influence on sales, in the short run as well as the long run. The brand sympathy effect suggests that brand associations can be influenced when a brand becomes linked to a celebrity or linked with a sports event through sponsorship activities. In these cases the knowledge structures then also includes the emotions towards this sports club or event and if these emotions are positive, so is the change in attitude towards the product/ brand. This means emotions that are associated with products can be transferred to another product, and thus influence the general attitude towards that product and thus buying behaviour, which should ultimately result in a positive influence on sales. For this mediating effect on sales a consumer does not need to actually engage in a product trial, these feelings can be evoked by simply acknowledging the effort the enterprise undertakes to hand out free samples of their product. There are however negative effects from this effect, certain conditions of the product trial (i.e. one sample per person, listing to a sales speech, completing a survey, not sampling outside the target group) can lead to the development of negative feelings towards the producer/brand/product. These negative effects can largely be dealt with if the sampling activity is properly executed. Since there is both a desired effect as well as an undesired effect on sales trough the brand sympathy effect, and with weighs unknown, and a variable influence of the

undesired effect based on the execution per activity, it is impossible to deduct a valid hypothesis without further empirical research. All that can be concluded is that brand sympathy does have an effect on sales. The billboard effect is created by the visibility a sampling activity has, it is effective in breaking the advertising clutter, and being picked up by the perception of consumers. From perception the stimuli are interpreted and now a feeling/attitude is created altered towards the product/brand, which can later result in the actual purchase of the product. It can thus be concluded that the „billboard effect‟ influences sales in a positive way. Product evaluations have found to be lower when a sample is handed out, because the free trial influences the rewards or incentives, the product becomes less expensive in perception and thus looses desirability and status amongst consumers This discrepancy in consumer evaluation could mean that in the future the consumer decides to purchase another product instead, because the perceived rewards are higher for competitive product then the sampled product, thus resulting in a loss of sales. Graphical representation:

±

_

Figure 4: effects and their direction±

All in all it can be concluded that the new effects can tip the scale in favour of engaging in a sampling activity as means of promotion. But one must take into consideration the net present value of the activity. The increased profits gained from extra sales, should always outbid the total cost involved in a sampling campaign. Also it needs to be noted that results due to one of these effects can vary between different products, groups, brands, and even similar products.

4.3

Recommendations

Academic recommendations: Further research should carefully quantify and evaluate the new effects described in this paper to assign them with weights and validate the influence of the effects. Future research should also consider the product characteristics and the effect on the success of a sampling, enabling a more in depth understanding of which products are more suitable for sampling then others. Also it would be interesting to develop a model in which the different sampling activities are investigated, and in which forms they are most effective. That could be elaborated by linking types of sampling activities to product characteristics.

Managerial recommendations: This paper concludes that sampling is a helpful marketing tool for companies to increase their sales. Companies should not focus on the short term effects of the sampling activity but also consider the long term effects that sampling has on sales when making a decision whether or not to engage in a sampling activity. But as with all marketing campaigns with sampling there are some variables that can be “fine tuned” which will influence the success or failure of the activity/campaign. It is useful to have an advertisement campaign before the sampling campaign. Sampling in general is more effective for new products/brands then established products and brands. The execution of the activity is important, personal sampling has to be set up in such way that bypassers indentify the product brand with ease. A random guy in everyday clothes handing out samples will not have a visibility effect nearly close to a stand that has banners of the product/brand and thematized karts and personnel outfits.

Also certain conditions of the product trial (i.e. one sample per person, listing to a sales speech, completing a survey, not sampling outside the target group, running out of samples) can lead to the development of negative feelings towards the producer/brand/product. Make sure your employees keep these conditions in the back of their head, but must always consider the feelings of the consumers when sampling. Product characteristics that influence sample use should also be taken into account when designing a sampling activity the product life cycle; A new product has relatively more non-triers and likely triers then an established product. (Non-triers being consumers who have never consumed the product and will not unless provided with a sample, likely triers being people who potentially have interest in the product.) Product Penetration; based on the risk aversion theory, a consumer will not use a product when one is not familiar with it. Also when a consumer assumes there is no need to consume the sample, one will not engage in a product trial. Brand awareness; Low awareness of a brand can result in risk adverse behaviour, thus a decision not to consume the sample. Even though the group of non-triers might be high in the unaware group so is the unfamiliarity with product.

4.4

Limitations

Due to time restraints of this thesis it was only possible to research four new effects, but there might be more effects. Also it was impossible to take other variables into account such as different types of products and sampling method used. This paper suggests some effects of sampling which have not currently been taken into account. In order to prove these assumptions these effects will need to be empirically tested. Further research should investigate the effects the newly described effects have on sales, these result can be used to further help understanding what a more realistic value is of a sampling activity. Also due to several lacunae in the literature it is still impossible to get a total comprehensive idea of all the variables included in the sampling activity, yet this paper has contributed to an increase the comprehension of this promotional activity. Also, it would be interesting to know for which products sampling is most suited. There is some scattered information in papers about what products are suited, but more elaborate research would increase the effectiveness of sampling as a means to increase sales and help understand the effects have on sales. It can be assumed that products with high perceived risk of consumption and those who are fairly unknown to the consumers will benefit most from sampling.

References

Books: Ailloni-Charas, D. (1984), A Guide to Effective Promotional Planning, Strategies and Executions, Wiley, New York, NY. Armstrong, G., and Kotler, P., Saunders, J., Wong, V. (2002), Principles of marketing. Harlow. Prentice hall Belk, R. W. (1988), Third World Consumer Culture, in Marketing and Development: Toward Broader Dimensions, Greenwich, CT: Jai Press Burgoon, Michael, Hunsaker, Frank and Dawson, Edwin (1994), Human Communication, London: Sage. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Miller, K. (2005), Communications theories: perspectives, processes, and contexts. New York: McGraw-Hill Ray, Michael L. (1973), Marketing Communications and the Hierarchy of Effects, New Models for Mass Communication Research, Sage Publishing Journals Bawa, K., and Schoemaker, R. (2004), “The effects of free promotion samples on incremental brand sales.” Marketing science. volume 23 Blasko, Vincent J. (1985), “A Content Analysis of the Creative Characteristics of Outdoor Advertising: National Vs. Regional Differences”, in Proceedings of the 1985 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Tempe, Arizona, USA. Ben Amor, I., and Guilbert, F. (2009), “Influences on free samples usage within the luxury cosmetic market.” Direct Marketing, volume 3 Budiman, A., and O‟Cass, A. (2007), “Studying the effects of materialism, religiosity and status consumption on subjective well-being: An Indonesian perspective.” In Proceedings of the Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Dunedin, New Zealand Donnelley marketing Inc. (1991), “Survey shows popularity of trade promotion and consumer databases, potentials in marketing,” Donnelley Marketing Inc., Oakbrook Terrace, IL Donnelley Marketing Inc. (1994), “Annual Survey of Promotional Practices.” Donnelley Marketing Inc., Oakbrook Terrace, IL

Ehrenberg, Andrew S.C. (1974), “Repetitive Advertising and the Consumer”, Journal of Advertising Research, volume 14 Ehrenberg, Andrew S.C. (1994), “Justifying Advertising Budgets”, Admap, volume 29 Fine, P. (1985), “smell that sell”, marketing and media decisions, volume 20 Gwinner, Kevin p., and Eaton, John (1999), “Building Brand Image through Event Sponsorship: The Role of Image Transfer”, Journal of Advertising, volume 28 Heiman, A., McWilliams, B., Shen, Z., and Zilberman. D. (2001), Learning and forgetting: Modeling optimal product sampling over time. Management Science, volume 47 Jain, D., Mahajan, V., and Muller, E. (1995), “An approach for determining optimal sampling for the diffusion of a new product”, Journal of Innovation Management, Volume 12 Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing CustomerBased Brand Equity”, Journal of Marketing, volume 57 Lavidge, Robert J., and Steiner, Gary A., (1961), “A Model for Predictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness”. Journal of Marketing. Lawson, M., and McGuinness, D. (1990), “The effect of in-store sampling on the sales of food products”, Marketing Bulletin, Volume 1 Marks, L.J. , and Kamins, M.A. (1988), “The use of product sampling and advertising: effects of sequence of exposure and degree of advertising claim exaggeration on consumers' belief strength, belief confidence, and attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, volume 25 McGuinness, D., and Gendall, P. and Mathew, S. (1992), “The effect of product sampling on product trial, purchase and conversion”, International Journal of Advertising, volume 11 Meyer, E. (1982), “Sampling builds better business”, Advertising Age, 12 July. Pechmann, Cornelia, and Stewart, David W. (1988), “Advertising Repetition: A Critical Review of Wearin and Wearout”, Current Issues and Research in Advertising, University of Michigan Scott, C.A. (1976), “The effects of trial and incentives on repeat purchase behaviour”, Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 13 Scott, C.A., and Yalch, R.F. (1980), “Consumer response to initial product trial: a Bayesian analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 7

Srinivasan, S., and Hanssens, D. M. (2009), “Marketing and firm value”, Journal of Marketing Research Taylor, Charles R., Franke George R., and Bang, Hae-Kyong. (2006), “Use and effectiveness of billboards”. Journal of Advertising, volume 35 Vakratsas, D., and Ambler, T. (1999), “How advertising works: What do we really know?” Journal of Marketing, volume 63 Xia, Lan, Kukar-Kinney, Monica, and Monroe, Kent B. (2010), “Effects of Consumers‟ Efforts on Price and Promotion Fairness Perceptions”, Journal of retailing, volume 86