IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Sale Signs Less Effective When More Products Have Them?


  • Eric T. Anderson

    () (GSB, The University of Chicago, 1101 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

  • Duncan I. Simester

    () (Sloan School of Management, MIT, E56-305, 38 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)


We analyze data from a variety of sources, including historical data from a women's clothing catalog, a field study in that catalog, survey responses to catalog stimuli, and grocery store data for frozen juice, toothpaste, and tuna. The analysis yields three conclusions. First, sale signs are less effective at increasing demand when more items have them. Second, total category sales are maximized when some but not all products have sale signs. Third, placing a sale sign on a product reduces the perceived likelihood that the product will be available at a lower price in the future, but the effect is smaller when more products have sale signs. By ruling out alternative hypotheses, the findings suggest that moderation of the sale sign effect is in part due to reduced credibility when they are used on more products. The credibility argument is motivated in part by a recent paper that presented an equilibrium model predicting that customers who lack knowledge of market prices rely on point-of-purchase sale signs to help evaluate posted prices (Anderson and Simester 1998). The model predicts that sale signs increase demand but that the increase is smaller when more products have them. This moderating effect regulates how many sale signs stores use and makes customer reliance on these cues an equilibrium strategy. To evaluate whether the number of sale signs moderates their effectiveness we compare demand for items with sale signs when varying the number of sale signs on other products. For this comparison we use two datasets describing demand for products in a women's clothing catalog. The first dataset describes customer orders for the same set of items across three sequential issues of the catalog. The second dataset is a field test conducted by mailing different versions of the catalog to randomly selected customer samples. Reassuringly, although the datasets do not share the same limitations, the findings are consistent and indicate that sale signs are less effective when more products have them. In addition to the credibility explanation there are at least two alternative explanations for this result. First, using a sale sign to make a product more attractive may lead to substitution of demand from other sale items within a store, and so demand may vary even if there is no change in the credibility of the sale signs. To discriminate between the substitution and credibility explanations, we evaluate whether total category demand is maximized when some but not all products in the category have sale signs. The credibility explanation implies that adding another sale sign will eventually decrease total category sales when many items already have sale signs. In contrast, if adding a sale sign to an item leads solely to substitution from other products within (or outside) the category we will not observe a decrease in total category demand. We test the total category sales prediction using grocery store scan data describing total category demand for frozen juice, toothpaste, and canned tuna. The findings reveal that in all three categories there is a significant reduction in aggregate demand. A second alternative explanation is that sale signs focus customer attention on products with these cues. Distinguishing between the attention and credibility explanations is a difficult task. They both imply that sale signs deliver less information when there are too many sale signs. The credibility argument predicts that this occurs because the signs are noticed but not believed. The attention explanation predicts that the signs are less likely to be noticed when attention is diluted by a large number of sale signs. To discriminate between the credibility explanation and this attention effect we use survey measures to evaluate a third hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts both that placing a sale sign on a product reduces the perceived likelihood that the product will be available at a lower price in the next period, and that this effect is smaller when more items have them. In an attempt to control for the attention effect we focus subjects' attention on a set of focal items. Under these conditions it is unlikely that subjects overlook sale signs on these items. More important, the likelihood of overlooking sale signs on the focal items is unlikely to depend on how many other items also have sale signs. The results confirm both that the presence of a sale sign reduced subjects' expectations that an item would be available at a lower price in the future and that this effect is smaller when more items have sale signs.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric T. Anderson & Duncan I. Simester, 2001. "Are Sale Signs Less Effective When More Products Have Them?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 121-142, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:20:y:2001:i:2:p:121-142

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. J. Jeffrey Inman & Leigh McAlister, 1993. "A Retailer Promotion Policy Model Considering Promotion Signal Sensitivity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 339-356.
    2. Stiving, Mark & Winer, Russell S, 1997. " An Empirical Analysis of Price Endings with Scanner Data," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 57-67, June.
    3. Sawyer, Alan G, 1975. " Demand Artifacts in Laboratory Experiments in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(4), pages 20-30, March.
    4. Shimp, Terence A & Hyatt, Eva M & Snyder, David J, 1991. " A Critical Appraisal of Demand Artifacts in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 273-283, December.
    5. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    6. Inman, J Jeffrey & McAlister, Leigh & Hoyer, Wayne D, 1990. " Promotion Signal: Proxy for a Price Cut?," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 74-81, June.
    7. Steven Salop, 1977. "The Noisy Monopolist: Imperfect Information, Price Dispersion and Price Discrimination," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 393-406.
    8. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 1983. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 203-238.
    9. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. David Trafimow & James M. Leonhardt & Mihai Niculescu & Collin Payne, 2016. "A method for evaluating and selecting field experiment locations," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 437-447, September.
    2. Eric Anderson & Benjamin A. Malin & Emi Nakamura & Duncan Simester & Jón Steinsson, 2013. "Informational Rigidities and the Stickiness of Temporary Sales," NBER Working Papers 19350, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Desmet, Pierre & Le Nagard, Emmanuelle & Vinzi, Vincenzo Esposito, 2012. "Refund depth effects on the impact of price-beating guarantees," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 603-608.
    4. Steven Miller & Eric Bradlow & Kevin Dayaratna, 2006. "Closed-form Bayesian inferences for the logit model via polynomial expansions," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 173-206, June.
    5. repec:eee:moneco:v:90:y:2017:i:c:p:64-83 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Steven M. Shugan, 2002. "In Search of Data: An Editorial," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 369-377.
    7. Breugelmans Els & Campo Katia, 2008. "Can in-store displays improve category sales and brand market share in online stores? A study on the overall effectiveness and differences between display types in an online FMCG context," Research Memorandum 035, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    8. Andreas Leibbrandt, 2016. "Behavioral Constraints on Pricing: Experimental Evidence on Price Discrimination and Customer Antagonism," CESifo Working Paper Series 6214, CESifo Group Munich.
    9. Guodong (Gordon) Gao & Anandasivam Gopal & Ritu Agarwal, 2010. "Contingent Effects of Quality Signaling: Evidence from the Indian Offshore IT Services Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(6), pages 1012-1029, June.
    10. Weathers, Danny & Swain, Scott D. & Makienko, Igor, 2015. "When and how should retailers rationalize the size and duration of price discounts?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2610-2618.
    11. Eric T. Anderson & Duncan I. Simester, 2004. "Long-Run Effects of Promotion Depth on New Versus Established Customers: Three Field Studies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 4-20, February.
    12. repec:bla:jconsa:v:51:y:2017:i:2:p:448-462 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Lindsey-Mullikin, Joan & Petty, Ross D., 2011. "Marketing tactics discouraging price search: Deception and competition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 67-73, January.
    14. repec:eee:jouret:v:87:y:2011:i:1:p:75-89 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. repec:eee:jouret:v:84:y:2008:i:4:p:449-460 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Meghan R. Busse & Duncan I. Simester & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2010. "“The Best Price You'll Ever Get”: The 2005 Employee Discount Pricing Promotions in the U.S. Automobile Industry," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 268-290, 03-04.
    17. repec:eee:joreco:v:25:y:2015:i:c:p:1-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Eric Anderson & Duncan Simester, 2003. "Effects of $9 Price Endings on Retail Sales: Evidence from Field Experiments," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 93-110, March.
    19. repec:eee:joreco:v:28:y:2016:i:c:p:263-273 is not listed on IDEAS


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:20:y:2001:i:2:p:121-142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.