Effects of $9 Price Endings on Retail Sales: Evidence from Field Experiments
Although the use of $9 price endings is widespread amongst US retailers there is little evidence of their effectiveness. In this paper, we present a series of three field-studies in which price endings were experimentally manipulated. The data yield two conclusions. First, use of a $9 price ending increased demand in all three experiments. Second, the increase in demand was stronger for new items than for items that the retailer had sold in previous years. There is also some evidence that $9 price endings are less effective when retailers use “Sale” cues. Together, these results suggest that $9-endings may be more effective when customers have limited information, which may in turn help to explain why retailers do not use $9 price endings on every item. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Schindler, Robert M. & Wiman, Alan R., 1989. "Effects of odd pricing on price recall," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 165-177, November.
- Inman, J Jeffrey & McAlister, Leigh & Hoyer, Wayne D, 1990. " Promotion Signal: Proxy for a Price Cut?," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(1), pages 74-81, June.
- Schindler, Robert M & Kirby, Patrick N, 1997. " Patterns of Rightmost Digits Used in Advertised Prices: Implications for Nine-Ending Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 192-201, September.
- 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.
- J. Jeffrey Inman & Leigh McAlister, 1993. "A Retailer Promotion Policy Model Considering Promotion Signal Sensitivity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 339-356.
- Stiving, Mark & Winer, Russell S, 1997. " An Empirical Analysis of Price Endings with Scanner Data," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 57-67, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:qmktec:v:1:y:2003:i:1:p:93-110. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.