EFFECT OF SALES PROMOTION SCHEMES ON PURCHASE QUANTITY
Abstract: The research aims to study the effect of sales promotion on the purchase quantity and recommend sales promotional means and methods that could improve sales for retail sector in Malaysia. The impact of coupons, bonus packages, premiums, free samples and price discount is measured on purchase quantity of Malaysian retail consumers. Empirical data is gathered from 150 respondents using self-administered questionnaire and analyzed using correlation and regression analysis to examine the relationship between variables. The findings of the study reveal that all independent variables influences purchase quantity positively and significantly while free samples and price discounts are most influential factors for Malaysian market. Keywords: Sales promotion, Purchase quantity, Malaysian Consumers, Retail Introduction Research Background The fundamental intent of all businesses is to boost the purchase quantity of goods that the organization deals with. Nevertheless more than a few techniques can be adopted for the achievement of this goal; some direct while others indirect, sales promotion is one of them (Palmer, 2004). The majority marketers think that a particular product or service has an instituted recognized price or value, as well as they utilize sales promotion to modify this price worth association by growing the worth and/or reduced the price evaluated with additional constituent of the marketing mix (such as advertising, personal trading, publicity). Numerous researches have been done concerning sales promotion in the world as a whole, in developed countries and the developing countries. For example; Powel et al, (2004) examined the relationship between innovative manufactured goods, sales promotion and also company’s gain in the car industry as well as got outcomes which were predictable the smallest amount. Sigue et al, (2008) evaluated sales promotion tools for consumers and retailers; Zhang et al, (2008) appraised the impacts of three major media of television, newspapers and the internet on the books sold over two million copies in 2006. Lim et al, (2005) evaluated the long term effect of price promotions on different kinds of customers. However, in regards to the research work done in Malaysia, there 300 Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 are many academic articles, which typically refer to quite inadequate sources. Except applied study reviews done on the topic is insufficient at most excellent and no study review which would exploit all five promotional tools and their features was found by the researcher. Ndubisi (2005) began a study review in Malaysia to appraise the usefulness of sales promotional apparatus on small participation products in Malaysia. His aims were to appraise efficiency of sales promotion approach (e.g. price cut coupons, price reduction, free samples, reward packages and store exhibit) on purchase of smaller amount complex products by Malaysians customers. Other examples are Kiumarsi et al, (2014) evaluated Marketing approaches to develop the selling amount of bakery goods of Malaysia’s small-medium enterprise (SMEs). In addition, review on the use of marketing tools in Malaysia is few at best. This is because the bulk of the extant literature on sales promotion till date remains the developed countries perspectives; therefore there is an urgent need for research focusing on Malaysian consumers, which is not familiar to most readers. Research Problem The main challenge for organization leaders includes rising sales of products (Apetroaie et al, 2012). The contribution of an effective sales promotion on sales has been a dynamic and talking about issue in the day to day economic activities; a single immense challenges to a company in the contemporary competitive setting is to formulate the customers brand loyalty as well as to preserve the customers for its continued existence and making gainful sales (Chelliah & Kwon, 2011). Sales promotion and its effectiveness has been a very important component in the advancement of firms in the current modern business environment (Mittal & Sethi, 2011). For a more prosperous business entity, companies conducting electronic and non-electronic business are continually in search of feasible and well-organized ways to raise sales at all intensity. In doing that, one of the most important aspects is to erect consumers’ belief, and eventually to boost sales across all the levels. Currently, many businesses that want to boost sales and attract more consumers pursue this method and exhibit trust-promoting sales on their parcels. On the other hand, if these packages really satisfy the jobs they have guaranteed has stayed unknown. Trust-promoting packages are usually effective in promoting sales especially web based sales, and some packages develop promotion improved than others as well (Kwok & Uncles, 2005). The sales promotion effectiveness can be appraised by disintegrating the sales made during the promotion phase into sales boost due to brand exchange, purchase time quickening, and accumulation. This has made several authors to propose different methods for such disintegration whereby brand sales are measured as the consequence of consumer verdict regarding when, what, and how greatly to purchase. The influence of marketing variables or promotions on these three consumer decisions is the key and needs thorough understanding for informed decision making (Gupta, 1988). During any sales promotional undertaking, Gupta (1988) specifies that more than 84% of the sales increase due to promotion comes from brand switching. More importantly, purchase rushing accounts for less than 14% of the sales rise, whereas only 2% of sale increase is cause by stockpiling due to Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 301 promotion is a negligible phenomenon. Rajan (1986) explored the need for joint sales promotion and the use of different forms of horizontal cooperative sales promotion. Given that some of years additional and amount of commercial sector firms have experienced the significant issues of deciding promotional approach and particularly sales promotion techniques to prevail the customers (Ndubisi, 2005; Zhang W., 2008; Roger, 1976). Moreover, nevertheless, sales promotion schemes taken with not keeping the long period aims of the business possibly will satisfy the brand. It is thought that management performances of aiming and applying promotional choices should be glowing reviewed and balanced to rationalize the investment on promotions. Consequently optimistically, this research can be a yardstick for most Malaysian companies in order to identify the effectiveness of sales promotion as well as justify the investments been made on promotions. Therefore this research intends to close the gap of how effective sales promotion schemes can be on purchase quantity. Significance of research Being diversified in population, Malaysia celebrates many festivals and enjoys shopping on ample of available public holidays. On the other hand, as per Malaysian Retailer Association report, in the first quarter of 2016, there is record fall in growth of Malaysian retail sector, main reasons being implementation of GST, fall in Ringgit price and increase in inflation rate. So it becomes utmost important for retailers to come out with relevant and effective sales promotion techniques. There are some promotion techniques which are suitable inherently and such techniques can be used globally, however, some other techniques must be localized as per ethnicity and cultural aspects of the customers (McNeill Lisa, 2013). There is no significant difference between gender and buying behavior of Malaysian consumers (Syuhaily et al, 2011). In Malaysian context, significant gap is noticed between shopping behaviors of young and mature consumers (Mohammad Iranmanesh et al, 2016). Shopping values changes for Malaysian consumers based on various factors, sense of joy and escape are key variables and it changes based on marital status, gender and age (Jeannot Abdul Karim et al, 2013). A lot of retailing companies in Malaysia are in distress from the quantity of unsold stocks. In recent years, the retailing industry has seen a lot of sales promotions primarily to produce speedy sales bursts, to make long-term responsiveness and uphold stable market shares, to add raise in shelf space as well as improved instore display etc. Every organization wants to increase its purchase quantity; however the key purpose of the research is to understand and explain the effect sales promotion has on purchase quantity whereby this intense analysis will fill the research gap missing in the retailing industry of Malaysia and to also identify which of the sales promotion tools influences purchase quantity more. Research Questions Five research questions are drafted based on objectives: Does a coupon as promotional tools have an impact on purchase quantity? Does bonus packages as promotional tools have effect on purchase quantity? Does a premium as promotional tools have effect on purchase quantity? Does a free sample as promotional tools have effect on purchase quantity? Does price promotion as promotional have effect tools on purchase 302 Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 quantity? Does sales promotion have impact on purchase quantity? Literature Review Key Definitions of Sales Promotion Sales promotion is termed as a “varied compilation of inducement tools typically short-term, premeditated to encourage more rapidly and/or superior purchase of specific or all consumers’ products (Kolter, 1999). Totten & Block (1994) affirmed that the phrase sales promotion refers to numerous types of selling inducements and methods planned to create direct or short-term sales impacts. According to Peattie and Peattie, (1994); Lehman and Winer (2002) and Walsh (2000) disputed that sales promotions can be droopily described as ‘extraordinary provisions’. It is however disputed that sales promotion persuades acquisitions of extra amount of product than with no sales promotion (Ailawadi & Neslin, 1998). Even though several authors differ with the greater than but others consent that sale promotion improve enormous purchasing resulting to enormous income (Manalel, Jose and Zacharias (2007); Kumar (2009)). Sales promotion refers to every incentive used by a seller to stimulate the trade and/or consumers to purchase a brand and to persuade the transaction force to insistently trade it Sales promotion has been explained as one of the mainly effectual apparatus subsequent to advertising and boosts sales volume (Balaghar et al, 2012). This implies that as more is purchased, amount consumed by consumers will finally boost and it possibly will lead to a raise in brand exchange between consumers. This is scrutinized by the literature review of different models by different authors on sales promotion. Critical Literature Review of theories and models The study of boosting sales in the short-run is referred to as Sales promotion theory. The majority of the hypothetical study on promotions has concentrated on aspects of price as well as its consequence on consumer decision. This is most likely due to the actuality that the immensity of the research has concentrated on price promotions. Studies have scrutinized the effect of price promotions on consumers’ inner reference price (Lattin and Bucklin, 1989; Kalwani and Yim, 1992) as well as the effect of proportional price promotion on customer discernment of investments acquired from promotion based on price (Berkowitz and Walton, 1980; Urbany et al, 1988; Bearden, Lictenstein et al, 1984). Adaptation Level Theory: This theory recommends that consumers cart with them an adaptation level price or ‘inner indication price’ for a prearranged product (Monroe, 1979). The subsistence of internal reference prices has been established in a number of laboratory researches (Gurumurthy and Winer, 1995). Scholars have planned that customers react to a price promotion on the basis of assessment between the inner reference price as well as the price of promotion (Lattin and Bucklin, 1989; Kalwani and Yim, 1992). Recurrent price promotions can guide customers to lesser the indication price for the endorsed manufactured goods. The consumers anticipated choice models with variables signifying the two kinds of reference prices and established that the two kinds of variables had an imperative effect on the possibility of purchase. A review on the reference impacts of promotion and price on consumer preference behavior, Lattin and Bucklin (1989) initiated that Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 303 consumers creates points of reference for both promotional and also price action. The instigators declared that too a great deal of price discounting would smudge the difference between the normal and promotional price of a product hence reducing consumer indication price for a product. Nevertheless Kalwani and Yim (1992) examined the effect of price promotion of a brand’s regularity and profundity of price discounts on the brand’s predictable price and also brand preference. Kalwani and Yim (1992) verified that both price promotion regularity and profundity of price discounts had a momentous effect on price probabilities. So therefore the outcome of the research revealed that the bigger the quantity of a product’s price reduction, the lesser the price individuals are supposed to give for it on the subsequent purchase occurrence. Comparable to Lattin and Bucklin, (1989) the instigators revealed that consumers create expectations for both price as well as promotion. Quite an amount of these studies (Kalwani & Yim, 1992; Mayhew & Winer, 1992; Kalwani et al, 1990) have been performed in a laboratory background while studies prepared in real-life set-up have showed that consumers have a ambiguous ideas of prices of regularly bought products. The studies in genuine shopping frameworks have revealed that customers cannot properly identify the price of an item which is in the shopping cart (Dickson and Sawyer, 1990) and are incapable to recollect the intensity of price discounts immediately after having purchased a product (Davis et al, 1992). On the other hand, numerous studies carried-out at the level of aggregate market revealed that price promotions are devoid of long-term negative impacts. It is imperative to notice that the internal reference price perception is functional in describing the response of consumer towards promotions that lessens the product price and thus affect reference price (Diamond and Campbell, 1992). As such, this hypothetical model is not practical in describing the reactions of consumer towards an assortment of non-price promotions such as Bonus packs offers, free samples and premiums. Prospect Theory: This theory recommends that individuals identify results of a preference as supposed ‘losses’ and ‘profits’ comparative to a prejudiced reference point (Kahneman and Tversky, 1984). Scholars who have used this theory of promotions (Diamond and Sanyal, 1990; Diamond and Campbell, 1990) have confirmed that the perception of consumer on promotion as a ‘loss’ or ‘profit’ is a purpose of the kind of the promotion. Thus, price promotions like price discount, which incorporate the promotional profit together with the procurement price, will be visualized as decreased losses. However, Diamond and Campbell (1989) inspected the effect of price vs. non price promotions on a reference of price of consumer. Outcome of the research revealed that price promotions directs to a reduced internal reference price at the same time as non-price promotions did not influence internal reference price. Diamond and Sanyal (1990) utilized prospect theory to forecast that price promotions would be visualized as decreased losses and selected less regularly than non-price promotion which would be visualized as profits. Nevertheless the consequences of their research revealed that an approximately equal quantity of subjects’ preferred the non-price promotion (premium offer, coupons) as 304 Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 in comparison to the price promotion (a price discount). However this theory is rationally appropriate to relate to the study. On the other hand, different forecasts can be obtained from this theory. It can therefore be disputed that consumers will recognize a price promotion as a benefit as the price reduction provided decreases the ‘loss’ occurred by the purchase price. Attitude Model: Multi attribute models of attitude (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1980); portray the choice of the consumer’s to execute a detailed behavior as the rational outcome of attitude, thoughts and objectives with view to the actions. In regard to this model, a consumer’s objectives to purchase a brand possibly will be based on optimistic/pessimistic behaviors towards advertising. An examination by Babakus et al, (1988) that was carried out on the effects of attitudinal dimensions – price awareness, time worth and fulfillment/self-importance – on consumers’ choice to utilize coupons. Their research outcome displayed that there was an optimistic relationship linking usage of coupons and price awareness of consumer (Babakus et al, 1988). Furthermore there was a major pessimistic relationship linking usage of coupon and perceived value of time representing that the further a consumer appreciated self-time, the less important was the inclination to coupons usage (Babakus et, al 1988). However, Babakus et al, (1988) found that using coupon adds to when the consumer professed higher fulfillment and self-importance with coupons usage. Therefore Shimp and Kavas (1984) relate the theory of reasoned action to identify with consumer’s choice to exploit coupons. In regard to this model, manners towards coupons would be predisposed by consumer intents to coupons usage. Nevertheless the intention of consumers to use coupons would be established by the attitudes and prejudiced norms of the consumers. The attitudes consumers would be created by their beliefs in the incentives as well as costs of coupons usage even as prejudiced norms would be created via the awareness of consumers of if significant others believe they should apply the attempt to trim, hoard as well as coupons usage. Outcomes of the research displayed that attitude in the incentives of employing coupons had high optimistic association with manner even as problems and impediments had feeble pessimistic association with attitude (Shimp & Kavas, 1984). The authors originated that both manners and prejudiced customs put forth an imperative manipulate on intent to utilized coupons. However the outcomes displayed an obvious relationship connecting consumer’s intentions to coupons usage and their self-reported manners in truly doing so. Even though attitude models offer imperative insights interested in the consumer process of decision-making, researchers have established inconsistency between affirmed attitudes as well as genuine behavior in quite a few studies (Perry and Gillespie, 1976; Keesling and Kaynama, 2003). Studies in diverse frameworks have revealed that attitudes are in fact poor interpreters of behavior. This perhaps accounts for the inadequate relevance of attitude models to scrutinize consumer reaction to promotions. Limitations of Theoretical Approaches Applied to Study: The majority of the hypothetical research on promotions has focus on price aspects and its effects on consumer opinions. Adaptation level theory researches have concentrated on scrutinizing the Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 305 effect of lesser promotional price on consumer’s inner price indication (Monroe, 1979). The concentration on price has perhaps been because of the fact that the preponderance of the promotion studies has concentrated on price promotions to be precise price promotions and coupons. These techniques are inadequate in that they limit study of features upsetting promotion option to mostly price. Psychological techniques utilized, so far, to clarify consumer reaction to promotion have merely had a particular focus on a product. The hypothetical techniques utilized so far: adaptation level theory model and attitude models have all had a distinct product course (Monroe, 1979; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1980). These examinations have scrutinized the effect of promotions on the perceptions of price, perceptions of quality as well as savings. Even though researches on promotions of retail price have recommended optimistic mixed product effect of promotion (Gupta, 1988), psychologically based reviews have not methodically scrutinized this feature of promotional reaction. Critical Review of Current Research Theory AIDA model is one classic model for how promotional objectives are structured as well as accomplished; AIDA is an acronym for what promotional actions aspire to obtain from customers: attention, interest, desire, and action. Given that it is essential for a customer to recognize a product subsist previous to considering buying the product, getting the awareness of the market target is the initial key objective of a lot of promotional promotions (strong, 1925b; Ferrell & Hartline, 2008). As soon the customers’ aware the subsequent pace in the AIDA model is the flicker of awareness in a product by signifying characteristics, profits and uses of the product (Strong, 1925a). Subsequently, “Desire” in the product ought to be motivated by exhibiting product control and the capability of the product to identify needs. The AIDA models’ final stage is the customer drive towards the concluding action of buying the product (Sheldon, 1911; Ferrell & Hartline, 2008). Alongside AIDA model, also recognized as the persuasion model, the involvement model is a second classic theory on the technique promotional objectives are structured and accomplished. In the involvement model, “only subsequent to taking the feat of attempting and also using a product do individuals start to take severe note of its marketing and create any manner towards it” (Cummins, 1998). The consumer is influenced in the AIDA model, so as to take action subsequent to being sentient of the product as well as having attention and yearning in the sparked product. By means of the involvement model, the customer initially takes action when the customer uses the product then gets involved with the product and then the customers starts to become aware of the means of promotion prior to developing an mind-set for the product (Cummins, 1998). Ads are models of supermarkets efforts to commence the initial stride in the AIDA model, gaining awareness. A paradigm of the interest fraction of the AIDA model being functional in stores is when supermarkets recommend free samples in efforts to persuade customers nearer towards a purchase of product. After awareness is increased, interest is ignite, and also desire is amplified, Bonus packs and coupons together with diverse kinds of promotion will endeavor to drive the customer to the ultimate action of the product 306 Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 purchase. Even though individuals will be inclined either towards the persuasion (AIDA) model or the involvement model, the majority of individuals and also companies will usually pressure one or another (Cummins, 1998); as together the persuasion model and involvement model are still considered and utilized by numerous individuals, therefore the promotional promotions which individuals and also firms formulate will diverge depending on in which of the models customers stalwartly believe in more. This in turn leads to various forms of advertisements and promotions on the part of companies. Which in turn lead to the proposed frame work of the research as most of the above models or theories are not suitable for the research; however, after the careful study of literature review, the following conceptual model is formulated to illustrate the relationship between sales promotion dimensions and sales volume; as most of the theoretical research on promotions has concentrated on aspects of price and its impact on consumer judgments. This is probably due to the fact that the bulk of the research has focused on price promotions. Therefore a suitable framework by the research is formulated in order to suit the research study as well as fill in the gap. Figure 1. Proposed Conceptual Framework Research Hypothesis 1. Coupons can be referred to as offers in the form of papers that are obtainable in newspapers as well as in magazines, may also be obtained from the Internet, or are obtainable at the purchase point and enable the beneficiary to a decrease in price for an item for consumption or service. The foremost of the four major coupon consequences is openly connected to the coupon’s face worth. For the reason that they provide consumer’s price discounts, thus demand theory PUCHASE QUANTITY COUPON PREMIUM S PRICE PROMOTIONS BONUS FREE SAMPLES Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 307 recommends discount coupons should raise volume. Numerous studies (e.g., Irons, et al, 1983; Bawa and Shoemaker 1987; Neslin 1990) came across imperative volume “bumps” connected with coupon measures. Other research set up that the coupon face worths were absolutely connected to redemption intents by consumers who were not habitual brand buyers (Shoemaker and Tibrewala 1985), to redemption tariffs, and to the increased volume produced by the promotion (Bawa and Shoemaker 1989). Coupons possibly will also persuade consumers to purchase additional products (i.e., build inventories) or purchase previous than ordinary (Neslin et al, 1985). The impact of price discount does not report for all the capacity profited from price promotions. In the experiments of laboratory, coupons emerged to increase sales extra than comparable price discounts (Schindler and Rothaus 1985; Schindler 1998). Lee and Brown (1985) revealed that orange juice coupons produced more sales than a comparable price reduction and recommended that the dissimilarity could be accredited to the informational worth of the occurrence. In a telephone review, five-sixths of the consumers select a $1.00 coupon over a $2.00 repayment (Lazarus 1993). These results propose that other outcomes possibly will play imperative roles in establishing the profits from a promotion. Hypotheses I: Coupons positively influences Sales Volume 2. Premiums are matters given free or at a lesser price with the purchase of one more item. These are promotional items—games, collectables, keepsakes as well as domestic products—that are connect to a product, and frequently necessitate box tops, coupons or evidences of purchase to attain (Lamb, Hair & McDaniel 2009). The consumer usually has to disburse at smallest amount the shipping and management costs to obtain the premium. Premiums are for a moment identified as trophies, even though in history the word “reward” has been utilized to indicate (as opposite to a premium) an item that is wrapped up with the product (or obtainable from the merchant at the time of procurement) as well as necessitate no extra payment in excess of the expenditure of the product (Kotler& Armstrong 2010, pp. 504). Hypotheses II: Premiums positively influences Sales Volume 3. Bonus packs are provided by the producers that offer extra product at the normal price in an improved package. Bonus pack system (Buy one get one free/additional for the similar price) is utilized to pack the purchasers so that they would not purchase viable brand at slightest for short-phase. Lee (1963) stated that factory bonus pack is utilized to boost consumer tryout of the brand. Even though promotions are liable to be favored to normal contributions, consumers respond in a different way to price discounts than to bonus packs. Purposely, in common, individuals do not favor a price discount to bonus pack (Diamond & Sanyal 1990). From Bonus packs individuals acquire something “free” at similar price (Chandran & Morwitz 2006). Hypotheses III: Bonus positively influences Sales Volume 4. Free sample: this can be described as the foremost usage experience of a customer by a brand (Kempf & Smith, 1998); this taster phase is a significant part in influencing beliefs, attitudes as well as purchase intentions in the direction of the brand 308 Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 (Kempf & Smith, 1998). On the other hand the supply of free samples is a widespread as well as a momentous sales promotion device for several products (Schultz et al, 1998). Scholars of marketing have pointed that free samples can take a momentous part in producing sales volume as well as brand loyalty (Villas-Boas, 1994; Seetharaman, 2004); this is for the reason that free samples is exceptional evaluated to other types of promotional devices, given that it offers the customer with a straight sensory contact with the item for consumption (Kempf & Smith, 1998). Awareness to along with memory of these familiarities should be quite high, this is for the reason that the customers are in an evaluative frame of mind set under sample phases and they are therefore, stimulated to keep in mind information. The dependability of information profited by a free sample is usually high as the information is self-collected and as a result dependable (Kempf & Smith, 1998). On the other hand, preceding research has also revealed that free samples have an optimistic impact of producing strong attitudes and beliefs toward a product; this to a better extent than marketing and other meandering resources (Kempf & Laczniak, 2001). Even as free samples are extensively utilized, empirical confirmation to reveal free sample result on sales over time is inadequate. Hypotheses IV: Free samples positively influences Sales Volume 5. Price promotions: The effect of price on sales was a necessity in the analysis of customers purchasing attitudes towards sales promotions. However price manipulates threat intentions, and the perception to use the good or service is a solution aspect in consumers’ decision-making (Samper & Schwartz, 2013). Therefore the decreased prices indicate upper openness to anybody in necessity of a product as well as boost expenditure of this good or service, and the contradictory is accurate for increased prices (Samper & Schwartz, 2013). Alrjoub et al, (2012) strengthened the theory and displayed that the price promotions amplifies sales and productivity. Furthermore, Alexy, Criscuolo, and Salter (2012) revealed that a device of low-prices augments sales. However, the mainly influential framework for examining provisional price promotions is to separate sales into two groupings: baseline as well as incremental. Baseline sales are referred to sales that a company would have anticipated to accomplish if no promotion had been carried-out. While on the other hand incremental sales signifies the “lift” in sales ensuing from a price promotion (b) see graph above. By dividing incremental lift from baseline sales, therefore managers can appraise if the sales boost produced by a provisional price diminution reimburse for the associated decline in prices and also margins. Comparable methods are used in establishing the productivity of coupons as well as rebates. Hypotheses V: Price discounts positively influences Sales Volume Research Methodology Research Type: A blend of descriptive and explanatory study is employed in this research. Research pattern: The research employs the characteristics of the positivist pattern. So therefore a large sample of data is collected, the research is quantitative and can be generalized as the study intends to measure the casual relationship of sales promotion dimensions on sales volume. Research Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 309 Design: The research carries out the study by using a combination design of explanatory research design and descriptive research design. Research Method: Primary data is collected for this study to accomplish the key purposes of this study. Data Collection Procedure: The procedure undertaken was to autonomously get in touch with the respondents using a convenience sampling techniques. In addition to following all ethical rules and regulation, each respondent were provided with a detailed description of the research by giving a printed out copy of participant information sheet and also a consent form that enables the researcher to give a signatory approval of participating in the research. Development of Instrument: The questionnaire was designed in such a way that comprises of 5 questions in each part representing each variable on a 5 point Likert scale. Hypothesis development: Hypotheses I: Coupons positively influences Purchase Quantity, Hypotheses II: Premiums positively influences Purchase Quantity, Hypotheses III: Bonus Packs positively influences Purchase Quantity, Hypotheses IV: Free Sample positively influences Purchase Quantity, Hypotheses V: Price Promotions positively influences Purchase Quantity. Data collection method: This study has implemented a quantitative research method; as a result an experimental design is set up in which Sales volume (dependent variable) is deliberated at the same time as controlling for outcomes of Sales Promotion dimensions (independent variable). Sampling size, technique and target population: As stated in earlier in the procedures of data collection, a nonrandom sampling method of convenience sampling techniques will be utilized in this research whereby the sample size is targeted at 153 respondents, in order for the researcher to collect the data of customers of a famous shopping mall in Malaysia. To ensure the data reliability and validity of the study tries to include regular shoppers of the mall. Analysis, Findings & Discussion Test of Reliability and Validity The variables that exist in evaluating both reliability and validity in research were carried out by test of Cronbach coefficient alpha. Table1 Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items .924 30 310 Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 All construct except Price promotions are below 0.6 which is the acceptable value of Cronbach coefficient alpha; this therefore implies that there exist an internal uniformity in the measurement and that the general reliability statistics of 30 items 0.924 refers to 92 % consistent variance in the combination scores. Descriptive Analysis The above table shows that, among the entire construct the highest mean is recorded at 3.916 which is Free Sample; however the basic or general explanation of this findings can be attributed to the fact that the giving out of free samples is a familiar as well as an imperative tool of sales promotion for several products (Schultz et al, 1998); this is due to the reason that free samples are a unique promotional tool in contrast to other methods of promotional tools, as it offers the customer with a direct as well as sensory product contact (Kempf & Smith, 1998). In addition, Price promotion recorded 3.867 which is in line with diverse researchers that Table 2 Individual dimensions reliability scale Dimensions Item Number Reliability (Cronbach alpha) Coupons 5 0.679 Premiums 5 0.865 Bonus Packs 5 0.706 Free Samples 5 0.738 Price Promotions 5 0.554 Purchase Quantity 5 0.916 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics N Mini mum Maxi mum Mean Std. Deviatio n Skewness Kurtosis Statis tic Stati stic Stati stic Statis tic Statistic Statis tic Std. Error Statis tic Std. Error Coupons 153 2.8 5.00 3.827 .5176 .149 .196 -.496 .390 Premiums 153 2.2 4.60 3.779 .4432 -.274 .196 .597 .390 Bonus Packs 153 2.2 5.00 3.859 .4684 -.401 .196 .191 .390 Free Samples 153 2.6 5.00 3.916 .4788 .135 .196 -.475 .390 Price Promotions 153 3.0 5.00 3.867 .4328 -.272 .196 -.279 .390 Purchase Quantity 153 3.0 5.00 3.996 .4398 -.118 .196 -.278 .390 Valid N (listwise) 153 Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 311 believe that price promotions increases purchase quantity and profitability (Alrjoub et al, (2012); Alexy, Criscuolo & Salter, 2012; Ferrer & Mallari, 2011). Other construct, bonus packs and Coupons show a significant level of mean 3,827 & 3.859 respectively (Diamond & Sanyal 1990 & Schindler and Rothaus 1985; Schindler 1998) who found a significant relation with coupons and purchase quantity as well as increased sales. On the other hand Premiums recorded a lower mean among the entire construct . Table 3 Correlation between Sales promotion tools and Purchase quantity Factor Correlation Purchase Quantity P <0.05 Coupons 0.432** Significant Premiums 0.371** Significant Bonus Packs 0.421** Significant Free samples 0.432** Significant Price promotions 0.411** Significant Purchase Quantity 1 Correlation Analysis After the correlation analysis each variable showed significant relationship with purchase quantity as well as between variables; correlation coefficient that is within the range of 0.371 to 0.432 was recorded in the above table. Multi-Co linearity To establish the multicolllinearity between the sales promotions tools (coupons, premiums, bonus packs, free samples & price promotions); application of a tolerance test as well as Variance inflation Factor was calculated. Table 4 Test of Co Linearity Satisfaction Variable Tolerance VIF Coupons 0.612 1.634 Premiums 0.605 1.653 Bonus packs 0.492 2.032 Free samples 0.593 1.687 Price promotion 0.747 1.338 The above results shows that tolerance level is not below 1 or equal to 1which implies that there are no issues with the multicollinearity; however all the Variance Inflation Factor are not (VIF ≥ 10). Thus, these indicate there are no problems 312 Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 with multicollinearity. Therefore there is no decrease in reliability testing. Regression Analysis Regression analysis is done in this research in order to be able to forecast the extent of purchase quantity of customers based on the sales promotion tools (five independent variables). Therefore the table below shows how good the model has explained the dependent variable (Purchase Quantity). Table 5 Model outline in forecasting Purchase Quantity Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 0.557a 0.310 0.286 0.3715 The goodness of all the independent variables of the model is shown above, however the results illustrated that the adjusted R square 0.286 indicates that only 28 % of the variance is clarified by the independent variables used in the research. This outcomes implies that the whole model summary is a ‘poor fit’ as it does not establish a strong relationship; this does not strongly support Ailwadi and Neslin (1998) who disputed that sales promotion encourages purchase quantity. Furthermore for more clarity additional analysis was carried out on the independent variables individually as to test the hypothesis. Hypothesis testing The level of the hypothesis significance is generally at (0.05); however if the significance level is < 0.05 the hypothesis will be rejected and if significance level is >0.05 the hypothesis will be accepted. See test of hypothesis of all individual dimensions in table 6. Table 6 Regression model Summary for Purchase quantity Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardize d Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 1.315 .340 3.867 .000 Coupons .148 .074 .174 1.985 .049 Premiums .058 .087 .059 .666 .506 Bonus Packs .122 .092 .130 1.329 .186 Free Sample .150 .082 .164 1.840 .068 Price promotion .216 .081 .213 2.687 .008 a. Dependent Variable: Purchase Quantity Hypotheses I: Coupons positively influences Purchase Quantity The above result obviously shows that coupons positively influences Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 313 purchase quantity of customers as Beta-value is 0.174 greater than alpha 0.05 as well as significant at 1.985 tvalue and p<0.05. Therefore the hypothesis is accepted and also this findings is supported by notable researchers e.g., Irons, Little, and Klein 1983; Bawa and Shoemaker 1987; Neslin 1990 agree that significant volume “bumps” are related to coupon. Hypotheses II: Premiums positively influences Purchase Quantity The Beta-value of premiums is 0.059 which is at 0.05 and significant at t-value 0.666 and p>0.05. Although premiums seems to have a Beta-value that is neither less than 0.05 or greater than 0.05 the hypothesis is accepted as p = 0.05, even as shows a high insignificant level 0f 0.506. The findings of the result can be attributed also with the few researches that have been done on premiums (Kotler & Armstrong, 2010; Lamb et al, 2009). Based on the researchers opinion in terms of hypermarkets customers are unlikely to increase purchase quantity based on premiums, although there are no supporting evidence as if the findings is correct as there are little or no extensive researches on premiums. Hypotheses II: Bonus packs positively influences Purchase Quantity The Beta-value of Bonus packs is 0.139 which is greater than 0.05 and significant at t-value 1.329 and p>0.05 (0.186) no significant difference therefore the hypothesis is still accepted as Beta-value is greater than 0.05; and the findings are supported with the findings of Lee 1963 who proposes that bonus packs are only significant in increasing consumer product trial not purchase quantity. Hypotheses IV: Free samples positively influences Purchase Quantity The Beta-value of Free Sample is 0.164 which is greater than 0.05 and significant at t-value 1.840 and p>0.05 (0.68) no significant difference therefore the hypothesis is accepted as B-value is greater than 0.05. As pointed out by Schultz et al, 1998, this is an important sales promotion tools that can play a role that significant in purchase quantity of consumers. However even though the significant level between Free sample and Purchase quantity shows slight inconsistency the B-value shows that there free sample positively influences purchase quantity. Hypotheses V: Price Promotions positively influences Purchase Quantity Price promotions shows a positive relationship with Purchase quantity as its B-value is at 0.213 which very much greater than 0.05 significant level of accepted hypothesis at t-value of 2.687 and p>0.05 (0.008), thus the hypothesis is accepted. Samper & Schwartz, 2013; Alrjoub et al, 2012; Alexy et al, (2012) confirmed that a tool of low-prices increases purchase quantity. Therefore the findings of the research are in line with all these studies. Furthermore the findings of the research has been slightly different from numerous findings which confirmed high relationship of coupons, bonus packs and free sample over price discount promotions (Bawa and Shoemaker 1987; Neslin 1990; Schultz et al, 1998); nonetheless the research findings have proposed that Price promotions has a strong relationship with purchase quantity of customers, this according to the researcher can be explain by the global economy as well as the added percentage of Government service tax has prompt consumers to be more pleased with price promotions than with a free sample of product for trial or a bonus 314 Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 pack, thus this dimensions do not strongly encourage customers to increase their purchase quantity. Conclusion and Recommendation The researcher found that price promotions and coupons have an positive influence on purchase quantity which was indicated by the findings of the significance level shown in table 7 that out of all five construct price promotions have significant effect on purchase quantity leaving the remaining two construct to have a moderately lesser effect on purchase quantity and premiums with little or no effect on purchase quantity. The most likely to lead to purchase quantity is coupons, the findings in the table 4 shows coupons have a high mean of 0.432 with a significant level, this indicates that this particular construct have a positive effect on purchase quantity; this finding is in line with several researchers that proposed that Coupons can be a means of price reduction of a product which in turn influences customers to attempt a new product or an already existing product (Ferrell & Hartline, 2008; Bawa and Shoemaker 1987; Neslin 1990). The research findings revealed bonus package to have a moderately lesser effect on purchase quantity, this can be linked to consumer behavior who are pleased to have an extra pack of product at the point of purchase but do not necessarily influence them to increase their purchase; however according to Lee 1963, he proposes that bonus packs are only significant in increasing consumer product trial not purchase quantity. Therefore the findings of the research are in line with this statement. Free samples, recorded a mean score of 0.432 same as coupons and a significant level in table 8 at 0.068 this demonstrates that consumers are more or less probable to purchase a product if the consumers are capable of receiving another product devoid of extra cost in which the consumers may have an importance. In other words, consumers may participate in free samples, however the product sampling has small effect on if or not a consumer will purchase the product. As pointed out by Schultz et al, 1998, this is an important sales promotion tools that can play a role that is significant in purchase quantity of consumers. However even though the significant level between Free sample and Purchase quantity shows slight inconsistency the B-value shows that there free sample positively influences purchase quantity (see table 8). Finally, Price promotions turned out to be the highly significant, although with a lesser mean score of 0.411 than coupons and free samples its B-value is at 0.213 which very much greater than 0.05 t-value of 2.687 and p>0.05 (0.008), this indicates that of all the promotion tools demonstrating that consumers are more expected to purchase additional of a product to have savings for a afterwards if there exist is a price promotion. The main reason for this finding is most possibly that consumers want to be capable of capitalizing on the reduced product price. Thus this is connected to Samper & Schwartz, (2013); Alrjoub et al, 2012; Alexy, Criscuolo, and Salter (2012) who confirmed that a tool of low-prices increases purchase quantity. Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 315 REFERENCES Adrian, Palmer (2004), Introduction to Marketing Theory and Practice. 2nd Edition, United State: Oxford University Press Inc. Ailawadi, K. L., and Neslin, S. A. (1998), “The Effect of Promotion on Consumption: Buying More and Consuming it Faster” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (3), 390-398. Ajzen, Icek (2005), Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education, England. Ajzen, Icek and Fishbein, Martin (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Alrjoub, S., Mohammad, A., Alfawa’reh, S., Hamid, N., Baniatta, A., Mahmoud, H. and Akram, M. (2012), “The impact of cost and sales trend over the profitability of Shree Cement Limited, India.” European Journal of Economics, Finance & Administrative Sciences, 48, 104-112. Apetroaie, M., Florescu, V., and Ducu, C. (2012), “Towards new guidelines within the management systems-enhancing updates”, Global Conference on Business & Finance Proceedings, 7, 643-648. Retrieved from http://www.theibfr.com Babakus E., Tat P. and Cunningham W. (1988), “Coupon Redemption: A Motivation Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 5 (2), 37-44. Bawa, Kapil and R.W. Shoemaker (1987), “The Coupon-Prone Consumer: Some Findings Based on Purchase Behavior Across Product Classes,” Journal of Marketing, 5, 72-75. Bearden W. O., Lichtenstein D. R. and Teel J. E. (1984), “Comparison Price, Coupon and Brand Effects on Consumer Reactions to Retail Newspaper Advertisements”, Journal of Retailing, 60 (2), 11-35. Berkowitz, E.N. and Walton, J. R. (1980), “Contextual Influences on Consumer Price Responses: An Experimental Analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (3), 349-359. Blattbarg, R. and Neslin, S. (1990), Sales Promotion: Concepts, Methods, and Strategies. NJ: Prentice Hall. Burns, A.C. and Bush, R.F. (1995), Marketing Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Campbell, L. and Diamond, W. D. (1990), “Framing and Sales Promotion: the Characteristics of a Good Deal”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7, 25-31. 316 Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 Chandran, S. and Morwitz, V. G. (2006), “The price of “free”-dom: Consumer sensitivity to promotions with negative contextual influences”, Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 384-392. Chelliah S. and Kwon C.K. (2011), “A study of the relationship between marketing mix and customer retention for herbal coffee in Malaysia” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3 (1), 15-33 Cummins, J. (1998), Sales Promotions: How to Create And Implement Campaigns That Really Work. (2nd ed.). London, England: Kogan Page Limited. Das, G. and Kumar, R. V. (2009). “Impact of sales promotion on buyers behaviour: an empirical study of Indian retail customers”, Global Marketing Journal, 3 (1), 11-24. Davis S. J., Inman J. and McAlister L. (1992), “Promotion has a Negative Effect on Brand Evaluations – Or Does it?”, Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (1), 143-149. Diamond W.D. and Sanyal A. (1990), “The Effect of Framing on Choice of Diamond W.D., and Campbell, L. (1989), “The Framing of Sales Promotions: Effects on Reference Price Change”, Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 241-247. Dodson, J. A., Tybout, A.M. and Sternthal B. (1978), “Impact of Deals and Deal Retraction on Brand Switching”, Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 72-81. Ferrell, O. C., & Hartline, M. D. (2008). Marketing Strategy, (4th ed.). Mason: Thomson South-Western. Fill, C. (2002), Integrated Marketing Communications – CIM Coursebook. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Gupta, S. (1988), “Impact of sales promotions on when, what, and how much to buy”, Journal of Marketing research, 6, 342-355. Gurumurthy K and Winer R.S. (1995), “Empirical Generalizations from Reference Price Research”, Marketing Science, 14 (3), 161-170. Irons, K. W., J.D.C. Little, and R. L. Klein (1983), “Determinants of Coupon. Effectiveness”, Marketing Science Conference, 157-164. Jeannot Abdul Karim, Mukesh Kumar and Sofiah Abd Rahman, (2013), “Measuring shopping values of Malaysian retail consumers”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(2), 200 – 224. Kalwani M. U., Rinne H.J., Sugita Y. and Yim C.K. (1990), “A Price Expectations Model of Consumer Brand Choice”, Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 251-262. Kalwani M.U. and Yim C.H. (1992), “Consumer Price and Promotion Expectations”, Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 90-100. Keesling, G. and Kaynama, S. A. (2003), “An Exploratory Investigation of the Ecologically Conscious Consumers efforts to control water contamination: Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 317 Lawn care and the use of nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides”, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, (1), 52-62. Kempf, D. S. and R. N. Laczniak (2001), “Advertising’s Influence on Subsequent Product Trial”, Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 27-38. Kempf, D.S. and Smith, R.E. (1998), “Consumer processing of product trial and the influence of prior advertising: A structural modelling approach”, Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (3), 325-338. Kotler, Philip & Armstrong, Gary (2006), Principles of Marketing. Pearson Education Inc, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Kwok, S., and Uncles, M. (2005), “Sales promotion effectiveness: the impact of consumer differences at an ethnic-group level” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 170-186. Lamb. C, Joseph F. Hair, Jr.,Carl McDaniel (2009). Essentials of marketing, 6e. Southwestern cengage learning: Mason, USA. Lattin M. J. and Bucklin R. E. (1989), “Reference Effects of Price and Promotion on Brand Choice Behavior”, 26, 299-310. Lawnivzak, R. (2007), “Public relations role in a global competition to sell: alternative political and socioeconomic models of market economy”, Public Lazarus, George (1993). Coupons in the Hand Beat Refunds by Mail, Chicago Tribune. Section 3, February 19, p. 4. Lee, J.Y. and Brown, M.G. (1985), “Coupon Redemption and the Demand for Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice: A Switching Regression Analysis”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 67, 647–653. Lehman, D. R., and Winer, R. S. (2002), Product Management. (3 rd ed.). New York: Mc-Graw Hill . Lim, J., I. S. Currim and S. Smith, (2004), “Consumer heterogeneity on the longer term effects of price promotions”, International J. Research in Marketing, promotion mix for software supplier organizations, 22, 441-457. Malhotra, Naresh and Birks, David (2000), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, Pearson Education LTD, England. Manalel, J., Zacharias, S. and Jose, M. C. (2007), “Sales Promotion: Good or Bad?” International Marketing Conference on Marketing & Society. IIMK. Mayhew G.E. and Winer R.S. (1992), “An Empirical Analysis of Internal and External Reference Prices using Scanner Data”, Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 62- 71. McNeill Lisa (2013), “Sales promotion in Asia: successful strategies for Singapore and Malaysia”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(1), 48 – 69. 318 Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 Mishra, A., and Mishra, H. (2011), “The influence of price discount versus bonus pack on the preference for virtue and vice foods”, Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 196- 206. doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.1.196 Mishra, H., and Jain, D. (2012), “Impact of packaging in consumer decision making process of Namkeen products. Journal of Marketing & Communication”, 7, 48- 63. Retrieved from http://www.niilm.com Mittal, M., and Sethi, P. (2011), “The Effectiveness of Sales Promotion Tools among Indian Consumers: An Empirical Study” Journal of Promotion Management, 17, 165-182. Mohammad Iranmanesh, K. Jayaraman, Brian Charles Imrie & Suhaiza Monroe, K. B. (1973), “Buyers’ Subjective Perceptions of Price”, Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (1), 70-80. Monroe, K. B. and Chapman, J. D. (1987), “Framing Effects on Buyers’ Subjective Product Evaluations”, Advances in Consumer Research, 14 (1), 193-198. Ndubisi, N. O. (2005), Gender Differences in “Customer Behavioral Response to sales promotion”, Asia Pacific Management Review, 10 (5). Nijs V.R., Dekimpe M.G., Steenkamp J.E.M. and Hanssens D.M. (2001), “The Category Demand Effects of Price Promotions,” Marketing Science, 20, 1-22. Oliver Alexy, Paola Criscuolo and Ammon Salter (2012), “Managing Unsolicited Ideas for R&D”, California Management Review, 54(3), 116-139, DOI: 10.1525/cmr.2012.54.3.116 Peattie, S., and Peattie, K. (1994), Sales Promotion. In The Marketing Book (3rd ed., pp. 534-554). Butterworth-Heinnemann. Perry, R. W. and Gillespie D. F. (1976), “An Analysis of the Intervening Variables in the Attitude-Behavior Relationship”, Journal of Social Psychology, 98 (2), 287-289. Powell, Lisa M. (2009), “Fast food costs and adolescent body mass index: Evidence from panel data”, Journal of Health Economics, 28 (5), 963-70. Powell, Lisa M., Glen Szczypka, and Frank J. Chaloupka (2007a), “Adolescent Exposure to Food Advertising on Television”, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33 (4), S251-S56 Powell, Lisa M., M. Christopher Auld, Frank J. Chaloupka, Patrick M. O’Malley, and Lloyd D. Johnston (2007b), “Associations Between Access to Food Stores and Adolescent Body Mass Index”, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33 (1), 301-307. Relations Review, 33, 377-388. S. Kiumarsi, Jayaraman, K., Salmi Mohd and Varastegani (2014), ”Marketing strategies to improve the sales of bakery products of small-medium enterprise (SMEs) in Malaysia”, International Food Research Journal, 21(6), 2101-2107. Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 319 Samper, A., and Schwartz, J. A. (2013), “Price inferences for sacred versus secular goods: Changing the price of medicine influences perceived health risk:, Journal of Consumer Research” 39(6), 1343-1358. DOI: 10.1086/668639 Schindler, R.M. (1998), “Consequences of Perceiving oneself Responsible for Obtaining a Discount: Evidence for Smart Shopper Feelings”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (4), 371393. Schindler, Robert M. and Stacy E. Rothaus (1985), “An Experimental Technique for Exploring the Psychological Mechanisms of the Effects of Price Promotions”, Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 133-137. Shapiro, S. L., & Drayer, J. (2012). “A new age of demand-based pricing: An examination of dynamic ticket pricing and secondary market prices in major league baseball. Shapiro, S. L., DeSchriver, T., and Rascher, D. A. (2012), “Factors affecting the price of luxury suites in major north American sports facilities” Journal of Sport Management, 26, 249-257. Retrieved from http://www.humankinetics.com Shimp, T. A. (2006), Advertising, Promotion, and Other Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications (7th Edition ed.). South Western Educational Publishing. Shimp, T. A. and Kavas A. (1984), “The Theory of Reasoned Action Applied to Coupon Usage”, Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 795-809. Shoemaker, Robert and Vikas Tibrewala (1985), “Relating Coupon Redemption Rates to Past Purchasing of the Brand”, Journal of Advertising Research, 11-23. Sigue, S.P., K.L. Ailawadi and N.D. Beauchamp (2008), “Consumer and Retailer Promotions: Who Is Better Off? “, J. Retailing, 85(4), 449-460. Smith, M. F., & Sinha, I. (2000), “The impact of price and extra product promotion on store preference.”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 28 (2), 83-92. Strang, Roger A. (1976), “Sales Promotion-Fast Growth, Faulty Management”, Harvard Business Review, 54, 115-124. Strong, Jr., E. K. (1925a), The Psychology of Selling and Ad,.ertising. New York: McGraw-Hili. Strong, Jr., E. K. (1925b), “Theories of selling”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, 9, 75-86. Supermarket Coupons’,’ Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 494-500. Syuhaily Osman, Benjamin Chan Yin Fah and Yeoh Sok Foon (2011), ”Simulation of Sales Promotions towards Buying Behavior among University Students”, International Journal of Marketing Studies, 3 (3), 78-80. Totten, J. C., and Block, M. P. (1994), Analyzing Sales Promotion (2nd Edition ed.). Dartnell Corporation. 320 Management&Marketing, volume XIV, issue 2/2016 Urbany, J. E, Bearden W. O. and Weilbaker D. C. (1988), “The Effect of Plausible and Exaggerated Reference Prices on Consumer Perceptions and Price Search”, Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (1), 95-111. Walsh, L. A. (2000). International Marketing (3rd ed.). London: Pitman Publishing. Zailani (2016), “Promoting Products through Volume Discount: Evidence from Malaysia”, Journal of Promotion Management, 22(1), 71-88. Zhang W., (2008), “Effects of promotion in the three media on book sale”, RES Publications, 24-27.