This Offer Self-Destructs in 3… 2… 1…: Improving the Effectiveness of “That's-Not-All” Techniques in Promotional Emails

References

• Anderson, E. T., & Simester, D. I. (2003). Effects of $9 price endings on retails sales: Evidence from field experiments. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 1, 93–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banas, J., & Turner, M. M. (2011). Exploring the “that's-not-all” effect: A test of theoretical explanations. Southern Communication Journal, 76, 305–322.
   Google Scholar
• Biswas, A., Dutta, S., & Pullig, C. (2006). Low price guarantees as signals of lowest price: The moderating role of perceived price dispersion. Journal of Retailing, 82, 245–257.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, E. A., & Landon, E. L. (1995). The effects of reference prices in retail advertisements. Journal of Marketing, 45, 61–69.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, E. A., & Landon, E. L. (1981). The effects of reference prices in retail advertising. Journal of Marketing, 45, 6–69.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, I., & Bahn, K. D. (1991). Door-in-the-face, that's-not-all, and legitimizing a paltry contribution: Reciprocity, contrast effect and social judgment theory explanations. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 586–590.
   Google Scholar
• Bruce, H. J., Knowles, E., Pollock, C. L., & Smith, S. D. (1998). Mindfulness limits compliance with the that's-not-all technique. Persoanlity & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 (11), 1153–1157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger, J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that's-not-all technique. Journal of Persuasion and Social Psychology Review, 51, 277–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger, J. M., Reed, M., DeCesare, K., Rauner, S., & Rozolis, J. (1999). The effects of initial request size on compliance: More about the that's-not-all technique. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 243–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burstein, D. (2015). Email research chart: How often customers want to receive promotional emails. Retrieved from http://www.marketingsherpa.com/article/chart/how-customers-want-promo-emails
   Google Scholar
• Carmen, P., & Nicolae, P. A. (2010). E-mails marketing campaigns: The easiest path from organizations to consumers—an exploratory assessment. Economic Science Series, 19, 737–742.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, H., & Rao, A. R. (2007). When two plus two is not equal to four: Errors in processing multiple percentage changes. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 327–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B., & Schroeder, D. A. (1976). Increasing compliance by legitimizing paltry contributions: When even a penny helps. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 599–605.
   Google Scholar
• Comscore (2012). ComScore Reports $186.2 Billion in Full Year 2012 U.S. Retail E-Commerce Spending, Up 15 Percent vs. Year Ago (press release). Retrieved from http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2013/2/comScore-Reports-186.2-Billion-in-Full-Year-2012-U.S.-Retail-E-Commerce-Spending?cs_edgescape_cc=US.
   Google Scholar
• Cotton, B. C., & Babb, E. M. (1978). Consumer response to promotional deals: How it varies according to product, household, and type of deal. Journal of Marketing, 42, 109–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deal, D. (2014). Workhorses and dark horses: Digital tactics for customer acquisition. Gigaom Research. Retrieved from http://go.extole.com/rs/extole/Gigaom%20Research%20-%20Work%20horses%20and%20dark%20horses.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dehkordi, G. J., Rezvani, S., Rahman, M. S., Fouladivanda, F., Nahid, N., & Jouya, S. F. (2012). A conceptual study on E-marketing and its operation on firm's promotion and understanding customer's response. International Journal of Business and Management, 7 (19), 114–124.
   Google Scholar
• Experian. (2016). Quarterly email benchmark report. Retrieved from http://www.experian.com/assets/marketing-services/p/ems-q2-2016-email-benchmark-report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hanna, R. C., Berger, P. D., & Abendroth, L. J. (2005). Optimizing time limits in retail promotions: An email application. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56, 15–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inman, J. J., Peter, A. C., & Raghubir, P. (1997). Framing the deal: The role of restrictions in accentuating deal value. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 68–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyer, E. S. (1989). Unplanned purchasing: Knowledge of shopping environment and time pressure. Journal of Retailing, 65, 40–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnan, B. C., Dutta, S., & Jha, S. (2013). Effectiveness of exaggerated advertised reference prices: The role of decision time pressure. Journal of Retailing, 89, 105–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ku, H., Kou, C. C., & Kou, C. C. (2012). The effect of scarcity on the purchase intentions of prevention and promotion motivated consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 29, 541–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynn, M. (1989). Scarcity effects on desirability: Mediated by assumed expensiveness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 257–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monroe, K. B. (1973). Buyers’ subjective perceptions of price. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 70–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patwardhan, P., & Patwardhan, H. (2004). An analysis of senior U.S. advertising executives’ perceptions of internet communication benefits. Journal of Promotion Management, 11, 83–100.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.
   Google Scholar
• Raghubir, P. (2004) Free gift with purchase: Promoting or discounting the brand. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 181–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raghubir, P. (2005). Framing a price bundle: The case of “buy/get” offers. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14, 123–128.
   Google Scholar
• Sherif, M., Taub, D., & Hovland, C. I. (1958). Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring stimuli on judgments. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 55, 150–155.
   Google Scholar
• Sheth, J., & Sharma, A. (2005). International e-marketing: Opportunities and issues. International Marketing Review, 22, 611–622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinha, I., Chandran, R., & Srinivasan, S. S. (1999). Consumer evaluations of price and promotional restrictions: A public policy perspective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18, 37–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinha, I., & Smith, M. F. (2000). Consumers' perceptions of promotional framing of pricing. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 257–275.
   Google Scholar
• Spann, M., & Tellis, G. J. (2006). Does the Internet promote better consumer decisions? The case of name-your-own-price auctions. Journal of Marketing, 70, 65–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanism of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437–446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whang, Y. (2012). When and why does the that's-not-all compliance technique work. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 10, 171–178.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, C. S., Cheng, F. F., & Lin, H. H. (2008). Exploring anchoring effect and the moderating role of repeated anchor in electronic commerce. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27, 31–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar